The Romans were Hellenized B.C

The Romans were Hellenized B.C.

The bilinguality of the Romans appears on the stage of history in the first written documents of Roman history which witness that our Roman forefathers are in inseparable part of Hellenic Civilization long before Justinian the Great and long before Constantine the Great.

Already some 700 years before Constantine the Great moved Rome to the East, to wit already in the 4^th century B.C., Plato�s student Heracleides of Pontus calls Rome a �Hellenic city�,.......

The first author in history to write in the Latin language was Hellene named Livius Andronikus. In the 3^rd century B.C. he translated Homer in order to use him as a textbook to teach Latin and Greek to his Roman students. He also translated other works from Greek and wrote the first Roman theatrical works and poems. Thus from the very beginning the tradition was established whereby educated Romans learned Greek as the prototype of Roman letters. Thus rooted, bilinguality never ceased directing the evolution of the Hellenic Civilization of the Romans.

The first two historians of Rome, Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus, were Romans who wrote their histories about 200 B.C. not in Latin but in Greek.

From about 150 B.C. all educated Romans knew the Greek language and literature well.

At about this time even the more rustic Roman elite, who as a group were at first hestitant vis-�-vis Greek, were compelled to learn Greek for commerce and for the administration of the Greek-speaking provinces.

From the first century on it became customary for Roman aristocrats to complete their education by studying in Greece

In 91 B.C. he last major war broke out between. Latins and Romans. About one year prior to this, in 92 B.C., the Romans closed the Latin schools of rhetoric and thus compelled the students in Rome to study at the Greek schools alone. In time the Latin schools reopened and the use of Latin was strengthened since the Latins faithful to Rome were used in the colonization of new Western provinces.

During this period the position of translator in the Roman Senate was abolished and the use of Greek without translation was permitted to visiting speakers, since all the Roman elite knew Greek fluently.

Almost all the emperors knew but among them Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and others had an exceptional knowledge of Greek.. Julius Caesar, Tiberius and Marcus Aurelius wrote Greek works.

The most prominent Roman writers who wrote also in Greek, are among others, Cicero, Germanicus and Souetonius.

Some sources report that the last words uttered by Julius Caesar while being stabbed to death were directed to Brutus in Greek, ....; �You too, my child?�

The ordinary people of Rome also spoke Greek

During the first and second centuries AD it became common for Romans in Rome to be mother-taught in the Greek language since it had become a household language.

St. Paul, himself a Roman, wrote his epistle to the Romans in Greek, a clear proof that the ordinary people of Rome spoke Greek.

The liturgy of the Church of Rome was performed in Greek till the 4^th century, another clear proof that Greek was the language of the masses.

All the first Christian writers of the Western provinces and the bishops of Rome wrote in Greek.

The Greek language was so wide-spread that Juvenal, the satirist born a Latin outside Rome, was moved to write, �I cannot bear, Oh Citizens, the City Greek� (non possom ferre, Quiritos, Graecam Urbem).

Greek was the prevalent language in the whole area of Rome until the middle of the fourth century when it weakened its hold because Rome was moved to the East and almost the whole City migrated. The void which was thus created was filled mostly by Latin-speaking Romans and for this reason, about fifty years later, Pope Damasus was compelled to introduce more Latin into the worship of Old Rome.

From all the above, but also from many other factors, it is clear that Old Rome was identified with the Hellenic world and civilization many centuries before Constantine the Great.

Edited by GENERAL PARMENION

Another interesting point is the 'Roma' does not have a satisfactory meaning in Latin, but in ancient Greek 'Rhommios' means power or force.

Coincidence?

Edited by Nikas

Originally posted by GENERAL PARMENION The Romans were Hellenized B.C

I believe it is common practise to mention the title, place and date of a publication and the name of the author when one copies and pastes an entire article of his. Otherwise, one might think it's your own work.
As you seem to have forgotten, I'll do it for you:

The Romans were Hellenized B.C.

PS: Maybe you should at least have mentioned that the article was written by a Greek author, in order to give more weight to the argument contained in it.

Edited by Komnenos

Romans were also influenced by the Greek culture before the conquest of Greece through the Greek cities of southern Italy. Even the Latin alphabet derived from the Greek.

Originally posted by Komnenos Come on, let's not be so naive, if I were to post an academic article by a German author that claimed, for example, that the Germans were the Master-Race of humanity, you would be very supicious, wouldn't you?

This topic does not talk of Greek superiority or anything of that such, so your example does not follow. The Romans love for greek culture is not hidden, it is very easy to find, so this topic is not radical such as your German Master Race idea.

