Differences and similarities between the Ancient and Medieval invention of the state

Social communities, be they less developed or with a higher degree of organisation, have existed since the advent of the first communal
gatherings to establish common rules and primacy of those who wielded power over those who were deemed to be their subjects. The invention
of agrarian societies which ensured a stable sustenance for entire communities allowed those who held power to develop a more organised and
efficient ruling system for their benefit and for the benefit of those they ruled over, creating kingdoms, empires and national states as time passed
and human societies evolved. Throughout the course of history the state or the embodiment of a modern state in the past has retained common
aspects with the political communities established before and as such there are striking differences and striking similarities between both Ancient
and Medieval concepts of the state, characters which have been passed on to the modern form of the state that we live in. n one of the volumes in
the !ambridge Medieval "istory, reputed historian #.$. $ury mentioned that when considering a medieval state it is %...inevitable that many
conflicting elements, forces and tendencies should be found together at every stage of development&', an analysis can can be applied also for the
Ancient invention of the state, retaining characteristics passed down from generation to generation right until the first true states were created and
the last vestiges of feudal organisation disappeared.
As (aniel !hirot has pointed out in his work %"ow Societies !hange&, the advent of agriculture in the period of around ''.))) $!* has had a
significant impact on the way societies were organised, transcending from a simple forage based society where nomadic practices were a
distinctive character to a more sedentary agricultural society where the communities were formed around areas where there were enough
opportunities to ensure at least a subsistence living. An agrarian society is a type of a community that depends on agriculture as the primary
means for it+s support and continued existence, and it was the advent of agrarian societies that helped create the first groundwork for a more
established community, and as such political, called a state.
Statecraft was elusive in the first phases, only later on in the lands of Sumeria the first attempts at an organised state with a centralised power
were made and according to (aniel !hirot %it is not surprising that the earliest states...consisted of cities made up of granaries, temples and
fortifications built around them for protection.&- !hirot+s .uote attributes the spread of statecraft to three vital components / food, religion and
protection. This was prevalent in the early stages of Ancient states built around granaries and temples but also in the later stages such as the 0reek
city states that were focused around arable land, a grand temple or a pantheon dedicated to the gods and with strong fortifications erected around
the city. This would turn out to be a common component of medieval societies, cities were built around fertile arable land with a large church or
cathedral in it+s midst, whilst extensive walls or castles were constructed to protect those living within them. This ensured a gradual, albeit slow,
development of states as a whole as populations expanded, protected by foreign devastators, enabling those who lived within the confines of the
walls and within the territory of a strong kingdom to channel their energies on anything other than providing food by endlessly toiling the land
whilst bearing the constant fear of death.
Ancient states had an inherent problem with their internal organisation, which is a similarity with medieval kingdoms of the same nature. The
ruling classes were powerful and wielded considerable power but at the same time they focused on ties based on residency rather than kinship
which was prevalent in 1estern 2urope during the Middle Ages. Agrarian societies, unless highly developed, would have difficulties in
establishing a chain of food supply for the entire population, which was exerted even more once con.uests were made and the territory and
population expanded to unsustainable levels. Agrarian technology developed over time but the potential for gains in the productivity arose as
there were more tools and techni.ues available for the farmers and the artisans who produced and supported the community. Mesopotamian
Ancient states on the other hand contained strong, commercially developed cities, most of the times fortified by walls to protect them from
foreign invaders 3$abylon4 which encouraged a maximisation of production through full time division of labour 3which was markedly absent
from Medieval states, or the division of labour was as such a thin line of differentiation4 for those that worked. t did however present a rather
common ine.uality of wealth throughout the whole social spectrum. 5evertheless, the collapse of the Ancient state systems left in place elements,
mainly agrarian, that defined the way of living for almost the whole continent of 2urope until the Medieval kingdoms developed enough to allow
a significant boom in population.
The agrarian element is not the only simultaneous similarity and difference, the political system of both Ancient and Medieval states rests on
common ideals and methods with regards to the organisation of communities and the power in the hands of the ruling class. Ancient monarchies
were not too different from Medieval monarchies as the power was vested in the hands of the king or emperor with absolute rule over the entire
realm. 6assals or delegates controlled the territory and ensured the link between the common peasants and the king, but the difference is in the
development of the system and it+s specific characteristics. 1hilst absolute monarchies were contrasted by democracies in Ancient 0reece or by
tribal organisations, Medieval states had the concept of feudalism embedded and deeply rooted within it+s core values. The word %feudalism& is
little more than a rough generalisation or formula under which we try to include such conditions, economic, social and governmental, as are
found to be common and uniform throughout the lands and peoples which were once parts of the 1estern 7oman 2mpire.8 9et, there were still
numerous differences throughout the feudal systems, but nevertheless the base on which the political system was formed stemmed from a rigid
agrarian society that was very different from the simple system established on classes, or in some cases social castes.
:eudalism is long considered to be an %...obscure period of rapid change between the dismembering of the !arolingian 2mpire and the growth of
national States.&; 1hilst this rapid change was fostered and created on the base of a crumbling empire, which in turn established it+s base on an
ancient empire, one may very well ask the .uestion whether feudalism as an agrarian political system is not just a different organisation of an
Ancient state under a different name and slightly different operational levers. !ity states and the establishment of local centres of power with
numerous fragmentation entities were absent throughout 2urope with the exception of the talian <eninsula where numerous fiefdoms and
dukedoms coexisted in a somewhat harmonious manner similar to that of Ancient 0reece. :eudalism was the system that prevented such
organisation, agrarian societies needed extensive land areas and vassals to provide protection for the centralised powers, whilst Ancient
Mesopotamian states, 0reek !ity states and talian fiefdoms relied on commerce and interlinked relationships for their survival.
=ne profound difference that bridges a deep gap between Ancient and Medieval states is their religious form and observance, Ancient states were
mainly polytheistic whilst Medieval states were monotheistic, mainly following the denomination of the !atholic !hurch with it+s authority and
blessing given by the <ope in 7ome. <olytheistic gods, mainly the ones represented in Ancient 0reece and then copied and converted in the
7oman 2mpire did not provide the basis of the monarchical legitimacy as they did in the Medieval ages. The monarch of the feudal kingdom
always fell back on the divine right of kings to promote his legitimacy, and as such, the imposed serfdom was %ordained by 0od.&> The Medieval
state through it+s monotheistic approach consolidated a feeble organisation of the state by intertwining both politics and religious ideals. Maurice
?een further reinforces this aspect by mentioning that the %bonds of religious common belief and outlook were drawing them together, almost as
strongly&@ when social pressures or the shocks of foreign invasion took over. <olytheism divided the population, a stark difference from the unity
that was promoted by the !atholic !hurch especially during the call of the !rusades.
1hen a through analysis is made of the difference and similarities between the states one can simply dismiss the term state from the beginning.
The state is a modern political invention and as such most of the Ancient and Medieval %states& were strict absolute monarchies, with the
exception of democratic, timocratic and oligarchic 0reek city states and tribal organisations. As organised political communities, human societies
tended to stratify themselves in both cases, marking another similarity between the distinct regimes separated by time. As !hirot pointed out,
those %who own more resources...have greater power than those who not&A, which is the simple basis on how the systems of rule and class were
formed both in Ancient times and then in the Middle Ages. There is no difference between the society promoted by the Ancient %state& and the
Medieval %state&, as !hirot points out, %over the past ;))) years, most humans have lived in highly stratified societies with huge differences
between the powerful minority and the vast majority of downtrodden.&B Above all, even if communities have started out as simple agrarian
societies focused solely on their existence, he completes his previous point by arguing that %it+s not a coincidence that eventually every successful
agrarian state became a monarchy.&')
As case studies, a good comparison would be between the Ancient state of (emocratic Athens and the Medieval MerovingianC!arolingian state
led by !harlemagne. Two diametrically opposed inventions of the state, statecraft evolved gradual to form the democratic system present in
Athens whilst the Merovingian empire was nothing more than a continuation of the old 7oman regime based on ideals of the past with a radically
different system that was evolved gradually during the Middle Ages. $ut whilst the inventions of the state on both side present similarities, their
differences are the characteristics that stand out, as Maurice ?een pointed out, in the Merovingian empire, %any attempt to maintain a political
unity...was out of the .uestion.&'' Ancient Athens benefited from a centralised political system where the ideals and practice of isonomia and
isegoria were guaranteed and exercised to the last member of the citiDen body. <olitical unity was thus conserved and solidified as a whole, rather
than the fragmented early feudal system imposed by the Merovingian kings on their territories. (espite the obvious difference in siDe, not even in
the capital of AixElaE!hapelle, or Aachen, could !harlemagne and his successors maintain at least a semblance of political unity to act in the
interests of the state. $oth states disintegrated in a rather short period of time but whilst Athens retained it+s status at least of a local power, the
Merovingian empire disbanded into many small territories without any perceptible influence beyond their constantly changing borders.
