[ruudgirl]

would it be considered off-topic if i pointed out the superiority of the goths as far as cavalry, in the invention of the trousers?

[noemon]

1) Byzantines were an extension of the Roman Empire. Language and culture aside, Byzantine adopted most thigs from the Romans (because they are Romans as well). The Byzantines later improved their army. They decided on using highly mobile, lightly armoured infantry, supported by heavy cavalry.

We showed that the Byzantines were Greeks, there is no need to go through it again.

And hence the term Byzantine. Which comes from Byzas the founder of Byzantium. Greek King of Megara, next to Corinth and Athens.

The Venetians had a formidiable navy (for a while). Venetians had close ties with Greeks, no? That is why you mnetion Venetians?

No. The Venetians were not Greeks.

You said the Romans were superior than the Greeks of Alexander, and i said the Greek Byzantines were superior to the Romans, and the Venetians were superior to the Byzantines.

In order to see which one out of these ones was the most superior we put them in the relative life-span.

We have done so already, and the conclusion is that considering the relative domination of these people, the Greeks can be considered superior because militaristically they were superior for a longer time-period.

[Doomhammer]

We showed that the Byzantines were Greeks, there is no need to go through it again.

And hence the term Byzantine. Which comes from Byzas the founder of Byzantium. Greek King of Megara, next to Corinth and Athens.

The political entity known as the Byzantine Empire is still a successor and extension of the Roman one (politically). I agree with culture and language being Greek and all.

You said the Romans were superior than the Greeks of Alexander, and i said the Greek Byzantines were superior to the Romans, and the Venetians were superior to the Byzantines.

a) Byzantines were Roman (politically). The Ventians had strong navies but their overall military power was pathetic in comparison to the rest of Europe.

We have done so already, and the conclusion is that considering the relative domination of these people, the Greeks can be considered superior because militaristically they were superior for a longer time-period.

We have a saying Turkey, "where no competition exists, even fools can be kings." I am not calling the Greeks fools btw, I'm implying that Greeks rarely faced decent opposition. When they did, they failed (i.e. Romans).

would it be considered off-topic if i pointed out the superiority of the goths as far as cavalry, in the invention of the trousers?

It would. Although I do agree with you.

[noemon]

The political entity known as the Byzantine Empire is still a successor and extension of the Roman one (politically). I agree with culture and language being Greek and all.


a) Byzantines were Roman (politically)

Since you call the Byzantines, Roman, for using the Roman poltical system, then that allows me to call current-day Turkey, Greece.

Since Turkey claims that she is under a political system(democracy), that is Greek. Is that fair? I don't think that it is.

Also, the political system changed from Roman to Greek in 620 A.D.

The Donation of Constantine, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) which was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum", "Graecia", "Terra Graecorum" or even "Imperium Constantinopolitanus".

The Byzantines changed the political system:

During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks because of the dominance of Greek language, culture and population.[1]

Others point to the reorganisation of the empire in the time of Heraclius (ca. 620) when Latin titles and usages were officially replaced with Greek versions.[2]

[1]Byzantium and the Magyars, Gyula Moravcsik, Samuel R. Rosenbaum p. 11
[2]Europe: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996. ISBN 0-19-820171-0


Even poltically the Byzantines were Romans until 620.

So if you wish we change the 476-1453.

To 620-1453. It won't make much difference.

From 620 and onwards all the aspects of this Empire were officially Greek.

[Doomhammer]

Since you call the Byzantines, Roman, for using the Roman poltical system, then that allows me to call current-day Turkey, Greece.

Since Turkey claims that she is under a political system(democracy), that is Greek. Is that fair? I don't think that it is.

Democracy? Athenian democracy and modern day democracy are very different (direct democracy with limitations versus representative democracy with equal franchise). Also, most countries happen to be unitary or have some kind of central authority, unlike the Greek city-states.

During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks because of the dominance of Greek language, culture and population.[1]

Yes.

Others point to the reorganisation of the empire in the time of Heraclius (ca. 620) when Latin titles and usages were officially replaced with Greek versions.[2]

My point exactly. The Empire is originally a deviation from the greater Roman Empire. The system was Roman in the early years. The administration became fully Greek later on.

Even poltically the Byzantines were Romans until 620.

Exactly.

So if you wish we change the 476-1453.

To 620-1453. It won't make much difference.

From 620 and onwards all the aspects of this Empire were officially Greek

But those lands were originally Roman. The Greeks can't credited for conquering it. Nor does it make them better than the Romans (because they are a deviation of Rome).

[Potemkin]

The Empire is originally a deviation from the greater Roman Empire.

I feel I should point out that in English the word "deviation" carries negative implications. It would be better to say that it was a "derivative of" the Roman Empire or "derived from" the Roman Empire. That word doesn't carry the implications of moral decadence or heresy which "deviation" does.

