Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Author Topic: Dem Romans  (Read 10755 times)

Muz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dem Romans
« Reply #60 on: March 09, 2012, 04:34:22 am »

I think best were probably the Chinese, who have lived on through this day, and managed to repopulate the world without conquering anything.

China has gone through tons of empires over the period of it's existence.  All it's existed as is a group of people that we collectively call Chinese.  It has been conquered by foreigners repeatedly and has been divided into many different states many times.  Calling modern China the same state as the Han empire would be like calling NATO the re-emergence of the Roman Empire.  Sure the territory, culture, customs, language and form of government have changed and there is no continuous government or unity.  But a lot of the people are partially decedents of the old empire.

And no, the Chinese have not gone for millennia without conquering anything.  For one thing, what we call China is a bunch of conquered peoples that were forcibly integrated.  For another thing they've invaded a buttload of places that aren't part of China.  Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea and Tibet were all occupied for centuries.

Well, yeah, I rushed through the post, and left out details; didn't want to spend too much time posting :P

You're right, they're not the same thing. But culturally, they're very similar. They speak the same language, eat similar food, have similar cultural values. An empire that formed in the past shaped the boundaries and unity that the future empire uses.

I mean, you can't say NATO is the same as the Roman Empire, because you simply can't unite them as the same country. The EU has tried. Some members like Turkey, Italy, Spain, Slovakia, France are just too culturally different, even if most of them are white.

And what I meant by "repopulate the world without conquering anything" was that they've never invaded the USA or Australia and yet have managed to build up little Chinatowns in their cultural capitals. Ethnic Chinese everywhere have a strong impact on the world economy.


What I'm trying to say is that I view an empire's quality from their cultural impact.

For example, now, we're all communicating in English.. you can blame the English/British Empire for that, not the USA. My country switched from Arabic script to Roman alphabet, that's an impact of the Roman Empire and the British. Some Americans still speak Latin, it shows the impact of how the Roman culture still lives on... yet many Chinese today still speak and write similarly to the Chinese Empires of the past.

While arguably, modern China doesn't have the same governance or anything related to the Han/Qin/etc Dynasty, you'll find a good deal of modern PR China people who actually identify themselves with the Han/Qin/etc Dynasty and see it as part of their history. Similarly, you'll find Turks who recognize their cultural background as Ottomans, and plenty of Iranians who still consider themselves Persians (and not really Macedonians). Empires rise and fall, their military and governance goes obsolete, but that's how I consider the continuation of an Empire's spirit.


What political simulation were you playing, Muz? 

Cyber Nations. Horrible, oversimplified game mechanics. But that kind of simplicity makes it a powerful metagame, similarly to how Neptune's Pride's simplicity makes the game focused on diplomacy. Alliances are run similarly to nations. Most of the real game is quite meta-game. Wars are won not only over stats, but over psychology. Propaganda plays a vital role. Negotiation/people skills/emotions affect an alliance's health. Training and getting people to work together changes the game.

It's a bit off on some political bits - there's no resources to fight over, and trolling/griefing is a political motivator, but wars are started over many other things similar to RL. Culture does run strong, though mainly that culture is based on internet culture, following what sites they were recruited from or via mergers, mass exoduses, historical in-game conflicts/survival, intolerance to certain cultures.
Logged
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Dem Romans
« Reply #61 on: March 09, 2012, 05:00:27 am »

E2: Anyway, to actually contribute something, the only thing I've read recently on Rome was this, which was pretty interesting. tl;dr version, Rome became powerful by being (comparatively) tolerant and its fall went hand in hand with a reduction in tolerance. The author's got a pretty compelling message, actually.

