If Rome never existed
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13549
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 14:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: If Rome never existed
Posted By: Irish Nation
Subject: If Rome never existed
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 19:47
|
If Rome had not conquered all the land it did do you think that the world would be the same? What if Rome as an empire never existed. It would change European history. Would we still be as advaced as we are now? The Romans spread Civilasation. So if it was not spread how would the old and new Europe be affected? ------------- Early this morning I signed my death warrant. Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 |
Replies:
Posted By: Ildico
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 22:58
|
If there was no Rome, there is a chance that Italy would not exist because it flourished after the destruction of the western empire.
Also, it's a mystery where all of the other famous leaders would have tried to conquer otherwise. ------------- Beauty is in the eye of that guy behind the spontaneous diversions, set aside for a good explorer, telling a story about the world. |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 23:12
|
I believe the world would have just gone on. whether Rome exsisted or not.
------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 04:42
|
It might be interesting to consider what our law-books would have looked like without Roman law as it's basis.... ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 10:22
|
Maybe we would still be in the early part of the Mediveal Age now?
It could mean it would take longer to reach our present state of technology. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 10:57
I doubt that. The countries that until about 100 years ago where technologically most advanced, mainly Western Europe, was exactly that part of the empire which fell the lowest in civilisation after the collapse of the Empire. I don't think our present day achievements lean that heavily on the Roman empire. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Greek Tragedy
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 16:30
Yes we would still be advanced as we are now without Romans, how did romans spread cililization when they were the last ancients? they took their cues from the ones before them. i hear rome was so advanced but yet other civilizations had great built buildings that we still dont know how they managed to do so early on, there was already running toiliets in houses and plumbing systems to get water to and from before romans, the Minoans of crete had it. there was already towns, cities. why they let romans take the credit i dont know, maybe they think it could not happen earlier before. didnt romans work with archemides to help them out? and medicine, science, philosophy, languages was already there in other civilizations. to say its the basis of modern civilization is wrong because others had that credit first and are said to. i doubt much would have changed actually.. washington is modeled after greek buildings, not colusseum. maybe wars and conquoring with romans would be different but romans dont still conquor greece, egypt and i dont see much imprint there, alexandria is a greek city. and christianity was brought by jesus and the real holy place, not rome and vatican. so i doubt much would have drastically changed at all.. unless romans invented the first football style stadium? is that their accompilishment? but the theater they didnt invent.
basically to me it would be one less empire, and they did not spread civilization, and i dont think many countries maybe western europe? take after rome, but eastern was always greek, and they went west too. anyway im always hearing britain and greece left imprints. so yes i dont think much would be different at all. the question is where would rome be without greece, there would be no senate inventions would there.. to go along with democracy? hmm |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 16:40
Nonsense. ------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 17:18
|
Roman empire might not be the most cultured civilization, but it was the most organized. They construct paved roads, aqueducts, theatres, civil services, post services, through out the whole europe and asia minor, this way they improved trade and communication between the nations.
Roman empire was the first empire that wasn't ''biased'', Greeks thought all the others as barbarians, Egyptians and Persians looked to the other nations with pride and superiority. Rome didn't care, if you were serving the empire, you were a roman citizen.
It was the first ''cosmopolitan'' empire, if you excuse my characterisation. The first european league.
-------------  Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 17:59
Civilisation is either spread by technological and intellectual exchange, or by political dominance by an advanced people over a less so. Or both. Which particular ethnic groups or states do the dominating and exchanging, is ultimately irrelevant.
The "progress" of civilisation follows its immutable laws and is an unstoppale one, without the Romans the details would have been slightly different, but we surely would have ended up where we are now.
If that is a good thing, I leave to your judgement.
But there is another question. What if Rome still existed?
Saw a book in the store that is based on this presumption:
Romanitas, a novel by Sophia McDougall.
The excerpts on the flashy website, however, are less than promising:
http://www.romanitas.com/ - http://www.romanitas.com/
------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Irish Nation
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 18:33
Its not Nonsense at all. The Romans did spread it. The lands around the Med were Ignorant apart from them. There was a lot of Places that were not. Like Greece. Macedonian. Egyot in the east medd. ect. But Take places like Gaul(France) The Celts were not halfe as advanced as the Romans. They spread there Civilised ways to them. They were savages. Well organised ones. But still Savages. Also i agree that Without Greece Rome would never have be a republic. But like it or not. They did spread Civilasation ------------- Early this morning I signed my death warrant. Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 18:43
I don't have anything against Romans, what are you talking about? 
