A documentary on the Roman empire

[jonb]

No, it's more like the advancements made by the Romans were too practical to impress the simpleton scribes of the dark ages or to tickle the fancies of the airy romantic. So you underestimate their potential importance.

Even if we accept the Romans had anything, to pass on they would have to know about it themselves, by the time Rome was falling It had itself already lost the knowledge. To say the simpletons of the dark ages, is just plain daft, their technologies were not in anyway inferior to those of the Romans, they were far more practical.
Does the democracy we have now come from the Greek form, or is its origins in the culture of the North Europeans?
Is the belief in the independent individual of Roman origin or from North European Culture?
For a very long time it has been in the interests of the Church of Rome to play up Roman achievements. It has been in the interests of aristocratic Europe to trace an antecedence from Rome as a foundation to their position. And It has been in the interests of Empires to claim Empires are good things to be admired.
Maybe as an atheist it might be worthwhile re-evaluating evidence, rather than just accepting the dogma passed on to us.

---

I cannot find it, but I saw in this thread a mention about how the christians did not clean themselves true so lets look at this.
The Roman Bath house proof of superiority? I don't think so.
The Romans referred to the dirty Celts because the Celts cleaned themselves with soap! Where as the Roman had to sit in a succession of hot and cold water pools and scrape themselves with knives to get anyway near as clean. Even so the rich Roman ladies liked to smear themselves with the sweat and dirt from Gladiators. Cleanliness; no not really a Roman attribute. If you think it was; Why don't you give up soap and try and do it the Roman way?

[Minimalist]

In the words of Sextus Julius Frontinus in "The Aqueducts"

16. With such an array of indispensable structures carrying so many waters, compare, if you will, the idle Pyramids or the useless, though famous, works of the Greeks!

The Romans did prefer the practical. If they needed something decorative they got some Greek slave to do it for them.

[CapnAwesome]

I put up the list as it came up and that was halfway down, anyway I am not nor have I ever been until now sullied by the accusation I am a Yank. It should therefore obvious to even a passing observer I would not be part of an Americon organisation.
I am surprised at you for trying to deliver such a low blow. There ought to be a rule against this sort of implied slurry of one's background.
If I were to belong to a group of foreign origin from the list dealing in historical matters, Maybe the Egyptian one would be of more interest to me. Did your comment contain any truth?

Ha. I didn't mean to offend, I was just curious. Also I'm pretty sure the SCA is global.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Romans did prefer the practical. If they needed something decorative they got some Greek slave to do it for them.

Case in point, some of the crown jewels of technological innovation handed to us from the middle ages were completely useless to the romans - namely, ag tech. They had no use for the heavy plow, no use for the 3 field rotation - meanwhile their irrigation and water mills were vastly superior - and the romans actually utilized mechanized harvest technology.

That last bit, in fairness, was useless to feudal europe - there were plenty of peasants around to swing scythes.....

Deployment of tech is vastly more important than it's actual innovation. An advance not put to use is practically no different from no advance at all - and the advances of the middle ages were spotty in deployment at best. In the ag sector their advances merely allowed them to yield at rates commensurate with the methods used by the romans in warmers climates with lighter soils.

[jonb]

I remember a story about Alexander the great deciding about building one of the many cities built in his name.
He admonished a planner for proposing a city that would have to have a water supply brought to it by aqueduct, because it would be expensive hard to defend and a burden to service. Much better to build the city where all the amenities are at hand.
This is probably why Alexander's cities still exist, where so many Caesareas are magnificent ruins which depict how superior the Romans were.

---

The Romans did prefer the practical. If they needed something decorative they got some Greek slave to do it for them.

Case in point, some of the crown jewels of technological innovation handed to us from the middle ages were completely useless to the romans - namely, ag tech. They had no use for the heavy plow, no use for the 3 field rotation - meanwhile their irrigation and water mills were vastly superior - and the romans actually utilized mechanized harvest technology.

That last bit, in fairness, was useless to feudal europe - there were plenty of peasants around to swing scythes.....

