There wasn't really much difference at first, and their expansion, as someone else already said, was mostly done in the republic period. It wasn't even called empire at first, as well as the ruler wasn't called emperor, since romans loathed kings and emperors.
Thank you, you just made my point.
Egypt definitely predated Justinian, Charlemagne, and Julian, I'm saying what people associate with the legacy of "Rome" is really the combined legacy of several places at once, that's all I'm saying.
It's simply that as a concept it was historically associated much more with Egypt (and frankly, other places entirely in some form or another) than Europe.
There were several kingdoms and empires before Rome and Egypt (putting aside the Egypt Rome conquered was vastly different from ancient Egypt).
Thank you, you just made my point.
I don't even get what is your point. That the concept of 'empire' wasn't born with Rome? Of course not. That doesn't mean anything in terms of the influence Rome had in history.
@AlleluiaElizabeth: yeah, I used the wrong world. I meant the Veil in any case.
There were several kingdoms and empires before Rome and Egypt (putting aside the Egypt Rome conquered was vastly different from ancient Egypt).
Egypt is pretty old there, but true, but that wasn't my point anyway.
And who said they weren't different? And who said they can't also share similarities from time to time?
I don't even get what is your point. That the concept of 'empire' wasn't born with Rome? Of course not. That doesn't mean anything in terms of the influence Rome had in history.
Lol then you would accept essentially then therefore to constrain Rome's influence to it's pre-Empire era of mere conquest and running around fighting and such, thus confirming my original point that it's inherently value as culture was minimal? Once divorced from moderate Greek rip-off and the transformation of Dynastic imperatives, that were easily considerably more potent as influencing Charlemagne and every other monarch in "European history?"
I think you just want the cake to be made without batter, or that is to say, that there was no batter, the cake just appeared one day.
And that's not even getting to where we even view Charlemagne or whoever in the grand sweep of history.
Egypt is pretty old there, but true, but that wasn't my point anyway.
And who said they weren't different? And who said they can't also share similarities from time to time?
You didn't. I just have/had difficulty in understanding what your point was.
Egypt definitely predated Justinian, Charlemagne, and Julian, I'm saying what people associate with the legacy of "Rome" is really the combined legacy of several places at once, that's all I'm saying.
Um, Egypt predated them sure, so what? I really have no idea what you're trying to get at. We've been talking about the legacy of Roman civilization.
Egypt is pretty old there, but true, but that wasn't my point anyway.
And who said they weren't different? And who said they can't also share similarities from time to time?
Lol then you would accept essentially then therefore to constrain Rome's influence to it's pre-Empire era of mere conquest and running around fighting and such, thus confirming my original point that it's inherently value as culture was minimal? Once divorced from moderate Greek rip-off and the transformation of Dynastic imperatives, that were easily considerably more potent as influencing Charlemagne and every other monarch in "European history?"
I think you just want the cake to be made without batter, or that is to say, that there was no batter, the cake just appeared one day.
It might help us to understand what your arbitrary standard for "value as a culture" is.
Well anyway sorry we're probably steering OT here. I think someone else mentioned Rome first and all that wasn't me I swear!
I am relaxed. I'm just a hard hitter and some people here can't take it.I really don't want a conversation. I just wish you'd relax... maybe smell the roses. Listen to the birds, if you have time.
Um, Egypt predated them sure, so what? I really have no idea what you're trying to get at. We've been talking about the legacy of Roman civilization.
I was just arguing that the legacy of the "Roman civilization" was really just a combination of different legacies from disparate places and quite different in ethos at times, that's all.
Once you strip all that way, you aren't really left with... a lot.
Well anyway sorry we're probably steering OT here. I think someone else mentioned Rome first and all that wasn't me I swear!
On that, it might've been me, I used Rome's actions after the third Punic war as an example of the treatment of elves post-war.
I was just arguing that the legacy of the "Roman civilization" was really just a combination of different legacies from disparate places and quite different in ethos at times, that's all.
Once you strip all that way, you are left with well "Modern Italy" which is really just like modern Italy.
As an Italian, Rome as the republic/Empire in the past has little to do with modern Italy.
I disagree anyway on your point, but I agree that we went way too OT.
As an Italian, Rome has little to do with modern Italy.
I disagree anyway on your point, but I agree that we went way too OT.
I edited it, that wasn't correct 
I was just jumping across time. I meant to just say Rome's uniqueness was limited.
I must confess I don't know anything about modern Italy really, but my brain got jambled. I think my idea was that Rome was just kind of this minimalist, and therefore, my brain was going to that modern Italy is whatever it is, as in, different, as a consequence of that specific Roman heritage, was, as I've been arguing this whole time, quite minimal.
I know someone that's been there never been there myself, apparently, quite nice ![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Egypt definitely predated Justinian, Charlemagne, and Julian, I'm saying what people associate with the legacy of "Rome" is really the combined legacy of several places at once, that's all I'm saying. Heck it predated every single Roman "emperor.:
Nero Caligula Augustus, Theodosius, Romulus, Constantine, all of them, Byzantine as well."
It's simply that as a concept it was historically associated much more with Egypt (and frankly, other places entirely in some form or another) than Europe, but in this case happens to matter because geographically they are close to each other and well had that whole story.
That is indeed a fair point. The first accepted case of empire, for example, is the Akkadian Empire, in which Akkadians managed to control Sumerian and other people's city-states under a common rule. However, its territory would be smaller than modern-day Iraq. On the other hand, the conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt wouldn't be considered an empire under the common definition (a state exerting direct control over other nations by a common political rule).