The Romans were prone to genocide and completely Rome-centric. While they might've let all the silly little "barbarians" believe in whatever ridiculous version of the Roman pantheon they wanted, trying to portray them as any kind of benevolent rulers is just plain wrong.
Logged
Love, scriver~

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Dem Romans
« Reply #62 on: March 09, 2012, 07:04:55 am »

You're right, they're not the same thing. But culturally, they're very similar.
Not they aren't, China today is nothing like a feudal agrarian society of 2000 years ago.
Quote
They speak the same language,
No they don't.  Chinese dialects have gone through several changes over the years and Mandarin today is no more Han Empire dialects then Italian today is ancient Latin.  We don't even know how the Han empire era dialects were pronounced.  Furthermore the composition of dialects have changed dramatically.  So it's more like how modern Chinese is no more ancient Chinese then Spanish is ancient Latin.
Quote
eat similar food
Calling the modern Chinese diet the same as the Chinese diet today would be like saying that Americans eat a Roman diet because we eat a lot of vegetables, breads and cow products.
Quote
have similar cultural values
Not even remotely.
Quote
An empire that formed in the past shaped the boundaries and unity that the future empire uses.
Yeah, and the Roman notion of Europe shaped the future boundries of NATO when it first formed.  Doesn't mean they're the same thing, even remotely.
Quote
I mean, you can't say NATO is the same as the Roman Empire, because you simply can't unite them as the same country.
China today isn't a unified country and less then a century ago it could barely be called a country at all.  China has gone through tons of splintering over 2000 years.

The point of my example was to stress to you how little modern China is like the China of 2000 years ago.  Towards this end I picked a modern western political body with only the slightest relation to ancient Rome.  By metaphor I was hoping to illustrate how China is a completely different from ancient China.  You however seem to have bought into the stereotype that the China today is exactly the same as the ancient empires that occupied part of it's territory thousands of years ago.

In point of fact, the Romans lasted a lot, lot longer then any Chinese empire ever did.  The Eastern section of the Roman empire lasted for 1500 years between the Romanization of the Greek world and the final collapse of the empire.  The longest lasting Chinese empire lasted for about half of that.

And implying that the Roman empire doesn't have a large impact on modern culture or that the descendants of Roman people aren't common is just...
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 07:09:34 am by mainiac »
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Dem Romans
« Reply #63 on: March 09, 2012, 08:33:14 am »

The Romans were prone to genocide and completely Rome-centric. While they might've let all the silly little "barbarians" believe in whatever ridiculous version of the Roman pantheon they wanted, trying to portray them as any kind of benevolent rulers is just plain wrong.
It's also not even remotely what the book was saying, yes. Careful read: Benevolence has nothing to do with it, only tolerance and -- even more specific -- tolerance in comparison to other powers. Being nice people isn't the trick, it's all about being less violently xenophobic than the other big boys on the block.

The basic theory of the text is that tolerance -- again, in relation to other powers -- is the necessary (but obviously not sufficient, of course) condition for the formation of a hyperpower (something like Rome, Britain, some of the Chinese empires, the US, etc). Chua's other point is that the decline of tolerance in a culture marks the decline of the nation's status as hyperpower.  It's an interesting read, and the lady makes a pretty solid point without making sillyass claims like Rome or the Mongols were particularly benevolent.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 08:35:22 am by Frumple »
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Dem Romans
« Reply #64 on: March 09, 2012, 08:41:39 am »

Cool, then was just making sure that wasn't what you was trying to say.
Logged
Love, scriver~

Mr. Palau

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dem Romans
« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2012, 11:09:27 pm »

-snip-
 My country switched from Arabic script to Roman alphabet, that's an impact of the Roman Empire and the British.
-snip-
(unrelated trivia question) that would be Turkey, no?

I really think that the reason the Roman Empire collapsed was primarily economic mismanagment and the diffuculty of containing so many cultures in one Empire. Oh and the germanization of the legions, although that wasn't the primary cause. The reason the Roman Empire switched to less expensive Germanic troops was becuase they were short on money due to economic mismanagment. The decreases in tolerance would have further execerbated the diffuculty of maintaining an empire containing so many cultures. 

Logged
you can't just go up to people and get laid.

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dem Romans
« Reply #66 on: March 10, 2012, 01:40:30 am »

Regarding the population decline, I don't think that it's really a full answer. Black Death actually revitalized Europe, as the loss of manpower spurred innovation to compensate by increasing output per worker. The real problem that needs to be looked in is why the Roman culture didn't adapt similarly. And I suspect we'll find the same reason behind most of their other problems.
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]