[Thunderhawk]

Egypt, under the Ptolmies, is considered Greek, why?

The method of government was Egyptian, the makority of the people in government were egyptian, the rulling family itself had adopted Egyptian values and customs.


If Egypt is to be considered Greek because it was ruled by a Greek liniage, then France should be considered Roman for having kings from Roman liniage, and as most of their population and especially the rulling Franks were desendents from Romans (Foderatti). Charlesmagne brings in Germany. We can throw in Spain and Portugal as they were just as Roman as France.

[noemon]

Egypt, under the Ptolmies, is considered Greek, why?

The method of government was Egyptian, the makority of the people in government were egyptian, the rulling family itself had adopted Egyptian values and customs.

In the Pro-Roman argument, i put Egypt under the Romans. In the Pro-Roman argument, Greece is still ahead, in the Pro-Greek argument with Egypt under the Greeks, Greece is way far ahead. Pick your favorite.

Nevertheless,the Empire is called Hellenic and rules by Hellenes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic

[Thunderhawk]

Fine, consider Egypt Hellenic.

That same logic puts most of Western Europe (aside from GB) onto the Roman side, along with its 500 or so years of domination.

[noemon]

Fine, consider Egypt Hellenic.

Its not an issue of what i consider the Hellenic Empire, it is what it is, and that is Hellenic. Nevertheless, in the Pro-Roman argument i gave those years to Rome, because Greece proper had fallen before the Hellenic Empire of the Ptolemies. And Imperial Rome begins at 27-476.

Not 146-620. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

That same logic puts most of Western Europe (aside from GB) onto the Roman side, along with its 500 or so years of domination.

After the years i gave to Rome 146-620, most of Western Europe was ruled by the Romans?



Show me.

[Thunderhawk]

After the years i gave to Rome 146-620, most of Western Europe was ruled by the Romans?

What more proff do you need then history shows often?

The Romans weren't ethno-centrist. Being a Latin was nice, but citizenship and "Roman" status was not ethnic dependant. Non-Latins could and did become citizens, nobles and emperors, and did so routinely.

The Frankish king was called something to the effect of 'the Western imperator'. "The Holly Roman Empire" considered itself Roman. Latin was the official or defacto language of the royal courts/intellectual/leaders for most of Europe. I dont really consider them Roman though, not Roman in the true sense, but neither was Ptolmic Egypt "Greek". Still, the rulling class were "Roman" in the same sense the Ptolmies were "Greek". If you consider Ptolmic Egypt "Greek" in your pro-Greece scenario, then western Europe should be considered Roman for most of its existence too.

If you consider Ptolmic Egypt to be Greek because the rulers also spoke Greek and had Greek lineage, dispite the people, officlas, nobles and the rulers themselves speaking Egyptian, then the same logic can be applied to Byzintium: Yeah, they switched to the local language, and the local language was used by the people, but they were still Roman, just like Ptolmic Egypt were still Greek.



edit: typoes

[noemon]

What more proff do you need then history shows often?

I am still waiting for this proof. I am still waiting to see pure Imperial Rome in Europe after 620 A.D. in a dominant position. The Frankish King was Frankish not Roman.

The Romans arent etno-centrist. Being a Latin was nice, but citizenship and "Roman" status was not ethnic dependant. Non-Latins could and did become citizens, nobles and emperors, and did so routinely.

True, but irrelevant. Because Roman ethnically is what counts, not wannabe Romans.

The Frankish king was called something to the effect of 'the Western imperator'. "The Holly Roman Empire" considered itself Roman. Latin was the official or defato language of the royal courts/intellectual/leaders for most of Europe. I dont really consider them Roman though, not Roman in the true sense, but neither was Ptolmic Greece Greek. Still, the rulling class were "Roman" in the same sense the Ptolmies were "Greek".

False, the Frankish King was exactly that Frankish, if he was tripping that he was Roman, is his issue. His ethnic identity was Frankish, not Roman.

The Ptolemies were Greeks, they didn't just consider themselves Greeks, they were Greeks, ethnically.

If you consider Ptolmic Egypt "Greek" in your pro-Greece scenario, then western Europe should be considered Roman for most of its existence too.

