Frankish defeat by Muslims = no modern civilisation?

Status
Closed

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,301
Dhaka
#61
The economic and cultural systems that facilitated the lifestyle of a bilingual Graeco-Roman elite came to an end in late antiquity. They either joined the elite of the invaders or maintained what they could (such as how parts of the Gallo-Roman elite attempted to maintain their dominance through the church). Neither of these required knowing Greek.

More broadly, I would suggest that knowledge of Greek isn't entirely the issue here: one needs a certain set of parameters in place in an intellectual culture in order to advance that intellectual culture.
Right, and those parameters were absent from the militaristic Roman society. Byzantines too simply preserved the manuscripts without any significant advancement. It's only at the hands of Muslims that scientific quest of the Greeks was rekindled.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,301
Dhaka
#64
Greek works were being translated into Latin during the height of the Roman Empire. Note for example the fourth-century chronicle of Jerome, which is a Latin translation of Eusebius' chronicle with additions.
Of course Greek philosophical works were being translated into Latin. That indicates that they left out Greek sciences by choice/incomprehension.
 
#65
Of course Greek philosophical works were being translated into Latin. That indicates that they left out Greek sciences by choice/incomprehension.
It indicates no such thing. Pliny the Elder was certainly familiar with Greek science, and it's strange that you assume that Romans didn't engage with such things. Not every person in the Roman Empire was a country bumpkin farmer-soldier. You're mixing up Rome's legendary/pre-empire past with the reality of a multi-cultural and sophisticated empire whose aristocracy valued Greek-style education (paideia), including maths, science, history, philosophy and oratory. Every Roman aristocrat received a Greek-style education, and because aristocrats could by and large read Greek, translation wasn't as much of an issue.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Openminded

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,301
Dhaka
#66
It indicates no such thing. Pliny the Elder was certainly familiar with Greek science, and it's strange that you assume that Romans didn't engage with such things. Not every person in the Roman Empire was a country bumpkin farmer-soldier. You're mixing up Rome's legendary/pre-empire past with the reality of a multi-cultural and sophisticated empire whose aristocracy valued Greek-style education (paideia), including maths, science, history, philosophy and oratory. Every Roman aristocrat received a Greek-style education, and because aristocrats could by and large read Greek, translation wasn't as much of an issue.
Why then Greek scientific manuscripts had to be translated into Latin circa 9th-10th century?
 
#67
Why then Greek scientific manuscripts had to be translated into Latin circa 9th-10th century?
See post 60. A lot changed over the centuries. Skills become lost and need to be relearned. Works become lost and need to be rediscovered. Unfortunately some never are, regardless of the genre (e.g. most of the Latin histories of Livy and Ammianus are now lost. Sallust's history is now entirely lost save a few fragments, despite the fact that it was compulsory reading for Roman aristocrats in the fourth century.).
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,557
#68
The answer is no... and the evidence for that is Spain... Although it had been almost completely overrun , it eventually got rid of the invaders ... France is geographically bigger than Spain , and then there is the rest of Europe...... So even if the muslim/berbers had somehow managed to take control of all of France, its unlikely they could have held it for long....
 
Likes: Arminius

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,301
Dhaka
#69
See post 60. A lot changed over the centuries. Skills become lost and need to be relearned. Works become lost and need to be rediscovered. Unfortunately some never are, regardless of the genre (e.g. most of the Latin histories of Livy and Ammianus are now lost. Sallust's history is now entirely lost save a few fragments, despite the fact that it was compulsory reading for Roman aristocrats in the fourth century.).
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Romans studied and further advanced works of Archimedes or Euclid or likes? At any point of time?
 
#70
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Romans studied and further advanced works of Archimedes or Euclid or likes? At any point of time?
I don't know, since the history of science is not my area of focus, but certainly there were Roman treatises on engineering, and certainly the Greek centres for learning in Athens and Alexandria persisted up until Late Antiquity.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions