[QUOTE=Schnitte]
I agree the same reasons could be used to argue that ancient Egyptians shouldn’t be called “Egyptians” because they have little in common with present-day Egypt (which is, culturally, an Arab country and thus very different from ancient Egypt). But in the case of Egypt, that terminology simply got stuck and is accepted by general convention, which isn’t true for Rome/Italy.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
Why? Why does modern Egypt have “little in common” with Ancient Egypt? If thats the case than hardly any modern entity has anything to do with it predecessor. Rome is Christian, not pagan, Greece is Orthodox and hell, the modern UK has nothing to do with King George III’s realm, losing an Empire plus most of Ireland. Why does being “culturally Arab” have anything to do with it? (whatever the hell that means, since Egypt is distinct culturally from rest of N Africa, which is very distinct from the Levant, which is distinct from Iraq, which is distinct from the Peninsula, which is very very different from the Gulf, despite all being nominally “Arab”).
Which Italians are the Romans supposed to be like?
The Sicilians, with their strong Greek and other influences? The German-speaking Tyroleans? The Frenchified Savoyards and Aostans ? The “I’m-Venetian-What-Is-This-Italy-You-Speak-Of?” Venetians?
^
Not to mention the massive immigration to Rome itself during the late republic and Empire times. From places like Syria, the Balkans, Germania…basically, all lands between the Irish sea and the Euphrates…well Indus, since they had a roaring slave trade with Persia.
Modern Italians have as much in common with ancient Romans as modern Mexicans have in common with the Aztecs. Romans in Italy were completely replaced by invaders who killed most of them and bred with the rest.
Language, writing system, ethnic background of the vast majority of the population, religion, social structure and government all differ hugely between ancient and modern day Egypt. Not to mention, of course, economy and technology, but I admit this is not peculiar to the Egyptian case but would apply to pretty much any other country after that time. I’d rather be interested in your list of common traits; this list would surely be more difficult to make up than a list of differences.
In the case of Rome and Greece, at least the writing system is still the same, and there is in fact a linguistic relationship between ancient Latin and modern Italian, or ancient and modern Greek, respectively, whereas ancient Egyptian has nothing to do whatsoever with modern Arabic or the Egyptian dialect thereof. In the case of Britain under George III, there are way more similarities. The language is essentially the same, the constitutional system is largely similar (in spite, of course, the evelotuion the British constitution has undergone since; but the basic institutions of the monarchy, Parliament, the Prime Ministership etc. were there). On top of that, Britain under George III had already started industrialisation.
Because that’s what the OP asked about.
I provided mine. Now I’d be looking forward to hearing your list of common traits between ancient Romans and modern Italians. And please feel free to go beyond the mere fact that they happened to inhabit the same geographic area.
The Romans certainly spent a lot of their early history subjugating their neighbours, but the Social War of the 1st century was not about “shaking off the Roman yoke”. It was rather the opposite. The war was fought over the rights of the Italian allies to Roman citizenship, which the Romans proper jealously hogged for themselves, and the benefits that came with it. Well, and also the rights to a fair share of the spoils from the Empire’s wars. The Italian confederation was basically the allies telling Rome “well, let’s see how well you get on if we take our ball and go home”.
The Romans more or less lost the Social War, or at least quickly realized that they couldn’t win it (it’s hard to win a war against the same soldiers who normally make up the bulk of your army), and had to grant concessions and Roman citizenship to the allies.
What the Italians wanted, and were granted, was to be Romans, and the whole idea of “independent Italy” was happily forgotten when that was achieved (except by maybe the Samnites, who were nursing some grudges from a couple of centuries back).
Let the Roman offspring be powerful, by Italian valor,
I am pious Aeneas, who carries my Penates,
snatched from the enemy, in my fleet with me, known by my fame above the ether.
I seek my fatherland, Italy, and a race from highest Jove
Italy, France, and Spain are generally considered “Romance” cultures due to their ties to the historic Roman Empire. The languages, for instance, show strong connections to Latin. Roman Catholicism, which because the state religion of the empire in the 300’s, continues to be a dominant influence, perhaps one of the most visible continuing cultural connections.