False, see above. and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty

If you consider Ptolmic Egypt to be Greek because the rulers also spoke Greek and had Greek lineage, dispite the people, officlas, nobles and the rulers themselves speaking Egyptian, then the same logic can be applied to Byzintium: Yeah, they switched to the local language, and the local language was used by the people, but they were still Roman, just like Ptolmic Egypt were still Greek.

False, in the Byzantium everything was Greek after 620, the Rulers, the population, the Emperors(always in the majority).

And that is why i gave to the Pro-Roman argument and Egypt, and the distance between 476 to 620, cause in 620 the language of administration changed. From 476 to 620 the language of administrartion in Byzantium was Roman, just like the language of administration in Ptolemaic Egypt was Greek.

And i gave both time periods to Rome, and the one that was Roman officially in Byzantium and the one that was Greek in Egypt, how much more Pro-Roman should an argument become for you to be satisfied?


I gave 2 legitimate arguments.

One Pro-Roman and one Pro-Greek. Whatever one you choose, the conclusion remains the same, and as much as you change the point of reference, it will effectively change the point of reference for both. The conclusion will always remain the same.

Regards.

[Kiroff]

You lose, the Byzantines called themselves "Romanoi." The actual term "Byzantines" only appeared in the 17th century. The city of Constantinople was just the name of Byzantium after Constantine made it into the Eastern capital. And they spoke Greek because that was the main language of the area (Latin being the language used by the government). That's why the Romans are better. They created the structure of government used to this very day.

In comparison, the Greek structure of government was pretty primitive. They had the assembly with the free, native-born, men making decisions(of differing range of acceptance), and participating in the court system. That was good for a small city-state, but not for a large united nation. That's why large Greek empires like the Seleucid were governed by kings.

In contrast, the Romans had a bicameral legislature, and a law system used to this very day. Of course it was not completely democratic as the Republic had senators-for-life, but in democratic countries like the UK this practice still exists today in the House of Lords, being done away with only recently. Of course with the emergence of the Empire, the popular rule status did not improve, but the actual governing structure was vastly superior to the Greek, considering the Empire's size. But hey, the emperor formed the executive branch, while really being a collection of offices, like today.

What I mean to say really, is that Greeks were better at concepts and Romans were better at practice, which was why the Romans succeeded and the Greeks didn't.

[noemon]

Look Kiroff, i know that you are looking for debate, but for me this subject is finished.

Scroll back the pages and read, i have analysed thoroughly all your concerns regarding Byzantium and Rome. As you said the term Byzantine was coined in the 17th century and the term Eastern Roman Empire was coined in the 19th century. The original term is Imperium Greacorum(Empire of the Greeks). That is how Byzantium was known during much of its existence.

One last thing that i will tell you now, is if the Romans were so good in practice as you say, why did their language ceased to exist while the Greek did not?

The morphological changes affected both nouns and verbs. Some of the changes to the verbs are parallel to those that affected the Romance languages as they developed from Vulgar Latin — for instance the loss of certain historic tense forms and their replacement by new constructions — but the changes to the nouns have been less far-reaching. Greek has never experienced the wholesale loss of word-endings and noun cases that has for instance made Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian separate languages from Latin.

The Greek Language has enjoyed a continuous tradition at least from the 7th century BC to the present day. There has been no break such as the one between Latin and the modern Romance languages, and the only other language which enjoys comparable continuity of tradition is Chinese.[1]


[1] Browning, R. Medieval and Modern Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1983. ISBN 0-521-23488-3

As for your concerns their is a summary here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... 2&start=75

[Thunderhawk]

I am still waiting for this proof. I am still waiting to see pure Imperial Rome in Europe after 620 A.D. in a dominant position. The Frankish King was Frankish not Roman.

Charlemagne's empire, reforms and conquests founded what would later become France and the Holy Roman Empire (Germany + others)

Charlemagne was called Imperator Augustus.
Furthermore, Charlemagne was a Frank, and the Franks were for a period foderatti of the Roman empire.

True, but irrelevant. Because Roman ethnically is what counts, not wannabe Romans.