[noemon]

Democracy? Athenian democracy and modern day democracy are very different (direct democracy with limitations versus representative democracy with equal franchise). Also, most countries happen to be unitary or have some kind of central authority, unlike the Greek city-states.

The only thing that was Roman, was the political system and that until 620.

My system in Greece is still Roman Codified Law, does that mean that Greece is Roman? No it does not, similarly the Byzantines having a Roman system doesn't make them Romans essentially.

The Greeks can't credited for conquering it. Nor does it make them better than the Romans (because they are a deviation of Rome).

Ofc, they can since it was them that protected them for 10 centuries.(eg. The Greek fire)

Rome fell and they lost the sovereignty over those lands.

Doomhammer, Byzantium was a Greek Empire. As i said if you wish to change the 476-1453 to 620-1453, then lets do so.

It doesn't change the conclusion.

[Doomhammer]

My apoligies. I do hope that you perceived it as it was originally intended ("derivative", as Potmkin suggests). I blame it on my philosophy courses and priming effect.

The only thing that was Roman, was the political system and that until 620.

My system in Greece is still Roman Codified Law, does that mean that Greece is Roman? No it does not, similarly the Byzantines having a Roman system doesn't make them Romans essentially.

Ofc, they can since it was them that protected them for 10 centuries.(eg. The Greek fire)

They didn't fight against any worthy opponents until the crusades. Also, that 10 centuries business is a little misleading. Don't forget about the crusaders who sacked Constantinopolis and occupied it for about 50 years. It was down hill from there.

Rome fell and they lost the sovereignty over those lands.

True.

Doomhammer, Byzantium was a Greek Empire. As i said if you wish to change the 476-1453 to 620-1453, then lets do so.

Ok.

It doesn't change the conclusion.

I agree, there is no way we can infer that Byzantines were better thn Romans in anyway based solely on the duration of the empires.

[noemon]

My apoligies. I do hope that you perceived it as it was originally intended ("derivative", as Potmkin suggests). I blame it on my philosophy courses and priming effect.

No worries, no offence taken of any kind.

They didn't fight against any worthy opponents until the crusades. Also, that 10 centuries business is a little misleading. Don't forget about the crusaders who sacked Constantinopolis and occupied it for about 50 years. It was down hill from there.

Well did the Romans fight any worthy opponents?

If we start from here we will never reach a conclusion, because we would have to compare every single one of them.

Lets remain to where we were before: Lets take the exact opposite dates, for 620 instead of 476, which is the fall of Rome proper, and 176 B.C. which is the fall of Greece proper. instead of 33, even though Rome never enjoyed a second City with such Glory as is the city of Alexandria 33 A.D.)

333-176 B.C.Greek
176-620 B.C.- A.D. Roman
620-1204 A.D. Greek

157+584=741
176+620=796

But if we add to this from the Ptolemaic Egypt, which ruled itself independently from 305-30=275.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty

Now, lets not attribute this rule solely to the Greeks but to the Romans as well and cut it down in half. 275/2=137.5

And lets see the numbers once again:

741+137.5=878.5
796-137.5=658.5

So, the argument is legit.

[Thunderhawk]

But if we add to this from the Ptolemaic Egypt, which ruled itself independently from 305-30=275.
...
796-137.5=658.5

Are you implying that Ptolmic Egyptian independence or reliance on Rome somehow affected Rome's status as top dog - when it was top dog?

[noemon]

Imperial status Qvo was not achieved until the fall of Cleopatra.

[Attila The Nun]

Well did the Romans fight any worthy opponents?

Carthagineans?

[Doomhammer]

Well did the Romans fight any worthy opponents?

Greeks? (which includes Macedonians as well) Carthagenians. Gauls. Egyptians.

---------------------------

Later: Huns, Parthians, every "barbarian" tribe in Europe.

333-176 B.C.Greek

I'm not convinced. Romans were well on the path to supremacy in 200s B.C. I'd say that Romans became the dominant force in Europe after the 2nd Punic War.

176-620 B.C.- A.D. Roman

620-1204 A.D. Greek

Makes sense. I'd rather you change that 176 to a 202.

But if we add to this from the Ptolemaic Egypt, which ruled itself independently from 305-30=275.

The Romans and Egyptians never came into contact until 1st century B.C. Yet, it is evident that Rome was the stronger of two (even before conquering Egypt) as it went about with military campaigns all over the place.

Besides, Ptolemic Egypt existed at the same time as both Greeks and Romans. Let's see.

Greece was conquered in 146 B.C. so...



333-202= 131 subtract this amount from Greece because Rome was the master of the Mediterrenean after its convincing victory over the Carthegenians at Zama.


