- This topic has 8 voices and 76 replies.
-
Posts
-
Anyway the Romans miserably failed against some barbarians Germanic tribes ... Where's the Art ??
The French miserably failed against the combined states of Europe that included at least partially the descendants of those same barbarians less than 200 years ago. Their Empire was also based on military might if slightly less longer lived than the Roman Empire.Update: Here is a picture of some French monumental art: The Arc de Triomphe
And here is an example of the art it was based on, which is in Rome: What is your point and why are you so down on Rome or are you just playing Devil's advocate?Not playing anybody devils' advocate but you make me laugh with your roman fascination: you're not even Italian! So why do you bring Napoleon in this debate ? What's the point ? Bring facts instead of fantasies. 😉
How did they “loot” the Colosseum? How did Hadrian “loot” the Temple of Olympian Zeus? (I thought he built it).They kept Greek sculpture, but they also added more realism (that's why I chose those two particular sculptures)Remember, the Greeks copied the Egyptian kouros and added the element of movement to it (by placing one leg in front of the other).
Not playing anybody devils' advocate but you make me laugh with your roman fascination: you're not even Italian! So why do you bring Napoleon in this debate ? What's the point ? Bring facts instead of fantasies. 😉
As a military historian I admire the Romans for the advances in warfare they developed. Plus on a personal level I just think Rome and the Roman Empire is cool.The point is that the Roman Empire lasted for almost 1000 years counting the Republican period and 2000 if you count the Byzantines. They developed many things on their own, feats of engineering, new twists on philosophy, and the largest Empire the world had seen up to that time. The innovations needed to efficiently run the empire for hundreds of years were original to Rome. Of course, the Romans took ideas from conquered cultures but to claim that they were strictly opportunist is the fantasy. They were not a blank slate when they began their conquests during the Republican period.Aeth,It is you that needs to stick to facts, probably the only truly original cultures are the ones we don't know about because they were pre-historic. Every culture and civilization borrows from its neighbors and those it comes into contact with, that is the nature of the beast. The truly successful ones are those that take what they need and develop what they cant take and use the combination more efficiently than their neighbors and competitors.The Napoleonic empire seemed like a good example of an empire that failed and left no original artistic legacy. That is how Napoleon came into it he is not the focus, merely an example of a grandiose failure.
.... ... probably the only truly original cultures are the ones we don't know about because they were pre-historic. Every culture and civilization borrows form its neighbors and those it comes into contact with, that is the nature of the beast. The truly successful ones are those that take what they need and develop what they cant take and use the combination more efficiently than their neighbors and competitors.....
This seems like a truism to me... nothing new under the sun (unless it happened in the dark of night) 😉
The Napoleonic empire seemed like a good example of an empire that failed and left no original artistic legacy. That is how Napoleon came into it he is not the focus, merely an example of a grandiose failure.
You can't compare Ancient Greece with Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome with Alexander the Great, Napoleon with the British Empire, not the same time, not same context, not the same History... 😉However when talking about the fall of Rome, is it wrong to say that they failed against some remote barbarian tribes ? (even if the worm-emperors were already in the apple)
Comparing empire to empire in a broad political and military context is not apples to oranges but rather a valid analytical method. How is it not. I am not talking about getting into the weeds but the mechanics of military strategy and administrative methods are surely ripe for comparison.
....Comparing empire to empire in a broad political and military context is not apples to oranges but rather a valid analytical method. ....
This, my friends, is how we strive to understand history... what happened to one group as opposed to another, how it is similar, why it is different... the part beyond the factoids. This is higher level thinking skill at work.
....However when talking about the fall of Rome, is it wrong to say that they failed against some remote barbarian tribes ? ...
To my mind, yes; they failed against themselves. The barbarian tribes (from the north and east at least) were trying to become part of the Empire to escape the Huns. As they moved into the Empire the internal system failed... they couldn't be integrated into the mainstream fast enough (not enough bread and circuses to go around or so it has been said). Countries with massive immigration are seeing similar things going on. The folks coming in aren't able to become part of the system fast enough to avoid problems (not a question of why so much as the fact the immigrants are not acculturating as fast as they used to) of belonging or not. Another question remains... who is the problem? The immigrants for holding to their mother culture or the new homeland for expecting the immigrant to acculturate? 'nother thread altogether, eh?
Aeth, is it OK to compare Sparta with Athens? It's apples and oranges afterall…different political structure, different military, different outlook, etc.
Aeth, is it OK to compare Sparta with Athens? It's apples and oranges afterall...different political structure, different military, different outlook, etc.
Yes, it's ok: same area, same time, same context. Which city-sate do you prefer?
Anyway the Romans miserably failed against some barbarians Germanic tribes ... Where's the Art ??
The French miserably failed against the combined states of Europe that included at least partially the descendants of those same barbarians less than 200 years ago. Their Empire was also based on military might if slightly less longer lived than the Roman Empire.Update: Here is a picture of some French monumental artAnd here is an example of the art it was based on, which is in RomeWhat is your point and why are you so down on Rome or are you just playing Devil's advocate?
ok, let's compare: It took to Napoleon, less than 1 generation to subjugate most of Europe : From 1799 until 1811, after a streak of victories, he secured a dominant position in continental Europe and he maintained the French sphere of influence through the formation of extensive alliances and the appointment of friends and family members to rule other European countries as French client states.After the failure of the French invasion of Russia in 1812, his army was badly damaged and never fully recovered. In 1813, the Sixth Coalition defeated his forces at Leipzig; the following year the Coalition invaded France, forced Napoleon to abdicate and exiled him to the island of Elba. Less than a year later, he escaped Elba and returned to power, but was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815.This happened in 16 years ...What about his legacy?Armypromotion based primarily on merit.mobile artillerypractice of modern conscriptionoperational mobilityconsidered as genius in the operational art of war "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon." WellingtonOthersthe metric systemthe Napoleonic codeended lawlessness and disorder in post-Revolutionary France (call him tyrant and usurper if you want)refused compromise and only accepted his enemies' surrender.offered Louisiana to a young nation struggling to survive to the EmpireSome occultists even consider Napoleon one of the anti-christs prophecized by Nostradamus :-Now tell me how to compare, and on what, Napoleon empire and the Roman one ? The Arc de Triomphe ? All Europeans countries were copying Rome since the Renaissance (some even dared to erect an obelisk in the district of Columbia) 😛You can compare warfare, strategy, accomplishments and failures. What else ? Valorous Romans vs "effeminized" French? ;D
You can't compare Ancient Greece with Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome with Alexander the Great, Napoleon with the British Empire, not the same time, not same context, not the same History... 😉
I thought we couldnt do that ;D, but you just did 🙁I will have to get to this tomorrow when I have more time. I will get to it though.I see I got your goat though, and that was mainly the point.>>> 8)
And here is an example of the art it was based on, which is in Rome: 
What is your point and why are you so down on Rome or are you just playing Devil's advocate?
