Esoteric Roman v. Greek Ranting (was Philosophers)

[Kristoffer O]

She is?

Who said undead have no feelings

[Ironhawk]

Yeah. I've got three living and three undead commanders seduced so far.

[Baalz]

I'm sure there's a pun about a boner in there somewhere...

[noname]

Romans? Practical? Maybe at first, during the Republic of Rome, but under the Empire, they degenerated into an orgy of "bread and circuses", used slave labor on a scale which made the Greek notion of slavery seem minuscule, and depended on tribute from foreign lands to keep their economy afloat. That said, they did manage to build aquaducts, roads, the Colosseum, the Pantheon, huge forums, and control a land area that stretched from England to the Middle East. The Greeks, by comparison, managed to build five of the seven wonders of the world (one of those five was in Alexandria, to be fair), constructed the Parthenon and Delphic Oracle, and continued on AFTER Rome had fallen as the Byzantine Empire (Pythium in this game), and the capital was shifted to Constantinople, which was originally a Greek city named Byzantium. And Greece is still a country today. The Romans only managed to conquer the Greeks because the Greeks were disunited and lived in a small, rocky country with little fertile land. As it was, even under the Empire, Greece continued to be vitally important, and possessed many of the Empire's largest cities, as well as exports of enslaved teachers.

The Romans possessed a greater ability to unite themselves. This is how they were able to build a large Empire, rather than live in a bunch of disunited but talented city-states.
This has to do with geography; Greece's mountains make it hard to conquer and hold large areas, and even small cities could defend themselves up on a tall hill behind walls. When Rome came in, Greece was unable to pull together, and thus fell, but the Greeks had the last laugh in the long run...

P.S. I'll stop this line of historical content now.

[SelfishGene]

Heh.

You vastly underestimate the construction prowess of the Romans - they were civic engineers on a scale the Greeks could only dream of.

And the Greeks were never able to set aside their love of fratricadal or civic conflicts even in the face of a conquering enemy, and it's no coincidence the "great" Byzantine military Emperors were not Greeks but Anatolians and Armenians. .

[noname]

I thought I said this was done with... anyway, the Romans had a larger amount of land under control under one political order than any Greek or Macedonian ever did (with the exception of Alexander the Great.) That's how they were able to build such monumental roads and aquaducts. Most Byzantine Emperors were indeed Greek, and even the ones who weren't were under the influence of Greek culture. Oh, and the Greeks did set aside their differences when faced with the Persian threat under Xerxes (31 Greek city-states and regions fought together against the Persians, even though the Persians did have some small number of traitorous Greeks to assist them.)

P.S. Are we done yet??

[Tichy]

noname: I don't know about the Roman v. Greek debate, but I do know that you're accepting Plato's account of the Sophists as gospel. Socrates is a complicated figure: Able warrior, stonemason, but also client of the moneyed, landowning (anti-democratic, pro-spartan) class of which Plato was a member, that possibly subsidized his langourous gadflying about the city and invited him to exclusive parties like the one fictionally depicted in the Symposium.

One problem is that 'philosopher' in ancient greece meant different things at different times (and to different people with different political interests). Think of Diogenes living in his tub, "no dogs or philosophers allowed," etc. To many it was synonymous with penniless bum, or skygazing goofball, such as Aristophanes' depiction of Socrates in The Clouds. The pro-philosophy anti-sophist side had their idealized image of the philosopher and jaundiced image of the sophist, and vice-versa. But even Plato recognizes that sophists like Gorgias teach a particular skill -- persuasive public speaking -- and only gives them the caricature treatment when they claim to teach "wisdom" that's more than a useful skill.