You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.44 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » Best AoE game and why?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Best AoE game and why?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Ragnax
Clubman
posted 03-05-12 03:28 AM ET (US)         
I would like your thoughts on this
AuthorReplies:
hittite_man
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 09:02 AM ET (US)     26 / 44       
I'm loving this debate, but don't get pissed off with each other, let's find the facts
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 09:14 AM ET (US)     27 / 44       
I already stated why.

In an attempt to transplant Greek from Western Europe: There was this:
http://vulgate.org/

The Vulgate was written or issued to be made in 382AD. It was during the reign of Pope Gregory the Great around 600AD that is said to have accepted it into the Western Roman Church. Upuntil then the Vulgate was not needed and keep in mind between 382-600AD the Goths and Germanics had over-run the Western Empire making the need for Latin text to replace Greek unnecessary. But because Justinian took back the Italian Peninsula and various other Romans regions he made it possible for Latin to be re-introduced. The Old Christians in the West retained their Greek, but the newcomers were absorbed into a Latin speaking church post 700AD.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 09:54 AM ET (US)     28 / 44       
Allright, let's go through your own link, vulgate.org:
The Vulgate is a Latin version of the Holy Bible, and largely the result of the labors of St Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus), who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 A.D. to make a revision of the old Latin translations. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation", and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Holy Bible in the Catholic Church.
It states that the Vulgate was a revision of old Latin translations. Modern research has shown the New Testament books were mostly written in the later part of the 1st century AD and the start of the 2nd century AD. And Christianity didn't spread west instantly. This means that almost as soon as Christianity became more popular in the west the first latin translations appeared. The original New Testament was mostly written in Hebrew or Greek, and in case of Hebrew Greek translations were made. Seems reasonable, since the east had a long greek history, whereas roman history in the east was still relative new.
Saint Jerome had been commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels from the best Greek texts, and by the time of Damasus' death in 384 A.D. he had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Greek Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms.
This rather supports my previous part. They were just not satisfied with the current translations, and redid from more original text. The same happened to the Dutch bible quite recently and probably with many other language versions of the bible.
After the death of the Pope, St. Jerome who had been the Pope's secretary, settled in Bethlehem, where he produced a new version of the Psalms, translated from the Hexaplar revision of the Septuagint. But from 390 to 405 A.D., St. Jerome translated anew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further, third, version of the Psalms, which survives in a very few Vulgate manuscripts. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), but it was not ultimately used in the Vulgate. The translations of the other 38 books were used, however, and so the Vulgate is usually credited to have been the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint.
Instead of using the translated greek versions (which could very well hold mistakes or wrong translations, which was not uncommon for books in this time, even without translating. There was no backspace or delete :P), he used the Hebrew source text, which would reduce the amount of copied mistakes.

This doesn't support your view of a greek west at all. It rather supports that the west was latin and that a better latin version of the bible was desirable, due to the rising number of christians in the west. The Goths and other tribes that took the western empire, had mostly adopted latin, or at least their nobility had. This was practical, since the inhabitants of Gaul, Spain and Italy had been under roman rule so long, that they became almost entirely romanized in both language and culture. This is in clearly evident from the use of latin in the Frankish empire and the influence of latin on English, French, Spanish, Portugues and even Dutch.

Oh, and the conquest in the west under the rule of Justinian were quickly undone after his passing. Making it certainly too short (at best 30 years) to have any significant effects on the spreading of languages. Besides, Justinian was an eastern emperor (in your words Byzantine emperor) and wasn't that supposed to be the more greek part of the empire (in your words it was even a greek empire).

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-07-2012 @ 10:01 AM).]

ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 11:16 AM ET (US)     29 / 44       
Then the site is erroneous and I apologise for giving a link to it.

Firstly the New Testament was originally only written in Greek so where you say "Greek or Hebrew" that can't be the case. The Hebrew texts only existed for the Old Testament or Septuagint equivalent. The New Testament was entirely written originally in Greek.

