[nemo]

I would suggest that you try taking a more modern approach to history that focuses more on learning about the subject while trying to see things without biases. Your value judgments about the Romans and the Greeks are where things fall apart for you, and they're unnecessary since there's actually no benefit in making that class of value judgment. If you could free yourself from that kind of thinking, and work as much as possible with evidence based reasoning about the past, I think you'd fare better in this domain.

[fngjdflmdflg]

My opinion is not so uncommon. I actually formed the opinion after reading several books about Rome; until then I had the same view as most here. That Rome was worse than what came before and after is gaining a lot of acceptance. It just isn't said as abruptly.

[nemo]

I did a Classics major and an MA, started on a PhD, and carried on studying since then for a few decades. I was a Hellenist in school, not a Latinist, and I share your admiration of the Greek's intellectual development, but your understanding of Rome is deeply ignorant. I saw younger students who fell for that ignorant view for a while, but they tended to outgrow it. Your view is an especially common one among the poorly educated, it's very immature which is just what makes it appealing, but it really is a foolish take to cling to, and does you more harm than help.

[fngjdflmdflg]

>Poorly educated

I find it is in fact the poorly educated who fetishize Rome. If you've never used any Greek math or studied the development of the early European universities then it is easy to see the the surface level buildings and statues of Rome where all roads lead to whereas looking at a maths textbook is all Greek to them. It's hard to accept Rome as being largely stagnant due to most people's unfamiliarity with the ancient world. Instead they compare Rome to the early middle ages in Europe as the barometer of a successful society for some reason.

[nemo]

I have read Euclid in Greek (and Proclus' commentaries on Euclid) and I'm a big fan of math history in general. My formal studies were tied in part to Greek mathematical history and axiomatization though more related to Plato & Aristotle, earlier stuff than Euclid. The issue here is your value judgments themselves, positive or negative, about Rome of the Greeks are actually stupid. The content of your thoughts outside those could be fine, but it's clearly very shallow, and until there's sufficient content there, your judgments are pointless. Once you reach that point that you have read widely in the Greek and Roman authors and read widely about the domain from scholars who are domain-experts, then you'd recognize that value judgments are not the point, and drop both your fetishization and your bashing, those are both stupid, and you're being stupid loudly here, you should be embarrassed. Rome is what it is, it's worth understanding, but turning it into some kind of historical foil for your bloviations is simply mindless and you should work to grow out of that.

This is my final statement on these matters, I have no interest in "debate" or conversation with someone who has no idea about what they're discussing and clings to strong value judgments over reason.

As someone who has studied these things for a very long time, perhaps longer than you've been alive, I have tried to help, but it is tedious.

[fngjdflmdflg]

I agree that the way I discussed the issue was wrong. I stand by my initial point that Rome was a dark age. I don't have "no idea" what I'm discussing. I agree that Rome is worth understanding, and I think the early humanist "we are far from the ancients" mindset that still exists today (for some odd reason) has gotten in the way of that. People seem to get lost in Rome's grandiose public works and lose sight of Rome's numerous faults. I think value judgments are warranted being that they are already being made. Wanting to go "back" to the ways Rome as many seem to desire to do (in some form) is clearly a value judgment as well as a severe error. Rome and it's culture simply did not value the natural world or abstract thought. That is perhaps what lead to the aimless conquest which in turn caused an almost global pause in scientific inquiry. Bedsides the issue with the layman understanding of Rome is also the perhaps more concerning academic view of it starting with Burckhardt and his understanding of the renaissance which is based on the Great Rome myth. So I think it is all warranted. Perhaps I should be embarrassed but so should the layman and the academics for constructing this "veil of ignorance" surrounding Rome and its failures.