NEWS CENTER – In a new series of articles, the English Nûçe Ciwan will be publishing the 3 English translated works of the Manifesto for Democratic Civilization by Rêber APO (Abdullah Ocalan) chapter by chapter every 2 days.
Today we will start with the first work:
“Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization: The Age of Masked Gods and Disguised Kings”
-
Introduction
- On Method and the Regime of Truth; Section 1
2.1 – Continuation
2.2 – What constitutes the Human Being?
2.3 – Continuation
2.4 – Moral metaphysics
2.5 – Continuation - The Main Sources of Civilization; Section 2
3.1 – Interpreting the Evolution of Social Structures in the Fertile Crescent - Urban Civilized society; Section 3
4.1 – An Analysis of Civilized Society
4.2 – Problems Associated with the Expansion of Civilized Society
a. Problems with the expansion of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations
b. Developments in the Chinese, Indian and Native American cultures
c. Greco-Roman civilization and problems associated with it’s expansions
We examined the expansion of the Sumerian and Egyptian based civilizations together, because they developed more or less at the same time, mutually influencing each other during their development stages and continuing to do so during their periods of expansion. Furthermore, their shared Middle Eastern roots are another reason for their unison. It is a characteristic feature of this region that at birth they are already intertwined. These two cultures were the inventors of many of the “firsts” of history. It cannot be denied that all the other expansions that succeeded them were formed on the basis of the essence and on the pattern of these two civilizations. Although the successor civilizations were not exactly similar, there is no doubt that they were bound by their shared roots. The initial slave-owning civilization was the Sumerian one, followed by the Egyptian civilization; this model then spread itself around the world with little change. I doubt that any civilization can be analyzed effectively if the Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations are not taken into account.
However, there are problems associated with this model. Firstly, we need to clarify What the level of influence between the Sumerian and the Egyptian civilizations was, and secondly, we need to determine whether the Medo-Persian civilization, the first to be constructed outside of the Mesopotamian centers, originated from the same or a different source. It is clear that the Medo-Persian civilization adopted many of its essential characteristics from Sumer, and later from Babylonia, Assyria and Urartu. However, they achieved areas of major and unique reform, of which the Zoroastrian moral revolution (quite similar to the moral of freedom), a centralized state system, and an immensely effective military order were the most important. For this reason, I treat the Medo-Persian Empire as a civilization distinct from the Sumerian-Egyptian civilization, but as the connecting link between the Sumerian-Egyptian and the Greco-Roman civilizations. If seen in the correct historical perspective, such similarities and differences can play an important role in determining the phases of civilization. If we discard these factors, the Greco-Roman civilization will not be analyzed properly or the analysis will be overly complex due to unscientific interpretations and because some characteristics will have to be attributed to miraculous origins.
Thirdly, there is the question of the origins of the Chinese and Indian civilizations. I believe that we should not treat them as independent. This approach will allow us to analyze the similarities and the differences between
civilizations. Even if we accept the South American, Harappa and Mohenjo-daro civilizations as distinct, it is clear that they were not able to move beyond the initial city-states phase (the Uruk-type state) and faded away. As a result, Africa, Europe (apart from the Greco-Romans) and even Australia became civilized during a much later expansion; all these areas, including the Americas, became civilized only with the expansion of capitalism. I hope that these short remarks will aid me in defining the Greco-Roman civilization and analyzing its expansion.
