Northern Power?

Stumason,

“the non-Roman societies as primitive and backwards is wrong”

I am not saying that the non-Roman societies were primitive and backward as an absolute statement. I am saying that they could have had their good points, but in overall terms the non-roman societies (mainly the northern ones) were very backward as compared with the Roman society. Came on man! Whatever the historian can tell you.

“Roman engineering is what distinguished them from any other tribe in Europe.”

No, I am not agree with you. This is not just a matter of engineering. The sophistication of the Roman society at this time had not equivalent in the World (probably saving the Greeks).

The Roman legal system had not any equivalent, had not any rival in all the History until this time.

The Roman political system, had not equivalence (probably saving the Greeks, again). I rode some years ago a book about the daily life of the Romans and they even had political manipulation and malicious electoral messages (one of them, found in a Roman provincial city said something like “Vote for Lucius (or so), the drunken buddies and the whores will do it”) xD

The Roman commercial and economical net, had not rival.

The Roman culture lightened amazingly each country they touched. I like very much Lucio Anneo Seneca (who was a Spanish-Roman, genetically a primitive Spaniard but lightened by the Roman culture). I rode his “Letters to Lucilio”, written almost 2000 years ago. If in this book you switch the word “sword” to “gun”, the word “vicious” to “drugs” and the word “carriage” to “automobile” and a couple of them more, he seems your uncle giving to you some advices about the life during your teens. It is absolutely futurist.

Their military tactics were futurists. Their average height was 1,5 m, and nevertheless they smashed armies formed by taller, stronger and extremely aggressive in combat men. Their extremely advanced technology also helped them a lot.

“Culturally, there is little to seperate the Romans from anyone else.”

Oh, came on, for each outstanding Briton you name, an historian can name 50 outstanding Romans.

“You make them sound like Cavemen!”

NO! I am just telling what we have from the northern races. You are the one who think of Cavemen when I tell you what they leaved for us.

“assimilate (either by sword or by gold) people into their Empire, and use what was once theirs.”

Was this behavior so different from the one which launched the USA (and before UK, and before Spain, etc.) to their first world power status?

“So what you might think as a Roman village, may very well have had Gauls, Britons, or whoever living in it, adding to the richness that became famous as "Roman".”

No. The Roman village has a wall all around and a big letter that shows “Roman village” and a broad explanation below. During the weekends we can see also some amateur guys and university students with little instruments craving the stones looking for Roman rests. If there lived Britons, they could be genetically Britons, but culturally Romans, as Seneca was genetically Spanish, but culturally Roman.

On the other hand the Celtic village has also a wall made in wood around and a poster that says “Celtic village”. And you can see also some weekends some students caving the stones with little instruments in order to find Celtic vestiges, and not Roman ones (saving daily-life objects obtained by trade).

You can see objects from both villages in a little museum not so far from here. Both collections are amazing, but the Roman one is far more sophisticated.


“There is a massive difference between what Barbarian means today, and what the Romans meant by it. Barbarians is a slang term coined by Romans, in reference to the perceived way in which these people spoke.”

Yes, I understood, but I guess I didn’t explain my point clearly. What I meant is that “Naomi Campbell” will never mean “ugly woman”, but “Barbara Streisand” could mean, by extension, “ugly woman” in, lets say 1000 years.

If the Romans had perceived the “Barbarians” as advanced peoples, the word “Barbarian” would had never become in “Brute and backward person”.

“Brute” (“Bruto” in Spanish) derives from “Brutus”. I bet Brutus was not a nice and kind person.

Originally posted by mwm1331
The farther north you go the more of the year its cold. The colder it is the more time you spend indoors. Basically northern peoples had nothng else to do but debate read learn etc.

Those in cold climates such as scandinavian countries developed higher intelligence due to the necessity of survival. No point explaining further.


[edit on 29-1-2005 by cargo]

www.rlynn.co.uk...