I think you are the only one defining "Roman" as a specific (Latin) ethnic identity. Latinized (linguistically) Celts (Noricans, I think) were Roman, even though they were not ethnically Latins. Heh, non-Latinized Gauls and Greeks were Roman too.

False, the Frankish King was exactly that Frankish, if he was tripping that he was Roman, is his issue. His ethnic identity was Frankish, not Roman.

"Roman" is not an ethnicity. It is a characteristic of people who follow the civilizations patterns set up by Roman empire, initially started by Latins but soon after becomnig multicultural.

[Kiroff]

Because Rome encompassed a huge and diverse territory and Roman was the language of interaction, which was supported from the center, while being really only the language of a small tribe in Italy. Greek is an indigenous language spoken by people in Greece only. Byzantium was really a shard of the Roman empire. If you look, the actual influence of Latin is far larger than the influence of Greek, as Latin formed the base of the Romance languages while Greek stayed inside. Name any Hellenized people and tell me how many of them still speak Greek.

Also, the Byzantines called themselves Romans. They were called the Greek Empire by Western Europeans who saw their Roman roots as illegitimate. That's like saying that Rome is actually Daqin because that's what the Chinese called it.

[noemon]

"Roman" is not an ethnicity. It is a characteristic of people who follow the civilizations patterns set up by Roman empire, initially started by Latins but soon after becomnig multicultural.

It is as much an ethnicity as it is a cultural term.

In our case we use the ethnic Romans, and not all those who described themselves as such,because even the Ottoman Emperor called himself Imperator Augustus?

Maybe we should put the Ottoman domination under the Romans as well?

As you realize, no. We take what the Romans did themselves and compare them with what the Greeks did themselves. Not what the Hellenized Jews did, and not what the Romanized Franks or Celts did.

Because Rome encompassed a huge and diverse territory and Roman was the language of interaction, which was supported from the centre, while being really only the language of a small tribe in Italy. Greek is an indigenous language spoken by people in Greece only. Byzantium was really a shard of the Roman empire. If you look, the actual influence of Latin is far larger than the influence of Greek, as Latin formed the base of the Romance languages while Greek stayed inside. Name any Hellenized people and tell me how many of them still speak Greek.

True, but the facts remain facts Greek survived almost unchanged, and Latin is a dead language.

Also, the Byzantines called themselves Romans. They were called the Greek Empire by Western Europeans who saw their Roman roots as illegitimate. That's like saying that Rome is actually Daqin because that's what the Chinese called it.

I have analysed this thoroughly in my previous posts i think in the second page.

Many people called themselves Romans, that does not make them Romans, the Greeks were forced to do so, by the Illyrian Roman Emperor Justin .....because Justin banned the use of the term Hellena as heretic and evil due to the Jewish demonization. And forced them to call themselves Romans.

Until, a philosopher priest Georgios Gemistos Plithon, re-entered the term Hellena in the dictionary by disassociating the pagan use of the term, and the Greeks started calling themselves Greeks(Hellenes) once again.

We do not disagree here, as you say the Europeans saw the Roman roots of the Greeks as illegitimate, and they were illegitemate, these people were Greeks. I am not saying anything different, yet it seems like we disagree.

[Thunderhawk]

not what the Romanized Franks or Celts did.

Romanized Franks and Celts were Roman. It is not called the "Latin Empire after all" - its the Roman empire.

True, but the facts remain facts Greek survived almost unchanged, and Latin is a dead language.

Latin grew into Italian, it also had dozens/hundreds of bastard children. If the Greek language is as little changed as you claim, then it is a sign of restriction and powerlessness.

[noemon]

Romanized Franks and Celts were Roman. It is not called the "Latin Empire after all" - its the Roman empire.

Look mate, we need to establish a point of reference if we are to reach any conclusion.

The Romanised Franks were not Romans, and the Hellenized Syrians, Jews, or Hindus were not Greeks.

In order to see what the Romans did, we need to look at exactly that, what the Romans did, not what the Romanized people did, because then we would have to put into equation the Hellenized people too. And besides its false to attribute to the Romans the Power of the Franks as it is false to attribute to the Greeks the power Hellenized Mesopotamia.

