Reading that Roman culture grew out of a community of farmers, as opposed to ancient Greek culture's growing out of the aristocratic/heroic tradition really makes me wonder. Did the Romans create such a vast empire because their culture's origin was simply more vulnerable than tghe Greeks'?
Maybe the Greeks of antiquity just weren't cut out for such an empire because of their focus on the development of a "whole man." That is, a person who was both physically and mentally fit - but not with one or the other at the fore. No, their ideal, according to Marrou, was to have these two aspects of the human person in balance. In short, the Hellenistic Greeks wanted to transcend the mundane and waken from the world of shadows to the world of Forms. Though, that transcension was regarded as an end in itself. The Romans on the other hand always had their eyes on the Empire and Rome's glory (and, later, early Christian ideals).
Once again, maybe that difference comes from the two's very different origins. With origins in agriculture and labour the early Romans would be interested in keeping their traditions alive and sticking close together. As those who lived without the luxury of slaves or a lofty social position, they would likely be left feeling quite vulnerable otherwise. Such values would then make their way into the Empire because of its emphasis on maintaing tradition.
So perhaps, however cyclical the process, the Romans were simply bound from the start to achieve what they did.
Don't forget that this has more to do with narrative than any sort of historical truth. The Romans wanted to portray a certain vision of their past, so they wrote their story that way. A story, remember, that was almost exclusively written by the same type of aristocratic elite that chose to write a different story of Greek history.
ReplyDelete