Search This Blog

Saturday, June 1, 2013

The Consuls of Rome took care of Italy? Italy was rule by mostly Italian allies and their own communities while small Roman communities were ruled by Roman law.

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
Posted 22 August 2008 - 08:39 AM
LongMa, on Aug 22 2008, 07:13 AM, said:
Well Greeks are decedant of Romans as well, but I would say if you are looking for a direct biological connection then Greece was aquired by Rome well after Roman (the city-state) was formed. You can argue about mythology of origin. It appears that the Etruscans did come from Asian minor but were not "Greek" at least their language was not, but they likely also spoke it.

Greeks also colonized various places in Southern Italy, but Rome did not expand their for some time.

So I would say the people who are most related to Romans would be the people who live in the outskirts of Rome who have lived their for centuries...usually the landowners would be from Germanic or mixed stock but many of the ordinary people have been there since the beginning of Roman times...

This is tricky people people constantly migrated, people intermixed, and the definition of a nationality such as Roman has expanded over the time Rome existed. At one time anyone born in Italy was automatically Roman toward the end of the Empire.

In the beginning of Rome living in Rome did not make you a citizen you were a citizen due to family...ROman families were a mix of Italic speaking immigrants who intermixed with Etruscans. The only way to get citizenship then was through a concession of war, joining the military, or to buy it I think.

Yes. I did notice that. However, lets look at the time line that both Italy was under Roman control [I will even call the allies of Rome as Roman control so people won't jump on my head.]

In 282 B.C, Rome has beaten and taken control of Italy. In 476 A.D, Roman lost control of Italy. The control was around 758 years under Roma. Another 34 years of control under Justinian.
In 146 B.C, Rome has beaten and taken control of Greece. Even in 1450 A.D, Romans still control Greece. That makes it 1610 years, give or take, lets say, several hundred years of unrest and indirect control, which still is far longer then Italy was under Roman control.

So my argument to anyone who say Italy is the direct decedent, base on this time line, must answer why is Italy the only direct decedent of a multi-cultural international cross continent Empire building people when their involvement with Rome the idea and Empire is shorter then the Greeks?

Again, I am not saying Italians are not, but only curiously pointing out and ASKING why is it a better choice using the argument of Roma was in Italy concept when I can easily say the same 'Greece was in Rome' argument.

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
Posted 23 August 2008 - 06:58 PM
Wan Ren aka Danny, on Aug 23 2008, 10:48 AM, said:
Italians are Romans and Romans are Italians that is the simple explanation now if we want to go deeper than we can say that Romans as stated by scot and others have stated that ancient Romans are a mixed of other races that would rise up to form Rome or Romans, their culture is influence by the Greeks. The Greek civilization never ceased to exist it reach its peak during Alexander the Great period in which at that time Rome ha snot yet been form or founded.

As far as saying that Greeks are more Romans is wrong because Greece had a longer history than Rome, the Greeks influence in that region is evident with Alexander's conquest and Greeks before him of the ancient Italian region that was before the City or Empire of Rome rosed up.

With the rise to power of Rome and the falling of the Greek power, Rome absorbing many Greek philosophy would expand it by reformatting it to give it their own Roman identity. Roman politics IMO is influence from ancient Athens philosophy including their religion & military philosophy.

That is why in many degree there are similarities in culture and history between Greece and Italy.
OK. So go back to my 'I don't care if the Romans were more Romans then Greeks were Romans, that wasn't my arguments. My arguments was why is that Italians were more Romans then Greeks were Roman BASED ON whatever arguments you use.' So please stop the Greece was there for a long time as it has NOTHING TO DO in here.

I don't want to keep on repeating myself. Let me just summarize the argument here.

Question was addressed by the General, Claims and Justification addressed by someone else, I present the hypothesis and the CHALLENGE that demand answer.

Question proposed:
Who are direct decedents of Rome?


Geological proximity, language similarity, and political influence.

Claim 1) Geological proximity

Hypothesis 1)
If the Italians were geologically close to the Romans during the Republic, could it not be said the same of the Greeks during the Empire?

Counter claim 1) Italians are not Romans and Romans are not Italians. Italians are mostly Latin Rights holder. I can find Pro-consul of Gaul, Pro-consul of Spain [minor/major] and Pro-consul of Greece, but are there Pro-Consul of Italy? During the prime of the Empire, the Emperor decided to move the capital to Byzontion, b/c Rome was simply to far away from the rest of the Empire. Is Greece not closer to Byzontion then Italy was?

Challenge 1 base on Hypothesis 1) If Italy is the direct decedents of Rome, b/c of the logic used to defend such claim, it could be said the same for Greece who were also close to the Empire.

Claim 2) Language

Hypothesis 2) If Italians were speaking a form of Latin, then they must be decedents of Rome.

Counter claim 2) If by speaking a form of Latin implies you are direct decedents of Rome, then so should France, and Spain be direct decedents of Rome; Spain was Roman colony ever since victory over Catherage, and multiple famous Roman view Spain as their home base, and they speak Spanish while the Gaul was also part of the Republic and the Empire, they speak French a member of Latin family. At the same time, if Roman speak some other language, would that not qualify that group of people to also be direct decedents of Rome? Romans during time of Republic consider speaking Greek a sign of education, its going to be very difficult to find anyone who do not speak Greek and that you will might most signs of New Man are they do not speak PROPER Greek thus they were ridiculed upon b/c they can't speak PROPER Greek [but they could speak Greek], let alone that Greek was one of the official language of the Empire and that after the West has fallen, East was mostly Greco-Roman and they all can speak Greek.

