Say what?
If you ask me are you British I would reply yes.
If you ask me are you Scottish I would say yes.
if you ask me what nationality are you I would say Scottish. Whats wrong with that?
Empires
- Thread starter Fothsn
- Start date
Say what?
If you ask me are you British I would reply yes.
If you ask me are you Scottish I would say yes.
if you ask me what nationality are you I would say Scottish. Whats wrong with that?
Soldato
I know many Scotsman that would say they weren't British.
I am British first, English second.
Soldato
First of all there wasn't any Greek empire whatsoever , Alexander would have started an empire but his sudden death...Byzantium in the early centuries was indeed a continuation of the roman empire but later it was essentially a Greek state..
Secondly i didnt say the Romans had no influence in history or didnt change the world , i just believe that the Romans didnt improve or contribute little in science , arts , etc. They are known for the Legions , not their philosophers if you understand what i mean
Soldato
Funnily enough the word barbaric originates from a greek term meaning anyone or anything not Greek, so yes I suppose they were, but hten again so are we
The word barbaric derived after the Greeks heard some Persians having a chat
, all they could hear was "bar bar bar bar" and so they named them "barbarians" . It wasnt an offensive term then , later with the persian wars it took a bad meaning
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
well, then i wasn't wrong, the greek empire did so poorly it never even started
scientifically of course they did, quick drying cement and construction for one, far ahead of the time. also medicinally, developing tools and 'cures'. I think they weren't very artistic in terms of pictures, but that roman society expressed art after other fashions. philosophy wasn't left by the wayside either, never heard of cicero?
the other king obviously never kicked a persian messenger into a pit/well/deep hole whilst screaming "THIS IS SPARTA!!!" so wasn't deemed cool enough to be put into the movie
Last edited:
Soldato
Taking into account how large they were and how long they were on the global stage they did very poorly , ok construction they established arc's but despite that all the knowledge came from the east mate , i dont see anything innovative such as the Dorian and Ionian style of architecture for example. Also you name me Cicero , do you want me to name you 50 greek philosophers of whom the 10 are still popular and inspiring ?
Read carefully what i am telling you , they were great but they werent SO great as others (like the British for example)
Read carefully what i am telling you , they were great but they werent SO great as others (like the British for example)
the other king obviously never kicked a persian messenger into a pit/well/deep hole whilst screaming "THIS IS SPARTA!!!" so wasn't deemed cool enough to be put into the movie
LOL, well yes that is a very valid point!!!
Man of Honour
IMO The British empire was more successful and did more for the world but I still love the Greeks and Romans.
No they weren't barbaric by any measure, they were more civilised than a lot of the countries today.
errm, although they didn't have kings they did have emperors. And I seem to remember a couple of cases of Caligula have a senator or two killed because he ran out of money in a card game once. Soem of the emperors really wren't very good.
Funnily enough the word barbaric originates from a greek term meaning anyone or anything not Greek, so yes I suppose they were, but hten again so are we
ps. Sparta had a better set up. 2 kings, each keeping each other in check. (Yes there were 2 kings around when the 300 movie took place but no one ever mentions the other one for some reason.)
I think the reason is that the film '300' is unmitigated bull from beginning to end, with absolutely no basis in the real Sparta at all.
Rome was an odd mix of civilisation and barbarism, often far worse than genuine barbarians. I'm not just talking about the obvious stuff, like the large-scale killing in their games (not just at the Coliseum - such things happened all over the empire). I'm talking about things such as the killing of all slaves in a household if any one of them had a hand in the death of their master or mistress. That law wasn't enforced in later years, but it was there. Or the pretty much free hand Roman soldiers had if they felt someone was a problem - as long as that person was of low enough social class.
People have talked about Roman law, specifically about the idea that anyone could prosecute anyone and have it heard in court. Not really, no. Someone who was their social equal, probably. Otherwise, probably not. There were massive social divisions in the Roman empire. I doubt if a non-citizen (most people in the empire weren't citizens - it was a social rank) could prosecute even a lowly citizen, let alone any citizen of any note. If they were a slave, obviously they couldn't prosecute anyone for anything. Torture was routinely used during criminal investigations - but only against those of low social rank. Corruption was rife, of course.
So no, it wasn't really like our current system.
The Roman empire was efficient and organised to an extent previously unknown, it made good use of ideas from places it conquered and it embraced any technology that would make it stronger, but it wasn't the shining light of civilisation, invention and fairness it's often made out to be.
EDIT: If you want an example of a truly bad emperor, I think Commodus serves better than Caligula. Commodus was so bad that prominent Romans were declining promotion in order to avoid returning to Rome, i.e. anywhere near him. He might kill you because...with him, who knew why? He declared himself a living god, renamed months and then Rome itself in his own name and killed anyone who he happened to think might not be an entirely loyal worshipper, for whatever reason happened to pass through his deranged mind at the time. The fact that many of the plots against him were real didn't help with that. The plots started before he even took the throne, due to incorrect rumours that his father had died.
Last edited:
Well it wasn't really suppose to be a historical documentary, good film tho
I think your exaggerating a lot of the negative quality's and passing over the positive ones. Rome was the shining light of innovation and invention for a thousand years. After they pulled out of Britian we descended into the dark ages, it wasn't till hundreds of years later that we built anything like as advanced a civilisation that the Romans gave us.
Oh what you just said matches the description of several current countries around the globe, ours included in some places.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
i'm sorry, you seem keen to quote the british, in what way did the british empire innovate (as opposed to copy and improve on existing designs)? what great (and i mean world renowned) british artists were there of that period? what great philosophers did we have during the period of the british empire (that weren't all inspired by the greek ones)? edit: ok, industrial revolution, but the romans did a similar thing for the world (building of country wide infrastructure, etc etc) i'd say comparatively they'd be fairly even on that front
read carefully what i am telling you, the british empire were great, but they werent SO great as the classical ones mainly because the british empire was built on stealing land from people who were effectively living in a time capsule.
comparatively many classical civilizations achieved FAR more than the british empire
Last edited:
Soldato
The movie "300" has no or little connection to real story. Seriously if you think spartans were hovering 10 meters above the ground killing poor old persians....
Soldato
to name one , Industrial revolution , great scientists (esp during Victorian era , Darwin anyone?) , great explorers etc. Seriously the British empire has changed the lives of all people on the planet , why are you underestimating it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
i was in the process of editing the industrial revolution into my post when you posted
. i could say the same to you though. again, comparatively the romans did far more (notice, and please do, the word comparatively (which i've been using all along 
)) with the resources available at the time, the scientific knowledge of the time, the construction methods at the time, the weapons and materials available at the time. there is no disputing it.
Man of Honour
You're right, it doesn't cover the bad points of the British Empire, it's a flippant comment on the haphazard nature by which much of the Empire appeared to have been acquired.
I know many Scotsman that would say they weren't British.
I am British first, English second.
Unfortunately they'd be wrong to deny that they were British. However if asked I'd normally say I was Scottish before I'd say I was British, while I am of course both I instinctively would say Scottish first.
Soldato
Was there ever a Scottish language?
Man of Honour
Scots Gaelic.
Although I'd argue that you don't need a independent language to be considered a country, if you do then Australia, Canada, and the US (amongst others) would all not classify as countries in their own right since they speak English to a greater or lesser degree.
Soldato
One of the characteristics of a nation though is the language (nation and country are not the same thing imho), if its true Gaelic was the language Scots used to speak then you're more Irish than British , i think so.