But did these regional distinctions take place before or after the Viking era? — schopenhauer1

I think well before. Tacitus in 98 AD does separates many of the present people as various Germanic tribes living in the North quite accurately (talks about Swedes and Finns or Sami for example). Of course he hadn't visited the place, but still.

In the North there hasn't been huge changes in population or influx of new people as in Central or Southern Europe (at least before our time).

I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire. We've always looked back to it, and I think we always will. — Ciceronianus the White

Firstly, how can you speak for all “Westerners”?

Secondly, there is no such thing as “the West” other than the direction which the Earth is spinning away from, that is, there’s no such thing as “the Occident”. For example, Rome and Britain are traditionally counted as “Occidental”, whereas Iran, India, Arabia, and China are regarded as “Oriental”. However, Iran and India are ethno-linguistically and culturally much closer to Rome and Britain than to Arabia or China. This is seen e.g. in the Arab worshipping the ɂáalihata and the Chinese the shén where the Indian, the Roman, and the Englishman/-woman all worship the devā́n/deōs/t́īwanz and the Iranian and the Englishman worship the ahuras/ɂ́ansunz, and in the Arab calling that “ɂa7’” or “ŝaqíiq” which the Englishman/-woman calls “brother” and the Iranian “barâdar”, whereas the Chinese calls it “xiōngdì”.

Thirdly, yearning for the Roman Empire is indeed something you would likely do if you’re into things like slavery, war-crimes, murdering people en masse, making them slay each other, or almost any other kind of barbarism. In my next comment, I’ll give a long but still not at all exhaustive list of Roman crimes. Here, I want to focus mostly on broader aspects.

Let’s start with one of the two original questions:

What was, or rather, what is the Roman Empire? — Gus Lamarch

The Roman Empire was the state founded by the olden dwellers of Rome, which they created through unjustifiable wars of conquest and which they based on slavery. Yes, the Roman Empire was a slave society, in which human beings were totally dehumanized and not respected at all. It could become so powerful thanks to its strong military, with which it subjugated other previously free folks. So to answer the other original question:

what makes a concept of state legitimate so that it has influence over territories that it does not control — Gus Lamarch

No territory was truly Roman other than the city of Rome; everything else (with very few exceptions) was just robbed by the Romans from other peoples by force. Hence, the Roman Empire didn’t have legitimacy even in those territories in which it had brute power, let alone territories which its long arm couldn’t reach.

In the end, the thought that may arise in the mind is that we did not develop anything, nor did we build anything, we just destroyed a great civilization that was the world, and now we try to reconstruct it through the little pieces that remain... — Gus Lamarch

What?! We have developed modern medicine, human rights, calculus, the theory of evolution, modern technology, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and fantasy and sci-fi ideas which the ancients couldn’t even dream of, to name just a few things. By contrast, what did the Romans develop? Ingenious war-machines, gladiatorial fights, ways to dehumanize, abuse and torture slaves, ways to exploit the environment and so destroy it, ways to conquer, subjugate and rule other nations, and many other bad things, but little science, mostly philosophy just taken over from the Greeks, and no mathematics.

Also, by ending the Roman Empire, we ended slavery.

But I think we can claim to have surpassed the ancients in some ways, at least, since the development of the sciences. Technologically, certainly. But those achievements are secular. — Ciceronianus the White

Just in some ways? Tell me one way in which we have not surpassed them by far (other than the one which I’m going to talk about soon). Did the Romans have human rights? Did they have animal rights? Didn’t their bloodthirsty masses love to watch humans and animals butcher each other? Did they care for the environment? Did they contribute to mathematics in any way?

No, they didn’t contribute to mathematics. Sorry, my bad – they did influence the development of maths, as is swuttled (explained) in the following text by mathematician Harro Heuser on page 645 of the second part Lehrbuch der Analysis Teil 2 of his classic textbook on mathematical analysis (the boldening and italics are mine):

When the Roman erne/earn (eagle) cast its shadow over the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean, Greek thought began to wilt. The imperial clods of dirt took pride in, unlike the quirky “Greeklets”, doing the sciences only as far as bidden by immediate need (and that means not doing them at all). Cicero reports that among the Greeks, nothing was more renowned than mathematics, “but we have cared for this art only so far as it is handy in measuring and reckoning (calculating)” (Tusc. 1, 5). Thus, the Romans indeed only interfere once with the development of mathematics: through murdering Archimedes. In the year 47 BC, Caesar set the Egyptian fleet in the harbour of Alexandria alight; the fire spread to the city and annihilated the most important bookhouse in the ancient world. — Harro Heuser, translated from German into English by me, ᛏᚱᛁᛊᛏᚨᚾᚨᛁ᛫ᛚ

We certainly have long surpassed the Romans not only in science, technology, and art, but also and perhaps most weightily in ethics and morality. Regarding religious matters, which Roman can hold a candle to Theech (German) mystics like Meister Eckhart?

The only way that comes to my mind in which we haven’t yet surpassed the “ancients” is this: One group of ancients has stubbornly withstood being surpassed in the field of theoretical philosophy and mysticism. These are the Platonists, including the first Academy-leader Plato, and the last one Damascius. The latter is a truly awe-inspiring thinker of beyondliness, perhaps the greatest one so far in the history of the Western philosophical tradition.

Later empires, Spanish, French and British, imitated it — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, they did indeed, and they do not stand far behind Rome in criminality – sometimes maybe even exceeding it, perhaps like in the case of the Spanish conquests in the Americas which left millions dead. And for what? Out of lust for power and greed for wealth.

The Alaric sack of Rome is only some 40 years after a Christian emperor (Gratian) removed the victory statue and altar in the senate, and a mere 13 years after the cult of idols was forbidden. This is the thesis of Edward Gibbon, and I think he is right. Religious division and internecine hatreds between pagans and christians is what brought them down. — Olivier5

The Romans brought Alaric’s sack of Rome on themselves. How? Well, there were many Germanic soldiers in the Roman military. These soldiers actually helped Rome and kept it safe and stable. A prime example of a Germanic (Theedishman) who kept Rome from dying is the half-Vandal general Stilicho. However, out of xenophobia and racism that can only be called fascistic – indeed, fascism is fittingly named after the Roman fascis – and nazistic, the Romans murdered Stilicho and massacred thousands to tens of thousands of Germanic soldiers and their families – the very soldiers who had protected Rome. Of course, the survivors of this monstrous deed joined the heroic king Alaric the First (Ɂ́alar̀eik þ́ana F́ruman) and punished the Romans for their abominable crimes. And yet, their sack of Rome was quite civilized, showing the atheldom (nobleness) of the Goths and the other Germanic fighters.

So, for that matter, did the barbarian nations which took its place in the West, through Charlemagne to the rather absurdly named Holy Roman Empire. — Ciceronianus the White

It’s indeed absurd, and also deplorable, that the Germanic folks who replaced the Roman Empire with their free nations looked up to that evil Empire so much. But at least they, together with other folks like the Huns, and other factors, have brought down Rome and with it all the slavery, debasement, and huge-scale conquest. Just like Hannibal Barkas, Viriathus, Vercingetorix, Simon bar Kokhba, and many others, Arminius, Kniva, Fritigern, and Alraric are heroes who stood against the tyranny of Rome and helped in the end bring about the final fall of that unlegitimate state.