This site if unacceptable and false. It's evidently clear.  I mean, this has been written by (most likely, anyway) some renegade Greek man who is attempting to spread lies and false evidence in an effort to convince the people that everything in the world is Greek. I mean really, this guy is �envisioning� a plan to make some sort of Greek Empire with (most likely) Constantinople as its capital city. It's so blatantly obvious that this isn't a credible source whatsoever and can be discredited. Anyone know who exactly is this John S. Romanides? Or why he is credible, or where he gets this research? This whole site is a renegade, fascist Greek website that is full of lies to get their way. The only way this source can be correct is if we can get the same response from a different source, with cold hard FACTS.

Originally posted by TheSicilianVespers This site if unacceptable and false. It's evidently clear.� I mean, this has been written by (most likely, anyway) some renegade Greek man who is attempting to spread lies and false evidence in an effort to convince the people that everything in the world is Greek. I mean really, this guy is �envisioning� a plan to make some sort of Greek Empire with (most likely) Constantinople as its capital city. It's so blatantly obvious that this isn't a credible source whatsoever and can be discredited. Anyone know who exactly is this John S. Romanides? Or why he is credible, or where he gets this research? This whole site is a renegade, fascist Greek website that is full of lies to get their way. The only way this source can be correct is if we can get the same response from a different source, with cold hard FACTS.

Thanks for going where I didn't dare!

BTW: Like your user name!

I think that the trouble here is that Romans were not Hellenized but just influenced by the Greek culture something that is undeniable (I think, coz here you can never be absolutely sure). It's well known that Romans conquered Greece with the army but Greece conquered the Romans with its civilization. Of course the Roman (Western) Empire cannot be considered as Hellenic contrary to the Eastern-Byzantine Empire which was a Hellenic multi-ethnic Empire. So, who is trying to say that everything on the world is Greek? Don't be so biased against us.

Lannes

I'm obviously one of those members with the agenda you mention.
I find nothing wrong with presenting any kind of debatable info or source. Isn't that the purpose of joining any forum, to exchange ideas, facts and sources and then discuss the correctness of those sources and facts?

Why not debate on why this aticle is incorrect by presenting "your" sources, info and facts. Which is actually, the only correct way to argue on any topic, presenting "your proofs" against "mine".

Simply stating that he's of Hellinic origin and shouldn't be considered credible, is at least rediculous. It would be similar to me saying that all that do not accept this theory without having spent any time on searching it's probable correctness are all anti-Hellinic members.
Would that be of any value in this or any other kind of discussion?
I'd think not.


TheSicilianVespers

You once again jump to conclusions.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, never once said that the Roman authors are liars, he clearly states that they do not state who, when or where they came from nor have they "cited no Greek historian as their authority".
And goes on to clear it for us by saying that they are obviously refering to those that passed the Ionian Gulf with Oenotrus.

"But if what they say is true, the Aborigines can be a colony of no other people but of those who are now called Arcadians; for these were the first of all the Greeks to cross the Ionian Gulf, under the leadership of Oenotrus, the son of Lycaon, and to settle in Italy. this Oenotrus was the fifth from Aezeius and Phoroneus, who were the first kings in the Peloponnesus."

Interestingly enough even though you mention prefering Vergil's Aeneid, you probably missed the fact that he supports what Dionysius of Halicarnassus has written. As seen in I-532:

"We journey to a land
named, in Greek syllables, Hesperia:
a storied realm, made mighty by great wars
and wealth of fruitful land; in former days
Oenotrians had it, and their sons, 't is said,
have called it Italy, a chieftain's name
to a whole region given."

Or 3.165:

"There is a land the roving Greeks have named
Hesperia. It is a storied realm
made mighty by great wars and fruitful land.
Oenotrians had it, and their sons, 't is said,
have called it Italy, a chieftain's name
to a whole region given."

There might be a couple more I've missed.

That is the beauty of these theories. None of them are actually proven to be accurate or widely accepted but none of them can be totally discarded as false.
A theory is never considered to be fact but a simple attempt to explain the events.

While I must admit that I don't support everything presented in his site,  he obviously has done alot of research on this topic. You may find his articles offending but what is more offending is discrediting anyone's work without being able to give a good reason for it.
When you are able to present manipulated texts in his articles, false info.....,  then and only then may you reject his theory and title him or anyone else a radical nationalist.
Untill you're able to do so, I suggest a more open-minded approach that just might give you a totally different view on history as you know it.


Edited by Phallanx

Constantine XI


Just one comment on something I noticed

inventing the dome

Maybe you should take a look at the Mycenean tombs that are definitely dome shaped.