Romano British/Graeco Roman
Dave Parkhill
combined cultures, such as Roman Britain? I have a vague memory of the
conquering or colonizing country or state being first, but cannot find
any "proof" to back up this memory.
Thanks
Dave
Ed Cryer
"Dave Parkhill" <lu...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
news:47cfe01e$0$23652$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
The two examples you give both sound right to me. And that's
corroborated by trying them the other way around, when they sound very
wrong.
However, Rome conquered Greece despite "Pyrrhic victories".
Is it perhaps older culture first?
Ed
ozandy
news:fqpg2i$bsi$1...@aioe.org...
for example. Perhaps it is the dominant culture first, as occurs in the two
examples, if you take dominant in the sense of culturally dominant.
Andy
Ed Cryer
"ozandy" <nos...@myprovider.com> wrote in message
news:2RcAj.2$hr3.1@trnddc04...
It's difficult to say that Greece dominated the Roman world; apart from,
that is, a few intellectuals who were bowled over by Greek literature
and learning.
Most Romans regarded Greeks a shifty characters to be treated with great
suspicion.
And the Roman pragmaticism that invented the arch and concrete rather
looked down on Greek theorising.
Ed
ozandy
>
> "ozandy" <nos...@myprovider.com> wrote in message
> news:2RcAj.2$hr3.1@trnddc04...
>> "Ed Cryer" <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:fqpg2i$bsi$1...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "Dave Parkhill" <lu...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:47cfe01e$0$23652$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> Is there "rule" or convention in academic writing when referring to
>>>> combined cultures, such as Roman Britain? I have a vague memory of
>>>
>>> Is it perhaps older culture first?
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> Doubt it. Hard to say which is the older culture between British and
>> Roman for example. Perhaps it is the dominant culture first, as occurs in
>> the two examples, if you take dominant in the sense of culturally
>> dominant.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> It's difficult to say that Greece dominated the Roman world; apart from,
> that is, a few intellectuals who were bowled over by Greek literature and
> learning.
> Most Romans regarded Greeks a shifty characters to be treated with great
> suspicion.
> And the Roman pragmaticism that invented the arch and concrete rather
> looked down on Greek theorising.
>
> Ed
>
rhetoric. That's what I was referring to. But I admit that to define that as
culturally dominant is a bit subjective. In that sense the word-order in
Greco-Roman would arguably derive from the fact that Greek civilization
flourished earlier than Roman, as you say. If you use "older" in the sense
of "reached a certain level of civilization or economic development first",
the same would apply between the Romans and the Britons, and your
formulation would explain the term. So perhaps this is the rule. It would
explain, for example, the term Anglo-American.
Andy
Ed Cryer
these terms. They sound correct to us merely because we've read and
heard them so often. But I don't think it would take too much to attune
our ears to other coinages; Romano Greek (perhaps for a program on life
in Neapolis about the time of Vergil); Britannico Roman (for one about
life amongst the Iceni tribes at about the time of the revolt of
Boudicca).
It's not that long ago when people thought the Venus de Milo was
beautiful, that it was a Greek original, and that ancient Greek statues
had stood unpainted bare marble; similarly for temples etc. And, of
course, they got their ancient history from old Hellenophiles like
Cicero, Horace and other classical writers.
We know differently; we've done more scientific research into the past;
we've seen the old slums of Pompeii. And when we read in Cicero that he
was called a "Graeculus" when he was younger, well, we know that was a
pejorative term rather than praise for his love of culture.
Ed
Larry Swain
Greco-Roman because a rather large and significant part of both culture
and territory during the early and high empire periods was Greek first,
then administratively taken over by the Romans, but the language and
culture remained largely Greek and was exported west. Hence Greco-Roman
. Romano-British simply refers to the British tribes who were part of
the Roman Empire in contrast to those Brits who weren't.
Robert Stonehouse
Britain has existed for a long time, compared with which the Roman
occupation (400 years?) was an episode. So _Roman_ Britain as
against, say, Anglo-Saxon Britain or Norman Britain. Adjective before
noun.
Gordon
wrote:
>
>It's difficult to say that Greece dominated the Roman world; apart from,
>that is, a few intellectuals who were bowled over by Greek literature
>and learning.
Nonsense.
The Eastern Roman empire abandoned Latin and and the Roman element
ceased to exist. If anybody dominated in this clash of cultures, it
was the Greeks.
"Apart from the Imperial court, though, the primary language used in
the eastern Roman provinces (i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire) even
before the fall of Rome had always been Greek.[149] Indeed early on in
the life of the Roman Empire Greek had become the common language in
the Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large
degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other
nations.[150] The language itself for a time gained a dual nature with
the primary spoken language, Koine Greek, existing alongside the
literary language, a variant of the ancient Attic Greek dialect.[151]
Koine gradually evolve into what became known as Medieval or Byzantine
Greek, the Empire's standard dialect." - Wikipedia
By the 6th century AD, even the emperors switched to Greek.
Also: "During much of its history it was known to many of its Western
contemporaries as the Empire of the Greeks because of the dominance of
Greek language, culture and population."
>Most Romans regarded Greeks a shifty characters to be treated with great
>suspicion.
Who is most Romans? Those who abandoned Latin and adopted the Greek
language and culture?
Anectodes are just that - you cannot generalize from anectodes. You
need facts and some thinking to draw conclusions.
>And the Roman pragmaticism that invented the arch and concrete rather
>looked down on Greek theorising.
>
>Ed
Fine, but:
Hippocratic medicine was theorising?
How about Heron's steam engine?
Or Archimedes' Screw?
Or Thales' solar eclipse prediction of 585 BC?
You are underestimating the Greek side of the coin.
Gordon
Ed Cryer
"Gordon" <So...@Noaddress.Com> wrote in message
news:0evgu3920f87ildg2...@4ax.com...
You're going to rewrite orthodox era-labelling. There's usually;
Classical Greek world
Hellenistic world
Roman world
Byzantine world (during which darkness descended on western Europe).
"Graeco -Roman" covers the first three.
As an example how about Aurelius Augustinus? What era did he belong to?
He lived through the sack of Rome by Aleric, and died in Hippo as the
Vandals were besieging it.
Ed
P.S. Horace once penned;
............................. Vos exemplaria Graeca
nocturna uersate manu, uersate diurna.
but the examples to be turned were literary ones since many regarded
Greeks very suspiciously, like Vergil in;
quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis.
Gordon
<e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
They always called themselves Romans and not Byzantines. "Byzantium"
was just the name of the old city before it became Constantinople.
"The term 'Byzantine Empire' is an invention of historians and was
never used during the Empire's lifetime. The Empire's name in Greek
was Basileia Ro-maio-n - "The Empire of the Romans" -- Wikipedia
It makes you wonder who conquered whom.
Gordon