I had to see this, so now you do also (thelemmy.club)

submitted 2 days ago by raspberry_confetti@lemmy.ml to c/slop@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The stanning of Rome will continue until morale improves hillgasm

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Euergetes@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago

'Roman' technology was not stolen, they were part of the same medditerrnean cultural milieu as the greeks and (greek-dominated) egyptians. ancient people didn't have patents i dont think they particularly cared or took pride in what heap of things "their" society invented vis-a-vis others.

"technology" is a very industrial way to view past societies anyway, inventions are contingent on utility to the existing social structure, not what a different one might be able to achieve with it. more sturdy cargo ships weren't necessary under a regime that financed a lion's share of shipping in order to facilitate their cities and armies, removing that to incentivise greater investment in individual shipments would essentially collapse their state.

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The Athenians absolutely took pride in their ship-building culture and ship performance in comparison to the Spartans. Additionally many ancient peoples absolutely viewed themselves as superior sailors and kept ship-building techniques as closely guarded guild and city secrets. And it was 'stolen', in that they saw what the Greeks were doing and copied it, and there are extremely few examples of Roman pre-Grecian influence art. Some extremely intense arena architecture though which varied from the Greek tradition. However, Romans were infamously worse sailors and shipbuilders than the Cathaginians or pretty much any other former Greek colony. The Romans lost thousands of men and supplies, repeatedly, to crappy seamanship, and I am pretty sure that if they knew how to build ships better, they probably would have wanted to.

As to the utility issue, that exactly my point though. People don't have some kind of perfect knowledge of what actually creates utility for themselves, especially cultures as a whole. It's not contingent on the actual utility value, it is contingent on the perception of the utility value. Iron ploughshares crop up all over the Germanic outskirts, but it isn't until the total collapse of Roman hierarchy and the loss of importation of massive slave populations that they make their way into the Italian peninsula. The perceived utility of the ploughshare was low, however, iron ploughshares could easily have done to slavery in Rome what the cotton gin did to slavery in the American South, (and to some extent, it kinda did, as peasant yields would have been too poor without it to sustain the practice). However, it made absolutely no headway culturally until after the old way had passed.

Have you ever actually talked to an archeologist? They talk about the development of 'techniques and tools' which create a shared cultural 'technology'. 'Technology' is a much different thing from 'industry', however, many pre-industrial cultures absolutely participated in proto-industrial practices, such as mass systematic animal butchery. The difference of course being that only a small portion of their lives were oriented around those practices. Conflating the two is to lose the meaning of both.

[-] Euergetes@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

taking pride in and enumerating the things your people 'invented' is a nationalist and liberal schema that would confuse ancient people, how you sail or build a boat is very different from thinking you did it first and are owed credit when others do so.

the 'inventor' is a historiographical construct to produce aspirational narratives to capitalist subjects, and historians back-dated them to ancient times for nationalist purposes. Archimedes produced no actually useful or widely used devices but he's great for a greek nationalist (and classicist english who claim to carry forward that tradition) narrative. Further, putting Archimedes next to Edison makes the inventor-entrepenuer timeless, above reproach, and casts persons like Edison's wealth as resultant of "invention" rather than the traditional skullduggery accompanying the accumulation of capital.

there are extremely few examples of Roman pre-Grecian influence art

"Greek" influence is confused for and conflated with what is indigenous medditerrenean. people act like these people are incredibly distant and isolated--Rome was founded all of 200km from a very prominent greek colony (Neapolis). do you think it's more likely a people would abandon their own traditions for another or that people living close together already shared a hell of a lot before they became imperial states?

idk where you're getting this iron plough thing, the romans were in italy when it was introduced, roman slavery declined in roman territories that weren't taken over too, and it's mostly about fiscal policies that shifted the basis of taxation from cities to rural areas.

i used 'industrial' because i didn't want to say 'liberal' and make you think i'm condemning you politically. i hope i explained what i meant adequately above. people's opinions/analysis of ancient rome are not politically salient in 2026, this heap of stuff is academic (derogatory) but fun to talk about.

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You moved the goalposts like, three times there, but I will take this all in good faith.

I am not talking about the idea of a singular inventor-entrepreneur. I am talking about a culture. A learned and shared pattern of behavior. Cultures 'invent' things. Maybe you are just hung up on the wording. Certain cultures are known by their generation of certain types of behavior. Yes, the idea of a singular 'Greek' culture is nationalist revisionism, however that doesn't mean that ancient people didn't take a level of civic m pride in the things their cities produced.

Yes, these people were 'close' but there are still distinct styles that develop, and that is how archeologists are usually able to determine things removed artistic influence. Athenian pottery is different than even Ithican pottery is different from Minoan A is different than Minoan B is different than pre-Greek influence Roman is different than Grecian-influenced Roman is different than after Rome conquers Greece. Sure though, all of it is part of a larger Mediterranean culture, however, a large part of that Mediterranean culture first gets its shape in Greece, and it spills out from there with the Greek colonial projects. And I am not saying this phenomena is unique to the Greeks, you can see the same kind of thing with the Phoenecians before then.

The Romans were in Italy when the iron ploughshare was introduced, but it did not gain any traction until after the decline of mass importation of slaves and general collapse of the West Roman state. Idk what any of that has to do with the fiscal policies of empire vis-a-vis the point I was making. All you've done is confuse the issue.

There are absolutely some levels of political saliency from Rome to the modern day, though extremely strained and not usually very helpful, but none of that is what I was talking about, so idk why you brought it up.

At this point, I will just have to agree to disagree with you, as I don't think we are really talking the same language here at all.

Edit: As well, the studies and analysis I am referencing come from Marxist historians. I mean, we can definitely question if the entire idea of culture is some sort of liberal totem, but just taking this analysis as 'liberal' is... an interesting choice to say the least.