Concise refutation of the original lengthy acephalous ranting diatribe:
“A state that cannot attain its ultimate goal usually swells to an unnaturally large size. The world-wide empire of the Romans is nothing sublime compared to Athens. The strength that really should go into the flower here remains in the leaves and stem, which flourish.”
-Nietzsche (trans. Kaufmann)
'Nuff said.
Not good enough for me, I’m afraid, zen. Nietzsche, like all educated Germans of the 19th century transposed the ‘qualities’ of Athens onto themselves indiscriminately: this explains this sentiment. The Germans were very much enemies of the Roman Empire, you see, so they were uncomfortable about deferring any praise to its achievement. The Greeks, on the other hand, had no bone to pick with Germany.
To be blunt, there is no historical validity in the claims in your Nietzsche quote, at least none of any worth. The historical worth comes in the reflection of Nietzsche’s own ethnic and national identity which was characteristic of his culture.
Nuff said.
No argument with anything after the word “all.” 
The man was incredibly critical of “Germans” and the “Reich” and the tone I take from reading him is that empire itself, whether Roman or German, is crass, loud, and stifling. I hope I’m not projecting my own views too much onto his writings, but I think there’s support for the claim that politics for politics’ sake or for empire’s sake he found completely abhorrent.
Did I inadvertently set up a straw man from what you wrote? If you were merely stating that Nietzsche could not distance himself from “the Germans” enough to get rid of prejudices unreasonable to apply only to Rome and not Athens, there is probably a case for that; if you are disagreeing that the Roman political entity espoused political expansion at the expense of culture and civilization, I must take issue.
Athens, during the expansion of the Delian League, managed nevertheless to produce myriad works of art, literature, poetry, etc. I would argue that while Rome did have its share of such things, much was mere copying from Greek work, a lot was jingoistic crap, and much of the rest was satire aimed at various aspects of Rome - worthy (and quite amusing!) in its own context but not exactly long-lived. Certainly there was good Latin literature and poetry; as I understand things, however, Athens had proportionally much more.
I don’t support empire in any fashion (cf. Thucydides). Perhaps what I was intending to say (and did not give any points of my own for it) is that any assumption of the “greatness” of Rome is predicated on the “greatness” of tyranny and conquest and not a hell of a lot else. Could Latin poetry have flourished without empire? I’d like to think so, but a lot of it would have been quite different. How about Athenian culture? I believe much more of it was independent of empire than was the case for Rome.
Am I showing the prejudices inherent in my several-generations-Americanized but still largely German blood? Or are they based in my tarantula politics? 
Hi Gavtmcc,
You wrote;
Then please allow me to draw upon another world-renowned historian in order to support my claim. In his 1996 tome, Europe: A History, Professor Norman Davies (Supernumerary Fellow at Wolfson College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and Professor Emeritus of London University) remarked:
“Modern attitudes to Roman civilization range from the infinitely impressed to the thoughly disgusted. As always, there are the power-worshipers, especially among historians, who are predisposed to admire whatever is strong…” Ibid, p. 150
Davies own attitude is summarized here:
“…the long list of Roman vices cannot be forgotten. Critics have pointed to a specially repulsive brand of slavery, to cruelty beyond measure, and in time, to a degree of decadance that made hellinism look puritanical.” Ibid, p. 150
Speaking some pages later on slavery, he writes:
“Slavery was omnipresent in Roman society, and in some estimations the key institution of the economy. It provided manpower for agriculture and industry, and underpinned the luxury of the cities. It involved the total physical, economic, and sexual exploitation of the slaves and their children. It was supported by the wars of the Republic, which brought in millions of captives…Julius Caesar sold 53,000 Gallic prisoners after one battle alone, at Atuatia (Namur).” Ibid, p. 166
It seems that Livey’s,"Vae victis!" (Woe to the vanquished!) was no idle warning.
I came upon an interesting review of Millar’s The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours (along with several others) by the the late, M.I. Finley, a name that I think you might recognize. Sir Finley writes:
“No administration in history has ever devoted itself so whole-heartedly to fleecing its subjects for the private benefit of its ruling class as Rome of the last age of the Republic.” That sentence, from the final chapter of Professor Ernst Badian’s exciting little book on Roman imperialism…will even today shock some Roman historians and some readers…Yet the statement is true beyond any possibility of argument." “A Profitable Empire”, New York Review of Books, Jan 29, 1970
You wrote;
I’m surprised to hear you say that, Gavin. History isn’t merely about amassing great gobs of chronological facts; the point of the excercise is to make generalizations - to draw generalized conclusions about those individual facts. Surely, you’ve heard that famous quip by Paul Valery:
“L’Histoire est la science des choses qui ne se répètent pas.”