Deployment of tech is vastly more important than it's actual innovation. An advance not put to use is practically no different from no advance at all - and the advances of the middle ages were spotty in deployment at best. In the ag sector their advances merely allowed them to yield at rates commensurate with the methods used by the romans in warmers climates with lighter soils.

When You talk about the Romans, are you not talking about, developments and uses by people of the Mediterranean area. What the Romans did do was over exploit the ground to the point I head it said on the radio that it took Italy five hundred years to recover from the agricultural systems the Romans used. The dust bowl of the Midwest in the thirties was nothing like as bad as that of north Africa under Roman governance when all the trees were cut down to make bigger fields. Some of the Roman ports are now a mile away from the sea.
If you want to look at agricultural machinery the Celts were already using most of it.
Part of the problems the late Roman Emperors had was that they did not have land to settle veterans from the army on. This was not because they did not have land which was not being used, but that they did not have the technology of the 'stupid barbarians' that could turn the land to agriculture.

A feudal peasant who was expected to own his own livestock, had right of access to his own land, to build on common land, had a set of prescribed duties to the master, but outside that was free to do as he/she saw fit.
Duties that if you compare very favourably even today.
A peasant was expected to work on average 3 days a weak for his master. In return, the peasant had, a home, land, and his own small business which his children could inherit. How many days of the week do we now have to work to pay the mortgage/rent and taxes expected of us. and we will not talk about inheritance tax.
But a Roman slave could only dream of the rights of a peasant.

[Minimalist]

I think you need to be fed to the lions.

[The Grand Nudger]

When talking about "medieval europe" are we not also taking about many cultures and their innovations? The difference here is that the romans were able to centralize and employ said innovations. Medieval europe, by and large, was not. The vast majority of technological advances we find in europe were not even close to uniform until the late middle ages.

Yes, the romans exploited their environment and this caused damage. Heavy plows and 3 field rotation are -even more- exploitative and cause -even more- damage.

Whether or not you feel that it was more pleasant to be a slave or a feudal peasant is irrelevant with regards to tech (and honestly, I couldn't care less, I'd rather be neither - neither situation holds any higher appeal for me than the other)

Life under roman rule was most likely no bed of roses for the vast majority of people under roman rule - but in the area of development and tech.......there was a lull after the fall that took hundreds of years to catch up to.

[CapnAwesome]

A feudal peasant who was expected to own his own livestock, had right of access to his own land, to build on common land, had a set of prescribed duties to the master, but outside that was free to do as he/she saw fit.
Duties that if you compare very favourably even today.
A peasant was expected to work on average 3 days a weak for his master. In return, the peasant had, a home, land, and his own small business which his children could inherit. How many days of the week do we now have to work to pay the mortgage/rent and taxes expected of us. and we will not talk about inheritance tax.
But a Roman slave could only dream of the rights of a peasant.

The main difference is that only about 30% of Rome were slaves, where as around 98% of Dark Age Europe were Serfs. This is clearly a step backwards.

[jonb]

The main difference is that only about 30% of Rome were slaves, where as around 98% of Dark Age Europe were Serfs. This is clearly a step backwards.

True, but if we are looking at an individuals rights, a surf with tile to the land, would have been considered high up in the Roman social order. As such it is unclear how that could be portrayed as a step backwards.

---

there was a lull after the fall that took hundreds of years to catch up to.

This is the problem when was the fall, when did Rome fracture into individual fiefdoms? The Roman culture and state declined a new culture replaced it. Sure I am not saying knowledge was not lost, but when was that loss? The only credible answer I can find; it was during the time of Roman control. In fact the Romans lost so much there was almost nothing left to pass on. I find it odd that so many people do not want to think, the Romans lost anything, but would rather blame the cultures that came after who created the foundations of what we have today.
The reason why the cultures which followed did not to a large extent use Roman stuff was by the time these cultures took off the remnants of what had been Roman had been a long time lost.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-...15395.html

---

I think you need to be fed to the lions.

As a user of soap, I would not have been mistaken for a christian. But as an atheist who will not bow to some daft prat who says he is a god, or gods anointed (depending when during the Empire you are referring to,) yes they would have killed me.