Latin grew into Italian, it also had dozens/hundreds of bastard children. If the Greek language is as little changed as you claim, then it is a sign of restriction and powerlessness.

Latin ceased to exist, Greek did not, now if that indicates powerlessness to you, that fine with me.

[Kiroff]

Look mate, we need to establish a point of reference if we are to reach any conclusion.

The Romanised Franks were not Romans, and the Hellenized Syrians, Jews, or Hindus were not Greeks.

In order to see what the Romans did, we need to look at exactly that, what the Romans did, not what the Romanized people did, because then we would have to put into equation the Hellenized people too. And besides its false to attribute to the Romans the Power of the Franks as it is false to attribute to the Greeks the power Hellenized Mesopotamia.

There were never a Roman people. Calling Latins Romans is like calling Russians Soviets. Roman culture grew from multiculturalism as Rome was a sort of exile for people. That's why for example, the Gladitorial games while being an example of Roman culture are not Roman or Latin by origin, but are Etruscan. Rome absorbed the culture of its neighbors to create a supra-culture known as Roman that has little to do with Latin ethnicity. That's why Romanized Gauls are indeed Romans - the had Roman culture, as they went to Roman public baths and drank wine made by Roman traditions. What makes a Roman is not being a member of an original Latin tribe, but being part of the Roman culture. That's why Greek culture was a part of Roman culture and why the people who lived there called themselves Romans.

[Vladimir]

Roman empire collapsed because of POLAND. Now, I wonder why Shade hasn't turned up in this thread yet
In fact, Rome was just Soviet Union in disguise, and it was ruled by STALIN all along, who killed billions daily and had babies for breakfast

[noemon]

There were never a Roman people. Calling Latins Romans is like calling Russians Soviets. Roman culture grew from multiculturalism as Rome was a sort of exile for people. That's why for example, the Gladitorial games while being an example of Roman culture are not Roman or Latin by origin, but are Etruscan.

Ofc, there were Roman people, the Latins, descendants of Latinus, son of Greek Ulysses and the witch Circe, ruler of the Trojans(Etruscans).

The Roman Empire was an Empire of these people, the Latins.

The Gauls and the Franks you mention were not Roman but Romanized Gauls or Franks. This is very clear. These people were not Romans but Romanized.

Rome absorbed the culture of its neighbors to create a supra-culture known as Roman that has little to do with Latin ethnicity.

True, but in no relation whatsoever with your next statement.

That's why Romanized Gauls are indeed Romans - the had Roman culture, as they went to Roman public baths and drank wine made by Roman traditions. What makes a Roman is not being a member of an original Latin tribe, but being part of the Roman culture.

False, part of the Roman culture makes you Romanized, not Roman, being part of the Latin ethnicity makes one Roman.

That's why Greek culture was a part of Roman culture and why the people who lived there called themselves Romans.

First of all, Roman Culture and ethnicity were part of the Greek culture and ethnicity.

On ethnicity,
Latinus is the son of the Greek Odysseus and the witch Circe from Homer, and he is the progenitor of the Latins. The Latins later followed non-Greek customs and language, and the Greeks for that reason took the Latins out of the Greek family tree.

The Roman Culture is again a product of the Greek culture. Not the other way around. The Romans verify this and a couple of Roman quotes have been posted already.

The reason why the Byzantines called themselves Romans is because they were forced to do so due to the Justinian Codex. Not because the Greek culture was part of the Roman culture.

[BleedingHeartNorwegian]

Ptolemaic Egypt is still a power to be reckoned.

Not really, their army never seemed to recover from the disastrous loss at Panion to the Seleucids in the early second century BC. After that loss, only roman power prevented the seleucids from conquering Egypt. After the seleucid empire self destructed in the following decades and the defeat of macedonia, Rome really were dominant in the region. Only Pontos managed to pose a brief challenge to their might, the gauls never really being an organized thread in that period. They only encountered proper resistance from another civilized culture when they encountered the parthians.