Also, those who are barbarians is the modern sense are none other than the Romans themselves, for they did not respect human wirthe (dignity) and, indeed, the wirthe of all living beings, had mostly rather base interests and motives (hunger for power, lust, and greed), and weren’t very intellectually-minded. They were a full-blooded warrior-folk, basically Huns living in cities. They were (for their time) materially sophisticated and advanced, but hygelily (intellectually) (mostly) rather poor, luxury-loving barbarians.

By the way, they were also barbarians in the ancient sense, for “barbarian” simply meant not-Greek.

Speaking of barbarians, the Greeks and Romans were pretty racist and came to use (brook) the word “barbarian” prejoratively for foreigners. But what were they really? Just like the Celts, the Germanics, the Persians, and many others, they were ultimately invasive barbarians from the Pontic-Caspian steppe who took over many regions, including Western Eurasia (a.k.a. “Europe”), and almost extinguished the (more) inborn speech and culture there.

Its success and lasting influence can be attributed to several things. Roads, an unmatched military for many years — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, the Romans were very fit evolutionarily speaking, and since nature knows no rightwiseness (justice) and the law of the jungle is the ultimate law, they were very successful not in spite of their ruthlessness, but because of it.

But I don't think the influence of a state beyond its borders is a question of legitimacy. Legitimacy maybe denied or disputed. Maybe the Latin word imperium best describes what creates it. Authority, or perceived authority, in the creation and imposition of standards governing various aspects of our lives. — Ciceronianus the White

I can say for certain (save for the ground skepticism that every philosopher should likely have) that the Roman Empire was not legitimate in any way at all. But what does the world care for legitimacy? Sadly, jungle law rules supreme, as is wonderfully expressed in this fable:

Here, I’d mainly like to give a not-exhaustive list of crimes that the Romans and their evil Empire commited over the yearhundreds of their despotism:

• The Romans conquered all the other folks of Italy including Etruscans, Italics, Ligurians, and Celts. Furthermore, they stole so much Greek mythology and Hellenized Italy that not very much of old Italian culture remains. We have a rich body of Greek and of Norse mythology. Do we have anything comparable for the olden peoples of Italy?
  
• The Romans made peace with the Lusitanians only to perfidiously slaughter tens of thousands of them afterwards.
  
• The Romans massacred hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians and enslaved tens of thousands of them when they brutally destroyed the great Carthage. Showing mercy to women and children? Nada.
  
• The Romans thoroughly annihilated the blooming Greek city-state of Corinth, slaying most of the men and selling the women and children into slavery, and plundering all the art and hoards.
  
• The Romans under a certain Gaius Iulius Caesar massacred millions of Celts in the Gallic wars for the sake of conquest.
  
• As a result of this war and the ensuing romanization of the Gauls, much of Gaulish culture was destroyed. It’s really a shame that so much Italo-Celtic culture has been lost forever (or at least until we invent time-machines).
  
• The Romans mistreated and murdered the Gaulish hero Vercingetorix for trying to save his folk from Roman oppression.
  
• The Roman emperor Octavian (Augustus) launched unjustifiable wars of conquest into Germania. Thankfully, the heroic deeds of the Cherusci’s chieftain Arminius, most notably his full annihilation of three Roman legions under the command of Varus, but also his and his warriors’ stubborn withstanding of Rome’s follow-up expeditions, kept much of Germania free in the end.
  
• In the aftermath of the crushing defeat of Varus at the hands of the Germanics, the Romans led a campaign of “revenge” (which doesn’t make much sense since only a victim can take true revenge, not a perpetrator and criminal) against Arminius and his Germanic troops. Germanicus led many of those campaigns. In one instance, he and his troops broke upon the unsuspecting Germanic Marsi and murdered them including women, children, and old people. Where is the ar (honor) or moral integrity in such an abominable crime of genocide?
  
• During that campaign, the Romans under Germanicus destroyed the temple of the Theedish goddess Tamfana. So much for respecting other religions...
  
• In that campaign, Germanicus literally sought to “exterminate the whole folk”, meaning that he was bent on genocide. The likes of Hitler would be proud. As a sidenote, he was the father of Caligula.
  
• Tiberius and many other Roman emperors and other powerful Roman people were serial child rapists and serial rapists in general, sometimes even involving babies. But Tiberius’ perversion doesn’t stop there, for he was outright sadistic (in which respect he wasn’t alone among Roman emperors, either). Octavian likewise was a serial rapist and perhaps argr too (key-phrase: Aulus Hirtius), though the latter is no crime, but only debases him. If you want to know more about Roman sexual perversions, see e.g. https://historycollection.com/scandalous-love-lives-early-roman-emperors/3/ and https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-11-most-depraved-things-the-roman-emperors-ever-di-1479671517.
  
• The Romans enjoyed to egg people (gladiators) and animals on each other and watch them slaughter one another, sometimes even copulating while doing so.
  
• Roman law allowed slavery and regarded slaves as not being human beings, thereby going straight against the eche (eternal) beyondly (transcendent) absolute objective moral right and law.
  
• In the Jewish-Roman wars, the Romans murdered over a million Jews, including civilians. Why? Because the Jews heroically tried to get back their land, which the Romans had robbed them of, and their freedom. This time, Hitler himself would be very proud.
  
• The Romans oppressed the Jewish, the Christian, and the Gaulish religion. Thus, they were not tolerant.
  
• The Romans launched campaigns into Caledonia, meaning to exterminate the tribes living there and destroying or looting everything. Now Hitler’s getting envious. :wink:
  
• The Romans launched many other wars of conquest and enslaved many more folks.
  
• The Romans brutally mistreated the Goths although the latter were just refugees fleeing from the ferocious steppe warriors called Huns. For instance, the Romans forced the Goths to sell their children into slavery to get some meat – dog meat. This led to the death of Roman emperor Valens at the hands of the Goths and Alans under the hero Fritigern in the Battle of Adrianople – a just punishment for such terrible treatment of refugees.
  
• Out of xenophobia and racism, the Romans slaughtered thousands of allied Germanic soldiers and didn’t even spare their kin. This deed was also duly punished, namely by the (quite civilized!) Sack of Rome by Alaric I.
  
• The Roman general Aetius had his Hunnish troops exterminate most of the tribe of the Burgundians, including their king Gundahar.
  
• The Romans introduced worshipping their emperor, which is an instance of hybris that goes against the fact that only true gods might deserve worship.

Now how can you top that? (I just got a call from a guy who told me how to top at least some points. He called himself Tom...Tamj..Temj... I think Temudjin or something of the like.

Temudjin learns of the Roman perversions (sadism, gladiatorial fights).

Temudjin (raising his hands in despair): “How can Tengri let such monsters defile this good Earth?!” :wink:)

Now that I have laid out quite a few crimes committed by the Romans, but by no means all of them (the severs on which this forum is hosted have a big but finite storage capacity, you know :wink:), I must admit that not everything coming from Rome was bad. While Roman law was very unjust in some central respects, such as allowing slavery and not regarding slaves as human beings, it did have some good aspects, too, giving many people protection and order. The ideal Roman douths (virtues) were also rather admirable, and if most Romans had actually had them and the other douths, Rome would likely have have been a good state, rather than one of the evilest empires in history due to the crimes it commited. Also, the Romans abolished human sacrifice, though they themselves did sometimes sacrifice humans. Furthermore, they seem to have been somewhat less ethno-supremacist than the Greeks, I think. Another thing which the Romans have left us with is a lot of historical and ethnological texts. For example, we’d know less about the olden Germanics were it not for Tacitus’ Germania. In addition, the Romans were very good at construction, further developing concrete and domes. There may have been some other good achievements of the Romans, too. Finally, I think that some Roman philosophers such as Seneca had some truly admirable views. For instance, Seneca rightly saw that slaves are human beings just like everyone else and should thus be treated accordingly if I understand him right, and that everyone could end up a slave. He even said that all humans are slaves to higher powers. Now Seneca wasn’t perfect, but I find at least some of his views quite advanced and good.

But we shouldn’t get carried away by and only concentrate on these good aspects of an empire that had in its capital no Academy, no Al-Azhar University, no Madrasa, and no Bayt Al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom) for learning, but all the more amphitheatres like the Colosseum for bloody games.

One great vice of the Romans and even more so the Greeks was their ethno-supremacism. They thought that they were better than every other folk on Earth, for which they used the word “barbarian” in a derogatory way. However, most of them knew neither that all humans are of equal worth except when it comes to moral goodness, nor that knowledge of human wirthe (dignity) and honoring it – in particular by realizing the fact that all humans are equal – is a part of moral goodness. So they were actually lower than other folks in so far they regarded themselves as better than them.

Both Greeks and Romans were slave-holder societies, which goes directly against absolute objective moral law. Compare this to the declaration of human rights on the Cyrus Cylinder. This shows us that olden Iran is much closer to modern “Western” civilization in this repsect than are ancient Greece or Rome. Therefore, the modern “West” shouldn’t regard the latter two as part of “Western” civilization, for their values were quite different from ours and in many ways monstrous.

Another way in which olden Iran is vastly superior to olden Greece and Rome is Zarathustrism, whose all-good god Ahura Mazda is a true god while the gods of the barbarian religions of Greece and Rome were little more than supercharged humans. Zarathustrism even urges us to care for the environment, and isn’t its heart maxim good thoughts, good words, good deeds truly wonderful and deeply ethical? Compare that to the serial rapist Zeus, for example.

No states are morally legitimate; all any state ever has is its effective control over a territory. — Pfhorrest

:up:

I also believe that the state has no right to command me, and that I have no obligation whatsoever to obey the state. No man, no extraterrestrial, no daimon, and no god has authority over me. The only law that I want to follow is the beyondly absolute objective moral law. I am not subject to the slave-mentality that lets some people acknowledge fictitious authority gained by other people or institutions by not-legitimate means.

However, I don’t hold the state to be unlegitimate either. It’s simply not legitimate. States, as well as the human species as a whole, arose out of natural processes. It turned out that states work for humans, just as they work for ants and some other hymenopterans, and just as prides work for lions, for example. Just as there’s no objective moral authority of a lion over his lionesses, there’s no objective moral authority of a king or an emperor or a state in general over its inhabitants. After all, the very existence of almost every state in the world, I dare say, is based on not-moral events. For instance, most Western Eurasian (“European”) states from antiquity to modernity are Indo-European, yet the Indo-Europeans are invasive in Europe, so how can any of those states be legitimate?

Things just happen, and states are a part of the natural evolution of things just like everything else. Many of Earth’s living things, including humans, are predatory, that is, they eat other living things. Wouln’t that, a part of the basis of the whole human race, already be illegitimate?

Human states is just as legitimate or as illegitimate as wolf packs, ant colonies, volcanic eruptions, the Sun, black holes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the number 6. Then why do many humans seem to have (or at least to have had for much of history) this tendency to ascribe to natural things like states fictitious “legitimacy”? Likely because of evolution. You can easily see that humans who have a tendency to obey and fulfill certain duties can form bigger and stronger groups than humans who don’t. That’s likely why this “obedience-gene” (it’s likely not a single gene, though) has been selected for by natural selection, giving us humans a sense of fictitious legitimacy. It’s exactly the same as with ants, who also have some sense that they must, have to, are obliged to, serve their queen. But objectively, there is no such obligation. It’s just an outcome of Darwinian evolution that gives the ants this feeling of a fictitious obligation.

Thankfully, I’ve been able to free myself of the evolutionarily-caused drive to obey and serve. Innerly, I do not bow to the state, and I do not even bow to the highest gods. However, I do generally obey many laws willingly because I think that they’re (maybe by chance or by good guessing on part of the lawmaker) in accordance with transcendent moral law (which I don’t claim to have knowledge of) or because I think that they’re useful. The latter is just like the fact that I willingly drink; not because I feel a moral obligation to do so, but because I want to go on living. Laws which I regard as wrong I don’t willingly obey, but I usually obey them nontheless because I don’t want to get punished, just as I don’t go into a forest infested with rabies because I don’t want to die a horrible death, not because I ascribe some “sovereignty” to the rabies-virus over the forest.

The drive of some humans to serve and obey may have been evolutionarily beneficial, but it is and remains a slavishness-inducing drive, and since I am free, I’ve gotten rid of it. I understand that almost all of those things that claim moral authority lack it in reality, and that sometimes, they are egregiously unmoral. An evil extraterrestrial might kidnap me and regard me as a slave, but that doesn’t mean that I actually am a slave. I only become a slave once I ascribe moral legitimacy to the alien’s claim and in my mind accept that I’m a slave. However, I’m well aware that the alien has no authority over me and no authority to make me a slave.

Unluckily, many people let themselves be enslaved, at least in the past, which allowed despots to rise to power and tyrannize the rest of a folk, and also allowed empires like the Roman Empire to grow by might because the citizens accepted the fictitious right that was only enforced by might.

Although no state is legitimate, there are some states that I like more than others, just as I like our Sun more than a hypothetical black hole that would gobble up the Earth, or like I like bees more than hornets. In particular, I forechoose a nation state which respects human rights over an empire that treads on them. I would happily follow (without any moral obligation, mind you) most laws in many modern civilized states, but I would only grudgingly follow the unrightwise (unjust) laws of an empire like the Roman one, and maybe even try to overthrow said empire and laws in the end. However, since I can live pretty well in human-rights-respecting nation-states, why should I seek to cut off the branch on which I sit?

Works like War of the Worlds nicely illustrate that all the supposed legitimacy of states would be revealed as null and void by an invasion by technologically superior extraterrestrials.

I do believe in an objective moral law, but I think that it is above nature, and that hardly anyone to no one has ever seen the true objective moral law, though many have claimed to have done so.

Another deprobable slavish aspect of many humans is that they are easily awed by great deeds, regardless of whether they are good or bad. For instance, many people over the ages have admired the Roman Empire even though it was evil in many respects. Why? Because it was great, just as Alexander of Macedon, Charles the Great, and Genghis Khan were great. Yet this trait is just as argr as the feeling of having a duty to obey something or someone who doesn’t have objective moral authority, such as an emperor. Both traits are also dangerous because they allow the illegitimate and ruthless to gain power even over the minds of the slaves and the awed, who can then help them physically oppress the free folks who remain. It is indeed an argr aspect of some humans (and perhaps many other sapient living things) that they might well worship such evil and perverse aliens as the Goa’uld or the Yautja as gods if they existed (which they thankfully hopefully don’t), as is portrayed in the movies.

