If an ancient roman were transported to modern ame

[SarraceniaScott]

If an ancient wealthy Roman from the height of the Roman Empire were transported to modern America, what "modern" advances do you think would not surprise him? What would surprise him?

I think an ancient Roman might be surprised at how many things seem, on the surface, unchanged in 2000 years. We have learned to construct things faster and cheaper, but not better. Ancient Roman concrete has lasted 2000 years; modern concrete has a tenth of that expected lifespan.

A fair number of "modern" conveniences existed back then, but were only available to the very rich, and were very labor-intensive. For example, running hot and cold water would not surprise him, but that it is ubitquitous would. That the modern world exists completely without slave labor would probably surprise him.

He would also possibly be surprised how so much of modern architechture is evocative of ancient roman styles, and how so many words are based in latin, and how many legal concepts have come to us virtually unchanged since the days of Rome.

Our hypothetical ancient Roman would probably be a good deal less surprised at the modern world than a european of the 12th century would be.

Yes, I spent much of last week's TV watching time watching the History Channel and all the documentaries about ancient Rome.

 

[Capslock]

I think he'd be freaked out by the extent to which electricity dominates our lives. Lighbulbs, TVs, Computers, clocks, it really has changed our world in obvious ways. That and cars.

And I think he'd be amused by blimps, which are inherently amusing.

Capslock

 

[jimscott]

I think he would be in awe at the technological advancements that have taken place. But give him or her a couple hours (and some basic instruction) on a computer game and he/she would adapt rather nicely.

This reminds me of an old short-lived 60's sitcom about a married couple of "cavemen" who get stuck in 20th century America. I still remember their 20th century guardian type people teaching them how to sign their name.


It's About Time

 

[endparenthesis]

Roman: "... so, he ate extremely unhealthy food for years, got morbidly obese, and then sued the people who sold the food to him?"
Me: "Yes."
Roman: "And he knew how unhealthy it was from the start?"
Me: "Yep."
Roman: "But they didn't force him to eat it somehow?"
Me: "Nope."
Roman: "And he won this case and received an absurd amount of money?"
Me: "Uh huh."
Roman: "And this kind of thing happens all the time?"
Me: "Pretty much."
Roman: "I see... *yawns and checks sundial wristwatch* well, look at the time... I'm getting pretty tired here... I think I'll just be heading on back to the past now..."

 

[swords]

It'd be hard getting him to believe we aren't allowed to beat, torture and murder people (unless he was in the army or police), he'd have to adjust.

 

[JanW]

He would love the gun nuts and NRA...

 

[scottychaos]

Quote[/b] ]That the modern world exists completely without slave labor would probably surprise him.

slavery is far from extinct.
we just hear much about it.
but its out there.

 

[Anoxos]

We've all heard the term "wage slave". The modern "wage slave" aka low-middle-class worker is in about the same boat in terms of relative access to commodities, and relative social mobility, as the typical Roman slave was. Remember I said relative; we typical lower-class folks have things that the rich roman had, but we can't access the type of stuff the rich capitalist of today has. The roman would see that most immediately.

No, most modern conveniences wouldn't shock, but the ubiquity would. TV's tech would surprise him, but I doubt the programming would; bread and circuses then, McD's and reality programming now, it comes to the same thing thereabouts...

Modern English has more in common with ancient germanic than Latin. The "romance" languages of Europe are Latin derivatives. English is "the child of a Norman soldier trying to pick up a Saxon barmaid" as I've heard it laughingly called.

I think computers would be the one thing that amazes the roman most of all. Its the one thing I can think of (off the top of my head) that they didn't really have a concept of back then. Even space travel was imagined in fiction of the day, although they really didn't know what was up there.

The typical US person's wastefulness wouldn't shock him at all. Our sheer arrogance and expansionalist attitudes are right at home with the typical roman high-lifestyle. We are a nation of romanized gentry.

But maybe I'm just a cynic with a degree in Classical Roman Archaeology...

 

[endparenthesis]

It didn't really start to occur to people that machines could "think" (i.e. compute) until maybe the Rennaisance... and even then it was mostly things we're totally unimpressed by, like a mechanical calculator that could only add and subtract (it took Pascal 11 years and over 50 tries to build it).

Ada Lovelace is considered the first computer programmer, and the machine she was programming was never more than theoretical in her lifetime (1800s). That was around when people were really seeing the possibilities beyond mere automation.

My vote is that a roman would definitely be surprised by a computer.