2ven more so, from an economical perspective and social perspective, the two states relied on completely different systems to exist, Ancient
Athens relied on slave labour, which freed the citiDens to focus solely on politics 3a professional politician, as Max 1eber has pointed out4 whilst
the Merovingian vassals were focused on both providing food and waging war against the enemies on the empire. Above all, the feudal system of
!harlemagne eventually failed. As (aniel !hirot has pointed out, %...in the long run, all agrarian systems failed because from one of them, in
1estern 2urope, a new type of society evolved that made agrarian states and social systems obsolete.&'*
$ut above all, how different is the invention of the state itselfF Statecraft from it+s early thoughts was elusive and only the 0reek thinkers such as
<lato and Aristotle focused on proposing a regime that would be stable, e.ual and would not bulk under the pressure of corruption, external
influence or other factors that would belittle it+s apparently %perfect& nature. <lato himself was focused with the creation of a state that was to be
ideal whilst Aristotle on the other hand focused on the best regime that could be attainable in a state under those circumstances. Ancient states
were far more centralised than Medieval states were, and using hindsight, the Medieval invention of the state, at least in it+s early stages, was not
a state at all. The 7oman 2mpire was concentrated either on local seats of power or on the capital 7ome itself when at the height of it+s power the
empire was a state in the true meaning. Medieval states up until the ';th century experienced decentralisation and fre.uent, if not absolute,
fragmentation because of it+s economical and political model that was incompatible for an organised and controllable society and hierarchy.
:eudalism was the canon and the substitute for the Medieval state, the vassals were simply pieces attached to the main capital instead of being an
integral part of the central power wielded by the king.
Modern definitions of the state define it as a organised political community living under a government, whilst attributing to the state the status of
%legal fiction& and the possibility that it may be sovereign. The Ancient invention of the state was created out of the needs of a agrarian
community to organise itself more efficiently and to protect itself and it+s labour from foreign invaders, and as time passed the first complex
societies were formed which in turn led to the creation of massive Ancient empires. (espite the huge time gap between Ancient and Medieval
states, characteristics of the oriental social and political organisation were passed down and formed the basis of the first organised Medieval and
feudal states. =n one hand, the early Medieval state was not a state compared to the modern counterpart or even the Ancient counterpart, it was a
highly decentralised form of governing over a territory where fragmented local seats of power were attached to the supreme leadership of their
king through a system of vassalage. Through analysis and comparison one can see that the inventions of the state in these times are both similar
and different and that the formations of those ways of government are not mutually exclusive but rather interlinked with past social and political
communities established by the populations who wished to govern their lives more efficiently. The invention of the state in both cases was not an
invention, it was a necessity brought by the hardships of the period the people lived in.
The key argument you+re likely looking for isG changes brought on by the influence of !hristianity.
As compared to the Ancient 1orld, medieval 2uropean life distinguishes itself by the allEpervading influence of the !hristian !hurch 3HE possible
thesis4.
!hristianity arose during the heydays of the 7oman 2mpire 3#esus died under emperor Tiberius4, but to the 7omans, it was yet another #ewish
cult, at worst, politically incorrect, since it defied the proclaimed divinity of the emperor 3but then, all #ews already did, so... nothing new4.
To the medieval 2uropean world, !hristianity was everythingG from the crusades 3fighting in the name of !hrist, how ironicI4, to the prestige of
monastic life, to education 3monks were the main literate members of medieval society4, to many a border conflict justified by literal Jholier than
thouJ attitudes... even if you were to live your whole life under a rock, you+d still get to hear about !hrist 3from the friendly neighbourhood
hermit G4 4.
n the following showdown, 7 stands for 7oman, and M for MedievalG
'4 1orld viewG
7G The world was 7ome+s, aka the $ig =live+s, playground, to divide, con.uer and enjoy
MG The world was 0od+s creation, a test for sinful humans before #udgment (ay
*4 Spirituality
MG Spirituality, i.e. concerns about the nature and salvation of the soul, was central to medieval life. =ne did charity work, accumulated valuable
relics, prayed, fasted and so on for brownie points for <aradise. 7eligious orthodoxy issues, ranging from papal legitimacy to whether to use use
leavened or unleavened bread for the 2ucharist, fuelled most intellectual debates.
7G 7omans were more interested in philosophical musings and mysticism than the afterlife. As long as one acknowledged the divinity of the
resident emperor... they had no .ualms about adopting novel deities such as, for instance, the whole 0reek pantheon, or the <ersian cult of
Mithras.
-4 0enderErolesG
7G 7oman society was intensely patriarchal, so much so that the pater familias held power of lifeCdeath over his children. Sons were favoured
over daughters as keepers of the family name, and family reputation and relations 3see the clientEsystem4 were central to 7oman life. $oys had a
better chance of receiving an education, as women were still largely confined to the domestic sphere. "owever, there was wiggle room, especially
in the ruling class, where some women became influential 3see , for instance, !leopatra, or emperor 5ero+s mother, Agrippina the 9ounger4. And
hey, who can really tell talian women what to doFI
MG Many medieval women worked daily alongside their husbands in the fields and even commerce, but theoretically, they stood under the
shadow of !hristian teachings, which limited their status to that of vessel of reproductionG 2ve was a debilitated, deviant version of Adam 3i.e. a
mere rib4, who bore the main responsibility for Joriginal sinJ. Some women challenged this view in various treatises, but succeeded best when
retiring from society altogether, into monastic life.
84 MoolahG
7G thriving pecuniary system, with coins serving to promote the emperor in addition to trade
MG some return to barter, with coins becoming a relative rarity
;4 7ecreationG
The ideal medieval life was the emulation of the humility of #esus. This transient, sinful world was merely endured with the expectation of
<aradise. 5ow compare hairEshirts and selfEflagellation to any old 7oman orgyG stuffed hamsters pickled in wine, musclemen fighting to the
death, hallucinogens, group sex...
f you ask me, the 7omans had more fun.
>4 SlaveryG
7G 7oman society thrived on the backs of slaves, who, however, could be manuEmitted and in turn rise up the social ladder.
MG !hristian ideals of love thy neighbour as thyself run contrary to slaveElabour, so... new notions of who is or is not thy neighbour were cooked
up, such as, during the 7enaissance, that ugly thing about the race of "am.
<.S. Again, sorry, didn+t feel like writing a new reply... but hope this still helped you somewhat.
<.<.S. =kay, some hints for similarities, if, alas, you are 5=T writing the same essay as the other poster who no longer postedG
$oth societies were essentially rural, though 7ome itself was a .uintessentially urban center, complete with its fancy neighborhoods and slums,
neither had indoorEplumbing 3though the 7omans did have waterEpipes leading to their bathEhouses4, both also hadG bad nutrition for the greater
part of the population, social ine.uality of the sexes, pervasive illiteracy, weird superstitions, a strong trust in physical violence as a justifiable
means to whatever end, no breathEstrips or deodorant 3eekI4 EE though the 7omans did have public baths, goatEmilk and roseEwater perfumes...
Source:
nterest in history, with some classes on the subjects at hand taken at college and university level
M(26AK T= M=(275
=ne of the most important is the fact that in medieval times 3and indeed right up until the 'Ath century4 most people lived by farming. The vast
majority of the population lived in the country, and towns were comparatively small.