The Composition of The Vulgate
The Vulgate has a compound text that is not entirely the work of Jerome.[2] Its components include:

Jerome's independent translation from the Hebrew: the books of the Hebrew Bible, usually not including his translation of the Psalms. This was completed in 405.
Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome: The three additions to the Book of Daniel; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon. The Song of the Three Children was retained within the narrative of Daniel, the other two additions Jerome moved to the end of the book.
Translation from the Septuagint by Jerome: the Rest of Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the book of Esther.
Translation from the Hexaplar Septuagint by Jerome: his Gallican version of the Book of Psalms. Jerome's Hexaplaric revisions of other books of Old Testament continued to circulate in Italy for several centuries, but only Job and fragments of other books survive.
Free translation by Jerome from a secondary Aramaic version: Tobias and Judith.
Revision by Jerome of the Old Latin, corrected with reference to the oldest Greek manuscripts available: the Gospels.
Old Latin, more or less revised by a person or persons unknown: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 3 Esdras,[3] Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse.
Old Latin, wholly unrevised: Epistle to the Laodiceans, Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Wiki

Old Latin that they talk about were "SUPPOSED" to be some texts that were non-commissioned texts. These existed because some random people tried to translate the text into Latin. There were others translating into other languages also. Saint Jerome used the Greek texts to correct those random Latin translation (If he ever did use them-which I think he didn't and no real definitive evidence exists that they existed).


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 01:10 PM ET (US)     30 / 44       
The first known collection of the new testament was in greek. We don't know enough about those writings to say exactly when they were written, nor who wrote them and in which language the original was written. The original text have probably been lost, as is the case with many ancient writings. Supposed the books were indeed written by the disciples, it would probably not even have written the books themselves, except for Paul maybe, since the rest were according to the bible simple fishermen before they joined him. They would likely not have been able to read and write at the moment they joined him and were too old to become such masters that they could write whole books.

I've still seen nothing convinging that suggests that greek was the main language in the west. Let's just assume it was. The church you said was greek. The main language of the west is greek. The roman power is gone. Why the hell would they try to make latin the main language if that was true.

There's only evidence that before the romans conquered southern Gaul, the tribes closest to Massilia had adopted certain architecture and coinage from the greeks.

Opposed to that, there's plenty of evidence that Roman culture and language were commonly spread throughout the entire empire, though greek probably remained large in the east.

And though wikipedia can be a good source to quickly look things up, it can't be considered a real source. Where possible, original ancient text or books/articles written by experts are preferred, and in universities wikipedia usage would probably be an instant insufficient.

It's obvious that Greek ideas, culture and language were of quite an influence on the western/middle eastern world, but let's not exaggerate. The greeks didn't rule lands such as Gaul, Spain, Germania and Britain. The Romans did (only parts of germania and Britian, but Gaul and Spain fully) and for a very long time. The roman empire was big, but not the biggest empire, but it's long endurance was remarkable.

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-07-2012 @ 01:18 PM).]

Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 03-07-12 01:11 PM ET (US)     31 / 44       
Just a reminder, guys, keep this civile.


Nationalism and cultural favoritisms could indeed cloud one's judgement even if you're amongst the brightest persons'. As a scientist and to make the reality evident one must be as unbiased as humanely possible. Sadly most human academic disciplines have been biased since their origins and history has been no exception. Since Herodotus and even before him the historians haven't been able too keep their own biases and preferences out of their points of view and accounts. Primary sources will always be relevant, however they must be read and analyzed carefully as the understatement of the people's in the past was far from being perfect (as it happens nowadays). But not only Herodotus made mistakes, Roman Historians did the same and what about the Pharaoh steles? Most people in the ancient times wanted to expose their version of the facts, even if there was very truth in them.

The evidence must be studied carefully and considering all pertinent possibilities before expressing one idea as a given truth, also remember that no one is the owner of the truth.


