Incest: an age-old taboo

[KarenCee 3]

I think it's because the unique unit for the Romans is the Legionary and for the Greeks it's only the Hoplite.

G-E G, I'm actually interested in your theory. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool, but you seem to want people to endorse it without having the position on the table.

Very astute. That happens a lot with this particular individual.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's because the unique unit for the Romans is the Legionary and for the Greeks it's only the Hoplite.

G-E G, I'm actually interested in your theory. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool, but you seem to want people to endorse it without having the position on the table.

Well the Romans and the Greeks were hedonistic cultures (amid their pantheon of Gods, the Romans had temples where the priestesses were basically prostitutes and "worship" mean't having lots of sex), though I'm not sure it could be convincingly be claimed that the Greeks were more hedonistic than the conquering Romans. After all, both cultures lasted many hundreds of years.

[Caladan 19]

Well, that can't be it. Whose morality? All of the Greeks were immoral by my standards: women barely had any rights (Sparta's a bit better than Athens), and their way of dealing with questionable paternity or infant deformity was to expose the infant to the elements. The societies survived and flourished with different ideas of inheritance rights, legal justice, and sexual morality.

The only thing that makes sense as a position is to say something like: as a society loses its historic morality and doesn't live up to its own internal standards, it's more vulnerable to outside conquest. But it's important to note here that we're not talking about morality in any objective sense -- so that rules out hedonism as a primary cause. A hedonistic society that had always been hedonistic probably would be fine; a hedonistic society that used to be stoic probably wouldn't. But now it's just the uninteresting claim that an unstable society will get its ### kicked by a more organized one, and really has little to do with hedonism at all.

But even that seems like a stretch. People certainly like to blame the fall of the empires on the immorality of the people... but I don't think that's borne out by history. Are the ancient Assyrians more moral than the ancient Hebrews? The Greeks more moral than the Persians? I'd really like to believe that the good guys always win, but you know the joke: "Evil will always win because good is dumb."

[mawilson 2,133]

I think it's because the unique unit for the Romans is the Legionary and for the Greeks it's only the Hoplite.

You got that from playing Sid Meier's Civilization?

Edited March 17, 2007 by mawilson

[Caladan 19]

I love Civilization, though I'm not very good at it. (And just ran around a Tiny map with a bunch of Legionaries. Screw researching and building wonders. Other civs make them; I conquer them. Sounds like a fair division of labor to me.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, that can't be it. Whose morality? All of the Greeks were immoral by my standards: women barely had any rights (Sparta's a bit better than Athens), and their way of dealing with questionable paternity or infant deformity was to expose the infant to the elements. The societies survived and flourished with different ideas of inheritance rights, legal justice, and sexual morality.

The only thing that makes sense as a position is to say something like: as a society loses its historic morality and doesn't live up to its own internal standards, it's more vulnerable to outside conquest. But it's important to note here that we're not talking about morality in any objective sense -- so that rules out hedonism as a primary cause. A hedonistic society that had always been hedonistic probably would be fine; a hedonistic society that used to be stoic probably wouldn't. But now it's just the uninteresting claim that an unstable society will get its ### kicked by a more organized one, and really has little to do with hedonism at all.

But even that seems like a stretch. People certainly like to blame the fall of the empires on the immorality of the people... but I don't think that's borne out by history. Are the ancient Assyrians more moral than the ancient Hebrews? The Greeks more moral than the Persians? I'd really like to believe that the good guys always win, but you know the joke: "Evil will always win because good is dumb."

I agree with you that hedonism (which we really need to define for the purposes of this argument, away from "general pleasure seeking") is not a primary cause of social collapse. Human societies are hedonistic by default - hence the oldest profession in the world is still popular, people (still) drink and still use narcotic drugs. None of this has really changed. Its certainly a stereotype that Rome collapsed because it was decadent - if that were the case you might wonder why Edward Gribbon wrote on of the longest pieces of historical commentary in the English language. Politics obviously played a part - that and those old civilisations were generally despotic in nature - even the democratic Greeks had slaves (and the Spartans were the least democratic of all Greeks). The Spartan culture, which was highly insular still collapsed despite its rigid military discipline - their slaves vastly outnumbered the Spartan soldiery and the casualties that resulted from successive wars were hard to replace (a single Spartan soldier represented a large expense of time and training). The never really established their civilization far beyond Sparta which would have established its long-term survival. Of course, trying to establish a rigid ideological system across large areas of land would have also been difficult.

Alexander's empire for example, collapsed immediately after his death and was broken up into several smaller empires under his generals. That was surely as much of a logistical issue as anything - the source of his authority being a mobile army that got stretched thinner and thinner the longer his campaign went on - with conquered nations being granted the leave to manage their own affairs.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Some people love talking out of both sides of their mouths. Ultra Conservatives do that quite frequently I've noticed.

Hmm....Ultra Conservatives? Do you mean, you?

[Caladan 19]

That's one story of the fall of the Roman Empire. In college we read a contemporary writer who attributed the fall of the Roman Empire to the acceptance of Christianity and not worshipping the old gods properly. I figure people look for personal explanation when there aren't really any to be had; like blaming sin for the blindness of a child, it works as a way to fight the inevitable -- it could go differently for us, we're not decadent.

