Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

irishtimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–146 of 146 posts

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#141

Post by dmix »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #81
dmix wrote: post #79

Anyone have any good articles/books on why Greece has never reached greatness or similar status to other EU powers since the middle ages? Especially given their influence on the enlightenment, mathematics, philosophy, and Roman culture itself - which spread throughout the western world. I've always been curious why they have stagnated so much since and been so... mediocre. I guess you could say the same about Macedon…

We have a good life at low cost in our "mediocre" home, and travel to London/New York to do all that economically productive stuff that no sane person actually enjoys it is the next stage of civilizational evolution, look forward to it America :)

> all that economically productive stuff that no sane person actually enjoys

If that's the culture of modern greece then that explains a lot in itself. I guess the tentacles of socialism are still strangling Greece and it's legacy has been embedded in their culture [1].

> We have a good life at low cost

Not to make this political but that lifestyle clearly hasn't exactly been sustainable and has been heavily subsidized externally AND internally. Which will cripple future growth for years to pay for yesterdays misteps.

The fact all economically productive people leave to other places says as much about the anti-business enviornment present in Greece as much as it does about people's lifestyle choices there. No one wants to leave their hometown to make a living or do great things. It's always a consequence of trade-offs (ie, taxation, regulatory sanity, access to talented, hardworking, and educated people, excitement/apathy towards the future of the country, etc).

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/01/greek-disaster-is-all-about-...

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#142

Post by asveikau »

dmix wrote: post #138
asveikau wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that somewhat the whole story of today's southern europe? The benefits of modernity probably means they live better than they ever did, but most southern european states are to some varying extent living in the shadow of former glory. Perhaps a lesson in the gap between economics and worthiness or merit.

> Isn't that somewhat the whole story of today's southern europe? I wasn't just talking about the modern era though but the last few centuries including the modern century plus...

I know. And each of the southern european states has a slightly different heyday too.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#143

Post by pdonis »

lou1306 wrote: post #100
pdonis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (once defeated, Greece conquered its savage captor) A better translation would be "captured Greece has conquered its savage captor", since that better captures (pun intended) the intended parallel between capta and cepit --both are forms of the same verb. (Also cepit is perfect tense, hence "has conquered".)

Thanks! English is not my mother tongue and I thought "captured" would have sounded a bit too archaic.

> English is not my mother tongue and I thought "captured" would have sounded a bit too archaic.

I don't think so. "Captor" might be, though, even if "captured" isn't. Another possible translation that doesn't use "captor" would be to swap words around to: "Conquered Greece has captured its savage conqueror". That actually might better match the sense of the original Latin in modern English; the Latin victorem is probably better translated as "conqueror" than "captor".

(Edit: One other more pedantic refinement: "Conquered Greece has captured her savage conqueror." Since the Latin Graecia is feminine, not neuter.)

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#144

Post by oblio »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #135
beat wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought I was quite clear. Greece and Italy are, effectively, part of the Orient, due to their contiguous connection to the Mediterranean and easy shipping access. Greece is closer to Persia than it is to the British Isles! The straight-line cultural connection from northern Europe to classical Greece is mostly a myth, established to sell a sense of importance to the Johnny-come-lately imperialists of Britain, Holl…

>> Greece is closer to Persia than it is to the British Isles! Geographically, certainly. Culturally, not at all. The Persian wars (and even Alexander's campaign) were already portrayed as a clash of civilisation by their contemporaries. The difference between one big, monolithic empire vs many agile city-states (a few of them even democratic, to different degrees) was not easy to miss and it becamse a main theme of…

Note: Current Romania never claimed to be a descendant of the Roman state, unlike those other countries you mention. Byzantium was actually the valid successor of the Roman Empire, since the Romans themselves made it and it was a splinter of the former empire. The HRE, Russia, the Ottomans, etc., were all claiming the former Roman imperial glory.

Instead current Romania was named as such just based on the endonym (the name they gave to themselves) of the locals: Romanians. The name of the locals does imply a connection to the Romans, as their descendants, but that's it.

What I'm trying to say is a bit subtle, but basically Romania is a name which acknowledges a fact (the Romanians are descendants of the Romans/Latin speaking populations; not even our greatest enemy, Hungary denies this), not a claim to greatness. So the name is a logical extension of this fact, just like you'd call the land of the Greeks, Greece (or the land of the Albanians, Albania) :)

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#145

Post by cattlefarmer »

ssewell wrote: post #53
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #13

>After a few weeks of marching and countermarching by Philip and Flamininus in central Thessaly, battle was joined (almost by accident) at Cynoscephalae, hills known as The Dogs’ Heads. Invincible on flat ground as long as its flanks were protected, the phalanx was dangerously exposed on hillsides. Highly manoeuvrable, veterans of the Hannibalic war, the legionaries wreaked a terrible slaughter. One of the big factor…

Here's a video overview of the battle at Cynoscephalae, for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icdm7-df64k

Wow, that was amazingly good. I found myself holding my breathe in many moments, waiting for the next text to appear.

Re: Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires

#146

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

oblio wrote: post #144
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Greece is closer to Persia than it is to the British Isles! Geographically, certainly. Culturally, not at all. The Persian wars (and even Alexander's campaign) were already portrayed as a clash of civilisation by their contemporaries. The difference between one big, monolithic empire vs many agile city-states (a few of them even democratic, to different degrees) was not easy to miss and it becamse a main theme of…

Note: Current Romania never claimed to be a descendant of the Roman state, unlike those other countries you mention. Byzantium was actually the valid successor of the Roman Empire, since the Romans themselves made it and it was a splinter of the former empire. The HRE, Russia, the Ottomans, etc., were all claiming the former Roman imperial glory. Instead current Romania was named as such just based on the endonym (th…

I didn't know there is antagonism between Romanians and Hungarians. I guess, historically and geographically speaking it was inevitable :/
Post reply on HN