The thing is, in no time of history do people remember all the precedents. The same they imagine their languages unchanging, they only remember what they can remember. A bit like Elvhenan being very great in some vague legends, but no elf (or human, or dwarf, or qunari, really) knows what it was like.
And that's why the Roman imperial idea was so strong. Only the Chinese one was stronger (and it influenced its part of the world, but that's another matter). By the time people like Charlemagne appeared, knowledge of Egyptian writing and history was lost. Nedvermind Mesopotamia. Now we think everything is clear thanks to modern Egyptology, but in those times they associated Egyptian kings with, well, Alexander and the Ptolemaic rulers, which is a great disservice to proper Egyptian dynasties. On the other hand, thanks to the common knowledge of Greek and Latin, even barbarians from the noth had some idea of what an "emperor" was... and they based it all on Roman models, going as far as taking the name (caesar, kaiser, tsar, czar).
Well anyway sorry we're probably steering OT here. I think someone else mentioned Rome first and all that wasn't me I swear!
Maybe someone mentioned the paralellism between Rome and Tevinter? 
In fact, we could argue the same for Tevinter: the Imperium isn't great, and did very bad things, and stole many things from the elves and copied many others from the dwarves. Yet their influence on Thedas is impossible to deny.
So humans and elves should stick together despite the distortion between the two?If by we you mean humanity in the real world, b/c it would lead to less violence against one another, fewer instances of misunderstandings escalating to fullblown fights, and would just all around be better for everyone. I'm honestly confused about why you are asking me why people should try to get along? Its better for both parties.
now when I say "get along" I don't mean a false, kumbiyah, glossing over of differences as if they don't exist. If there are grievances, they need to be aired out. I just think people, as a rule, should behave charitably toward their fellow man. And I mean that in the more philosophical sense, specifically, such as giving people the benefit of the doubt when they say something rather than assuming ill intent when there's no evidence of it. That kind of thing. The world and the human race would ultimately be better off with that attitude of charity being more prevalent.
The idea that you want to be friends with your neighbor, at least in the sense that you want to avoid doing them harm, should be something everyone should strive for with one another. The benefits of that are self evident, aren't they?
I edited it, that wasn't correct
I must confess I don't know anything about modern Italy really.
Understood. I kind of disagree on their society not being unique for the time (both in positive and negative) though in the end it was more about the influence in the centuries. Though I think it's better to stop this OT 
Maybe someone mentioned the paralellism between Rome and Tevinter?
I mentioned them a few times on different situation, both on Tevinter being loosely based on Rome and on the slave system on enslaving both elves and humans, as well as using one of their worst type of dealing with defeated enemies (Carthago) as a example with treatment of elves post- Dales-Orlesian war.
So humans and elves should stick together despite the distortion between the two?
Everyone involved would need to agree to and uphold the idea of "equality under the law" before it would really work, but yes. They're stronger together than apart when it comes to facing the existential threats that exist in Thedas, such as the darkspawn and eventually the evanuris, probably. If the darkspawn, Elgar'nan, or even Solas ends up killing them all, what do previous grievances matter?
I mentioned them a few times on different situation, both on Tevinter being loosely based on Rome and on the slave system on enslaving both elves and humans, as well as using one of their worst type of dealing with defeated enemies (Carthago) as a example with treatment of elves post- Dales-Orlesian war.
Yes, I think it was something coming from slavery, mentioning Roman slavery.
This thread has been incredibly lively today, I can't keep up with it! 
I am relaxed. I'm just a hard hitter and some people here can't take it.
Hard hitter of what? I don't even know what you're talking about sometimes. Like you're swinging at the wind. RAWR.
I wish I could get a gif of Mad Hermit, acting out his hard hitting. You guys know the animation?
I was just arguing that the legacy of the "Roman civilization" was really just a combination of different legacies from disparate places and quite different in ethos at times, that's all.
Once you strip all that way, you aren't really left with... a lot.
That's kinda the point, there's a reason we say "Roman Civilization" not just "The City of Rome", because we're not just talking about a city in Italy, we're talking about the entire civilization the Romans built connecting their conquered peoples throughout western Europe and the Mediterranean. Nor are we claiming Rome was the originator of every idea it transmitted to western civilization, though it was responsible for its own specific combination and interpretation of those ideas.
It's like Europeans should be friends with PoC despite the bloody history and say "let's get along"!
Not all the Europeans.
So you will love your enemy despite what evil they've done? Your enemy commited genocide, slavery, murderer, and all the horrible thing to a people they unleashed upon and won, you love your enemy still?
Depends, through, if the war is over they are no longer my enemies, why to continue this? I would not be here if this were true, americans would never accept a Russian in this forum.
The fact that he bundles all Europeans shows his ignorance.
Doubly worse since many have suffered themselves. Maybe even all at some point.
This is what modern education gives us. And if you want to worry about future wars, there's your culprit.
The fact that he bundles all Europeans shows his ignorance.
Doubly worse since many have suffered themselves. Maybe even all at some point.
This is what modern education gives us. And if you want to worry about future wars, there's your culprit.
I don't know if you monitors global news, through Brazil is in a critical political moment, some speeches, a lot in fact, has this argument. Blaming the ''white people'' for the country's misery.
your russian? Grr * gives playful hair russle*Not all the Europeans.
Depends, through, if the war is over they are no longer my enemies, why to continue this? I would not be here if this were true, americans would never accept a Russian in this forum.
Retour en haut