Challenge 2) base on Hypothesis 2) If Italy is direct decedents of Rome base on the logic use to defend such claim, it could be said the same for Greece whose language was also part of the official Empire language let alone almost every noble during Republic [and scholars and perhaps anyone above 4th class] are bilingual and can speak Greek.

Claim 3) Political and cultural Influence

Hypothesis 3) If Italians were under Roman control thus they are direct decedents of Rome, then what of other places that were under control far longer the the Italians?

Counter Claim 3) The timeline from the time Roman beating everyone and extract tribute and service from the Italians [and Remember, Italians are a term we gave them, they are not Italians but Samurians and etc etc etc ]to the time Italy was lost during the collapse of the Western Empire is far SHORTER then the time b/w Romans beating Macedonians and take control of Greece and install their governors upon the Greeks and make the Greeks a part of the Republic to the time of the fall of Eastern Empire, Greece was still under control even in 1450.

Challenge 3) If Italians were decedents of Rome, why can it not be the same to say that Greeks were also direct decedents of Rome?

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
Posted 31 August 2008 - 04:03 AM
Actually, genetic and cultural influence covers the two big ones. And Italians are genetically similar to the Romans. Then again, the Romans were Latins, and the Latins were Italic, and many Italians still have Italic blood in them.
I want to pose several questions.

If the Romans were Romans b/c they reside in Rome, and the Italians were similar to Romans b/c they resides within the Republic [I assume that is your claim] then why are Romans under the Empire any less Romans then Italians under the Republic?

All of your argument on Romans was that Roman was an ethnic group, while to me Roman is not an ethnic group any more then HRE was an ethnic group.

I believe there is a strong distinction b/w Italians and Romans- for example, Cato the Censor, was an Roman born in Italy, while Quintus Poppaedius Silo was an Italian. There was a clear distinction b/w who were Romans and who were Italians.
Then you make claims that somehow Italians were Romans, and I made a similar counter argument, if Italians who were not Roman during majority of the Republic time were Roman due to their convergence after the Republic time, why is it the Greeks could not be said of the same thing? NO one answer my question. I use the exact same argument you people used, but instead you brow beat me on Greek. Fine. Fine. Romans do not speak Greek; Greek was uncultured and uncivilized, Latin is superior. But tell me why is it that Italians who were not Romans Romans and Greeks who were also not Romans cannot be Romans while your Italians were Romans?

I think people are jumping on my head when we have one big difference in our understanding.

When I think of Romans, not only do I think of the accomplishment of the Republic [and believe me, I like the Republic more then I like the Empire] but also of the Empire; the idea of Romans were somehow Italians and Greco-Romans were not Romans is just beyond me. But if you want to use Romans as in Romans from Roma, then fine, I will concede my points. Greeks are less Romans then Italians.

Italy became fully Roman under Sulla. Besides, Romans shared ethnicity with many Italic groups.
Why is Italy fully Roman under Sulla. I was not aware that mass citizenship was granted after the Social War, but if you can point me to where does it say Italy became fully Roman under Sulla I would be very glad to apologizes in this forum to everyone I have offended.

No need to. The consuls took care of it. The Italians before Caesar weren't allowed to have standing armies.
I am confused. The Consuls of Rome took care of Italy? Italy was rule by mostly Italian allies and their own communities while small Roman communities were ruled by Roman law.
I was unaware of standing armies. Nor am I aware that standing armies was common of that time among anyone. However, Italians did have armies, else how could they supply Roma's war with Italian troops and isn't this one of the biggest reason why the Social War occur?

The prime of the Empire? No, that was much, much earlier during the Antonines (perhaps Hadrian instead). By Constantine, the empire was in somewhat of a decline. It only lived longer due to the terror of Christianity's newfound power. But Constantine also moved the capital to Byazantium not because Rome was too far away, but because he wanted a city all for himself. Which is why he renamed it Constantinople. But still, even afterwards, Rome was never forgotten as the true capital. The gov't didn't all move there, and it was the sacking of Rome, not Byzantium, that made Jerome and Augustine lament the death of the empire.
Very well. If you believe the Empire is in decline, and you point out why, then I respect your opinion, and they might even be right. I speak what I was taught. If you have books or sources to back your theory up, I would be happy to apologize for my faulty mistakes/comments.

For 1000 years Rome was the capital. The Roman empire began in Italy. It was only on the whim of one emperor that it changed.
I am sorry, but isn't history sort of like that? B/c of the whim of one man, Caesar marched and ended the Republic [or b/c the whim of several man, Roma was out of soldier and Marius have to recruit soldiers from the head count and mark the end of the Republic] or b/c of the whim of one man nationalism was spread throughout Europe. I don't see how the whim of one man somehow change my theory.

That's really unfair to compare the later Byzantine empire with the Roman Republic. You're comparing apples and oranges. Calling yourself Roman doesn't make you one. Who was ruling in the later Byzantine empire? They were Greek rulers, and the subjects were Greeks, not Romans. Rome isn't a mere appellation. It actually meant something ethnically.

I am sorry. We call it the Byzantine Empire. People of later day call it the Byzantine Empire, that doesn't make them the Byzantine Empire. Certainly calling yourself Roman doesn't make you one, at the same time calling someone Byzantine Empire doesn't make them the Byzantine Empire either. I believe they are the Eastern Roman Empire, a part of the Roman Empire.

What of Italy after the fall of Roman Empire? They were ruled by Italians, the subjects were Italians, not Romans. I could say the very same thing. Then I realize you will then again repeat constantly about how Italians are Romans and etc etc.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive