[Cookie Monster]

Romans for sure.

[pugsville]

The romans were often led badly, (the whole roman fort thing was coz they never really got scouting under control, blundering into ambushes was a pretty roman thing. always build a fort was their solution) there were many great Greek Generals. I could say the Greeks were better at tactics, just the organization and discipline counted more. Greeks made better looking buildings, roman built bigger, more practically , more solidly if without much imgintion (mind you you do know the acropolis ws more in less intact till was shelled pretty late in the peice, the turks (pretty sure it was the turks were using it as an arsenal)

[noemon]

The Acropolis was bombarded by Morosini(Venetian general) in the 17th century, it was an ammunitions depot for the Turks so it turned into a fireworks spectacle and if that wasnt enough Morosini looted the Parthenon after he destroyed it, later the Ottomans started selling souvenirs from the rocks of the Acropolis themselves to mainly French and British; the greatest loot and destruction that took place during these centuries was by Westerners during the Greek revolution buying things from Ottoman officials just before they abandon the Greek realm and just before the Greeks take over the administration which would then render them unable to take marble souvenirs.

[Doomhammer]

^ The Ottomans, unwisely, choose to do the same thing for all other archeological sites and artifacts in Anatolia. Most of the treasures from ancient Anatolia are stashed away in western museums.

But one characeristic of the romans was pragmatism and practicality.

My kind of people.

[Cookie Monster]

I did this thing on the Ottoman Empire.
Like, what was this? A whole empire based on putting your
feet up?

It's the essence of every empire.

[Doug64]

As others have said, it's a question of "better at what?" But politically, the answer is clear: Rome. All you have to do is take a look at the duration of the Roman state and compare it to the length of any government in any of the Greek city-states, and it's easy to understand why Latin is plastered on all sorts of US government buildings and one of our legislatures is named the Senate while Greece was considered by the Founders as useful only as a negative example. They wanted to build a polity or freemen that wouldn't self-destruct within fifty years max.

And speaking of cultural heirs, I'd suggest that the people that most closely resemble the Romans that build the Empire (i.e., the Romans of the Republic), are Americans. We even have our own Greece in Europe! (Meaning, a people whose historical and cultural accomplishments we have built on and respect while not having any particular desire to be like them.)

[pugsville]

No way, I dont cop that. The Romans had decipline and organiation. And that the US consititution owes more to the Greek democratic system than Roman. Of course rome was more overun with lawyers and corporate greed so there is that.

[Doug64]

Can you think of a single US Founder that spoke approvingly of the practical politics of the Greek city-states? I can't. And certainly not approvingly of the successor states to Alexander or the Byzantine Empire. What they saw when they looked at Greece was the Mob, alternately in charge (either through tyrants they supported or the vote) or suppressed (and oppressed) by the elites, unstable as water. What they saw when they looked at Rome was Aristotle's mixed system lasting century after century, with popular assemblies and gods-fearing men dedicating themselves to the good of the State as the guarantor of their liberties. Certainly the Roman Republic eventually fell, but the Founders understood the flaw at its heart that brought it down, and at least one commented that if that flaw had been fixed there was no reason the Republic couldn't still be in existence today. Mind, I think that's just a bit simplistic and that the true date of death of the Republic was the murder of the Gracchi brothers, but that's the way the Founders that I've read of thought. Like I said, there's a reason Latin and not Greek is plastered all over our public buildings, coins and symbols.

[pugsville]

I'd struggle to name the US founders let alone know anything about their views on Ancient History. But I'd question their knowledge of Ancient Classical Greek and Roman societies, for them to have nauscised view of their structures.

It was mainly the Idea that the US was the "cultural heirs" of Republican Rome that I was objecting to. What aspects of Roman culture is the US "heirs" to?

And what was the 1 flaw in the Roman Republic Constition?

[Doug64]

I'd struggle to name the US founders let alone know anything about their views on Ancient History. But I'd question their knowledge of Ancient Classical Greek and Roman societies, for them to have nauscised view of their structures.

Before the American Revolution, students needed to be able to read Greek and Latin to get into college. They were a lot more familiar with both the Greeks and Romans than we are today.

It was mainly the Idea that the US was the "cultural heirs" of Republican Rome that I was objecting to. What aspects of Roman culture is the US "heirs" to?

It isn't so much that we're its heir as that we most resemble them. There's our isolationism, our rejection of monarchy and elitism as philosophies, our love affair with the common man, our view of religion as a personal/family affair but important to the State, our respect for the rule of law, our admiration of European history and culture even as we have no desire to be like them. And at the time of the American Revolution (until the Industrial Revolution got rolling, really) there was the way most Americans lived on family farms. Even today, while we may have oligarchs we have no philosophy of oligarchism. To quote G.K. Chesterton, of all people, in reference to America of his time, "[i]t is the pure classic conception that no man must aspire to be anything more than a citizen, and that no man should endure to be anything less."

And what was the 1 flaw in the Roman Republic Constitution?

Rome's failure to pay its soldiers on long campaigns - armies of unpaid volunteer soldiers are fine when the action is close to home, and still functional when restricted to the Italian peninsula for limited campaigns. But once you start talking about long wars extending beyond Italy and Sicily, the system breaks down, resulting in a bankrupted yeomanry willing to turn to those able to help them out - like individual senators. When a senator's power base includes an entire army, things get hairy.

And I didn't say it was the only flaw in the Roman system, just the one that ultimately destroyed it and ushered in the emperors.

[AlexHarrison]

The Greek Civilization was oozing with revolutionizing technology & science, and developed a brilliant political system which was much better than a bloodthirsty senate who murdered most of their leaders?

[Bosnjak]

Greeks.

The Romans copied everything from Greeks, like Religion.

[danholo]

Better in what? What are the measures we are using?

[Thunderhawk]

Comments by user 'looter' on the first page led the discussion to duration of civilization as being a/the major issue. That criteria then dominated this thread.

[noemon]

What Looter said in the first page, is actually true.

And Russia's claim to be the Third Rome is not bullshit at all, Rossia is the Third Rome because the true Second Rome anointed her Third and guided her to become the greatest country on earth(which she actually is). She is after all indeed the largest standing country in the world, with the largest deposit of natural resources in the world to her direct control.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither second nor third, their claims are completely delusional and sourcing from themselves.

The Romans or the Greeks?

The Romans live through the Greeks, and the Greeks through Romeness(Ρωμανία).