This deplorable tendency to view the great with awe, regardless of whether it’s good or bad, is beautifully expressed as the end of the video which I’ve linked to above.

Firstly, how can you speak for all “Westerners”? — Tristan L

"I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire" doesn't mean "We of the West will never get over the Roman Empire." Nor does "I think you're being pedantic and fractious" mean "You are being pedantic and fractious."

Thirdly, yearning for the Roman Empire — Tristan L

"Ever get over the Roman Empire" doesn't mean "yearning for the Roman Empire."

Also, by ending the Roman Empire, we ended slavery. — Tristan L

Who's this "we"?

Did the Romans have human rights? Did they have animal rights? — Tristan L

Legal rights, you mean? In fact, Roman citizens had quite a few of what we'd now call legal rights. If not legal, just what "rights" do we have, that don't derive from the natural law recognized by Roman jurists like Ulpian? As for animal rights, what animal rights do you maintain we have?

Didn’t their bloodthirsty masses love to watch humans and animals butcher each other? — Tristan L

You must enjoy Hollywood movies.

Regarding religious matters, which Roman can hold a candle to Theech (German) mystics like Meister Eckhart? — Tristan L

I'm not very fond of mystics generally, nor of German mystics in particular, sorry. Nor did the Romans much, I think, until they became Christians, in which case mysticism became all the rage, and religious rage became prevalent. But I'll mention Seneca, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, Philo and Plotinus just for the hell of it (I speak of Rome and its Empire, which included quite a few different people, you know). They were not religious in the sense that a Dominican of Eckhart's time was (necessarily so, that is to say) of course, and no doubt Eckhart was a better monk than they were, not being monks, if that's what you mean.

The fact remains that people were trying to reconstruct the Western empire long after it was gone, that there was quite some nostalgia for it during the centuries that came after its fall. Another fact that was raised here is that none of the Goths who raided Rome wanted the end of the empire. They wanted to boss the empire, or sometimes to get gold out of it it, but not to destroy it. Because they envied it, its riches, its sciences, etc. And that should tell us something about the fascination, the pregnancy that this empire has had on people's minds even beyond its borders and beyond its time.

"I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire" doesn't mean "We of the West will never get over the Roman Empire." Nor does "I think you're being pedantic and fractious" mean "You are being pedantic and fractious." — Ciceronianus the White

To which someone might answer, “Those very distinctions are pedantic”. However, the witcrafta (flitecrafter, logician) would say that we do have to make fine distinctions even if they seem pedantic. They might say that, for instance, “There may be time-anomalies trapping people” means a weaker proposition than “The are time-anomalies trapping people”, and the proposition meant by “Some people, perhaps due to such time-anomalies or for some other reason, have missed quite a few developments because they dwell in the past and are awed by long-dead cultures” does not say of any particular individual that they do those things. The witcrafta would also point out, though, that a particular individual having the aforementioned qualities lets follow the proposition involving the existential quantification.

Coming back to the topic at hand, I have to set something right: Your doubt that we’ll ever get over the Roman Empire is reckoned right. That is so because we have already long gotten over it. We have universal human rights, environmentalism, animal-wellfare, wellfare-states, we fly to the Moon and send probes beyond the rim of the Solar System, and many have already realized that Rome set up a tyrrany. Among those who see that the end of the Western Roman Empire was a good thing are not only moderners, but also many-yearhundreds-old humanists like Beatus Rhenanus, who celebrates the wins of the Germanics over the Romans during the Great Migration, Ulrich von Hutten, and Hugo Grotius. Johann Gottfried Herder rightly realizes the ephemerality of imperialism, of which Roman imperialism is a prime example. The historical materialist Friedrich Engels correctly found slavery to be a dead-end, and that unlike the Romans, the soulishly healthly Germanics could make civilization young again. By the way, let’s not forget that the Roman historian Tacitus praised Germanic douth (virtue).

Who's this "we"? — Ciceronianus the White

The dwellers of the modern free Western Eurasia and their forebears and descendents.

Legal rights, you mean? In fact, Roman citizens had quite a few of what we'd now call legal rights. — Ciceronianus the White

Of course they had those. In fact, they are one reason why the Romans, those great administrators, were so successful. But that need not have anything to do with rightwiseness (justice), but only with rules that give a specific state (in this case the Roman Empire) an evolutionary boot (advantage). For example, the Mongol armies also had very effective discipline and laws, just as hornet colonies do. But does that make those slayers of millions of people and destroyers of Bagdad or those efficient killers of bees, respectively, rightwise?

I don’t mean legal rights that work for an individual state; rather, I mean laws that reflect objective moral law in respecting the wirthe (dignity) of all human beings (the only humans that lack it are those who have forfeited it by freely choosing to do very evil deeds).

As for animal rights, what animal rights do you maintain we have? — Ciceronianus the White

I'm sure you have heard of things like animal wellfare and laws forbidding doing cruelty to animals, hunting endangered species, or the like?

You must enjoy Hollywood movies. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, you’re actually right; it just depends on which movie. You see, they have a lot of very fine films and of course also many not so fine ones. You might want to read about something called gladiator fights, and the disgusted report that Seneca wrote about the brutality and perversion of gladiatorial games and the raw bloodthirst of the spectators.

I'm not very fond of mystics generally, nor of German mystics in particular, sorry. — Ciceronianus the White

Of couse you're entitled to your opinion. You need not apologize, for we’re living in free countries. However, it might interest you that the guy to whom the Western philosophical tradition is a series of footnotes according to Whitehead was basically a mystic; above his written Theory of Shapes is his unwritten Theory of Principles, and grounding that is not a doctrine, but an unsayable experience of the god Apollo as eche (eternal) andwardness (presence). This highest, deeply religious and unsayable level of Platonism was discovered by Christnia Schefer. I’ve written more about this matter here.

Also, note that you seemed to imply that we only have secular achievements over the Romans, and I believe I’ve shown you wrong if that is the case. Another point is this: With what can the Romans match the beyond-being of Plato’s One or the Godhead of Meister Eckhart?

Philo and Plotinus just for the hell of it (I speak of Rome and its Empire, which included quite a few different people, you know). — Ciceronianus the White

When last I looked, Philo was Jewish and Plotinus likely Egyptian. By your reasoning, it seems, all the peoples who lived under Mongol rule should be regarded as Mongols, making a big part of all Eurasians Mongols.

The fact remains that people were trying to reconstruct the Western empire long after it was gone, that there was quite some nostalgia for it during the centuries that came after its fall. — Olivier5

Yes, and it’s a deplorable fact showing a manifestation of the slavish element in many humans.

Another fact that was raised here is that none of the Goths who raided Rome wanted the end of the empire. They wanted to boss the empire, or sometimes to get gold out of it it, but not to destroy it. — Olivier5

Actually, Atawulf did originally try to erase the Roman Empire, but later found the task to hard for him to achieve.

its riches — Olivier5

... stolen from other folks.

its sciences — Olivier5

... which were mostly Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek.

the pregnancy that this empire has had on people's minds even beyond its borders and beyond its time. — Olivier5

True, many people are easily awed by anything, no matter how bad (or good), so long as it is great.