Now let's consider two points expressed in this thread:

Greek was a 'common' lingua franca, especially after the Hellenization of the world by Alexander the Great, however let's remember that the use of a lingua franca was useful only to a handful of people, merchants, dignataries, ambassadors, and other elites and aristocrats, most of the populace of course wouldn't care about learning a second language especially in a time were education was very restricted.

Now 'civilized' colonies in the west. One more time, myth sometimes obscures the reality. I don't think that Tarsis was founded as early as tradition tells us (ca. 1200 bC) however it was founded very early, and is evidence that Phoenician settlements in the western mediterranean are as old, or older, than Greek ones. And evidencing the importance of Phoenician trade routes during the Bronze age/Iron age transition (ancient dark ages) there is the fact that greeks adopted the alphabet from the levantine traders. Also there's physical evidence that phoenician/punic traders had a network of routes that extended into Western Africa and Supramediterranean Europe, judging from punic coins to chemical analyses of ancient artifacts that demonstrate that raw material used to elaborate such objects came from distant shores.

I'm not saying that Greeks importance is diminished by such evidence, but just stating that greeks weren't alone and they lived in a world where many cultures made an important contribution to what we are today, some of them preceeding and influencing greeks themselves.

[This message has been edited by Suppiluliuma (edited 03-07-2012 @ 01:13 PM).]

Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 01:23 PM ET (US)     32 / 44       
And the Greek culture partly lived on in roman culture. The romans were masters of stealing, not just of lands, but also of ideas (hoplites from Etruscans-who might in turn have taken it from the greeks, manipular system from the Samnites, Weaponry from the Gauls/Iberians, ships from Carthage, gods and some architecture from the greeks, cataphracts and horse archers from the Parthians/Sassanids and the list goes on). But even though the romans might have stolen some things, it were they who spread it across such a vast piece of land by conquest and policies, not the Greeks themselves.

Btw, I was hoping you would join, as our house-historian. Only need Pitt from total war heaven and we can have a great debate.

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-07-2012 @ 01:24 PM).]

Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 03-07-12 01:35 PM ET (US)     33 / 44       
I am just an aficionado, but thanks lol. And romans didn't exactly 'steal' we prefer the terms 'adopt and adapt' technologies and methods. And I do agree that was one reason of their great success. Regrettably for them other cultures were not as open to new ideas and sometimes, stubbornly, used less effective methods. Sometimes I think that some cultures do resist the new ideas. For me it is hard to believe that Egyptians didn't know the wheel at all. I think that maybe they didn't see its potential until they were conquered by the Hyksos.
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 05:12 PM ET (US)     34 / 44       
Why the hell would they try to make latin the main language if that was true.
It is as if you aren't reading what I write. The Latin colonisation of Western Europe came after the Greek Colonisation. The Greek colonies had been thriving in Western Europe since 900BC. Western Europeans at the time were drawn to these cities because none existed like them before. The Religion of the Pagan Greeks had spread throughout Western Europe and we see close ties with Germanic Gods and the Gods of Olympus. There was also trade, agriculture and other exchanges that occurred. Greek was a well known language making a lingua franca of antiquity. But when Rome expanded the Latin colonists initially entered Greek cities. They took over existing cities and made Helots out of the local Greek populace. They also reduced their numbers by systematic slaughter. The period of 100BC-285AD was when the seeds for the Latin Language were laid in Western Europe.

The actual adaptation of Latin as a Lingua Franca needed a considerable amount of time before it could have a reasonable population speaking it. Those initial small colonies of Rome were very small at the start. In some cases only garrisons existed. But between 285-700AD the demographics changed in the West. The small colonies now became considerably larger. The increase in their size created also an increase in Latin speakers.

The Christian Church was still using Greek up until 700AD. So all the churches that sprouted in the West were still using Greek liturgy. But as I stated before, around 600AD the Latin text was introduced into the Western Church. This could mean several things. That there was now a need for Latin texts in the West because of sheer numbers of speakers, the number of Greek speakers diminished, there was a powerplay between Rome and Constantinople and using Latin could help create a new sphere of religious influence. Probably all three contributed to the reason why Latin was later adopted in 600AD. Although it would be important to highlight that even when Latin became a lingua Franca of the West, Theodoric the Goth spoke Greek. Many Gauls and others are documented as being Hellenised especially those that drifted towards the Black Sea. So Greek still remained an important language, you could say it was the Lingua Franca of the empire even after the adaptation of Latin in the West.

Then you have the fact that between 1453AD-1800 the majority of learning from books came from Latins in the West. They would use Greek books translated into Latin and pass them onto others. Greece had disappeared under the Ottomans for 400 years. So Latinisation really took off during this period and is where most of the Romance languages derive.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."

[This message has been edited by ephestion (edited 03-07-2012 @ 05:23 PM).]

Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 06:37 PM ET (US)     35 / 44       
It is as if you aren't reading what I write. The Latin colonisation of Western Europe came after the Greek Colonisation. The Greek colonies had been thriving in Western Europe since 900BC. Western Europeans at the time were drawn to these cities because none existed like them before. The Religion of the Pagan Greeks had spread throughout Western Europe and we see close ties with Germanic Gods and the Gods of Olympus. There was also trade, agriculture and other exchanges that occurred. Greek was a well known language making a lingua franca of antiquity. But when Rome expanded the Latin colonists initially entered Greek cities. They took over existing cities and made Helots out of the local Greek populace. They also reduced their numbers by systematic slaughter. The period of 100BC-285AD was when the seeds for the Latin Language were laid in Western Europe.
Maybe you should read a bit more of what I say. Whereas I attack and react on your arguments, you just repeat about the same again and declare my at least reasonably supported opinion as bollocks.

Yes romans conquered after greeks, but conquered far more than the greeks. Which colonies will these thriving cities be? Sicily can is indeed quite a bit helenized, but in southern Italy their language influence was small, since the people there spoke Osco-Umbrian or Latin. Massilia is a large colony, but it's area of direct rule wasn't really big and it's influence would not have reached further than at best central Gaul and certainly didn't reach the Belgae and Germanics. Then you Emporion, but there it comes to and end. Of course smaller colonies existed, but their influence wasn't as big as you suggest.

On what exactly do you base your claim that the Germanic deities were taken from the greeks? Like the greeks and all ancient people they made up gods for most of the things in life. When the roman and greek met them, they saw some matches between gods, but that is probably more because most gods are based on natural phenomena. And it was easier for their readers to imagine what those deities were like, if they could identify them with gods known to them.

Trade and agriculture are well known to have existed in Celtic civilisation. The celts were more advanced than most people think.

I already made a comment about systematic slaughter earlier, and stay with that. It was certainly not used against greeks alone and the romans certainly weren't the only onces using extermination.
The actual adaptation of Latin as a Lingua Franca needed a considerable amount of time before it could have a reasonable population speaking it. Those initial small colonies of Rome were very small at the start. In some cases only garrisons existed. But between 285-700AD the demographics changed in the West. The small colonies now became considerably larger. The increase in their size created also an increase in Latin speakers.
True, but that doesn't mean that Greek was the language before it. Their native tongue would have endured for quite a while, but especially the traders and ruling class would quickly have adopted latin.
The Christian Church was still using Greek up until 700AD. So all the churches that sprouted in the West were still using Greek liturgy. But as I stated before, around 600AD the Latin text was introduced into the Western Church. This could mean several things. That there was now a need for Latin texts in the West because of sheer numbers of speakers, the number of Greek speakers diminished, there was a powerplay between Rome and Constantinople and using Latin could help create a new sphere of religious influence. Probably all three contributed to the reason why Latin was later adopted in 600AD. Although it would be important to highlight that even when Latin became a lingua Franca of the West, Theodoric the Goth spoke Greek. Many Gauls and others are documented as being Hellenised especially those that drifted towards the Black Sea. So Greek still remained an important language, you could say it was the Lingua Franca of the empire even after the adaptation of Latin in the West.
I would like to see prove of that, if the church in the west used greek texst in the early stage that was more due to a lack of enough and proper latin translations. And the Vulgata we talked about previously was made far before 700 AD. Same for the fact that Theodoric spoke Greek. I can well imagine he spoke Greek, but that doesn't mean it was his primary used language, which was probably Latin, since that was the language in Italy. How many Gauls did go towards the east? I only know of a period of invasions around the time of the succesor wars of the Diadochi, who mostly settled in Galatia (hence it's name).
Then you have the fact that between 1453AD-1800 the majority of learning from books came from Latins in the West. They would use Greek books translated into Latin and pass them onto others. Greece had disappeared under the Ottomans for 400 years. So Latinisation really took off during this period and is where most of the Romance languages derive.
It's true that most of early 'science'-as far as you can call it real science- was either Greek or Eastern (at least for the west, their was no contact with China at this moment). But the Romans delivered their fair share of histories, technical innovations, military tactics, rhetorics and such. We know for sure that men like Cicero, Cato, Brutus, Caesar and many such wrote in Latin.

