historybuff said:
That depends on where you are in the world and if you're asking over all of time through all world civilizations or if you're speaking as in, "What's relevant to your country."
In the prehistoric period--agriculture. The concept of a city. The concept of building structures--especially from the Egyptians and the Romans who were architecting the hell out things.
When Rome took over England, they set them up to be organized and, eventually, England took Rome's place as the largest empire on the planet.
In the slightly more modern era--Europeans finding North, Central and South America and, later on, Australia and New Zealand--changed the world forever.
Egyptian cities were really mostly copies of old Sumerian and Mesopotamian cities. As well as their pyramids. Not to diminish their skill and importance, but the Egyptians were not the first.
In contradiction to popular belief, the people Romans, and now we, call barbarians of antiquity, were often very well developed nations. We like to think of them as hairy brutes and war painted lunatics, which, actually, couldn't be further from the truth. In the british isles, many nations existed well before the Romans arrived: The Anglos, the Britons, the Mercians, the Welsh, the Gaels and the Picts. Romans built a new London on top of the city that had stood there for hundreds of years. Sure, we can say the Romans were more civilized, but that's not the whole truth.
If we are to say Romans are the reason Britain triumphed over the rest in the late 18th century, we are saying the Romans left their cultural heritage to britain alone. If we are to assume it was roman tradition that took Britain to the top, why didn't the Italians or the French or any one of the areas more intensly affected by the Roman empire emerge on the top?
It wasn't Roman tradition that took britain to the top. Britain didn't take Rome's palce, there were many between them: the Byzantium, the Huns, the Franks, the Rusj(vikings settled in Novgorod and ruled the largest realm in Europe in the 1100s, that's also were the word "russia" comes from.), the Ottomans, the Spanish, the Portugese, the Dutch, the French, the Russians(under Peter the Great), then the French again and THEN finally after 1400 years, the British were the mightiest in the world. Their success was due to their own ingenuity and new innovations that had very little to do with the Romans. Even the Success of Italian city states wasn't due to the Roman legacy: its influence is vastly exaggerated. The European world domination was their own making: Rome was a romanticised utopia that inspired many, but in reality the means of conquering and ruling were of the later times.
Roman culture that affected Britain was collectivistic and the religion they brought was the old Greek- copied panthenon. When Europe rose to world power, the philosophical ideas powering the men in power were those of individualism, hegemony and humanism. Post roman ideas developed by christian Europeans. Christianity was a powerful tool in contolling societies and men altogether. It wasn't the Romans who brought christianity to the parts of europe that later controlled the world. The Romans, who originally imitated the Greek, built indeed the foundation for the western world, but to give them credit for Adam Smith's writings or the steam engine (the romans didn't invent much) is too far fetched.
I could go on about how the Romans just stole everything from the "barbarians they conquered, like for example metalworking from the germanic tribes, glass from carthage, dyes and fabrics from the middle east, etc, but it would be pointless. Rome was a mighty nation that lived off the fruits of other's labour, not the utopia renecance and neoclassical artists turned it into.