|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 17, 2019 19:22:16 GMT
I thought barbaros was just Greek for foreigner
Edit: In Ancient Greece, the Greeks used the term towards those who did not speak Greek and follow classical Greek customs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 17, 2019 20:12:31 GMT
if there were free daciers, they were probably just barbarians like everyone except the Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians in Europe at the time They used to call others "barbarians" only because they were a diferent population ... no it just weren't real states but more collections of tribes. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 17, 2019 20:30:34 GMT
They used to call others "barbarians" only because they were a diferent population ... no it just weren't real states but more collections of tribes. This is not nationalistic or something I come from the Netherlands, also a country above the Rhine and Danube. but my point is that there was really less civilization up there at the time, that's fine, but it is true that the roman empire was far superior in every way. the Romans did not draw the borders of their empire because of resistance, but because the rivers were easy to defend and because there was nothing up there |
|
|
|
Post by Hobo Joe on Jun 18, 2019 3:08:13 GMT
if there were free daciers, they were probably just barbarians like everyone except the Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians in Europe at the time I can't tell if thats racist or not |
|
|
|
Post by Hobo Joe on Jun 18, 2019 3:09:08 GMT
They used to call others "barbarians" only because they were a diferent population ... no it just weren't real states but more collections of tribes. That... isnt true. At least in Germania they were organized into petty kingdoms and small tribal republics. Even then, if it governs and has no dependencies, its a state |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 18, 2019 4:40:42 GMT
no it just weren't real states but more collections of tribes. That... isnt true. At least in Germania they were organized into petty kingdoms and small tribal republics. Even then, if it governs and has no dependencies, its a state maybe you can call it a state but they were less organized states than the roman example: after the death of the founder of dacia in 44 BC dacia collapsed again into small tribes, now you can think what does that say? Caesar was murdered in the same year and the Roman Empire fell into a civil war, but there was no collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 18, 2019 4:47:12 GMT
no it just weren't real states but more collections of tribes. That... isnt true. At least in Germania they were organized into petty kingdoms and small tribal republics. Even then, if it governs and has no dependencies, its a state this is the misuse of the term racist, point one so I am not Greek, Italian or Tunisian, point two: I have never said that it is up to their race. the backlog was simply largely because it was colder and further from the middle east where the first major inventions were made. maybe barbarians sounds very offensive to you, but I just mean less developed. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 18, 2019 10:10:24 GMT
They used to call others "barbarians" only because they were a diferent population ... no it just weren't real states but more collections of tribes. That's not entirely correct, 'oy barbaroi simply means foreigner in (ancient) Grecian, just like 'buitenlander', someone who isn't Grecian. Then the word got adopted by Romans who simply said that to all non Grecians and non Romans. It got its negative sound way later in history, and it wasn't really present at that time. Also there were real states during the time, there were villages with markets, houses and temples, there were goverments, there were even some democracies (predominantly old men had the saying). In fact, the Saxon villages at that time didn't differ too much from the Roman ones, just like how a Spanish village doesn't differ to much from a Chinese village today. Of course there were some great innovations made by the Roman empire, they had by far the best organised army, and a great public irrigation system. But a lot of their innovations came from different places, think about their aquaducts for instance, or their arcs. The thought that Italy was some sort of civilised society with villages, a public road system (came from the Celts actually), and a general currency (everyone had that) whereas northern Europe was a land full of brutes living in huts is not only incorrect, it's also a tad racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 18, 2019 13:57:29 GMT
no it just weren't real states but more collections of tribes. whereas northern Europe was a land full of brutes living in huts is not only incorrect, it's also a tad racist. I didn't said that. my point is that they were not real states with big cities but more collections of tribes that all lived in their own village. and stop calling me racist all the time if I say that because it's not a healthy discussion if you insult the other all the time. I did not talk about races and when I called them barbarians I meant less developed, I also said that so I can not be racist. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 18, 2019 15:49:32 GMT
whereas northern Europe was a land full of brutes living in huts is not only incorrect, it's also a tad racist. I didn't said that. my point is that they were not real states with big cities but more collections of tribes that all lived in their own village. and stop calling me racist all the time if I say that because it's not a healthy discussion if you insult the other all the time. I did not talk about races and when I called them barbarians I meant less developed, I also said that so I can not be racist. No one is calling you a racist, all we're stating is that calling a different culture 'less developed' is quite racist. Especially since it doesn't seem based on anything I can also reverse this statement. Celtic people started building roads connecting various villages whereas Romans simply used dirtpaths. The average celt had more money than the average Roman, and in general were wealthier. Also the Celts were the first to use Iron swords and were probably the best Iron smids of the time. The Celts must have been so much more developed than the Romans. I can pick almost any ethnic group and I could find stuff which they did better than their contemporaries. They didn't posses a lot of technologies other people didn't have. The Romans? Their organisation, especially in their military. I can not see how that makes them 'more developed' though. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 18, 2019 16:10:23 GMT
No one is calling you a racist, all we're stating is that calling a different culture 'less developed' is quite racist. Especially since it doesn't seem based on anything I can also reverse this statement. Celtic people started building roads connecting various villages whereas Romans simply used dirtpaths. The average celt had more money than the average Roman, and in general were wealthier. Also the Celts were the first to use Iron swords and were probably the best Iron smids of the time. The Celts must have been so much more developed than the Romans. I can pick almost any ethnic group and I could find stuff which they did better than their contemporaries. They didn't posses a lot of technologies other people didn't have. The Romans? Their organisation, especially in their military. I can not see how that makes them 'more developed' though. I Said more like a state with big cities and organisation and if is said more developed I meant that. I think a state is more developed then a colection of tribes. And I don't mean the cultur is superior or something. With developed I'm talking about closest to a modern state. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 18, 2019 16:20:30 GMT
No one is calling you a racist, all we're stating is that calling a different culture 'less developed' is quite racist. Especially since it doesn't seem based on anything I can also reverse this statement. Celtic people started building roads connecting various villages whereas Romans simply used dirtpaths. The average celt had more money than the average Roman, and in general were wealthier. Also the Celts were the first to use Iron swords and were probably the best Iron smids of the time. The Celts must have been so much more developed than the Romans. I can pick almost any ethnic group and I could find stuff which they did better than their contemporaries. They didn't posses a lot of technologies other people didn't have. The Romans? Their organisation, especially in their military. I can not see how that makes them 'more developed' though. The thing is the celts were romans or part of the roman empire, but that Isn't the point my point is the romans were closer to a modern state with cities something what was rare to non existing above the rhine. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 18, 2019 16:31:33 GMT
No one is calling you a racist, all we're stating is that calling a different culture 'less developed' is quite racist. Especially since it doesn't seem based on anything I can also reverse this statement. Celtic people started building roads connecting various villages whereas Romans simply used dirtpaths. The average celt had more money than the average Roman, and in general were wealthier. Also the Celts were the first to use Iron swords and were probably the best Iron smids of the time. The Celts must have been so much more developed than the Romans. I can pick almost any ethnic group and I could find stuff which they did better than their contemporaries. They didn't posses a lot of technologies other people didn't have. The Romans? Their organisation, especially in their military. I can not see how that makes them 'more developed' though. I Said more like a state with big cities and organisation and if is said more developed I meant that. I think a state is more developed then a colection of tribes. And I don't mean the cultur is superior or something. With developed I'm talking about closest to a modern state. Then I think our definition of more developed must differ a bit  . I personally consider a country or an area more developed if the average quality of life in that area is better. For instance I would consider Massachusetts higher developed than Missisipi, as the average Bay Stater (Person from Mass.) Has a higher average quality of life than a Missisipian. This could very well be the case for the anciet Roman empire too, but no convincing evidence has been found about that. Pax Augustus also benifitted the ones outside the Roman Empire. Also, the main reason cities back then were scarce in Northern Europe is simply a smaller population. That's why there were multiple cities in the Indus valley, and the Han dinasty, and relatively few north of Italy/Spain. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 18, 2019 16:36:27 GMT
 Here for instance an overview of the Human Population at that time, one yellow dot represents 1 million people |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 18, 2019 18:10:49 GMT
I Said more like a state with big cities and organisation and if is said more developed I meant that. I think a state is more developed then a colection of tribes. And I don't mean the cultur is superior or something. With developed I'm talking about closest to a modern state. Then I think our definition of more developed must differ a bit . I personally consider a country or an area more developed if the average quality of life in that area is better. For instance I would consider Massachusetts higher developed than Missisipi, as the average Bay Stater (Person from Mass.) Has a higher average quality of life than a Missisipian. This could very well be the case for the anciet Roman empire too, but no convincing evidence has been found about that. Pax Augustus also benifitted the ones outside the Roman Empire. Also, the main reason cities back then were scarce in Northern Europe is simply a smaller population. That's why there were multiple cities in the Indus valley, and the Han dinasty, and relatively few north of Italy/Spain. I think we misunderstand each other, you think from the perspective of an individual and I think from the perspective as a species / civilization. this can be a big difference, for example the switch from hunting / gathering to growing crops. as a species it was the best thing that ever happened to us because it caused huge population growth and professions other than hunting but as an individual it got worse a hunter had to work 6 hours a day while a farmer aged 6 to 8 had to work. source homo sapiens (book). I believe that a german who lived somewhere in the woods had a much better life than a roman who lived in an old apartment that had a high risk of collapse. but I say that the Romans as a people have achieved more, for example, the development of cities and aqueducts. |
|
. 