You almost seem to think that rome was a puppet state of the greeks that only got so powerful, because Greeks and Macedonians were fighting amongs themselves. That truly goes against the great achievements of the Romans, especially their success in making former enemies fight with them as allies in new wars. They conquered Italy, drove the Greeks out, even though Pyrrhus tried to stop them with a large greek army. They defeated the great Carthaginian empire on their own even though Macedon did try to stab rome in the back. By then they already became a superpower, with an advanced and experienced military. The Macedonians fielded a professional army at Pydna, that was larger than the roman army, yet were soundly defeated. Pydna and Cynoscephalae are by some seen as the victories of the manipular/cohort system over the phalanx. The truth is that the phalanx system was not fit to fight against a roman legion. The phalanx fought in one big line, with little room for changes, whereas the romans had tacticle abilities and reserves.
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-07-12 10:39 PM ET (US)     36 / 44       
I live in a British colony that took over Australia. I have seen what it takes first hand. I guess I know how long it takes for a colony to take roots.
Maybe you should read a bit more of what I say. Whereas I attack and react on your arguments, you just repeat about the same again and declare my at least reasonably supported opinion as bollocks.
You are throwing in too many things into your arguments that would require volumes of references and books to correct. It is not that I am ignoring or dismissing what you are saying it is just that your education is on a different rail of thought.
Yes romans conquered after greeks, but conquered far more than the greeks. Which colonies will these thriving cities be? Sicily can is indeed quite a bit helenized, but in southern Italy their language influence was small, since the people there spoke Osco-Umbrian or Latin. Massilia is a large colony, but it's area of direct rule wasn't really big and it's influence would not have reached further than at best central Gaul and certainly didn't reach the Belgae and Germanics. Then you Emporion, but there it comes to and end. Of course smaller colonies existed, but their influence wasn't as big as you suggest.
The Greeks didn't conquer the West they passively colonised for the most part. Sicily remained a Hellenic kingdom throughout the entire lifespan of Imperial Rome. It kept a Greek king and the coinage was all still minted in Greek. Neapolis in Italy was another major colony of Greece and it too retained it's own Greek mint for coinage. The populace of Southern Italy was entirely Hellenised between 1200-500BC. Marsielle in France was another major city which thrived in Antiquity. Hispania was another colony in Spain which also thrived. Greek pots, coinage and other artifacts were found throughout the West. These probably came from Southern France and Spain.
The oldest city within modern France, Marseille, was founded around 600 BCE by Greeks from the Asia Minor city of Phocaea (as mentioned by Thucydides Bk1,13, Strabo, Athenaeus and Justin) as a trading post or emporion under the name Μασσαλία (Massalia).[1][2]

A foundation myth reported by Aristotle in the 4th century BCE as well as by Latin authors, recounts how the Phocaean Protis (or Euxenus) married Gyptis (or Petta), the daughter of a local Segobriges king called Nannus, thus giving him the right to receive a piece of land where he was able to found a city.[2][3][4] The contours of the Greek city have been partially excavated in several neighborhoods.[5][6] The Phocaean Greeks introduced the cult of Artemis, as in their other colonies.[7]

It is thought that contacts started even earlier however, as Ionian Greeks traded in the Western Mediterranean and Spain, but only very little remains from that earlier period.[1] Contacts developed undisputedly from 600 BCE, between the Celts and Celto-Ligurans and the Greeks in the city of Marseille and their other colonies such as Agde, Nice, Antibes, Monaco, Emporiae and Rhoda.[1][8] The Greeks from Phocaea also founded settlements in the island of Corsica, such as at Alalia.[9] From Massalia, the Phocaean Greeks also founded cities in northeastern Spain such as Emporiae and Rhoda.

Before the Greeks came to pre-eminence in the Gulf of Lion, trade was mainly handled by Etruscans and Carthaginians.[9] The Greeks of Massalia had recurrent conflicts with Gauls and Ligurians of the region[10], and engaged in naval battles against Carthaginians in the late 6th century (Thucydides 1.13) and probably in 490 BCE, and soon entered into a treaty with Rome.[7]

According to Charles Ebel, writing in the 1960s, "Massalia was not an isolated Greek city, but had developed an Empire of its own along the coast of southern Gaul by the fourth century".[11] But the idea of a Massalian "empire" is no longer credible in the light of recent archaeological evidence, which shows that Massalia never even had a very large chora (agricultural territory under its direct control).[12] Greek Marseille eventually became a centre of culture which drew some Roman parents to send their children there to be educated. According to earlier views, a purported hellenization of Southern France prior to the Roman Conquest of Transalpine Gaul is thought to have been largely due to the influence of Massalia.[13][14] However, more recent scholarship has shown that the idea of Hellenization was illusory (and that the concept itself is seriously flawed). The power and cultural influence of Massalia have been called into question by demonstrating the limited territorial control of the city and showing the distinctive cultures of indigenous societies. Local Gauls were not philhellenes who wanted to imitate Greek culture, but peoples who selectively consumed a very limited range of Greek objects (mostly wine and drinking ceramics) that they incorporated into their own cultural practices according to their own systems of value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_pre-Roman_Gaul

Although the above provides a quote from a Historian who believed that Hellenisation was very influential and based on the artifact samples bellow, the writers of that passage still decided to incorporate their opinion as to whether Hellenisation was real or not. I believe it was not thorough but definitely considerable. Enough to influence their very mode of life, government and systems. Why else would they be printing coins based on Greek Mythology?

A Greek styled coin from Gaul 500-100BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sequani_coin_5th_to_1st_century_BCE.jpg

A Greek Coin found in Kent with what they think is a head of Apollo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunbury_hoard_Northern_probably_Kent_manfacture_Design_derived_from_Marseilles_Greek_coins_with_stylised_head_of_Apollo_and_butting_bull_between_100BCE_and_50BCE.jpg
I would like to see prove of that, if the church in the west used greek texst in the early stage that was more due to a lack of enough and proper latin translations. And the Vulgata we talked about previously was made far before 700 AD. Same for the fact that Theodoric spoke Greek. I can well imagine he spoke Greek, but that doesn't mean it was his primary used language, which was probably Latin, since that was the language in Italy. How many Gauls did go towards the east? I only know of a period of invasions around the time of the succesor wars of the Diadochi, who mostly settled in Galatia (hence it's name).
The early church did use Greek.
The extensive use of the Greek in the Roman Liturgy has continued up to the present, in theory; it was used extensively on a regular basis during the Papal Mass, which has not been celebrated for some time. The continuous use of Greek in the Roman Liturgy came to be replaced in part by Latin by the reign of Pope Saint Damasus I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damasus_I
But the quote and article make a small mistake. Damascus issued the order to make a Latin Bible to correspond with the one that Constantinople was using. But it was Pope Gregory in 600AD who allowed it's usage.