If you’re hesitant to make generalizations, what is the point, for example, of knowing the particulars about the Treaty of Westphalia? As Valery would say, there isn’t going to be another Treaty of Westphalia - at least no sane historian is waiting for one. We read history in order to form a commentary of it, and that commentary necessarily amounts to generalization; otherwise, historians would be relegated to a mundane, minor task of simply amassing endless lists of individual dated facts.
I stand by my original statement - the one you first objected to:
Your objection to my characterization was (quoting you):
Let me ask you, Gavin; suppose a powerful foreign invader burst upon your homeland, sending your sisters and brother away to spend the remainder of their lives in chains. Would you cheerfully abide that turn-of-events as long as the invader brought along with them an improved method of, say, harvesting and storing oats? a more efficient way of tax-accounting?
The Spanish Conquistadors, for example, brought to Central and South America advanced metallurgy and shipbuilding techniques (to name only a few of their novel imports), but at the price of a wholesale slaughter (whose gruesome particulars I won’t recite here). Do you think that the decimated indiginous population ought to have looked at the “big picture”? taken a utilitarian view? ought to have seen their ensalvement and massacre as a trifling when compared with the gain of those new technologies?
Doubless, small tribes do make war on other small tribes. But are you seriously trying to sell the notion that people become less bellicose once they join with a stronger (and in Rome’s case, ferocious) military power?
No advance in acqueduct technology or improvement in chariot-wheel fabrication could possibly counterbalance the massacre of a single generation of men on a battlefield and the enslavement of their wives and children. Those ancients who so suffered was each of them a human being, with a life as dear and meaningful to them as my life is to me. Primitive or not, they loved their familes no less than I love mine.
Regards,
Michael
Apologies in advance…I will have to postpone my part in this discussion for about 3 weeks due to demanding work schedule. Wish me luck…I’m looking forward to giving this one a crack this xmas. And yes, Michael, of course I’ve heard of Finley! Come on.
Interestingly, Norman Davies was at a lecture at my college earlier this week (he is now a very old frail old man)…incidentally I dont see any evidence of Davies’ own views in the passages yo uoquote, he merely seems to describe the views of unspecified ‘critics’. Please clarify!
Ok back to work…
Gavin,
Good luck in your studies!
Michael
Are you referring to the kind of certaintly that has made every history book call Richard III a legitimate royal?
Will:
No, these remarks are not ‘certain’ in that pejorative sense! I stand by their validity.
Michael:
I should have mentioned before I can’t agree with this! Your view of history is apprently unfairly polarising: either it’s a mass of facts, or it’s a series of generalisations. This does not have to be the case as you will no doubt (I hope) find when you read my essay for instance!
cheers.
Hi Gavin,
Nowhere have I said that history is delimited to either a mass of raw facts or a commentary about those facts. I’ve said that the Ultima Thule of history is commentary.
Regards,
Michael
Replying to an earlier post, whats all this about Rome losing its value as a name? Am I mistaken or, wasn’t there this thing called the Holy Roman Empire?
You cannot say that America is following the same path because now there are many more factors to be taken into account.
Hi ApocalypseOfWar,
The so-called “Holy Roman Empire” was something altogether different than the Roman Empire. Moreover, there’s a standing joke among some historians which says that the Holy Roman Empire: wasn’t holy, wasn’t Roman, nor was it an empire. 
Regards,
Michael
There is something extremely flawed with your post polemarchus… What historians are you referring to? We have no idea what their ‘concept’ of christianity actually was, all we know is the writings tey left us to interpret from our contemporarily biased viewpoint. Any worthy historian would not make a statment so bold.
Take it easy, Apocalypse. Voltaire was the source of that quip:
“This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire is neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.” Essay on Morals and the Spirit of Nations, 1756
Please take a look here, for example.
Btw, AOW, I’ve been meaning to ask you who is the fellow in your avatar? My best guess is that it might be Frederick the Great. Eh?
Regards,
Michael
Sorry PM, Just don’t base your own opinion on someone elses, it’s better to do the research yourself, developing your own views rather than quoting others. And my Avtatar is actually Kant. I never actually saw the resemblance until you said something, oh well… Ha!