Undeniably, the Greco-Roman civilization was superior to that of the Medes and Persians. However, it would be ahistorical distortion and short-sightedness to claim that this superiority resulted solely from conditions in continental Greece and the Greek peninsula; we also have to consider the widespread expansion and the characteristics of the civilization from the Middle East-started by the Egyptians and Sumerians and then developed further by their successors, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Mitannians, Hittites, Urartus, Medes and Persians. All the inventions and the developments in the area of religion, morals, philosophy, arts, politics and science came into being during the birth, progress, strife and conflict of these civilizations. Furthermore, they came about as a result of the significant inheritance from Neolithic society. The Europeans were ignorant of
these fields of knowledge until much later-such knowledge only became firmly established amongst Europeans with the Renaissance of the Greek and Roman cultures. They then proclaimed that all were the inventions and innovation of the Greeks and Romans themselves. Hence, they now carry the sole responsibility for this faulty understanding of the Greco-Roman civilization. If Herodotus’s history were read more carefully, discovering the sources of Greek culture wouldn’t have been that difficult. All available historical documents suggest that continental Greece and the Greek peninsula were penetrated by the Indo-European language and culture from about 5.000 BCE, and that it underwent a Neolithic revolution. To obtain a proper historical understanding of this period, we need to establish the source of these influences. It is possible that a later wave of migration, around 1,800 BCE, brought the inventions of the civilization to this area. These immigrants later progressed to the stage of the city-state (similar to that of Uruk) around 400 BCE. This attainment was influenced significantly by the Hittites, who referred to this region in their documents as Ahhiyawa.
Reciprocal trade within the region began around 3,000 BCE Via Troy —a city Vital for Continental Greece and the Greek peninsula at the time. The Hittites brought to this region both the ideological inventions (gods, literature, science, etc.) and material inventions (especially things that could be traded such as metal, pottery and weaved goods) of the Middle East. They played a significant role in channeling these inventions into civilization. The Phoenicians, on the other hand, taught the early Greeks the art of navigation and their alphabet. Egypt also had a significant influence on them-both directly and through the Minoans on Crete. Thus, all the inventions of the Middle Eastern civilizationsnurtured the Greek culture continuously via these four channels. Later, Solon (638-558 BCE), Pythagoras (570-495 BCE) and Thales (624-546 BCE) Visited the Egyptian, Babylonian and the Medo-Persian palaces and schools in order to learn and bring back the lessons and its system of rule. After the fall of Troy around 1,200 BCE, the area was invaded by the Ionian, Dorian and Aeolian tribes. The Egyptians called the people who made these early attacks the “Sea Peoples,” and, according to the Egyptians, they were involved with the fall of Troy as well. These groups, which crowded in to western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands, were seen as barbarians by the Troy and Hittite civilizations. Indeed, the Hittite country and the small kingdom of Troy were the centers of civilization in the area. Barbarians can only become civilized after a long period of settlement in an established, civilized culture and this is indeed what happened: after a long period of settlement in continental
Greece, the peninsula and the Aegean regions, the establishment of cities began after 700 BCE. Besides influence from the Middle East, the urbanization around the Aegean shores also had an element of authenticity. This unique synthesis of a rich and diverse cultural heritage combined with the extraordinary flora and fauna of the region, gave the new cities their own unique identity. The cultural and ideological components inherited from the
Middle East were adapted; some important changes were made and then synthesized with a partially new essence. Thus, their inventions and innovations encompassed (and excelled) those of the Neolithic, Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, Urartu and Medo-Persian cultures.
The most important question here is: Where was the center of this, the biggest intellectual revolution in history? The initial city of the region was destroyed around 1,200 BCE and a period of chaos —the so-called Greek Dark Ages— followed. In this period, the only settlements were a few Phoenician trade colonies. Thus, until around 700 BCE, there was no civilization in continental Greece or the Greek peninsula. The Achaeans leaders of the time were not called kings (that would require a city-state) but tribal chiefs-they were clearly still in a phase of barbarism. Although Athens was already well known in the 7th century BCE, it was still far from being a center of civilization. The cities formed by the tribes on the eastern shores of the Aegean played a more central role. The most famous names of the Greek intelligentsia of the time (for instance Homer, most of the Seven Sages, Thales, Heraclitus, Democritus and Pythagoras) were all from the cities on the east Aegean shores and islands. Many of the famous gods (including Apollo) were from this or nearby regions. The most famous temples and centers of prophecy were also in this region. At the time, the material civilization here was much more advanced than in
Continental Greece and on the Peninsula.
