How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[Alanus]

There has been no appreciable evolution of humankind in those 2,000 years - in fact there is a good argument that we have devolved more in the last 50 years than evolved in the last 50,000! If I took a child today and sent them back in time to Rome - they would become Roman....

Evolution is constant. That's why it's called "evolution".... except during the Scopes Monkey Trial. :-P

If I adopted a number of Russian children and raised them here in Maine, I can guarantee they would answer "ayuh" instead of "da." What does this have to do with Romans? Nothing. :whistle:

Our military structures today have a direct and causal link - and thus there are absolute parallels.

All military structures have military parallels because they are military units, as in 100 men, 1000 men, etc., just as we see the structure of the Yuan army... 100 men, 1000 men, which were led by professionals (which happened to be Alans). Therefore, the Roman army and the Yuan army had "absolute parallels." And they all had a trumpet or tuba guy, just like Gunga Din.

How can we be sure, if a mere 2,000 years represents a gap that we cannot bridge because it's 'so different', that the language used in those ancient texts has anything like the meanings we ascribe today?

Language shifts? I have trouble understanding Chaucer, not to mention difficulty with Shakespeare. Good thing I didn't live in ancient Rome... or in Sintashta where they spoke Proto-Indo-European. :unsure:

Cheez whiz, Mark. You're talking about apples and oranges being the same thing.... only different. The Romans couldn't even understand their neighbors, lumping Goths, Alans, Sarmatians, Thracians, and Lord-Knows-Who-Else into a fantasy category called "Scythians." Today, we've evolved just enough to call the Chinese the Chinese and the Poles the Poles.

Maybe there's hope for Mankind yet! If we don't "devolve" back into monkeys. ;-)