And he might possibly be just as surprised by the display. Again, it wasn't until the 1800s that we figured out how to capture sound and video. It wouldn't surprise me if such a thing wasn't even considered a possibility a few millennia ago. It's like trapping a piece of the past in a bottle... it really is pretty magical. And then transmitting it invisibly through the air for millions to see... wow.

 

[Finch]

they would want their slaves back, want wine, and want to see half naked people kill eachother

 

[jimscott]

Quote[/b] (Finch @ Sep. 13 2005,9:02)]they would want their slaves back, want wine, and want to see half naked people kill eachother

Are you sure you are describing the Romans and not us'ns?

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

He'd dig football.

 

[herenorthere]

He'd be impressed at how we've privatized the empire. And lights would really knock his sandals off.

 

[jimscott]

Quote[/b] (Tamlin Dawnstar @ Sep. 14 2005,2:54)]He'd dig football.

He'd also love George Carlin:

"Baseball is different from any other sport, very different. For instance, in most sports you score points or goals; in baseball you score runs. In most sports the ball, or object, is put in play by the offensive team; in baseball the defensive team puts the ball in play, and only the defense is allowed to touch the ball. In fact, in baseball if an offensive player touches the ball intentionally, he's out; sometimes unintentionally, he's out.

Also: in football,basketball, soccer, volleyball, and all sports played with a ball, you score with the ball and in baseball the ball prevents you from scoring.

In most sports the team is run by a coach; in baseball the team is run by a manager. And only in baseball does the manager or coach wear the same clothing the players do. If you'd ever seen John Madden in his Oakland Raiders uniform,you'd know the reason for this custom.

Now, I've mentioned football. Baseball & football are the two most popular spectator sports in this country. And as such, it seems they ought to be able to tell us something about ourselves and our values.

I enjoy comparing baseball and football:

Baseball is a nineteenth-century pastoral game.
Football is a twentieth-century technological struggle.

Baseball is played on a diamond, in a park.The baseball park!
Football is played on a gridiron, in a stadium, sometimes called Soldier Field or War Memorial Stadium.

Baseball begins in the spring, the season of new life.
Football begins in the fall, when everything's dying.

In football you wear a helmet.
In baseball you wear a cap.

Football is concerned with downs - what down is it?
Baseball is concerned with ups - who's up?

In football you receive a penalty.
In baseball you make an error.

In football the specialist comes in to kick.
In baseball the specialist comes in to relieve somebody.

Football has hitting, clipping, spearing, piling on, personal fouls, late hitting and unnecessary roughness.
Baseball has the sacrifice.

Football is played in any kind of weather: rain, snow, sleet, hail, fog...
In baseball, if it rains, we don't go out to play.

Baseball has the seventh inning stretch.
Football has the two minute warning.

Baseball has no time limit: we don't know when it's gonna end - might have extra innings.
Football is rigidly timed, and it will end even if we've got to go to sudden death.

In baseball, during the game, in the stands, there's kind of a picnic feeling; emotions may run high or low, but there's not too much unpleasantness.
In football, during the game in the stands, you can be sure that at least twenty-seven times you're capable of taking the life of a fellow human being.

And finally, the objectives of the two games are completely different:

In football the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! - I hope I'll be safe at home!"

 

[Finch]

A good precentage of the roman population were slaves. Wine was the drink of the wealthy, of gods. And this is th epoeple who had the gladiators in the colesseum.

 

[jimscott]

That was their version of the NFL. Reminds me of an old Star Trek episode, where Rome never fell and they broadcasting the colliseum action.

 

[SarraceniaScott]

I want to bring back the Gladiators.

I think on Survivor, when they vote somebody off -- they should kill and eat that person.

On The Apprentice, I think Trump should have defenestrated those he fired.

On Fear Factor, there should be no safety nets.

Sudden Death should mean exactly that.

On American Gladiator, they should have carried edged weapons, not foam bats.

And yes, I'm kidding. (If you're offended...)

 

[jimscott]

I think Trump and Martha Stewart should be defenestrated!

 

[SarraceniaScott]

Quote[/b] (jimscott @ Sep. 15 2005,2:52)]I think Trump and Martha Stewart should be defenestrated!  

For being annoying?

 

[jimscott]

I was thinking for being arrogant, kinda along the same lines as that guy on Idol and that woman on Weakest Link, whatwever their names are

Of course, when I think if fenestrations, I normally think of S. leucophylla.