Other evidence may include the existence of the Ionian cities —as the new Aegean centers of civilization— at the same time as, or just after, the Hittites, Phrygians and Lydians. Thus, continental Greece and the peninsula have the attributes of being sequels to the cities of the eastern Aegean. The invasion of this region by the Medo-Persian Empire around 545 BCE resulted in the center of Greek civilization shifting to Athens. All the ideological and material achievements of the civilization on the Aegean shore were moved to Athens. Most of the intellectuals took refuge in Athens or southern Italy. Under Persian rule, the region slowly lost its importance and Athens had a period of glory. Undoubtedly, the Persian civilization was the most magnificent civilizations of its time. It not only took from the Greek regions, it also contributed in many ways. However, because the region on the eastern shore of the Aegean lost its independence, it lost its first and last chance to establish a great civilization. If this had not happened, I believe that they would have spread all over Anatolia, establishing a magnificent civilization, larger than that of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Chinese, Hittites, Persians and even the Byzantines. Then the Greek and the Italian Peninsulas probably would have been states dependent to them. The presence of the Persians in the Aegean not only caused the end of the Persian Empire itself, but also prevented the Aegean from leading a great system of civilization. We can but lament this. Alexander tried to establish such
a center in the name of Macedonia, but all he achieved was a complex, polycentric culture that was a synthesis between the East and the West. Although it is called the Hellenic “culture,” it did not progress beyond being an eclectic synthesis; it is by no means an authentic creation. Later, under the Roman Empire, the Aegean had no opportunity to develop apart from it being a state with Pergamum as its center. Thus, again development in the eastern Aegean was stunted.
Indeed, in terms of expansion in size and increase in the number of cities, the Athens-centered civilization should be Viewed as a true civilization. It left its mark on the era in terms of ideological and material civilization. When analyzing Athens, we should View it as a new compound formed out of all the previous civilizations. All the progress of the Neolithic culture, the ideological and material inventions gained during the long history of civilization, were integrated with the local influences, realizing the biggest revolution of civilization. The most important characteristic of the Athenian revolution was the embracing of philosophy as ideology and as an alternative form of belief to paganism. Philosophy paved the way for a blossoming of knowledge and understanding. This is the era when the seeds of all the different philosophical branches were sown: idealism, materialism, and dialectics. Before Socrates, natural philosophy was the priority; with Socrates, social philosophy became more influential. The growth of the social question as a result of suppression and exploitation played a role in this development. (With “social question” I mean the establishment of the city-trade-state-administrational chain of events.) Furthermore, the city as a material civilization more or less forced this
philosophical thought: The city itself means a break with organic society; thus, a mentality removed from nature will easily be shaped in the city. The city civilization is established on the basis of betrayal of the environment and is the root of all abstract, vulgar metaphysic and materialistic thought. Therefore, although philosophy is on the one hand a breakthrough in thinking, on the other it creates alienation from the environment. The sages who spread philosophy and knowledge were the intellectuals of their era-just like the 18th century European intellectuals. They taught the children of the well-off families in return for money. The philosophers established their own schools just as the priests of Sumer used religious inventions and temples. In a way, they established their own churches (or assemblies). Just like polytheistic religions, they formed multiple philosophical schools. Each of the schools may be viewed as a religion or a denomination. Religions, since they are forms of thought, may also be seen as philosophies that had become traditional, institutionalized and then took the form of a belief system. We should not think that the difference between religion and philosophy makes them complete opposites. Where religion is more the ideological nourishment of the ruled classes, philosophy is
more nourishment for the youth and intellectuals of the privileged classes. Plato and Aristotle attempted to succeed in the priests’ duty to construct, defend and liberate the city-state through the use of philosophy. The main task of the philosophers was to determine how the city-state and society would be administered and defended and, more importantly, how it should be constituted.
The second important characteristic of the Athenian civilization was the emphasis it put on the theoretical and practical aspects of what democracy and republic meant. Although this was a democracy only for the aristocracy, it was an important phase in the history of civilization in general. Citizenship of the city was restricted to a small number of people —likely not even ten percent of society. Still, it was a critical innovation. It also played an important role in shaping philosophy and the art of politics. Democracy would entail that the people deal with politics themselves —they handled their own administration work. The essence of democracy is that people think, discuss and decide on critical social issues. Thus, the democratic politics of the Athenian civilization is a
vital contribution to civilization.
In the Athenian Parthenon, the Greek gods proclaimed themselves through a brand new form of architecture. Here, it was far more obvious that the gods were products of human invention than it was in the sacred houses of the Sumerian civilizations. The traditional religious belief was gradually losing its value —almost as if the Sumerian founders of cities and gods were living their last days in the civilizations of Athens and Rome. Athens, the founding city of the Greco-Roman civilization, received its name from the goddess Athena —the founder and protector of Athens. This is reminiscent of the goddess of Uruk, Inanna and, once again, we see the similarities and constructiveness between civilizations. Other parts of the cities included the agora (the town’s civic and
market center), theatre, stoa (a covered walkway), and arenas. The Greek cities attained more advanced institutional structures than those of the other civilizations. There were many palaces-some with, others without, the city having walled fortifications. These structures are reminiscent of those of the Hittites but they were more advanced and could accommodate bigger crowds. Greek literature developed far beyond anything the world had seen before. It may even be the greatest recorded literary culture of all times. Theatre lived through its most revolutionary phase. The many historical works of art included written legends and tragedies. Often important events were the “subject of the plays —heralding the formation of cinema. The remnants of the magnificent
buildings indicate how highly developed the architecture was sculpture attained a level of near perfection. Impressive reliefs reflected scenes from mythology. Their strong mythological literature was a synthesis of all the
mythologies of the ancient civilizations, the outstanding instrument of this period. Poetic expression, although no longer as prominent as in the heroic era, continued its existence.
The arts of navigation and trade progressed as well. As far as navigation isconcerned, the Athenians were second only to the Phoenicians. Although trade was not a favorite occupation in Athenian society, the early seeds of capitalism existed there-albeit at a marginal level. After Athens, Sparta was the most important of the Greek city-states. Its most important characteristic was that it continued the ancient traditions of the kingdoms. Although there always were rivalry and war amongst the Greek city-states, Athens and Sparta became the models for the entire Continental Greece, the Peninsula, the islands and Asia Minor. Even the regions around the Black Sea and the shores of Marmara made the transition to the city-state. The increase in population and trade initiated an advanced era of new colonization. On nearly all the Mediterranean shores and islands Greek colonies were
established —in Egypt we can still see the remnants of Greek cities of this time. Trade houses were established from Marseille to the south of France and on the Mediterranean shores of Spain. Even the south of Italy was colonized to a degree. Despite all these major developments, the Greeks were not able to attain the imperial power of the Persians or the Romans. The spirit of the time demanded becoming an empire or being swallowed up by another empire. Around 340 BCE the Greek civilization, led by Athens, faced the threat posed by the Macedonians, who had risen as a new kingdom in the north. The Greek civilization was not able to transform its extraordinary ideological and material power into a central political system surpassing that of the city-states. After a few battles of resistance, the Greek civilization lost its independence once and for all. But, just like Babylonia, it continued its existence for a long time as the new cultural center. The final blow to the democracy of Athens came from Macedonia when Philip, who wished to unite in a tight alliance all the tribes that, although from different language groups, belonged to the Greek culture, succeeded in taking Athens in 347 BCE.
Philip’s son Alexander was educated by Aristotle and was thus well equipped with knowledge of all the Greek cultural values and its mythology. Like all other Greek politicians, Alexander was well aware of the riches of the Persian Empire and it became an obsession of the Greeks to conquer the Persians (very similar to the desire of Islam to conquer the Byzantines). Alexander was better equipped than the rest to achieve this, partly because his army was not the traditional army of slaves. But it should be well understood that Alexander longed to possess not only the riches of the East but also this successful culture. He moved with his voluntary military units, organized into a new military formation called the phalanx, led by the chiefs of those tribes that newly left barbarism behind. He conquered everything from Egypt up to the Indus. When he mysteriously died at the age of thirty-three, he left a conquered area much larger than that of the Persian Empire, an area opened up for the Greek culture. Although this area had been civilized before Alexander’s conquest, its ideological and material base was that of the first generation, slave-owning civilization. The Greek culture, on the other hand, had surpassed this culture long before this time and had a promising future. Hence, it had the ability to inculcate the area with new idea’s. Just as the Sumerian priests inculcated the Neolithic culture to form the initial classed city and state culture, the Greek culture inculcated youth into the ancient areas of civilization; thus, during the
Hellenistic period (323 BCE to 34 BCE), many kingdoms were established. The most important kingdoms at the time were those of the Ptolemies in Egypt, Pergamum in Anatolia and the Seleucid Empire in Syria and Mesopotamia. The Parthians, who formed a new empire after the defeat of the Achaemenid Empire, tried to restore the Persian Empire but they did not fully succeed. These approximately three hundred years of Hellenistic culture brought the construction of new cities and pantheons that represented a mixed culture of Greek and Persian gods. In addition, the fact that the Greek language and culture became the official language and culture of such a vast area led to the formation of an important synthesis. Not only was Alexander’s life itself a synthesis of the East and the West, but so were all the dominant cultures of the time. History has never again witnessed such a grand synthesis of cultures. A vivid example of this can be seen in the ruins of Antiochus’ tomb in Mount Nemrut. This tomb is flanked by statues of the fully syncretized deities Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo-Mithra-Helios-Hermes and Artagnes-Herakles-Ares, symbolizing the East-West synthesis.
What is importance for the issue at hand is not the fact that the slave-owning society of Sumer civilized the empty regions or the Neolithic cultures, but that a new slave-owning society, the Greek-Hellenic civilization, which had progressed to a higher level, attempted to re-civilize, under their new cultural domination, the whole area from India to Rome, from the northern Black Sea to the Red Sea and from there to the Iranian Gulf. The younger and more militant representative of the new culture that was rising in Rome would develop the same policy and construct the biggest slave-owning empire of its time. Defining the Roman culture is no less important than defining the Athenian culture.
- One important reason is the fact that this was the flowering period of the slave-owning society —with its fall, the slave-owning society declined rapidly.
- Secondly, it was the biggest representative of the imperial culture. No other empire in history has ever been as glorious as the Roman Empire.
- Thirdly, Rome was the last and the strongest representative of the masked god-king civilization. The Roman emperors considered themselves both human and god, saw no need to give account of their own actions but everybody else was forced to account to them.
- Fourthly, this was the state that introduced law and citizenship to many other communities.
- Fifthly, it was this empire that developed the concepts of world citizenship, cosmopolitanism and world religion (Catholicism).
- Sixthly, the Roman Empire was the dawn and foothold of the European civilization. Seventhly, it existed as a republic for a long time. The city of Rome did not miraculously attain these big developments. It obtained the latent power from the four important cultures that preceded it.
Firstly, there was the Neolithic revolutionary culture. Around 4,000 BCE this culture not only influenced the whole of Europe but also the Italian Peninsula and the last representatives of this culture were the Italic tribes. It is probably correct to assume that these tribes began to define the ethnic identity of the present day Italy around 1,000 BCE. It can thus be said that it is this identity that would have been influenced by the Neolithic institutions and mentalities. They are probably of European roots. The second group that served as a channel for cultural identity was the Etruscan civilization. This civilization with its Mesopotamian roots was half-Neolithic, half slave-owning; they brought the Aryan language and culture to Italy via Anatolia. They probably settled in the North of Italy around 800 BCE and spread from there. They are the ones that should get the honor for bringing the first scatterings of civilization to Italy and the city of Rome. Thirdly, the Greek culture, centered in Athens, had one of its branches as a colony in southern Italy in the early days of Rome’s formation. Fourthly, Carthage and the colonies established by the Phoenicians channeled the eastern Mediterranean culture of Egyptian and Semitic origins to the Italian Peninsula.
