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 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.