[noemon]

Not really, their army never seemed to recover from the disastrous loss at Panion to the Seleucids in the early second century BC. After that loss, only roman power prevented the seleucids from conquering Egypt. After the seleucid empire self destructed in the following decades and the defeat of macedonia, Rome really were dominant in the region. Only Pontos managed to pose a brief challenge to their might, the gauls never really being an organized thread in that period. They only encountered proper resistance from another civilized culture when they encountered the parthians.

I agree and that is the reason, i made 2 arguments one Pro-Roman, and one Pro-Greek.

[Thunderhawk]

Latin ceased to exist, Greek did not, now if that indicates powerlessness to you, that fine with me.

The Athenian Greek today is not the same as the Greek languages spoken 2 thousand years ago. The alphabet isnt even the same. Further more, how many of those smaller dialect remain?
Latin evolved into Italian. It did not die, it changed gradually. Italy being an important area for so long even after the fall of the Western Roman empire, it recieved attention, influx of people and new information, languages and technology. Latin evolved.
Of is the concept of evolution offensive to you?

False, part of the Roman culture makes you Romanized, not Roman, being part of the Latin ethnicity makes one Roman.

I am a Canadian. I am so because I was born here, yet I am so also because of the culture I hold (admitably, not much for Canada). And I am Canadian dispite not a drop of native or British Blood.

Rome achieved greatness as a multicultural society. Rome, as a Latin empire, pretty much ended when it started absorbing the Etruscans and various Celts.

If you want to compare Greek reigns to Latin reigns, the Greeks will win hands down - the Latins were a pretty small number of people who achieved greatness by organizations and diffusion. Though I will then question the "purity" of the Greek bloodlines ruling in the disolved empire of Alexander and that of Byzantium.

[noemon]

The Athenian Greek today is not the same as the Greek languages spoken 2 thousand years ago.

Besides some morphological rules and some minor changes the language of Alexander the Koine is identical to the one i use. The Koine the language of the Bible is very easy for a Greek to read, Doric or Aeolic becomes a bit more weird, but it still is readable. Attic is easily readable.

For example: the famous Spartan phrase: On or on top.

in Doric: I tan i epi tas
is Attic: I tin i epi tis
in Koine: i tin i epi tis
modern : i tin i epi tis

The Doric had kept the Pelasgic a , while the Attic had changed it to i actually heta h, and the koine was based in attic, and the Koine was the language of Byzantium, and the Koine is still our language, with very few syntactical, and grammatical changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

The alphabet isnt even the same.

The Alphabet hasn't changed one single bit, for the past 3000 years now.

Further more, how many of those smaller dialect remain?

Some, like Doric still survives spoken by the Tsakonians and Pontic is closer to the Koine, than the current day Athenian.

Latin evolved into Italian. It did not die, it changed gradually. Italy being an important area for so long even after the fall of the Western Roman empire, it recieved attention, influx of people and new information, languages and technology. Latin evolved.
Of is the concept of evolution offensive to you?

Latin died, Italian is a by-product, very close to Latin but it is another language, not simply a dialect.

Modern Greek is not another language compared with Ancient Greek, it is exactly that Modern Greek.

I am a Canadian. I am so because I was born here, yet I am so also because of the culture I hold (admitably, not much for Canada). And I am Canadian dispite not a drop of native or British Blood.

Rome achieved greatness as a multicultural society. Rome, as a Latin empire, pretty much ended when it started absorbing the Etruscans and various Celts.

If you want to compare Greek reigns to Latin reigns, the Greeks will win hands down - the Latins were a pretty small number of people who achieved greatness by organizations and diffusion. Though I will then question the "purity" of the Greek bloodlines ruling in the disolved empire of Alexander and that of Byzantium.

The Greeks besides a few cases in Archaic Greece, never considered the purity of their bloodline as important, and mixed frequently, and still do. So did the Romans as well.

I am a Greek born and raised in Greece by Greek parents, my woman is not. My children thus, will be mixed, but i will make them Greeks. Lets say that say in 20 years , if you meet my children, and ask them what they are? And they reply...Greeks? Will you mock them because their bloodline is not pure?

Exactly the same goes for those impure Hellenic bloodlines that ruled over Egypt and Byzantium.