The essence of Rome’s success lies in this mixture of all (with the exception of the Chinese) cultures. A synthesis far superior to that of Athens and the eastern Aegean resulted from the unity of the latent powers inherent in these four cultures. The mythological construction of Rome by the twins Romulus and Remus, who were abandoned by their parents and raised by a she-wolf, is a tale that was used to explain the origin of many similar cultures-it is an interesting way of explaining an external source and a culture of mixed origins. The mythological story of the construction of the Roman Empire after the fall of Troy by Aeneas, fellow warrior of Paris, is quite instructive in terms of its Anatolian characteristics; it is an epic expression of my own approach. The story of construction by the priest-kings around 700 BCE would have been suitable for the construction of any of the similar main city-civilizations. The many conflicts with the surrounding tribal clans explain the relationship between class and statehood in the construction of the cities. The rivalry and battle between the Etruscan and Latin tribes exemplifies all conflicts between a local Neolithic culture and the cultures of a civilization that were seen as external. Rome had the luck that it was located at the western end of all the other civilizations, that it was on a peninsula, and that there was no strong civilization with European roots on its northern boundaries. All of this allowed the rise of the Roman city-state. It could have been threatened by either the Athens centred civilization in Greece or Carthage, the strongest colony of the Phoenicians in North Africa, that later became an independent city-state. But it soon became clear that the Greeks would not become a serious threat for the
Romans. The Greek civilization was prevented from turning itself into an empire or centralized monarchy by the continuous pressure of the Persians from the east and by the severe rivalry between the city-states. The result was that the Greeks were soon ruled by the Macedonian Kingdom. Carthage was a more serious rival. Rome and Carthage were geographically not far from each other and thus expanded into the same regions. The fact that
they both had the civilizational characteristic of prospective domination would sooner or later have them fighting. A century of battles finally removed the only real obstacle in the way of Rome’s success. The biggest threat could have been Alexander, as he identified Rome as his next target just before his death.
Instead of Rome, the Alexandrian empire could have easily become the strongest power in the world. Alexander had all the requirements. But his early death allowed for the rise of Rome. Except for the Parthians far to the east and the Iranian-Sassanid Empire, from 150 BCE onward, all the ancient civilizations and the world of the Neolithic culture lay open to Roman conquest. Rome’s establishment of a republic in 508 BCE can be attributed to it being an institutional continuation of Athenian democracy. Although the new cultural basis played a role in this, the strength of the aristocracy was the determining factor. Monarchies are usually conservative and do not allow aristocracies to grow. The Republic raised the self-awareness of the Roman people and gave them the will to stand up for their own interests. The Roman Republic’s two assemblies (one for the aristocracy and the other for the citizens), the consul, the development of the judiciary as a separate institution and the institutionalization of the city guard made the democracy of Athens look amateurish. The governance of the Republic became the main resource for the development of the art of politics. It not only illustrates the connection between politics and law, it also illustrates that law is indeed negotiated and institutionalized politics. As a republic, Rome attained a splendid cultural development internally and glorious conquests externally. Becoming a republic allowed the Roman civilization to reach its natural potential. The transition from republic to empire was the result of growing conflicts and of both internal and external threats. The conflict between Julius Caesar and his rivals can be viewed as a conflict between the center and periphery and between the aristocracy and the plebeians. This evaluation seems to be substantiated by the fact that Brutus justified his treason by claiming that under Caesar, the glorious dignity of Rome was sacrificed for the provinces, that the plebeians mostly took sides with Caesar, that the distinguished representatives of the city aristocracy took part in the conspiracy, and that the provinces mostly supported Caesar. Externally, the rebellions continued and the Persians arrived at the Euphrates. The enormity of the threat can be seen from Caesar’s expeditions to Gaul, Britain and Germania, the rebellions in Anatolia, the death of Crassus —the third most powerful person in Rome— during a battle with the Persians, the rebellion of the Jews in the eastern Mediterranean, the never ending fights in
Greece and the Balkans, the emerging attacks by the Goths, Scythians and the Huns, the looting expeditions of the Arabic tribes at the far south and the continuing existence of the strong monarchic remnants in Egypt. The republic’s never ending senate discussions, rival factions’ disputes over consul nominees, and the fact that people had become accustomed to external looting complicated things for the republican regime when fighting off the external threats and making historical decisions.
This formed the basis for the policies of Augustus, the great-nephew of Julius Caesar, who led the transition from republic to empire. Rome required policies that would bring stability on the inside and reliability on the outside. Thanks to these policies, the glorious period of the Pax Romana lasted until 250 CE. Thanks to Augustus’s policies, the senate was reduced to an assembly of consultation; the institutions were no longer administered by those elected but by those appointed; the people were entertained every day and hence kept
busy; strong security stations were formed, reinforced by walls; and the transition to defensive wars was made. Augustus was the first in a list of very famous emperors —the last of the half-god and half-human kings! What is
interesting is that the Roman emperors were also becoming aware that the classical pantheon of gods was meaningless. They could see that legitimacy could not be obtained through the masks of gods. The great turmoil following the invasions of the Franks, Alamanni, and Goths around 250 CE and the inability to centralize the empire signaled its disintegration and collapse. Even Zenobia, the famous queen of Palmyra, pursued an empire encompassing what we today call Egypt, Syria, Anatolia and Iraq. In the East first Ardashid I, the founder of the Sassanid dynasty, and then the great emperor Shapur I, who can be seen as equal to Augustus. defeated the Roman armies. They proceeded all the way to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Taurus mountains. In the meantime, the famous garrison city of Zeugma, close to today’s Birecik, was destroyed, never to revive again.48 Upper Mesopotamia became a region of battle and continuously changed hands between the Roman Empire and the two Persian Iranian Empires of the Parths and the Sassanids. It thus became a region that was no longer a source of civilizations, but a region of destruction. After Urartu, this region has never been able to procure its own central formation. It is one of the most tragic developments of history that it has always been subjected to incursion, occupation, annexation and exploitation by other forces. It is like the fate suffered by women: although she has achieved the biggest cultural revolution, she has been violated the most.
The end of the era of the big Roman emperors arrived with Emperor Julian’s tragic death during a fierce battle at the shores of the Tigris in 363. It was clear from these battles in the East and on the European continent that the empire could not be ruled from Rome. After the abdication of the famous Emperor Diocletian in 305 CE, six other emperors ruled simultaneously. Constantine I rose above the rest and changed the religion of the empire in 313 and moved its capital in 325. After the death of Julian, the last emperor in Constantine’s line, the empire was officially split in 395. The Western Roman emperors were at the mercy of the Gothic chiefs. Even the chief of the Huns, Attila, could have invaded Rome in 451 if he had wished. In 476 the last Roman Empire was killed by King
Odoacer of the Goths. But its culture lied beneath the earth, alive, waiting to resurface. Although the story of the Second Rome, Byzantium, continued for a long time, this story was both insignificant and an imitation. The efforts of Justinian between 527 and 565 to hold together all the regions of the empire were effective but the provinces were all slowly detaching themselves. Byzantium defined itself as the Second Rome, but I think the claim that Constantinople is the Second Rome is an exaggeration. Constantinople was just an ineffective replication of the old Rome. Its Christian aspects will be handled under another topic. The Ottomans (and also the Moscow-centered Russian Slavs) like to see themselves as the Third Age of Rome. Their claim to be the third Rome is not only an exaggeration, it also leads to great confusion because it mixes different periods and cultures. I will try to interpret problematic concepts such as the Christian civilization, Islamic civilization and Hebrew civilization in the following section.
