The bilinguality of the Romans appears on the stage of history in the first written documents of Roman history which witness that our Roman forefathers are in inseparable part of Hellenic Civilization long before Justinian the Great and long before Constantine the Great.

Already some 700 years before Constantine the Great moved Rome to the East, to wit already in the 4^th century B.C., Plato�s student Heracleides of Pontus calls Rome a �Hellenic city�,.......

The first author in history to write in the Latin language was Hellene named Livius Andronikus. In the 3^rd century B.C. he translated Homer in order to use him as a textbook to teach Latin and Greek to his Roman students. He also translated other works from Greek and wrote the first Roman theatrical works and poems. Thus from the very beginning the tradition was established whereby educated Romans learned Greek as the prototype of Roman letters. Thus rooted, bilinguality never ceased directing the evolution of the Hellenic Civilization of the Romans.

The first two historians of Rome, Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus, were Romans who wrote their histories about 200 B.C. not in Latin but in Greek.

From about 150 B.C. all educated Romans knew the Greek language and literature well.

At about this time even the more rustic Roman elite, who as a group were at first hestitant vis-�-vis Greek, were compelled to learn Greek for commerce and for the administration of the Greek-speaking provinces.

From the first century on it became customary for Roman aristocrats to complete their education by studying in Greece

In 91 B.C. he last major war broke out between. Latins and Romans. About one year prior to this, in 92 B.C., the Romans closed the Latin schools of rhetoric and thus compelled the students in Rome to study at the Greek schools alone. In time the Latin schools reopened and the use of Latin was strengthened since the Latins faithful to Rome were used in the colonization of new Western provinces.

During this period the position of translator in the Roman Senate was abolished and the use of Greek without translation was permitted to visiting speakers, since all the Roman elite knew Greek fluently.

Almost all the emperors knew but among them Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and others had an exceptional knowledge of Greek.. Julius Caesar, Tiberius and Marcus Aurelius wrote Greek works.

The most prominent Roman writers who wrote also in Greek, are among others, Cicero, Germanicus and Souetonius.

Some sources report that the last words uttered by Julius Caesar while being stabbed to death were directed to Brutus in Greek, ....; �You too, my child?�

Another interesting point is the 'Roma' does not have a satisfactory meaning in Latin, but in ancient Greek 'Rhommios' means power or force.

Coincidence?

This topic does not talk of Greek superiority or anything of that such, so your example does not follow. The Romans love for greek culture is not hidden, it is very easy to find, so this topic is not radical such as your German Master Race idea.

I've read plenty, and can still say that the work of one random guy (does he even have a degree to his name?), who, because of his nationality could very well have Greek leanings, will make me believe Rome was a purely Hellenic culture.

I'm curious, what was the point in trying to make us believe Rome was Hellenic ?  I'd say it has something to do with a very clear pro-Greek agenda several of our members have...

I won't deny for a moment the Romans were heavily influenced by the Greeks, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that. But to actually go so far as to say the Romans were Hellenized is unfair. It defers alot of the credit that this magnificent culture deserves to be acknowledged for.

The Romans developed a unique and complex political structure. Some might liken it to the Spartan bi-monarchic system, which would be unfair as Rome's was different in so many ways such as the offices being temporary etc. The Romans did glean much from Greek architecture, but they innovated with new column designs, creating the proper arch we know of today and inventing the dome. The Romans also created an army based on very different rules of engagement, whos composition and function differed alot from Greek armies. Most Roman gods were Greek derived, but the Romans adopted cults from many areas; the eastern cult of Mithras and Egyptian cult of Isis being very popular.

 The Greeks made valuable contributions to Roman civilization, but that civilization was in so many ways distinct and original in its own right. The author here makes some nice points, but fails to demonstrate Roman society was largely Hellenized. Marcus Porcius Cato, who I admittedly have not read for about six years, actually complains in the second century BC about the introduction of many Greek trends which he claims weakened Roman virtue. While I think he is a bit of a stuffy old man who dislikes the new "groovy" trends entering Roman society (we have alot of such men around today doing the same thing), the fact that an established aristocrat from a long time noble family is complaining about Greek customs entering Roman life demonstrates something: the Romans had their own distinctive culture which was original enough not to be synonymous with the Greeks. Also, why is it that AFTER the East Roman Empire is designated we find the local inhabitants pressuring the government from below to translate the language of law and government from Latin into Greek? If higher Roman society was as saturated with Greek culture as this author claims then a 300 year struggle to replace Latin with Greek as the language of officialdom should not be necessary. I have more points but work is finishing and I need to catch the train. Adios.

Parmenion & Phallanx, go a long way to show their ulta-right, nationalist face. I don't know guys, perhaps you read too much of "Tiletora" material, but trust me, while ancient Greece has given much to the (western) world and Rome was indeed influenced by the Greeks, it's far from being "Hellenized".

PS

Dome was indeed used by the Greeks but the Romans perfected it and invented the arch.

LOL guys, I am enjoying this!

Most of the arguments presented here are either pro- or contra- this article/study/whatever. But how can one single individual cause so much controversy? I'll tell you how. Because some people are quick in adopting any attractive idea and others are absolutely adamant in rejecting any different idea. There are few of us in here (myself included) that sometimes are sweetened by something we read and sometimes we are terrified with the idea that history might actually not be what we have been brought up with. So any kind of presentation that either supports or discredits what we are accustomed with will find strong supporters as well as fierce rivals.

But back to the subject: No, Rome was not Hellenised or whatever-ised by anyone. It was Rome and it evolved. It was an empore which originated from many things, rose, peaked, and then declined and crumbled. As all empires. It was influenced and it changed, as it met new things, cultures, civilisations, customs, ideas and so on, during its expansion.

My view.

I have long ago rested my case with you !!

.....right-wing, Turk and Macedon bashing, xeno- and homophobic Greek ultra-nationalists, who, thank God, however only represent a very small minority both in Greece and AE.

Well done Komnenos!!! You are a honest broker!

My apologies for the mistake about the dome. That is the great thing about this forum, we can make contributions to the study of history and at the same time each one of us is stimulated and encouraged to learn new things or correct false ideas. I suppose I made that statement because I remember seeing a huge Roman domed building in which stands that hallmark statue of Octavianus, while I had not seen anything of comparable splendour amongst ancient Greek remains. If you have a link I wouldn't mind checking out the classical Greek domes though.

Also I would like the check the credentials of this author. This is not the sort of thing that heats me up on an emotional level. There are alot of arguments either way about how Hellenized the Romans were, it is one of those issues where a debate can drag on for ever. In such instances where the sheer mass of different arguments make the whole topic totally inconclusive an examination of the credentials of the authors is often quite useful.

I can't find a proper picture of the interior so please settle with these ones! The famous Roman dome that you refer to is probably the Pantheon. Of course the most famous of all domes is the Agia Sophia one!

http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/19.html#2 - http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/l essons/les/19.html#2

http://home.att.net/~a.a.major/treasint.jpg">

For those who have the "fighting" mood:Guys,take a break.It's summer.

well, the arch was invented by Assyrians, we already had that discussion and Ashur when he was still active had written an article about it.

Of course Greek and Latin are two different languages. But Latin has more similarities in comparison with the Greek than with the other ancient Indoeuropean languages. But we can't claim that it's a descendant of the Greek language. Only the Latin alphabet derives from the Greek.

 i wonder why too....

Why do people use my name, there was a stratego's, and now romanosstrategos, i thinkl theres only room for one around here

Hah, maybe some Menippo's or Romennipos will pop up too.