ancient history is SERIOUS BUSINESS, y'all

[bedlamsbard]

So, my shock of the morning came when a book I'm reading said that Rome was "not famed for their technological originality." Yeah, you know those Romans. So unoriginal, omg, can you believe them? (The best part is that the line comes right after the author finished talking about all Rome's technological innovations, way to send mixed messages, man.)

Also, ancient Egypt was "precocious." That's not exactly the word I would have used... I know Solomon used it elsewhere, but I can't find it, I think it was Crete or Sumeria or Akkad or somewhere else vastly inappopriate. And that's not even counting all the other historical facts he either got wrong or misrepresented. Gods save me from journalists who write books without knowing WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, this is the second one in a week!

Comments

[clanwilliam]

One could argue that they're not. They were superb engineers, but all based on existing technology and information.

The voice behind me is pointing out the Greeks [1], the Carthaginians[2] and has directed me to the Antikythera mechanism.

[1] "Archimedes did it all 200 years before the Roman Empire was even founded! In Syracuse! Backwards, in high heels!"[3]
[2] "The Carthaginians did things to the Romans that they *never* figured out how to replicate! Backwards, in high heels!" [3]
[3] I may have added a bit to those comments.

[bedlamsbard]

To which I add, "CONCRETE AND GREEK FIRE." (Greek Fire being invented by the Byzantines, who certainly called themselves the Romans and indeed WERE the Eastern Roman Empire, not that you'll get most people to admit that.)

[clanwilliam]

Greek fire I won't give you, because the Byzantines might well be a Roman Empire, but it had evolved - otherwise, you'd have to put half of Europe's inventions down to the Romans.

Eastern is a key bit in its description (did you know that there are still Orthodox churches, with priests who can marry and all, who are under the authority of the Pope?), since it had influences coming in from elsewhere and, more importantly, was using the influence to create something new.

But concrete alone is not, ahem, concrete enough proof that a civilisation was a technological innovator, even if it did leave us with lots of lovely buildings.

[bedlamsbard]

Eh, I'll argue the Byzantines, just because my new pet peeve is people saying the Roman Empire fell in 476 since the Eastern Roman Empire was pretty convinced that they were the legitimate Roman Empire and kept on going for another thousand years.

Plus, lots of military innovation.

[aella_irene]

Hm. I would personally say 801, because, as the heroine of The Adventures of Alianore Audley says: "I could call myself the Queen of Sheba, but I'd still be plain Alianore Audley in the eyes of any sensible person." They were convinced they were the legitimate Roman Empire, but the rest of Europe wasn't, and by 801 they had lost Rome as a territory, and also Charlemagne had been crowned as Holy Roman Emperor, which is possibly the most unsubtle way to say that Europe wasn't going to play along with their idea anymore.

(Am being Euro-centric, I know, but I cannot remember what the Turks and Persians thought.)

[toujours_nigel]

Romans had arches, which the greeks didn't. Hence aqueducts, yes?

And they managed to use a layer of marble over baser stone, courtesy concrete, I guess?

What else, though? For technology, I mean. Military innovations, absolutely, yes.