From England to the Black Sea, many new empires appeared after the fall of Rome. With the collapse of the belief in paganism there was an enormous religious vacuum. European paganism and mythology could not provide what was needed. The new age not only demanded a material, political and economic revolution, but one that was moral and religious. But before I discuss the rise and meaning of the Christian and Islamic revolutions, I must give a rough overview of the cultural and monetary situation of Rome. Under the imperial umbrella, agricultural production, mining, craftsmanship and trade grew considerably. The saying “All roads lead to Rome” signifies Where the economic resources flowed. The whole world was nurturing Rome. Besides keeping Rome, these revenues built other magnificent cities. In the east, Hellenistic cities such as Antioch (Antakya), Alexandria, Pergamum (Bergama), Palmyra, Samosata, Edessa (Urfa), Amida (Diyarbakir), Erzen-i Rum (Erzurum), Kaisariyah (Caesarea, Kayseri), Tarsus and Trapezus flourished. The European architecture did not vary much from the Greek city architecture, but buildings were larger and even more magnificent. Splendid aqueducts, waterwheels and
channels were built —a tremendous improvement on previous structures. The road network was enlarged enormously. Security was ensured —the Pax Romana really existed. Mines and architectural tools were also improved. Quarry works and stone carvings were incomparable, except for that of Egypt. Metallic armor coating and weapons were the products of a highly developed craftsmanship. Trade became totally institutionalized. In contrast to the Greek culture, under the Romans trade gained in reputation and was in high demand. It was a flowering period for trade.
Never before in history was law so developed and institutionalized. A natural result of law is the institution of strong citizenship. Being a Roman citizen was a great privilege. All of the aristocracy and merchants considered it a privilege to be a Roman citizen. Somewhat similar to today’s obsession with life in the states of capitalist modernity, the Roman life style was desired by everyone. Pantheons and the temples built in the name of gods lost most of their importance. Roman theology embraced the Greek theology but changed the names of the gods. Virgil used the poetry of Homer-especially the epic poems the Odyssey and Iliad-as a model to write the Aeneid, the epic poem about the establishment of Rome. All elements of the Greek culture, including Greek literature, theatre, history and philosophy were Latinized and embraced. Still, important original work was produced in Rome as well. Oratory was an important form of art and the Roman language became the standard to which people aspired. Latin gradually became the standard diplomatic and international official language, replacing Greek. If the classical work of the Greeks had not been translated to Latin, they would have been lost by now. Although clothing still showed Eastern influences, it acquired a unique Roman style.
However, some Roman sporting events were quite barbaric. The gladiator fights, the fights with lions and’ other wild animals, the offering of imprisoned people to hungry lions-these practices were appalling. A decline in morals was achieved by accustoming people to such entertainment.
When comparing the Roman and Athenian cultures, it can be seen that the ideological aspect dominated the Athenian culture, whereas the Roman culture was dominated by its material and political aspects —in Rome, politics was turned into a form of art. However, it is important to see that the two cultures form a unit. It is as if Alexander first, then the kings of the Hellenistic period, and then later the Romans, harvested the cultural foundations that Athens sowed. It is impossible to think of Rome becoming a world empire without cherishing the Athenian culture. But what is more important is that these two cultures represent the final evolution of the Eastern culture. Despite contrary belief, it is not a culture or an empire of pure Athenian and Roman origin. They are syntheses resulting from local elements being nurtured by Eastern cultural sources. Even Europe was able to achieve its own cultural revolution by the refusion of these cultural sources with that of the Roman and Athenian synthesis. Without the East and the main cradles, Mesopotamia and Egypt, one cannot even imagine a European culture. If developments are considered from a material point of view, it will be seen that history is a whole. The formation and multiplication of cities are connected like a chain, beginning in Uruk. It is not a coincidence that nearly all civilizations have an Uruk of their own. It is the dialectic of urbanization. The same dialectic was present at the birth andexpansion of the Neolithic culture. Thus, this discussion of the expansion of civilization illustrates that no societal development can be understood if we study the society detached from its historical and geographical contexts. With the Romans, the conquest of our world by the systems of civilization was largely completed. Indeed, it had even entered the vicious circle of reconquering the old regions. The act of re-conquering between civilizations has the characteristic of seizure and looting, because the civilizations share “similar characteristics. The only purpose is to loot the accumulated property income and to appropriate it for yourself.“ Expansion based on clashes and change of hands between civilizations does not create new values but damages them. When the monotheist religions are discussed, it will be seen that one of the most meaningful developments in history is their opposition to the regimes of civilization, which were polytheist and pagan, on the basis of a new mentality and new practices. Although some of the civilizations expanded on the basis of these religions, it is clear we face a new development. I will try to interpret these in the next section.