Also there is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallican_rite
The Gallacian Rite was most notebally influencing the majority of Gaul upto 500AD.
The first area is that of biblical translation, as Augustine, at once praising Jerome’s “careful effort” in Greek commentary, unflinchingly calls on him to give “the very weightiest authority” to the Septuagint over the Hebrew texts, “without any controversy” (28.2). The implication is that Jerome’s insistence on translating the Hebrew is misguided and requires correction. The second area is citation of Origen, a favorite Father of Jerome’s, whose heretical views render questionable his inclusion in an account of “famous men”; thus Augustine requests Jerome “inform us of his mistakes,” even going so far as to “ask that... you publish” an entire book on heretical teachings (40.9)! The question lingers in the air, whether Jerome’s beloved and oft-cited theologian renders his own views problematic.

Which of course returns to the primary challenge: the frightful notion that Jerome “undertook the defense of a lie” (28.3) such that “the authority of the divine scriptures is crumbling” (28.5). In the next letter Augustine moves from humble questions to actual exegesis, articulating the issue of “the sacraments of the Jews” (40.4) and its resolution in the New Testament. In the boldest move of any of the letters, Augustine calls on Jerome to “take up genuine and truly Christian severity with love to correct and emend that work, and sing, as they say, a palinodian” (that is, issue a formal retraction of his previous position; 40.7). However roundabout or poetic the composition, Augustine of Hippo has rebuked Jerome of Bethlehem.
http://resident-theology.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/augustine-and-jerome-less-than-saintly.html

It is hard to find Orthodox opinions on English websites. So read the above with the caution that Augustine was not trying to make a name for himself he was a Bishop well known in Africa. He was warning Jerome not to deviate away from the accepted Byzantine texts and to use the Septuagint in his translation. The consequences he felt would create a divide in the church if he did otherwise. The Septuagint was considered more accurate than the Hebrew by the original church.
You almost seem to think that rome was a puppet state of the greeks that only got so powerful, because Greeks and Macedonians were fighting amongs themselves. That truly goes against the great achievements of the Romans, especially their success in making former enemies fight with them as allies in new wars. They conquered Italy, drove the Greeks out, even though Pyrrhus tried to stop them with a large greek army. They defeated the great Carthaginian empire on their own even though Macedon did try to stab rome in the back. By then they already became a superpower, with an advanced and experienced military. The Macedonians fielded a professional army at Pydna, that was larger than the roman army, yet were soundly defeated. Pydna and Cynoscephalae are by some seen as the victories of the manipular/cohort system over the phalanx. The truth is that the phalanx system was not fit to fight against a roman legion. The phalanx fought in one big line, with little room for changes, whereas the romans had tacticle abilities and reserves.
I believe that the psyche of the early Romans was that they felt to be Greeks. Even if many towns nearby and the laity were Latin speakers. They considered Greek education as the most highly sought after thing. There was little to distinguish the Roman from the Greek. Rome was just as much a Hellenistic state as was Carthage, Alexandria, Parthia, Bactria. But unlike those places the intermingling of Greek and the local populace created a very strong bond almost an extension of Greece itself. When the Latins took over Rome they continued to be educated in Greek. The majority of their inventions and achievements were derived from that education. Because the Greeks never united as an empire and kept independent small kingdoms it made it very easy for one Rome to pick off one city at a time. The Greeks despised the idea of a central monarch ruling an empire. They believed each city was free and unique based on their well entrenched ideas of Democracy. Rome didn't march against all of the Hellenistic kingdoms it marched on one city at a time. It took 3 Generals to contain Spartacus, and more to deal with Mithridates. One city vs an ever increasing empire of cities. But when Diocletian(being a Greek) partitioned the empire in 285AD he essentially restored the dominion of Magna Gracia. Constantine making the official religion Christian for the empire caused it to spread even faster than it had done. Because of the great influences the Greeks had throughout Western Europe the Bible in it's Greek form was able to piggy back the armies of Rome into many regions East and West. If it wasn't for the Roman empire and the Greek language the Bible may have not been as successful as it was.