Alphabetical, world countrys, average IQ

Afghanistan83
Albania90
Algeria84
Angola69
Antigua & Barbuda75
Argentina96
Armenia93
Australia98
Austria102
Azerbaijan87
Bahamas78
Barbados 78
Bahrain83
Bangladesh81
Barbados78
Belarus96
Belgium100
Belize83
Benin69
Bhutan78
Bolivia85
Botswana72
Brazil87
Brunei92
Bulgaria93
Burkina Faso66
Burma (Myanmar)86
Burundi70
Cambodia89
Cameroon70
Canada97
Cape Verde78
Central African Rep.68
Chad72
Chile93
China100
Colombia88
Comoros79
Congo (Zaire)65
Costa Rica91
Côte d'Ivoire71
Croatia90
Cuba85
Cyprus92
Czech Republic97
Denmark98
Djibouti68
Dominica75
Dominican Republic84
Ecuador80
Egypt83
El Salvador84
Equatorial Guinea59
Eritrea68
Estonia97
Ethiopia63
Fiji84
Finland97
France98
Gabon66
Gambia64
Georgia93
Germany102
Ghana71
Greece92
Grenada75
Guatemala79
Guinea63
Guinea-Bissau63
Guinea 63
Guyana84
Haiti72
Hong Kong107
Hungary99
Iceland98
India81
Indonesia89
Iran84
Iraq87
Ireland93
Israel94
Italy102
Jamaica72
Japan105
Jordan87
Kazakhstan93
Kenya72
Kiribati84
Korea, North105
Korea, South106
Kuwait83
Kyrgyzstan87
Laos89
Latvia97
Lebanon86
Lesotho72
Liberia64
Libya84
Lithuania97
Luxembourg101
Macedonia93
Madagascar79
Malawi71
Malaysia72
Maldives81
Mali68
Malta95
Marshall Islands84
Mauritania73
Mauritius81
Mexico87
Micronesia84
Moldova95
Mongolia98
Morocco85
Mosambique72
Namibia72
Nepal78
Netherlands102
New Zealand100
Nicaragua84
Niger67
Nigeria 67
Norway98
Oman83
Pakistan81
Panama84
Papua New Guine84
Paraguay85
Peru90
Philippines86
Poland99
Portugal95
Puerto Rico84
Qatar78
Romania94
Russia96
Rwanda70
Samoa (Western)87
Sao Tome/Principe59
Saudi Arabia83
Senegal64
Seychelles81
Sierra Leone64
Singapore100
Slovakia96
Slovenia95
Solomon Islands84
Somalia68
South Africa72
Spain99
Sri Lanka81
St. Kitts & Nevis75
St. Lucia75
St.Vincent/Grenadines75
Sudan72
Suriname89
Swaziland72
Sweden101
Switzerland101
Syria87
Taiwan104
Tajikistan87
Tanzania72
Thailand91
Togo69
Tonga87
Trinidad & Tobago80
Tunisia84
Turkey90
Turkmenistan87
Uganda73
Ukraine96
United Arab Emirates83
United Kingdom100
United States98
Uruguay96
Uzbekistan87
Vanuatu84
Venezuela88
Vietnam96
Yemen 83
Yugoslavia 93
Zambia77
Zimbabwe 66


1. just average, so dont use it as argument in a discussion with a person from another country

2. dont get racist, even while it depends mostly on genetics, every people had to specialise for his area, so for that they are on other topics better (and also here just in average)

[edit on 20-2-2005 by Wodan]

I think a clue lies in the climate, geology and natural history of Europe and the Eurasian land mass.

Warmed by the gulf stream, wet, temperate, mineral rich and fertile after the retreat of the glaciers; it simply took a lot less time and effort to find, grow or hunt good quality food. This left more time to develop culture, science, arts etc which in turn led to greater economic and technological advancement. This head start has kept Europe, and western culture, in the lead, at least up till now.

I'm sure it's not the whole reason but I think it's a factor.