Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In most European works of art, Ancient Rome as a whole is not just treated well, it is praised. Rome has been the ideal state system for the entire European history up to the twentieth century. No wonder the medieval union of European states was called the Holy Roman Empire, different states at different times called themselves the Third Rome (Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey, England, Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia), and Roman law is still studied at law schools. Roman art has always been a role model, Latin is still the language of many sciences (medicine, biology, law, etc.). One medieval thinker wrote that paradise is Rome, of which Christ is a citizen.
You haven't bothered to give examples of art that treats Rome badly. The quote that seems to be in your question is given without context and may belong, for example, to a Roman character who witnessed the fall of Rome in the 5th century. This event was a real collapse of the world for those who survived it. Many pagan authors believed that it was a punishment from the gods for Rome's rejection of paganism and conversion to Christianity – hence “cursed by the gods”. There were also supporters of paganism among European intellectuals after that. For example, Gemistus Plethon almost lived until the fall of the second Rome – Constantinople-in 1453. And among the writers of modern times, there are a lot of such people.
Because Rome fell victim to the propaganda of medieval Christian societies. Christians had to make themselves victims of Roman blood drinkers, so they invented all sorts of absurd stories about Rome.
For example, it was believed that the Romans gather for a feast, eat too much, then throw up and eat again. In words, it looks even logical, but just imagine it. Remember how you felt after you threw up so well. After that, everything is already a bust, there is no question of any food or drink, I don't want anything, plus a terrible stench. Of course, such feasts were impossible.
It was believed that the bloodthirsty Romans killed the losing gladiator, and only rarely spared him. In words, it looks beautiful, but from an economic point of view, this is pure fiction. You can imagine how much it costs to prepare a young football player, invest money and time in him, so that after the first match… murder. What does this mean? This means a lot of money to waste, it means the absence of football stars, it means the impossibility of this sport as such. Obviously, in reality, gladiator fights were something like wrestling with John Cena.
It is clear that in the Middle Ages people could not understand what stadiums were, it was believed that these were such dwellings, or something else. Especially clever ones have been told that these are squares where bloodthirsty Romans gathered to torment poor Christians and enjoy themselves. No comments.
Again, the sex life of the Romans. Of course, for a twisted person of the dark ages, this is just a horror of horrors.
Again, it was believed that the Roman rulers were a collection of the most vile degenerates, psychopaths, cruel lunatics.
And so on and so forth. Much of this ridiculous propaganda is still being heard.
And the reason for such hatred? A new force always denigrates the old one. The Christians themselves were also very well treated later, Christian societies are still presented as a kind of hell on earth, and religious small towns are still presented as a collection of hypocritical sectarians and murderers. Or the Communists, when they took power, poured tons of shit on RI, and sat down, happy. Then they were beaten in the liver, and today the Communists are worried: damn Solzhenitsyn and the Chernobyl TV series.
It's always been like this.
This phrase is questionable. Who said it: the Romans, the time of Theodoric and Odoacer or the French ” enlighteners of the 18th century? At the time of Odoacer, practically all the Romans were Christians, and “gods” were out of the question. Volte-Diderot-Rousses loved harsh phrases, even without knowing or understanding the subject. These include, in full, the words:” We all learned a little bit, something and somehow.” The main thing is to crow, and then … at least do not dawn.