The collapse of Alexander's empire had more problems than just the usual collapse. Before Alexander goes on his conquering quest, the usual mode of government is the city-state. (Herodotus is fun on this.) Even if Sparta conquers Argos or Athens, they're pretty much demanding tribute or taking spoils; there isn't really an attempt to try to form an empire. Alexander institutes a lot of political changes, and adopts some of the customs of the people he conquers in order to try to found a lasting empire. He dies before he manages to do this, so what we've got is a situation where the city-state model has been eroded, but what was to replace it doesn't come to fruition. And then his generals fracture it and fight among themselves.

[Ban Hammer 12,886]

I love Civilization, though I'm not very good at it. (And just ran around a Tiny map with a bunch of Legionaries. Screw researching and building wonders. Other civs make them; I conquer them. Sounds like a fair division of labor to me.)

there are a few tricks to it

the best i did was 320 million people on one game, and in another i was throwing nuclear missiles at the french in 1400 ad while they were throwing spears back at me

[mawilson 2,133]

in another i was throwing nuclear missiles at the french in 1400 ad while they were throwing spears back at me

Kinda like us in the middle east, eh?

[Caladan 19]

I think I had 50 million people on a Tiny map on Regent. 320 million is very impressive! Only picked up the game a couple months ago.

[ceriserose 1]

I think I had 50 million people on a Tiny map on Regent. 320 million is very impressive! Only picked up the game a couple months ago.

Gah, I've had it for years and still haven't loaded it. I keep hearing good things about it, but keep getting distracted by shiny objects.

(Okay it's actually Anthoropology class this time, but it's still shiny! )

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think it's because the unique unit for the Romans is the Legionary and for the Greeks it's only the Hoplite.

G-E G, I'm actually interested in your theory. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool, but you seem to want people to endorse it without having the position on the table.

"Seem" is the operative word. "Seem" is an external function that is raised by the reader's perception's. I have said several different ways that I'm not here to argue, debate, nor convince anyone and have even encouraged people not to take my word for it, but to check it out for themselves. In fact, I've written more about how I'm not asking for endorsements than I have about the theory itself. I don't come here to work, I come here for banter. I'm not sure why saying this repeatedly hasn't made it clear.

PS - It's not MY theory, just one of many that has been examined by historians and social scientists for centuries.

I think it's because the unique unit for the Romans is the Legionary and for the Greeks it's only the Hoplite.

G-E G, I'm actually interested in your theory. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool, but you seem to want people to endorse it without having the position on the table.

Very astute. That happens a lot with this particular individual.

Attempting to create drama and nastiness where there is none is something that happens alot with this particular individual.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Caladan 19]

I think it's because the unique unit for the Romans is the Legionary and for the Greeks it's only the Hoplite.

G-E G, I'm actually interested in your theory. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool, but you seem to want people to endorse it without having the position on the table.

"Seem" is the operative word. "Seem" is an external function that is raised by the reader's perception's. I have said several different ways that I'm not here to argue, debate, nor convince anyone and have even encouraged people not to take my word for it, but to check it out for themselves. In fact, I've written more about how I'm not asking for endorsements than I have about the theory itself. I don't come here to work, I come here for banter. I'm not sure why saying this repeatedly hasn't made it clear.

"Seem" requires both the writer and the reader. And one of the reasons it "seems" that you're interested in a conversation is that you, the writer, are giving very sign of wanting to debate (else why would you be so knotted up that people asked you for more information, but not me), and I, the reader, am expecting that you adhere to something approaching the normal rules of conversation.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think it's because the unique unit for the Romans is the Legionary and for the Greeks it's only the Hoplite.

G-E G, I'm actually interested in your theory. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool, but you seem to want people to endorse it without having the position on the table.

"Seem" is the operative word. "Seem" is an external function that is raised by the reader's perception's. I have said several different ways that I'm not here to argue, debate, nor convince anyone and have even encouraged people not to take my word for it, but to check it out for themselves. In fact, I've written more about how I'm not asking for endorsements than I have about the theory itself. I don't come here to work, I come here for banter. I'm not sure why saying this repeatedly hasn't made it clear.

"Seem" requires both the writer and the reader. And one of the reasons it "seems" that you're interested in a conversation is that you, the writer, are giving very sign of wanting to debate (else why would you be so knotted up that people asked you for more information, but not me), and I, the reader, am expecting that you adhere to something approaching the normal rules of conversation.

Are you saying that saying "no really means yes?" If I wanted to debate, I would debate, not give off "every sign of wanting to." Plain and simple. I'm only "knotted up", in a sense, because what I am actually conveying is not getting through to a few folks to the point of harrassment. I have tried to be straight with you. Please have no expectations of me in regard to this thread except for what I have actually repeatedly said:

I do not intend to debate, did not seek to debate, have no interest in debating.

I do not consider this board to be a proper place for proper debate, if I did want to debate.

I have set forth no requirements that anyone endorse or accept my statements as fact, and in fact, encourage you to check anything I have said out for yourself.

I have violated no "normal rules of conversation" that I know of, but I'm sure that I have not attempted to continue any conversation that requires me to do more than any other poster does, and that is to make unsupported assertions. That is the nature of this thread.

What, outside of what I have actually stated here, is assumed or seems to be read other than "I'm not interested in a debate." is a burden borne by other parties and not by myself.

You may have the last word, but if you continue to insist that I really want to debate, there is something very wrong with your perception of my words, and I hold no responsibility for that.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Green-eyed girl