Actually, Atawulf did originally try to erase the Roman Empire, but later found the task to hard for him to achieve. — Tristan L

No, just because he understood that he needed the structures, the laws, the culture of the empire to rule it. A certain social capital is necessary to manage a big empire, and the Goths just didn't have it.

One great vice of the Romans and even more so the Greeks was their ethno-supremacism. — Tristan L

By my egoism! Please stop filling the discussion with garbage and stupid revisionism.
The purpose of my discussion was not to judge the Romans, as this is out of the question. If you have any personal resentment for them, history doesn't care, because you only live as you do, thanks to all the splendor of the Greeks and the Romans. So please, if you are a putrid revisionist, I kindly ask you to withdraw from the discussion. You can create your own and fill it with this value inversion garbage :)

Due to the Roman Empire's vast extent and long endurance, the institutions and culture of Rome had a profound and lasting influence on the development of language, religion, art, architecture, philosophy, law, and forms of government in the territory it governed, and far beyond. The Latin language of the Romans evolved into the Romance languages of the medieval and modern world, while Medieval Greek became the language of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Empire's adoption of Christianity led to the formation of medieval Christendom. Greek and Roman art had a profound impact on the Italian Renaissance. Rome's architectural tradition served as the basis for Romanesque, Renaissance and Neoclassical architecture, and also had a strong influence on Islamic architecture. The corpus of Roman law has its descendants in many legal systems of the world today, such as the Napoleonic Code, while Rome's republican institutions have left an enduring legacy, influencing the Italian city-state republics of the medieval period, as well as the early United States and other modern democratic republics.

Even if you don't accept it, you're only You the way you are, because of Rome and Greece. Nihilism from the decadence of the prosperity of secular globalization. Where did I see that already? Oh, yes, Thebes and Rome, and now the West - you're a perfect example of this -.

Due to the Roman Empire's vast extent and long endurance, the institutions and culture of Rome had a profound and lasting influence on the development of language, religion, art, architecture, philosophy, law, and forms of government in the territory it governed, and far beyond. — Gus Lamarch

As Rome wasn't alone and didn't just face "barbaric" tribes and the celts in the north, it would be interesting to learn how much the Persian Empire (Sassanid Empire etc.) of the same age left it's mark on the later era. Unfortunately the Mongols devastated the area of modern Iran and Iraq later while Western Europe avoided the Mongol scourge. Later Chinese culture and society obviously got similar influence from the age of Antiquity.

That’s mainly true, of course, and I have never disputed it. However, Atawulf did actually want to erase the Roman Empire at first if his declaration is true, didn’t he?

As Rome wasn't alone and didn't just face "barbaric" tribes and the celts in the north, it would be interesting to learn how much the Persian Empire (Sassanid Empire etc.) of the same age left it's mark on the later era. — ssu

Yes, exactly. The Iranian religion of Zarathustrism likely influenced Christianity in weighty ways, and the latter would go on to take over as Western Eurasia’s ruling religion. That’s one way in which Iran has influenced the “Western” world.

There are also other countries which the “West” has much to thank for, such as Egygt for inventing the hieroglyphs, from which most European alphabets are ultimately drawn, including the Greek one, the Latin one, and the Fūþark, the Phoenicians for inventing alphabetic writing and perhaps also philosophy (for Thales of Miletus may have been a Phoenician), and Mesopotamia for inventing writing and many other things, such as law codes. Also, let’s not forget the great Arab and other Islamic thinkers, scientists, and mathematicians like Omar Khayyam and Al-Khwarizmi, who greatly contributed to the modern world with their fruits of the mind (such as the discovery of algebra), or the Indians, who discovered the number zero, or the Chinese, who invented paper, the compass, gunpowder, and printing.

Unfortunately the Mongols devastated the area of modern Iran and Iraq later — ssu

Yes, what a shame!

Later Chinese culture and society obviously got similar influence from the age of Antiquity. — ssu

Yes, and ancient China has also influenced the western regions to a great extent.

Who's this "we"?
— Ciceronianus the White

The dwellers of the modern free Western Eurasia and their forebears and descendents. — Tristan L

You to have no qualms about speaking for all of them, it seems.

I mean laws that reflect objective moral law in respecting the wirthe (dignity) of all human beings (the only humans that lack it are those who have forfeited it by freely choosing to do very evil deeds). — Tristan L

When we speak of rights which "reflect objective moral law" we speak of rights which either already are legal rights, or which we think should be legal rights, but are not. It's merely facile to boast that we now recognize moral law or accept moral rights more than did the Romans. In fact, they were as well aware of what's been called "natural law" and "natural rights" than we claim to be, probably even more aware. As to slavery, for example, the jurist Ulpian maintained that everyone is born free according to natural law, regardless of the civil law; the jurist Florentinus stated that slavery is an institution against nature. You'll find the presumption of innocence, the right to confront your accuser and other modern accepted legal maxis in Roman law. Then as now, what are called natural law and natural rights were/are honored more in theory than in practice. The Roman acceptance of natural law may have its basis in the popularity of Stoicism in the Roman period among the elite. (Yes, I know Stoicism originated in Greece, but it was developed during the Empire and the Republic by such as Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, and that philosophy as a guide to how to live spread throughout the Empire, and influenced later generations, through the efforts of the Roman Stoics. One doesn't hear Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus referred to very often outside the academy).

You might want to read about something called gladiator fights, and the disgusted report that Seneca wrote about the brutality and perversion of gladiatorial games and the raw bloodthirst of the spectators. — Tristan L

I have some knowledge of the Roman ludi, including those involving gladiators. I know enough about them to be aware of the fact that bouts between gladiators were monitored by referees (as are modern boxing matched) and that reports of the deaths of gladiators have been wildly exaggerated, much as the reports of the massacres of Christians have been, by Hollywood and other manufacturers of titillating fantasies enjoyed by too many. That's why funerary monuments to former gladiators who had retired from the games, noting their victories, have been found. On a purely practical level, gladiators were simply too expensive to feed, house and train for them to be killed regularly. Most matches weren't fought to the death. It's of course true that they were brutal entertainments, but the fact is we don't have much basis on which to condemn them, given that there are many of us who it seems enjoy seeing others beaten senseless in ultimate fighting and cage matches, or concussed to the point of disability or death in American football and other modern "sports." Then of course there's the peculiarly Spanish ritualistic and ceremonial torture and killing of bulls. Until fairly recently, bear-baiting had its fans. Dog fights are popular among some. Seneca, of course, wasn't the only ancient Romans who loathed gladiatorial contests. Marcus Aurelius hated them as well.

With what can the Romans match the beyond-being of Plato’s One or the Godhead of Meister Eckhart? — Tristan L

I don't know, primarily, I would think, because I have no idea what is meant by them. I have no problem with mysticism as such, although we may not agree on what is or is not "mystical." But I don't think philosophers usefully dabble in it. Theologians, of course, must do so by the nature of their profession, but I believe their efforts, when not just special pleading, are equally futile. Self-experience, art, music, poetry may be the only means by which we can experience and understand what is called mystical. Art may evoke it, but it isn't something to be explained, or described, except very clumsily and incoherently.