Another important difference is that most people were at least partially selfEsufficient in those days. <eople in the country grew their own grain to
make bread, their own vegetables, and kept pigs, chickens, cows etc. 1omen did the milking, made their own butter and cheese, reared the
poultry, preserved food for winter etc. They made their own candles and their own soap. They spun wool and flax into thread and made their own
clothing. 6ery, very few people nowadays would be able to do the things that most medieval people could do as a matter of course.
Another difference is that compartaively few people in those days were wageEearners, in contrast to today. Most people either worked their own
small farm, or ran their own small business, making things and selling them from their own homes etc. $usinesses were family affairs, with wives
very often assisting their husbands in their trade, and children joining in as soon as they were old enough. There were no big office blocks,
factories, department stores etc like there are today.
The majority of children would not have gone to school fullEtime like children in western countries do today. They would have been expected to
help out on the family farm or in the family business as soon as they were old enough. There were schools, but not all children went to them.
There were grammar schools run by the church, and in towns there were schools run by the guilds. The children of the upper classes might be
educated by private tutors. Among the upper classes, girls were more likely to learn to read and write than boys, since boys were more likely to be
expected to concentrate on learning how to use weapons, shoot with a bow and arrow, etc.
Another important difference is that whereas nowadays religion is optional in most western countries, in medieval times it was immensely
important in most people+slives. the year revolved around the holidays of the church, with !hristmas being the longest 3thirteen days4. 2veryone
went to church on Sundays, and pilgrimages to famous religious shrines were one of the most popular activites for people of all classes.
Monasteries provided important social care, giving alms to the poor, looking after the sick and old in the monastic infirmaries, and giving
hospitality to poor travellers.
Another big difference is that until printing was invented in the '8;)s, books were written by hand. n the early medieval period, they were
mostly produced in monasteries, a lot of monks and nuns copied books by hand. $ut as literacy became more widespread and the demand for
books increased, commercial workshops were set up which were able to provide a lot more books. $ut they were still .uite expensive, and not
everyone could afford them. So the oral tradition was still .uite important, people would tell stories, and recite poems.
Source:
Kife in a Medieval 6illage by :rances and #oseph 0ies
Kife in a Medieval !ity by :rances and #oseph 0ies
Kife in a Medieval !astle by :rances and #oseph 0ies
There is a lot of differences,first you don+t have executing people in public G4 heheh,!hurch is better today they were really bad in the medieval
period. n modern age people can say what they want,there is less poverty,you choose leader of the nation. There is to many differences,but some
stuff remained the same like racism,wars....... $ut when you put all together you see how difficult it was to live in medieval period. And also
2uropean countries don+t coloniDe third world countries like they did back then,the government is different.
n the traditional rural 2uropean societies of the Middle Ages, most peopleLs activities and attitudes were dictated by their social stations.
<henomena much like public opinion, however, could still be observed among the religious, intellectual, and political elite. 7eligious
disputations, the struggles between popes and the "oly 7oman 2mpire, and the dynastic ambitions of princes all involved efforts to persuade, to
create a following, and to line up the opinions of those who counted. n ''B' the 2nglish statesman 1illiam Kongchamp, bishop of 2ly, was
attacked by his political opponents for hiring troubadours to extol his merits in public places, so that %people spoke of him as though his e.ual did
not exist on earth.& The propaganda battles between emperors and popes were waged largely through sermons, but handwritten literature also
played a part.
:rom the end of the '-th century, the ranks of those who could be drawn into controversy regarding current affairs grew steadily. The general
level of education of the lay population gradually increased. The rise of humanism in taly led to the emergence of a group of writers whose
services were eagerly sought by princes striving to consolidate their domains. Some of these writers served as advisers and diplomats, others
were employed as publicists because of their rhetorical skills. The '>thEcentury talian writer <ietro AretinoMof whom it was said that he knew
how to defame, to threaten, and to flatter better than all othersMwas sought by both !harles 6 of Spain and :rancis of :rance. The talian
political philosopher 5iccolN Machiavelli, a contemporary of Aretino, wrote that princes should not ignore popular opinion, particularly in regard
to such matters as the distribution of offices.
The invention of printing from movable type in the ';th century and the <rotestant7eformation in the '>th further increased the numbers of
people able to hold and express informed opinions on contemporary issues. The 0erman priest and scholar Martin Kutherbroke with the
humanists by abandoning the use of !lassical Katin, which was intelligible only to the educated, and turned directly to the masses. % will gladly
leave to others the honour of doing great things,& he wrote, %and will not be ashamed of preaching and writing in 0erman for the unschooled
layman.& Although KutherLs 5inetyEfive Theses, which were distributed throughout 2urope despite being printed against his will, were of a
theological nature, he also wrote on such subjects as the war against the Turks, the <easantsL 7evolt, and the evils of usury. "is vituperative style
and the criticism he received from his many opponents, both lay and clerical, contributed to the formation of larger and larger groups holding
opinions on important matters of the day.
(uring the Thirty 9earsL 1ar 3'>'A/8A4, extensive attempts were made to create and influence public opinion, including the use of tracts
illustrated with woodcuts. =pinions were also swayed by means of speeches, sermons, and faceEtoEface discussions. 5ot surprisingly, some civil
and religious authorities attempted to control the dissemination of unwelcome ideas through increasingly strict censorship. The first Index
Librorum Prohibitorum 3%ndex of :orbidden $ooks&4 was published during the reign of <ope <aul 6 in ';;B. !harles O of :rance decreed in
';>- that nothing could be printed without the special permission of the king. The origin of the word propaganda is linked to the 7oman !atholic
!hurchLs missionary organiDation !ongregatio de <ropaganda :ide 3!ongregation for the <ropagation of the :aith4, which was founded in '>**.
More .uietly but more significantly, other means of distributing information were becoming a common part of life. 7egular postal services,
started in :rance in '8>8 and in the Austrian 2mpire in '8B), facilitated the spread of information enormously. 7udimentary private news
services had been maintained by political authorities and wealthy merchants since !lassical times, but they were not available to the general
public. 7egularly printed newspapers first appeared about '>)) and multiplied rapidly thereafter, though they were fre.uently bedeviled by
censorship regulations.
The great 2uropean news centres began to develop during the '@th century, especially in cities that were establishing sophisticated financial
exchanges, such as Antwerp, :rankfurt, Amsterdam, Kondon, and Kyons. 1ith the introduction of a paid civil service and the employment of paid
soldiers in the place of vassals, princes found it necessary to borrow money. The bankers, in turn, had to know a great deal about the credit of the
princes, the state of their political fortunes, and their reputations with their subjects. All kinds of political and economic information flowed to the
moneyElending centres, and this information gave rise to generally held opinions in the banking community, the ditta di borsa 3%opinion on the
bourse&4 is often referred to in documents of the period.
ADDITIONAL
!omparing !astles
:or serious preppers, it+s no different today than in medieval times. $rent is the prepper king of modern times. $uilding a medieval style castle on
an isolated mountaintop, $rent intends to protect his family the best way he knows howEElike a king. See how $rent+s family castle and its
defenses compare to the great castles in history.
$.
"ow does Ancient Art !ompare to Modern ArtF
Since its humble beginnings, art has always been a result of man+s intellectual and emotional connection with the world. ts primary aim is to
produce a message which will either provoke an unexplainable consciousness within the hearts of its viewers or incite wisdom among the minds
of the curious or the affronted. (ue to its extensive role for man, art has long been studied in a variety of ways, with some scholars adapting the
vantage point of mere aesthetics while some venture into comparative analyses.
The act of relating ancient art to modern art is not as simple as considering the time both were made. There is a more specific, more diverse
method in seeing how the older works measure up to the newer ones.
$asically speaking, ancient art concerns the types of art created during the ancient societies. n this case, the term JancientJ refers to the earliest
recording of man+s history right down to the Middle Ages. A common denominator along the works conceived during this period is the reason for
their creation. Adoration, may it be of a deity, a ruler, or an event, played a part in each society+s formation of artistry.
The religious nature of Ancient 2gypt allowed for works depicting the <haraohs, gods and goddesses, all of whom were given divine status. 1ith
this kind if adoration come a set of symbols that heighten the rulers to power. $y bestowing animalElike characteristics to the <haraohs, for
example, they are given godElike prestige in wall paintings, pottery and even miniature sculptures. Ancient !hina, meanwhile, produced the
famous terracotta soldiers as tributes to their impeccable army. t shows how cultural and religious factors played little to the development of the
art forms that have made the ancient society so famous until now. $y portraying events through the means of pottery and painting, such were
immortaliDed without the need to be written down as literature.
"ow does ancient art compare to modern art, considering such fervor for a supreme being, an event, or a societyF Taking into deliberation the fact
that modern art dates back from the 'A>)+s and beyond, a different style and philosophy prevails among the majority of works. Similar to ancient
art, the modern ones are also results of experimentation, but not in a phase of honoring a higher being. These are more personal works, with
nature and human emotion playing an integral part for artists like 6an 0ogh, Seurat, and <icasso.
t is also during the modern era when all the various schools of artistic thoughts have emerged to detach the wholeness of art. !ubism, realism,
(adaism, surrealism, and many more isms allowed for artistic freedom to take center stage. "ere, the personal began to turn into a collaborative
effort as artists joined forces to take a stand for their favored style. (adaism, for example, is a cultural movement that rejects the standards of art
that realism and impressionism have proposed. 1hat resulted then are more styles that emerged for eccentricity+s sake such as avantEgarde and
popular art.
"ow does ancient art compare to modern art if both of them involve stages of experimentationF <erhaps the ideal way of seeing the larger picture
is not by the way they differ, but by the way they match. Ancient art is seen as a result of man+s praise for higher beings, whereas modern art sees
a return to man+s search for identity after being subjugated by social forces for a long time. n the end, only one has to consider the amount of
works each era presented in an opportune light that is as indiscriminate as possible.
!omparison of ancient <ompeii and modern society is a difficult one to make, yet not impossible. $y all accounts life in a 7oman provincial city
wouldnLt have been an easy step for us to make as inhabitants of the *'st century, perhaps closer as inhabitants in preEindustrial revolution times,
eg '>E'@th century $ritain. t was certainly exotic in many ways but am personally certain that it would prove easier than a jump into some
countries today or into the middle ages.
7ecent scientific research on the bones excavated in pompeii has also yielded surprising results which we can glibly summarise by saying that
<ompeian society suffered worse oral hygiene but otherwise had very similar issues in terms of obesity through lifestyle, similar average height
of individuals to people living in that region today and most surprisingly a longer life expectancy than we have previously believed 3though still
unlikely to be the same as ours4.
1hat better than to challenge ourselves than to start with a list of similarities and differences 3the approach is rather loose but you have to start
somewhereI4G
Similarities between Pompeii and the modern world!
Market economy with laws of supply and demand, enabled by a well structured legal system, infrastructure, coinage.
<ompeii grew through a period of economic growth and development. Kike the western world of today it was about to be
hit by the implications of competition, cheap labour and goods from foreign competitors.
(emocratic
MultiEcultural
Kived the JAmerican dreamJG even a freed slave could aspire to become a rich banker such as Kucius !aecilius Secundus,
reach the top of society and what he couldnLt achieve might be achieved by his descendents.
"ighly developed bureaucracy and legal system E which included laws regarding divorce, property ownership, inheritance,
moralityP
MoralityG place it here as a challenge. Make a mental note of some easy examples as to why our modern morality is
different from what it was then and read on. Then think about it again.
"ooligans at the stadiumsG the common man was motivated by J<anem et !ircensesJ 3bread and circus4, not to mention the
races, betting and gambling.
:ast food shops along the street
7eligion and religious tollerance E This is a generic statement, and hovers between the similarities and difference. t was
relatively free to worship whoever you would wish to worship so long as you didnLt go against the state by doing so. This latter
statement is important since the !hristians initially fell awry of the established state religion which during the 2mpire was
increasingly focused around the 2mperor himself and hence at odds with monotheist ideas 3think of selfEcentred 2mperor 5ero for
example4.
!ompulsory military service 3depending on countries and epoch actually, most western countries have recently moved to a
professional army model, much in line with ancient 7ome.
Increasin" economic and social pressure from the #ast! find this a particularly intriguing parallel.