Well, civilization is a relative concept. So it is impossible to decide which people were more civilized.
But of course! Roman was not an ethnicity. So how on earth could they despise people because of their races? I am pretty sure though, they felt they were superior to Celts or Germenics because of their different cultures. ------------- |
Posted By: Irish Nation
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 19:59
|
I never said you had anythnig against the Romans. Just correcting you on a mistake you made. ------------- Early this morning I signed my death warrant. Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 |
Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 20:30
If the roman empire did not exist. You should refer to the barbarian hordes of the western europe like the celts and the other tribes. Without them spreading civilisastion we would not have advanced to such technonlogy. Look around us rome is all around us. The Sewers and the sentate building in amercia. ------------- |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 02:41
|
If rome didnt, someone else would have, Etruscans probaly .. counting on the fact that the greeks were "safe' inside the hills ,but geographically the romans needed to conquer its barbarian neighbours to prevent the threat.This is why Rome expanded northwards and continued to expand to protect its borders.Carthaginians would be a good bet. It doesnt matter who they were a Strong exanding Empire they will leave their mark technologically and scientifically.
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 09:49
|
And also Rome built a lot of strong architecture buildings like the coliseum and enourmous aquedeucts that not only shows Roman greatness, but the potential and limitness power of human kind itself ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 11:42
|
Yes, but the thing is, the Romans did not invent things like the architectural arch or the senate. The only thing that was new and unique in the Roman Empire, was the enormous administrative achievement of governing such a huge empire.
But it was also this administration which collapsed first and most definately when the empire fell. It was not continued by later people, but reinvented. They would have invented it anyway, Romans or not...
And as alraedy mentioned above, knowledge is not only transferable throug an empire, and the Romans were not the only ones with the potential to create an empire. They were hardly unique... -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: sponge
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 11:50
Actually administrative system wasn't the only achievement of Romans. They had a unique jurisprudence far more advanced than their contemporaries. It is this jurisprudence that forms the backbone of all modern jurisprudence systems.
One more overlooked legacy of the Romans is the ascension of Christianity. Without RE there would be no need to reconcile all those diverse faiths and congregations in one particular religion. Christianity would never win more than a small minority and probably would die out or integrate with paganism in a few centuries.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 19:04
|
Rome did establish certain elements of Western Civilisation, from
public works and the founding of urban centres to legal code and
linguistic development. In the case of Western Europe, once the Romans
had established their presence there was simply no going back to the
way things used to be, the old petty tribalism was no longer the order
of things because Rome had taught that rulership on a grander scale was
possible. And as the civilisation which came out of Western Europe has
been the most influential one in recent centuries, the Roman legacy
echoes on. For those of us who live in societies shaped by Rome's political and cultural legacy, thinking what we would be like without Rome is kind of like thinking how we would have developed if our childhood had been radically altered at 8 years of age. ------------- |
Posted By: YusakuJon3
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 21:32
|
Without a Rome, I'd think that Hellenistic kingdoms would persist in
the Middle East and resume their ancient feud with the Iranians (ala the
Parthians and Sassanid Persia) before taking the brunt of
Mohammed's Islam. How well they'd have held out is open to
question, given that Rome was able to take 'em out really quickly. In the West, a combination of Gallic, Celtic, Germanic and Norse influences would be the foundation of modern law rather than the more centralized Roman model. Blood feud ("My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father...") would probably still be an acceptable means of carrying out justice and in the continuously shifting patterns of hostile states which jostle against each other in an ongoing vlkwanderung that may only be stopped by the Atlantic Ocean and the frontiers of Islam. Further East, the influences of the Turks, Mongols and Chinese would continue to spill out into the Russian steppe, leaving us with a more familiar Russia, albeit without the pretenses of being a claimant to Roman glory... ------------- "There you go again!" -- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s) |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 03:44
|
Blood feud ("My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father...") would probably still be an acceptable means of carrying out justice
Doubtful. Medieval Scandinavia aleady had laws and regulations to keep bloodfeud in check before they were conversed to christianity. Christianity is not a vital factor for this. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: sponge
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 11:48
An Islam without Christianity in power doesn't seem much likely because multinational monotheism began with Christianity.
But there is another scenario: Etruscans ruled the Rome in its primeval stage. Without Rome they wouldn't fall from power and would continue expanding further south expelling Greeks. Later stages may have been a replica of RE. In such a scenario there may not be much difference from Romans' considering their similar culture.
|
Posted By: Mumbloid
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 07:56
it's quite irrilevant who came first or who invented what first, yes the path of civilitation is long this is less important. The must important thing, was the wide spread use of thise "inventions" and we should not forget the romans shaped the civilitation in the way we know it today.
You seem to be quite biased, it is true must of what you mention was there before the romans, BUT the most important thing are they SHAPED IT in the way we kow it.
Without the romans, we will still live in a age of half iron/bronze age. Look t the civilitation around the world they were in the same tecnological stadie for eons, there is no reason why the world would change in so short time (only less than 2000y).
The romans removed the barriers between the different civilitation and made the contact between them easyer. With out forgetting, christianity without the romans would NEVER be so widespread as it is today.
The tecnological advancement we have today, they started in the middleage when some people made rebellion against the teocratical regime in Rome (M.Luther) later intellectuals and bankrs in the italian citystates (Firenze Milano ect) florished. This lead us in the age of reason (illuminism) and later to the rebellion angainst the king (and popes) see France and american revolution, along other similar revolution around the world, the birth of nationalism as we know it today, and the industrial revolution.....and now the digital revolution (bill gates
). So the Romans have a WERY central role in our civilitation, without them we will surely remain in the post stoneage culture.
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 10:16
The Etruscans may well have been already in decline by the time Rome took the offensive and they certainly weren't expanding. Furtheremore they were never united and the greeks appeared to have no problem dealing with them, indeed the Etruscans weren't particularly impressive soldiers. During the late 500's BC through to thier civilisation complete absorption by Rome, They were defeated in battle by the Romans, Celts, Samnites, Greeks and even the Umbrians with few victorys of thier own that I can think of (I'm not saying there weren't any). The Etruscans may have shared many aspects of Roman culture (or rather Rome adopted many aspects of Etruscan culture) but there were key differences, the Etruscans did not have Rome's confidence or determination (they gave up more easily) For one thing. They simply could not have become an empire like the one Rome became in the form they were. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 13:53
I think you largely underestimate the roman engineering with this statement. It is true that many of the roman "inventions" are actually improvements. Still I dare say that the sheer size and complexity of buildings, cities, roads, aquaducts and what nots are a unique feature in its self. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2007 at 00:38
|
If Rome never existed we would not be even close to where we are now. Christianity would not have progressed. The literature and mathematics and music and art and everything Rome gave us would be gone. Many of us would still live in our little villages, speaking different languages in each one. Without communication, we would have a measly society. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 10:08
|
These "what if" questions are completely pointless - how can we know? You can't even speak about the Turks and over nations coming over and history continuing in such a way, because the technology and migrations which happened with such nations was also a product of Rome. It is COMPLETELY pointless to even embark on such a large scale "what if?" question of history. ------------- |
Posted By: Balain d Ibelin
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 23:30
|
If Rome had never existed then......:
1. Whole of western and central europe will be at the Barbarians' Total Control
2. The Greeks and the Macedonian may expand its territories.
3. The Parthians will defeat the Egyptians and the Seleucids and rule the Middle East.
4. The Carthaginians will rule most of trade and Mediterranian Sea.
5. There will be no Constantinople.
6. The Whole of Italy mainland may be the Gaullic Tribes territory.
7. Ideas of Architectures at the Middle ages or renaissance or ideas of arts may not be founded.
8. The Jews will be more free and may spread to parts of Europe and middle east before Jesus was born and even will became an official Religion for some Barbarian tribes (!)
9. Even, maybe, without the Romans, the idea of Republic won't spread (Our countries now may be still empires or Kingdoms if there is no Rome)(!!!!!)
10. Without Rome, we will only have primitive (Ancient) Architecture and Art. ------------- "Good quality will be known among your enemies, before you ever met them my friend"Trobadourre de Crusadier Crux |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 08:41
|
...And the majority of world history would have been completly changed - so it's not really worth even discussing it ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 15:15
| If it wasn't Rome - it would have been Carthage. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 17:59
|
hmmm, now that is possible - it had a huge amount of domination all over the North Medditeranian, and with nobody else to really stop it - the Diodachi were to far away, and Massielles and the Latins were too small to do much, so they could have really dominated. What you have to consider though, are the numidians - they favoured the Romans and gave them loads of troops in their various expeditions (with the exception of the 2nd Punic war and the Jugurarthine wars), so they could have seen Carthage as a threat. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 17:58
|
It's very interesting,that of history-fiction.
About the matter of Rome... I guess world woudn't be so different. The prominent place of Rome would have been taken by Greece or Carthage. The different would be stronger in linguistics, since there wouldn't be Latin languages, such as Italian, French, Catalan or Portuguese. Maybe Greek would have been the European common language, and Celtic languages still would be main languages in Western Iberian Peninsula, Southern France. About technics, civilization and so, it would be just the same. Recall tha Roman culture was daughter of Greek. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 11:55
The topic is "if Rome never existed" so that wouldn't have happened. The Numidians also allied and traded with the Carthaginians on numerous occasions, so I see no reason why they wouldn't do so in the absence of Rome. The Numidians fell into the orbit of the two empires, switching allegiances at times, but in the absence of one empire, it is likely they simply would have fallen wholly into the orbit of the Carthaginians. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 15:30
apperantly everybody in this forum is " forgeting" a "small" detail:ALBANIANS or Albaneses
Some tribes from Latium have the names Albani, Albenses, Bolani, Abolani (Pliny, lib.III.9.16). The ancient authors often understood the entire Latin people under the terms Albani and Albanenses. Virgil calls all the cities of Latium urbes Albanae (Aen. VII. 601-2).
In the oldest inscriptions of Latium we often find the family name Albus and Albius (C. I. L. vol. I. nr. 122. 129. 468. 830; Tacitus, Ann. VI. c. 34; Strabo, lib. XI. 4. 4; Isidorus, Orig. XIX. 23. 7). Alba was an ancient king of Latium, son of king Latinus Silvius (Livy, lib. I. 3; Dionys. Hal. I. 71). Finally, we note here that the national religion of the Latinii of Italy was called lex Albana (C. I. L. vol. I. nr. 807), certainly in antithesis with lex Romana and with mos Romanus THE HISTORIE OF NATVRE,
WRITTEN BY C. PLINIVS SECVNDVS. Of old Latins, the Cascantenses, Erganicenses, Gracchuritanes, leonicenses, Ossigerdenses. Of confederates within the league, the Tarragenses. Tributaries besides, the Arcobricenses, Andologenses, Arocelitanes, Bursaonenses, Calaguritanes surnamed Fibularenses, complutenses, Carenses, Cincenses, Cortonenses, Dammanitanes, latrenses, Iturisenses, Ispalenses, Ilumberitanes, Lacetanes, Vibienses, Pompelonenses and Segienses. There resort to Carthage for law 62 severall States, besides the Islanders. Out of the Colonie Accitana, the Gemellenses, also Libisosona surnamed Foroaugustana: which two are endued with the franchises of Italie: out of the Colonie Salariensis, the Oppidanes of old Latium, Castulonenses, whom Csar calleth Venales. The Setabitanes, who are also Augustanes, and the Valerrienses. But of the Tributaries, of greatest name bee the Babanenses, the Bascianes, the Consaburenses, Dianenses, Egelestanes, Ilorcitani, Laminitani, Mentesani, the same that Oritani; and the Mentesani who otherwise are Bastuli: Oretanes who also are called Germani, the cheefe of the Celtiberians, the Segobrigenses, and the Toletanes of Carpetania, dwelling upon the river Tagus. Next to them the Viacienses and Virgilienses. To the assises or law court Cluniensis, the Varduli bring fourteene nations; of which I list to name none but the Albanenses. Of the Ligurians, the most renowmed beyond the Alpes, are the Sallij, Deceates, and Oxubij: on this side, the Veneni, and descended from the Caturiges, the Vagienni, Statyelli, Vibelli, Magelli, Euburiates, Casmonates, Veliates, and those, whose townes wee will declare in the next coast. The river Rutuba, the towne Albium Intemelium, the river Merula, the towne Albium Ingaunum, the port or haven towne Vadum Sabatium, the river Porcifera, the towne Genua, the river Feritor, the Port Delphini, Tigulia: within, Segesta Tiguloiorum: the river Macra which limiteth Liguria. Now on the backe side behind all these townes abovenamed, is Apenine, the highest mountain of all Italie, reaching from the Alpes with a continuall ridge of hils, to the streights of Sicilie. From the other side thereof to Padus, the richest river of all Italie, all the countrey shineth with goodly faire townes, to with, Liberna, Dertona a colonie, Iria, Barderates, industria, Pollentia, Carrea, which also is named Polentia, Foro Fulvij the same that Valentinum, Augusta of the Vagienni: Alba Pompeia, Asta, and Aqu Statyellorum. And this is the ninth Canton, after the Geographie of Augustus. This coast or tract of Liguria containeth between the rivers Varus and Macra 211 miles. To it is adjoined the seventh, wherein is Hetruria from the river Macra: and it ofentimes chaunged the name. In old time the Pelasgians chased the Umbrians from thence: and by them the Lydians did the like, of whose king, named they were Tyrhheni: but soone after, of their ceremonies in sacrificing, in the Greekes language Thusci (tosk- one of two major group of Albanians-their language is the official language today in Albania)
http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/map.html - http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/map.html http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/territory/map2.jpg -
Dictionary etruscan-albanian 580 pages
http://www.forumivirtual.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6374&d=1152212541 - http://www.forumivirtual.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6374&d=1152212541
http://www.forumivirtual.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6376&d=1152212706 - http://www.forumivirtual.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6376&d=1152212706
Name JUPITER
Virgil, Aen. VII.v.219-220) and Jupiter Latiaris, worshipped on the mountain Alban, did not represent the god of the third generation, the Hellenic Jove of the theomachy, who had usurped the throne of Saturn, but the great God of the Pelasgian nation, the divinity of light and atmospheric phenomena, to whom Saturn was assimilated, the historic representative of the tilling of the earth, of prosperity and abundance. The most famous cult of the great Pelasgian god, as known by history to this day, was at Dodona in the Epirus......(albania) |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 15:37
|
Well if Rome and the Roman empire never existed then wouldn't have missed a master piece in the list of new 7 wonders of the world, The Colosseum.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Colosseum_in_Rome%2C_Italy_-_April_2007.jpg">  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 16:21
|
If Rome had never existed, Spain would have remained as a part of the Carthagian Empire. Hispania had never existed. Spanish language wouldn't have developed, and Latin America would have a semitic name, I guess. In the east, the Bizantine Empire had not existed and Russia would not have an orthodox heritage. Lot of things would have been different, indeed. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 21:01
Well, Hispania did exist, but as geographic place. Obiouly Spanish language wouln'd exist, neither Catalan nor Portuguese etc. But I believe that Moors (maybe with another religion) would have invaded the Iberian Peninsula, provoking a similar political situation as today's. Language may be Celtic or Ibero-Basque. I don't think it may be Semitic, since Carthage , as well as Greece, never showed much interest in conquering the whole land. ------------- |
Posted By: Yllbardh
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 15:36
If rome didn't existed christianity to will also not have existed in the form we know it today 'cause christianity is an offspring of jewish resistance against roman invassion but who knows some kind of monoteistic belive maybe would had find the way of existence through partition from hebrewism.
|
Posted By: Garvm
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 00:42
|
If Rome didnt existed we still lived in a kind of Medieval Age...
Why?
Because the interpenetration of cultures, that boosted Europe, and by means of european intervention, the rest of the World, will never happen at the scale of the Roman Empire.
Romans are one of the few peolpes in History with a real civilization vocation and the Greeks or Carthaginians are traders in the heart, not interested in civilize the "other", unlike Romans.
|
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 05:25
|
hmmm. Carthage would have dominated the area. probably. If they were REALLY enterprising, they might have conquered, allied with, or helped organize tha gauls. might have taken over-perhaps more in terms of cultural influence than conquest-france and perhaps even north europe. Presumably wars between the middle east-Parthia, sassanids, pesians-and rome or greece might be replaced by wars between the middle east and the carthaginian-allied territories. It's possible, since the carthaginians were very intensive sailors and traders, that the americas might have been discovered earlier-perhaps not by a huge amount, but there's already evidence that some phoenicians circumnavigated africa, and the americas aren't a great deal further than that. and THAT might have resulted in a different picture of the americas as well-they might have had more chance (even with the fact that they would probably still get disease) to stay sovereign nations-which might have resulted in a hybrid fusion of cultures in the old world and the americas, each trading and learning from one another, and probably adopting pieces of culture, art, and science. Granted, these can only ever be just educated guesses-but this kind of thing is a nice way to apply the knowledge about cultural and technological trends and human nature procured by studying history to solve a sort of puzzle. people often get too preoccupied with LEARNING history, and not enough with USING it. A mental puzzle like this is a way to combat that tendency. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 05:27
Without Rome, Spanish would not have existed. We probably would be talking some dialect of Punic 
|
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 08:52
They doubtlessly felt superior to those outside of the empire but once a territory was within the empire it was a different matter. For example in the 4th century scholars from Gaul were teaching the children of the elite in Rome Latin grammer.
|
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 01:29
Posted By: TITAN_
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2013 at 04:01
|
Spam bots are the disease of the 21st century! ------------- αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν Een aristevin “Ever to Excel“ From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC). Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others. |