Thus my calculation:
without Egypt:
Rome: 620+202= 822
Greece: 131+584= 715

146-33= 113. You can only add 113 years to Greeks (as Egypt, if you think Ptolemic Egypt was more dominant then Rome).


BUT


With Egypt:

Rome: 620+33= 653
Greece: 300+584= 884

It all goes down to the power of Egypt. I don't consider Ptolemic Egypt to be a dominant power (compared to the Romans).
Also, I still don't think surviving the longest has any significance.

[/quote]

[noemon]

It all goes down to the power of Egypt. I don't consider Ptolemic Egypt to be a dominant power (compared to the Romans).
Also, I still don't think surviving the longest has any significance

Yes, it does, well Ptolemaic Egypt had surpassed the levels of Athens.

Throughout 146-33 Rome is not dominant.

Ptolemaic Egypt is still a power to be reckoned.

Maybe it doesn't have any relevance, but we need to assign a specific point of reference.

And what else can we assign?

[akritas]

Doomhammer two known Romans gave the best answer as about your claims

Horace
Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit

that mean

Captive Greece captured her fierce captor


and Ciceron
Totum Graecorum est

that mean

Everything is Greek

[Doomhammer]

Ciceron

Cicero?

Oratios

Erm.. and that must be Horatius.

In what context did they say those?

Throughout 146-33 Rome is not dominant.

You are right. Rome merely owned Spain, Italy, a large chunk of Northern Africa, Greece/Macedonia, Dalmatia and Western Turkey by 146 B.C. By 40 B.C. they incorporated Gaul, Helvetia and Belgium. Egypt had... ermm... Egypt?
So that's like... most of the Mediterrenean, eh?

Ptolemaic Egypt is still a power to be reckoned.

I know they had a decent military but it was still no match for the armies of SPQR.

Totum Graecorum est

Reproba. Totum est non Graecorum. Can you confirm that. For example, Japanese people aren't Greek.

[noemon]

We have established these Pro-Roman dates, with Egypt going to Rome, while 146 is the fall of Greece proper while 620 is not the fall of Rome Proper but rather 476 is.

So Pro-Roman argument, and Greece is still ahead.

333-146 B.C.Greek
146-620 B.C.- A.D. Roman
620-1204 A.D. Greek

187+584=771
146+620=746

333-33 B.C.Greek
33-476 B.C.- A.D. Roman
476-1204 A.D. Greek

300+728=1028
33+476=509

Pro-Greek argument on the same scale and Greece is far ahead.

Pick you favorite or find a medium, these are the constraints.

In the previous post i made another mistake and put the fall of Greece proper to 176 while it is 146, that certainly cannot be an intentional mistake because i gave more time to Rome.

[Doomhammer]

So Pro-Roman argument, and Greece is still ahead.

Very insignificant margin, yes.

Pro-Greek argument on the same scale and Greece is far ahead.

Well duh!

Pick you favorite or find a medium, these are the constraints.

There is no median, Egypt was weak compared to Rome. I still think my first argument (you labeled it as "pro" Roman) is thus better.

Wait. I made a mistake in my calculations though. I claimed that Rome was the dominant force after 202 B.C. I calculated it as 146 B.C. while instead I should have calulated 202+620

which is 822 for Rome vs 715 (ı have to subtact 56 years accoring to my 202 B.C. figure) for Greece.

In the previous post i made another mistake and put the fall of Greece proper to 176 while it is 146, that certainly cannot be an intentional mistake because i gave more time to Rome.

Didn't notice. I was like, "where did he get 176"? lol

[noemon]

Wait. I made a mistake in my calculations though. I claimed that Rome was the dominant force after 202 B.C. I calculated it as 146 B.C. while instead I should have calulated 202+620

146, is the fall of Greece Proper not 202. Until 146, Greece(Hellenistic) was clearly ahead of Rome, in land certainly.

And in the same argument we use the 620 instead of 476, which is the fall of Roman proper.

Fall of Greece proper and fall of Roman proper, if we change the 146 to 202 then we have to change the 620, not even to 476 but to 330, i assume.

In any case we cannot give Rome the 620 when the fall of Rome was in 476 and at the same time give them from 202 until 146(which is the fall of Greece proper) as well. This is not Pro-Roman, this is super(o)man..lol. OK, on the 476 to become 620, but not on the 146, to become 202.

The argument above is very legit, and we give all Egypt to Rome, this is very Pro-Roman, trying to make it even more by putting the date from 146, to 202 is not fair, by no means.

The fair thing to do would be to use the 146 and the 476, and it would be fair and square both dates of the Fall of the propers. The conclusion remains the same, any dates we use.

And this is probably the medium and the most accurate one as well.

[Kiroff]

I didn't read any of these pages, but I say Romans. Who wants to fight?

(Seriously, I'm sick of debating Soviet history. I want something new.)