Many legal traditions as well, trace back to the empire. Similarly, arts and architecture, and even technology build upon Roman traditions. Rome today, for instance, continues to use at least one sewer line dating from antiquity!
Nowadays, there is no meaningful concept of a “Kodiak Island” nation. There are Kodiak Islanders, but they do not have a significant ethnic identity. There is no separate Kodiak Islander language (most people speak English, a few Spanish, and some Native languages), and people descended from people who once lived on Kodiak Island but moved to California in 1920 aren’t known as Kodiak-Californians. There is also no distinct Kodiak Islander citizenship that can be applied for, renounced, or revoked.
Could a Kodiak Islander identity develop one day? Sure, if the people there developed their own distinct identity that rose to the level of defining a nation.
Ancient Greek philosophy had a substantial influence on Orthodox Christianity (and Western Christianity, but we must limit the scope of our discussion). While polytheism may have been abandoned, many of the themes developed in the mythology continue to percolate throughout the culture. Even with the languages, the differences between ancient and modern are comparable to that of Latin to Italian; clear line of organic evolution between the two, if not mutually intelligible.
While the modern Greek state may be a recent phenomenon, Greek culture remained distinct from that of the Muslim majority. Greeks were in fact widespread throughout the Ottoman Empire, who were happy to claim the legacy of the fallen Eastern Roman (Greek speaking) Empire. Much of Constantinople itself remained Greek until the fall of the Ottomans, when many Greeks were sent packing back to Greece. The Ottomans were even happy to call the city “Constantinople” - it was the only Post Office of the Turk’s that gave it the “works”!
A change in dominant religion does not always produce a change of ethnicity. Examples: “English” people have journeyed from polytheistic Odinism to Catholicism to (mostly) Protestantism over the past 1500 years. Irish people have largely abandoned Druidism for Catholicism (with some later conversions to Protestantism). Are Irish people today “still Irish” even if they aren’t dancing around stone circles making offerings to various gods? The Irish have also become a predominantly English speaking people with Irish speakers in the minority. Do these English-speaking Irish people thereby lose their Irish identity? Is a Jewish person who can speak Russian but not Hebrew thereby considered to be ethnically Russian?
Not really. Rome, even in its contemporary time, had a quasi-mystical sensibility to it. They didn’t even call it Rome, they called it “Urbs”, “The City”. There were other cities in the Empire of course, in the sense of large urban agglomerations, but there only ever was one City.
As well, Rome certainly had a centralist position wrt. its administration : there were local curias and legal/judicial apparatuses everywhere of course, but ultimately they only operated in the legal/social spaces that Rome allowed them (and still sent tax money and/or wheat shipments back to Rome)
Oh yes. Politics in the late Republic were deadly to be sure. That all started before the time of Anthony ; when the rivalry between Marius and Sylla and the back-and-forth between them caused a whole mess of dudes to not just get killed but also their bodies mutilated and thrown in the Tiber river to prevent them having a “good” post-life. All just for having been supporters of the other guy. Politics was Serious Business back then, none of this character assassination and petty insinuations bullshit :).
As for why specifically Anthony disliked Cicero : because Cicero had railed against him publicly a number of times.
Well, you have to cut Antony and Octavian some slack on that whole violent purge thing. Look at what happened to the last guy who tried being all magnanimous and pardoning all his opponents. Yup, stabbed to death on the Ides of March. So, I mean, whatcha gonna do?
Although maybe cutting Cicero’s hands off and nailing them to the Rostra was in slightly poor taste. Also, that stabbing the tongue of his severed head with a hairpin, that Fulvia got up to. Just a teensy bit over the top, maybe? I guess that could just be me, though.
Are you not thinking of Constantinople? The modern name of Istanbul comes from the Greek eis thn polin or ‘eis thn polin’. harden the p to a b and say it real fast.