When last I looked, Philo was Jewish and Plotinus likely Egyptian. By your reasoning, it seems, all the peoples who lived under Mongol rule should be regarded as Mongols, making a big part of all Eurasians Mongols. — Tristan L

You seem to be inclined to pigeon-hole people based on their religion, place of origin and such. Once an Egyptian, always an Egyptian, etc., in your mind, apparently--and they can be nothing else. But the Roman Empire wasn't solely made up of people born in Rome, as should be obvious. Roman citizenship expanded rapidly in the imperial period. In 212 C.E. or A.D. it was granted to all free people in the Empire. Plotinus, therefore, was a Roman citizen in all probability; as to Philo, I don't know. The mainly Greek Eastern Empire, later called the Byzantine Empire, considered itself Roman for its whole existence. Simply put, the Roman Empire wasn't confined to Rome, especially when considered in terms of its social and cultural influence and sway.

Rome's republican institutions have left an enduring legacy, influencing the Italian city-state republics of the medieval period, as well as the early United States and other modern democratic republics. — Gus Lamarch

Indeed. It's noticeable in many ways, one of my pet topics being the symbolic use of public space and monuments. All the Washington DC highlights (senate, white house etc.) copy Rome. Even the obelisc is not an Egyptian reference as much as an imperial one. Romans put Egyptian obeliscs all over their city, and these monuments say: "We conquered the Egyptian empire of old." Bonaparte did the same thing in Paris: he brought back an obelisc from his Egypt campaign, to do like the Romans did and symbolise power. And that's also why there's this big obelisc planted in the heart of DC. It's basically a phalic symbol of imperial power inherited from ancient Rome.

You to have no qualms about speaking for all of them, it seems. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, my bad; I forgot a second “free” before “dwellers” to indicate that I mean those who are free from, among other things, being spellbound by the glamour of greatness.

As to slavery, for example, the jurist Ulpian maintained that everyone is born free according to natural law, regardless of the civil law; the jurist Florentinus stated that slavery is an institution against nature. — Ciceronianus the White

That is indeed good and admirable. Of course, it would have been better had they totally rejected slavery, but for the ancient world, their realizations are remarkable. In fact,

The ideal Roman douths (virtues) were also rather admirable, and if most Romans had actually had them and the other douths, Rome would likely have have been a good state — Tristan L

Regarding natural law, I don’t think (though I don’t know) that anyone has actual knowledge of it, though many claim to. For example, Ulpian and Florentinus believed that all men (used gender-neutrally) are free according to natural law, but Aristotle held that some people are slaves by nature. Now I strongly believe that the two Romans are right and the Greek is wrong, but can we prove it? Can we even prove that natural law exists? I firmly believe that it does, but I also think that almost everyone only has opinions about it. My opinion on slavery is clear. Maybe all those opinions are just due to natural or nurtural properties of the brain, such as natural selection favoring certain social behavior, which thus leads to the evolution of a “moral drive” that encourages such behavior. In that case, let’s hope that what’s evolutionarily beneficial is in accordance with objective moral law (if the latter exists).

deaths of gladiators have been wildly exaggerated [...] by Hollywood and other manufacturers of titillating fantasies enjoyed by too many. — Ciceronianus the White

There possibly is quite a bit of exaggeration on their part, but I’m not drawing on them as my source. Rather, take e.g. Seneca's seventh letter to Lucilius, in which he describes brutal and murderous games.

we don't have much basis on which to condemn them, given that there are many of us who it seems enjoy seeing others beaten senseless in ultimate fighting and cage matches, or concussed to the point of disability or death in American football and other modern "sports." — Ciceronianus the White

I certainly do not enjoy such modern sports, and I condemn both the modern and ancient (though the moderner should be wiser, of course, which quite a few sadly aren’t). However, we should keep in mind that modern fighters aren’t forced to fight, whereas most gladiators were forced to do so. In that respect, as well in that death was officially acceptable back then but not today, the ancient is to be condemned much more severely. The basic base love of violence is likely similar, however.

Then of course there's the peculiarly Spanish ritualistic and ceremonial torture and killing of bulls. Until fairly recently, bear-baiting had its fans. Dog fights are popular among some. — Ciceronianus the White

I fully and totally forewyrd; such blood-“sports” are truly barbaric.

Seneca, of course, wasn't the only ancient Romans who loathed gladiatorial contests. Marcus Aurelius hated them as well. — Ciceronianus the White

Did they really hate them per se, or just the overly bloody ones? Either way, though, it is an improvement.

I have no idea what is meant by them. — Ciceronianus the White

The One is the orprinciple (German: Ɂurprinzip) of oneness which gives each thing oneness and thus makes its being possible. Since the One wouldn’t be truly one if it had being – for then it would be one and a being – it must be beyond being. After all, it’s the source of being itself. As for the Godhead, it is a level of the godly above (the Christian) God. It is impersonal, beyond being a mere creator, and lacks all properties. Like the One, it is fully beyond. That’s a short summary of my understanding of the matter.

You seem [...] and sway. — Ciceronianus the White

Of course the Roman Empire contained many folks, not just ethnic Romans from Rome, and many of these were Roman citizens. Yet they weren’t truly Romans. An Egyptian need not always remain just that, true; if he (used gender-neutrally) becomes fully romanized, speaks mostly Latin, and sees himself as mainly a Roman, then I would regard him as Roman, yes. But citizenship is too little. The same goes for the Mongol Empire: If a Tatar becomes fully integrated into Mongol society and he sees himself and is seen as nothing but a Mongol, he is basically a Mongol, yes. But just being under Mongolian rule doesn’t make you Mongolian.

As Rome wasn't alone and didn't just face "barbaric" tribes and the celts in the north, it would be interesting to learn how much the Persian Empire (Sassanid Empire etc.) of the same age left it's mark on the later era. Unfortunately the Mongols devastated the area of modern Iran and Iraq later while Western Europe avoided the Mongol scourge. Later Chinese culture and society obviously got similar influence from the age of Antiquity. — ssu

The human civilization of antiquity can be summarized in 4 states:

Roman Empire;
Sassanian Empire;
Aksumite Empire;
Han Dynasty of China;

All of them covered vast geographic territories, in addition to being provided with high levels of urbanization, bureaucratization and a wide locomotion structure, in addition to a stable and regulated economy. Life in the ancient classical world - excluding Late Antiquity - was practically like our own, minus the technology.

It is obvious that all these societies that represented the "globalized" world of the time would leave a unique legacy that would be the longing and inspiration for all the nations that would succeed them with the beginning of the Middle Ages. Like the Roman Empire, the Sassanid Empire also experienced submission by the Huns - The Hephthalites, also called the White Huns, were a people who lived in Central Asia and South Asia during the 5th to 8th centuries. Militarily important during 450 to 560, they were based in Bactria and expanded east to the Tarim Basin, west to Sogdia and south through Afghanistan to Pakistan and parts of northern India. They were a tribal confederation and included both nomadic and settled urban communities. They were part of the four major states known collectively as Xyon - Xionites - or Huna, being preceded by the Kidarites, and succeeded by the Alkhon and lastly the Nezak. All of these peoples have often been linked to the Huns who invaded Eastern Europe during the same period, and / or have been referred to as "Huns" -, and I can state through my studies, that the devastation faced by the Sassanids and by the Gupta dynasty in India, by the Huns, was twice as bad as that faced by the Romans in Europe.

The Aksumites paved the way for the future Ethiopian and Islamic nations of the Horn of Africa. And, well, China remains being China.

One of the biggest differences between the West and nations like Persia, was the situation in which one fell to the Islamic invasions - Sassanid Empire - completely, and the other resisted for more than 600 years - in the case of the Roman Empire -. We, unlike the Persians, were not Arabized - for now -.

For the ones who don't know about Sassanid Persia, Aksumite Ethiopia, and Han China, here are some representation of their states:

Sassanid Empire;



Aksumite Empire;



Han Dynasty.



And for the Huns; while Rome suffered from the North:



China suffered from the North:

- Xianbei is another name given to the Huns by the Chinese -



And Sassanian Persia suffered from the East:

Also, let’s not forget the great Arab and other Islamic thinkers, scientists, and mathematicians like Omar Khayyam and Al-Khwarizmi, who greatly contributed to the modern world with their fruits of the mind (such as the discovery of algebra), or the Indians, who discovered the number zero, or the Chinese, who invented paper, the compass, gunpowder, and printing. — Tristan L

Let's not forget. Let's try to look at them with the same objectivity (and criticism) that we look at our own "Western" history. If we do that, many interesting question arise.

For example, there is the question just why was the Golden age of Islamic science rather brief. The simple answer often given is that while Christendom had the Renaissance while Islam didn't, but I think it's not such a simple thing.

The historian Ibn Khaldun said that "Science flourishes in wealthy societies" and was correct, even now. Khaldun referred to empires/societies going through cycles similar to human growing up and the becoming old. Something similar that later Western historians have noticed too.

One of the biggest differences between the West and nations like Persia, was the situation in which one fell to the Islamic invasions - Sassanid Empire - completely, and the other resisted for more than 600 years - in the case of the Roman Empire -. — Gus Lamarch

This is actually a very good example why in order to understand history it's important to focus on more than just one narrative. Perhaps what we lack in our history education still is to say while meanwhile... and just pick the focus and the narrative we like.

The rise of Islam happened at the perfect time, when the Roman Empire (or the Byzantinians to us) just had with Emperor Heraclius finally delivered a crushing blow to Sassanid Empire only then to be also in a weak state to suffer a defeat to the Arabs and lose the crucial Nile valley, which basically was the only reason that Constantinople was able to be a megacity of it's time. With two empires being weak at the same time gave chance for a third to be formed.

The reason why some empire is at it's height depends usually on other empires or centers being at a weak state. (Closest example may be what kind of economic powerhouse the US was in the 1950's compared to the rest of the World... something that has to do with WW2, I guess.)

This is actually a very good example why in order to understand history it's important to focus on more than just one narrative. Perhaps what we lack in our history education still is to say while meanwhile... and just pick the focus and the narrative we like. — ssu

The problem with this is that humanity is essentially biased. If everyone has different opinions, which one is the real one? This was the case in which Roman civilization found itself when the west fell, and it was like that in the east - Byzantine - at the time of the Arab invasions. When a nation loses its base of values ​​and absolute truths, most of the time, only with the introduction of new values ​​by third parties - in the case of the Western Roman Empire, the Germans, and in the case of the East, the Arabs - that purpose can be reached again. I do not deny that the freedom of the ecumenical world is wonderful, but it seems that on the grand scale of history, hegemony and order is the most successful path.

The rise of Islam happened at the perfect time, when the Roman Empire (or the Byzantinians to us) just had with Emperor Heraclius finally delivered a crushing blow to Sassanid Empire only then to be also in a weak state to suffer a defeat to the Arabs and lose the crucial Nile valley, which basically was the only reason that Constantinople was able to be a megacity of it's time. With two empires being weak at the same time gave chance for a third to be formed. — ssu

The case of Islam is a great example of the phrase "give time to time, and everything will come true". The Arabian peninsula was always on the margins of ancient and classic societies, where no one sought to conquer and annex. It is obvious that if given time, some superpower would be born from there, and that became truth in the 6th century.

Hats off.

The problem with this is that humanity is essentially biased. If everyone has different opinions, which one is the real one? — Gus Lamarch

Well, it is quite logical and understandable that history is taught from the viewpoint of domestic history, that people are interested in their own history, the part of history that has most effected you. The viewpoint, the chosen narrative and the bias isn't actually a problem when we simply understand that it exists. The bias really doesn't refute the fact that historical events did happen. Hence even in history you can make question that have definite yes / no answers. To the question "Was there a Roman Empire, yes or no?" you have either a true or a false answer, just as there is for the question "Is there a global pandemic happening right now?". Hence understanding there being a bias doesn't force us to embrace some post-modernist humbug of their not being that objective past. All isn't politics.

Historical events that we live through, just like the pandemic we are going through, are obviously things that we will remember and will be important for us. But so is history that we can relate to: the events that have had an impact and effected the life of the Lamarch-family, your parents and grandparents, is naturally relatable to you, Gus. And things that have happened a long time ago and that we don't have much knowledge of are 'pure history'. It might be interesting for us, but far more difficult to relate to and to understand. And once we even don't have much information and knowledge, then perhaps we have to be cautious about the biases we have.

The Battle of the Delta 1175 BCE depicting Egyptians fighting the mysterious Sea Peoples. And not much else is known...

When a nation loses its base of values ​​and absolute truths, most of the time, only with the introduction of new values ​​by third parties - in the case of the Western Roman Empire, the Germans, and in the case of the East, the Arabs - that purpose can be reached again. I do not deny that the freedom of the ecumenical world is wonderful, but it seems that on the grand scale of history, hegemony and order is the most successful path. — Gus Lamarch

A nation or empire losing it's values and absolute truths, which I would call losing faith in the nation, typically happens when the nation simply hits physical limitations and it's weakness is obvious, typically when you lose wars and lose the position that earlier the country has enjoyed.

Best example of a genuine ideological collapse resulting in losing all faith in the system is the collapse of the empire called the Soviet Union. There were no American tanks on the Red Square. The Afghan Mujahideen didn't destroy the whole Soviet Army. This was a collapse not only an economic collapse (which countries do often face), it was truly about the elite losing faith in the truths and in the ideology and the 'Manifest destiny' of the nation. Even the Putsch-leaders of 1991 didn't have much faith in their endeavor to save the Soviet Union as the armed forces were collapsing and generals and units starting to choose sides. And luckily for us, the leaders during that time did avoid a second Russian civil war, something similar to the Yugoslav Civil War yet happening in a far larger scale, which we now can easily see was very close from happening after the war in Ukraine (and events in Georgia, and from the war at this moment going on in Nagorno-Karabach).



Rome didn't go like that. I think the story of Rome would have a more fitting end with Ottomans not even finding the body of emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos from the walls of Constantinople in 1453, than with a little known political figure as Romulus Augustus being deposed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Besides, reaching an age of nearly 1500 years is quite an achievement for any nation.

It is important to see both the merits and the demerits of an entity, be it an individual, a state, or an institution, and to realize that merits are merits and demerits are demerits. Ciceronianus the White brought up some good aspects of Rome, as have I, and these aspects should be honored as such. Likewise, however, the many demerits, misdeeds, and crimes of Rome are what they are and should thus be recognized and condemned as such. For instance, good things like the presumption of innocence and the right to confront your accuser in Roman law, which Ciceronianus the White mentioned, should be lauded for what they are. Likewise, bad things such as Roman law’s acceptance of slavery should be condemned for what they are.

Rome’s merits are its merits, but that doesn’t change the fact that Rome committed many, many crimes, including massive genocide, depraved debauchery, and treading on human wirthe. Some of these crimes I have listed above.

Regarding the good achievements of Roman culture, we shouldn’t forget that were it not for Roman invasion and destruction, other cultures, such as those of Carthage and Gaul, might have had similar achievements, as is insightfully talked about e.g. here (see the quotation of historian Philip Matyszak).

Another important thing is that there aren’t simply “the Romans”, but different individuals with different merits and demerits among them. For instance, Caesar was very good at genocide, e.g. when he almost annihilated the Eburones, destroyed their houses, and drove away their cattle, or when he murdered up to 200,000 of the Tencteri and Usipetes including women and children even though they wanted a truce. Contrast this with Cato the Younger’s conduct, who had the moral integrity to realize that Caesar was the true culprit and should be delivered to the tribes to purge away the violation of truce. Just as the Roman Caesar is to be condemned for his atrocities, so the Roman Cato is to be praised for his insight into who the true evil-doer was and for his fighting for democracy against the dictatorship of Caesar. From what has been said, it should be clear that Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Iunius Brutus actually did the world a good service, and that what is usually called “brutal” should much more accurately be called “Caesarian”.

Yet in the end, the good deeds and the misdeeds of its citizens are also those of the Roman state if it did not cleanse itself of them in the case of the misdeeds. For example, if Cato’s good advice had been followed and the criminal handed over to the tribes, his crimes would have been his alone, but as things have happened, the crimes of Caesar are the crimes of Rome just as much as the good deeds of some Roman citizens, like Roman Stoics’ realizing that slavery is against natural law (though they unfortunately didn’t reject it altogether), are merits of Rome.

More broadly, imperialism is by its very wist (nature, essence) very wrong and unrightwise (unjust) – in most cases –, for it involves one folk stealing another folk’s freedom and land. The mightier an empire, the more crimes it can commit... and the Roman Empire was very mighty. Still, empires differ from each other in goodness. For instance, while the Achaemenid Empire is guilty of stealing the land of other folks, its state religion of Zarathustrism was (and is) very athel, and e.g. the Cyrus Cylinder shows that the Achaemenids respected human rights.

But why did I only say that imperialism is wrong in most cases? Well, because in some cases, imperialism is legitimate, perhaps most importantly in the following case: If a country has possession over a treasure of great importance to humanity or the planet as a whole, but it has a base and short-sighted goverment which lacks moral principles and threatens to harm or even destroy the great treasure in question, it is the right and the duty of rightwise countries to get the treasure-possessing country to protect the treasure, first by diplomatic, political, and economic means. However, if the country with the bad government obstinately refuses to protect the treasure, the righteous states can and should rightfully conquer the violating country and take over the treasure to keep it safe. But wouldn’t they thus steal the treasure? No, for such a great treasure never was the property of an individual country in the first place.

Contrast this with Cato the Younger’s conduct, who had the moral integrity to realize that Caesar was the true culprit and should be delivered to the tribes to purge away the violation of truce. Just as the Roman Caesar is to be condemned for his atrocities, so the Roman Cato is to be praised for his insight into who the true evil-doer was and for his fighting for democracy against the dictatorship of Caesar. — Tristan L

At least with these examples we don't judge people from a totally different era and World with the morals of the present, but see just what values have existed from centuries, if not a milennium. Still, it was the Cato the Elder that ended his speeches Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

More broadly, imperialism is by its very wist (nature, essence) very wrong and unrightwise (unjust) – in most cases –, for it involves one folk stealing another folk’s freedom and land. — Tristan L

Yet those cultures that have succeeded in their imperialism have been able to create advanced societies and have brought integration to the World, where trade routes have been safe also for thoughts and ideas to spread. Perhaps only from the 20th Century onwards we've seen true international collaboration take place and peaceful integration, like the EEC/EU happening. Unfortunately saying something positive about historical empires seems today as denying the negative sides.

At least with these examples we don't judge people from a totally different era and World with the morals of the present, but see just what values have existed from centuries, if not a milennium. — ssu

It’s true that most (though not all) ancients very likely had less to far less moral knowledge than most (though by far not all) moderners do, just as they had much less mathematical or astronomical or medical knowledge. Accodingly, a moderner who breaks moral law might have to be judged more harshly than an ancient who breaks moral law might, just as twenty-first yearhundred CE flat-earthery is more laughable than twenty-fifth century BCE flat-earthery is. However, the truth is the truth. Just as the Earth was round back then as it is now, genocide, ethno-supremacism, and misogynism were just as wrong back then as they are now – unless, of course, there is no real moral law. But in that case, it wouldn’t be meaningful to make any moral judgements at all, so let’s focus on the other case. True moral law (as opposed to useful norms) cannot have evolved or been made, for then it would be the outcome of whims of nature or living beings and so have nothing to do with real rightwiseness (justice) or unrightwiseness. Thus, the old ethno-supremacism of most Greeks and Romans (and many other people, of course) was just as bad and against objective moral law as modern ethno-supremacism. The same goes for the other vices, e.g. the misogynistic nature of much of Greek culture. Hence, those who have those bad properties ought to be condemned for having them, regardless of when they live. The same goes for douths (virtues). For instance, Rome and to a greater extent Greece have to be condemned for their ethno-supremacism, for instance, though it must be said that Rome appears to have been far less ethno-supremacist than Greece, see e.g.:

Roman citizenship expanded rapidly in the imperial period. In 212 C.E. or A.D. it was granted to all free people in the Empire. — Ciceronianus the White

... which doesn’t mean that it wasn’t ethno-supremacist. After all, it did view so-called “barbarians” as inferior, didn’t it?

For philosphy, ethno-supremacism and sexism are also particularly bad, for a person might be a brilliant thinker, yet be denied the chance to unfold their potential due to false and very base ethnic or gender prejudices.

Also, there were ancients who did recognize quite a few modern values, so the crimes and other misdeeds of the ancients can’t just be excused with ignorance, can it?

Furthermore, not knowing that lions are dangerous won’t save you from getting eaten by them if you wander to close to them, so why should moral ignorance be a major excuse for vice?

The degree of condemnation rests on how much a state of ignorance can excuse badness, if at all.

Still, it was the Cato the Elder that ended his speeches Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. — ssu

Yes, I’m very much aware of that, and that’s why my specific (for the good things mentioned) praise of Cato the Younger certainly doesn’t extend to the Elder.

Unfortunately saying something positive about historical empires seems today as denying the negative sides. — ssu

If that is so, then I believe it shouldn’t be. Just as the merits of an empire do not lessen its demerits, so its demerits shouldn’t be a reason for covering up its merits.

. Just as the Earth was round back then as it is now, genocide, ethno-supremacism, and misogynism were just as wrong back then as they are now — Tristan L

European people are the result of the breeding of pre-Indo-European females with Indo-European males. We are the children of millions of rapes spread over the continent and 2000 years.