Now I think you are confusing what I say as the "common language" I do not mean that local dialects or languages became extinct. I mean that it was common for people to know Greek. It was later common for people in Western Europe to know Latin. But all the Church liturgies were essential


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Basse
Clubman
posted 03-08-12 10:45 AM ET (US)     37 / 44       
Since this is turning to "Wall of text" vs "Wall of other text", I think I'll just continue reading since I find this interesting

Just a small note:
I live in a British colony that took over Australia. I have seen what it takes first hand. I guess I know how long it takes for a colony to take roots.
You didn't start this colony, right? So you don't really know how long it takes. Some colonies takes longer than others to take roots. Just by saying one did, doesn't mean all did.
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-08-12 06:33 PM ET (US)     38 / 44       
Yes true.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 03-09-12 01:40 PM ET (US)     39 / 44       
This discussion has gone well offtopic
Rome was just as much a Hellenistic state as was Carthage, Alexandria, Parthia, Bactria
Rome, nor Carthage nor Parthia were Hellenistic, they were strongly 'Hellenized' (just as some contries are Westernized but that doesn't mean that they are part of the 'western countries') but that's different from Hellenistic. Those three states did have a very strong greek cultural influence but they didn't have a greek or greek descendant ruling class, so they can't be counted as hellenistic. In Carthage we see the fusion of the Phoenician and the Hellenistic cultures, while in Parthia under the Arsacids we see the fusion of the Persian and Hellenistic cultures. In Rome (and Italy in general) however maybe the influence of the Greek Culture felt stronger maybe because of it's geographic position near Magna Graecia, and the lack of other nearby complex urban societies (Greek culture also influenced the Etruscans before rome was the Pre-eminent state in central Italy).

Also Alexandria was the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt (which was indeed an Hellenistic state), but it was not a state on its own.
ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-09-12 03:42 PM ET (US)     40 / 44       
When Rome took Carthage it gave citizenship to the local Greeks but not the Jews that were in the city.


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-09-12 03:52 PM ET (US)     41 / 44       
Carthage was razed to the ground, most of it's people either fled to nearby towns/villages, were killed or enslaved. It usually took quite a while before inhabitants would receive citizenship, and due to the history between carthage and rome it would certainly have taken a lot of time.

Maybe you should read the works of polybius, he was a greek after all. And he fought the romans, before becoming a hostage and friend of scipio. You'll see that he supports my view.

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-09-2012 @ 03:56 PM).]

ephestion
Clubman
posted 03-09-12 08:47 PM ET (US)     42 / 44       
I love your mod by the way. I just wanted to rile you up a bit

I doubt they left Carthage in good condition. But some historians maintain there were large Greek and Jewish communities in Carthage. The citizenship probably came much later during Roman rule (60BC?)


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde
"I don't think I'm smarter than you because you believe in God. I think I'm smarter than you because you're absolutely nuts. -Stormraider responding to me."
Basse
Clubman
posted 03-10-12 06:30 AM ET (US)     43 / 44       
Weren't all Carthages population either killed or sold as slaves? I doubt the Romans would be favorable to Greeks. I think the Greeks suffered as much as the rest of the population when the Romans razed Carthage.
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 03-10-12 06:38 AM ET (US)     44 / 44       
Carthage would certainly have had quite a large greek merchant population. I'm not sure about jews, it seems to me that the spreading of large numbers of jews only happened after the failed rebellions vs roman rule in the 1st century AD.

Probably not all inhabitants would have been killed or enslaved, but the larger part would have been enslaved or killed.

It did take quite a while, but eventually the romans rebuilded carthage, probably as a roman colony. Africa played a major part in the grain supply for the roman empire and many veterans settled in the area. A shame (north) africa isn't as fertile as it used to be. The western empire was dealt a great blow when they lost North-Africa, due to the grain supplies and high tax income.
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames