Isn't the Roman Empire kinda overrated?

[spartandude]

Hangon are you saying that an empire that started in Rome and that had so much influence it will recreate it self in Post-apocalyptic america is overrated?

 

['-_-]

First: the Mongols did conquer a lot of territory, however most of that territory was empty while most of the conquered Roman territory was habited. Plus the Romans kept everything longer. The Western Roman empire lasted almost 1000 years while Genghis Khan's empire started to fall as soon as he died. Roman engineering is the best in history relative to it's time. Rome's cloaca maxima-the great sewers, are still in use TODAY. Rome was also the first to instore democracy as we know it today.

 

[imnot]

Romans are to mainstream anyway, I prefer me some greeks.

Then again...

 

[Starke]

I mean it didn't conquer too much to make an impact on the world, yah it had great engineering feats but so did the Chinese, the Arabs, the Indians etc. Yah it conquered alot but the Islamic Caliphates conquered more, ALOT more that had a greater impact on world history and scientific development, and yet in history classes they're just skimmed over while the Roman Empire is raved about alot. Moving on the Mongol Empire conquered MUCH more and had an even greater impact then the Roman empire, all the way from Korea to The Ukraine to Egypt, a testament to this is that Baghdad before the Mongol invasion was one of the most prosperous cities in the world, after the Mongol invasion however it never got to the richness and prosperity it once had. And yet again they're not as talked about in detail as say Greece or the Roman Empire.

Well, no. You see, China and the Mongols are certainly both worthy of note, as is the Caliphates. So let's handle these one at a time:

China is certainly deserving of some of the same veneration as Rome, but, the key difference is that China influenced the develop of Asian civilization, while Rome influenced Western Civilization.

The Caliphates get screwed over because of the crusades, and don't get the attention or respect they probably deserve. Though it's a little different, in that it wasn't a homogenous structure, well, ever really.

The Mongols made one of the classic errors of the conqueror. While they remained a cohesive fighting force while they had a leader, once he died they disintegrated with remarkable speed. Though they do diserve credit for being one of precisely two civilizations to successfully conquer Russia, they were unable to hold it.

I might even move onto say Caesar is even MORE overrated, he just conquered a big country of barbarians by laying seige to its capital, not a huge strategic masterpiece at all considering he did it by walling it in, he tried to conquer Britain, but failed. He changed the Republic to an Empire, but I can't think anything else he did or anything to make him the iconic leader of Rome. Later leaders would conquer much more then he did and again, I don't recall any of them making a difference in world history beyond Europe.

As an individual, he didn't do that much. But, his key achievement was in creating an aggressive empire that could survive his death, which is actually much harder than it sounds, just ask Genghis Khan.

It could be arguable that the Roman Empire inspired the European ones, Russia more then any other, so in that sense its important as these empires would basically conquer most of the world and bring into submission the rest barring a few exceptions.

Russia would actually be a very poor allegory. Their power didn't emerge until the 20th century. Before that they were often viewed as the backwater edge of Europe. They didn't become relevant as a world power until the aftermath of World War II.

 

[Kryzantine]

I don't know what to say about a lot of posts in this thread. Architecture and plumbing? Seriously? You're going to say one of the greatest empires in known history is important for plumbing?

Let's look at more important innovations of the Romans:

1. Standardized equipment, training and middle-class soldiers. Absolutely, this was a Roman innovation. No other Western civilization even thought of this. Before the Romans, war was fought by richer people, who generally trained on their own and brought their own arms and armor to the battlefield - oh sure, you had lower class people in wars as well, but they were mostly cannon fodder or line-formers, and were simply not expected to win battles on their own. Gaius Marius, of course, does something completely drastic in the middle of a crisis period for Rome and extends military service to the middle class and standardizes the weapon and armor making process, something that pisses the nobles off greatly and saves Rome. This makes war much more efficient.

2. History to the British Isles. Not many people realize that the oldest Briton we have on record is a man by the name of Cassivellaunus, who appears in 51 BC. There are no names before that, despite the population of Britain being around a million people at the time of Julius's invasion. Coins started appearing in the British Isles around 150 BC, which is also the period at which Roman colonies started trading with the Isles - the connection should be apparent. The written history of Britain begins when Julius Caesar first comes in. Britain was very much Romanized, despite your claim that the invasion somehow failed - the Romans just didn't really bother with Scotland, preferring to wall it off and toll whatever came through. The point is that written history of Britain starts with the Romans.

3. Romanization - specifically the spreading of Roman and Greek ideals and technologies to the majority of France, the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula. This is to expand on the last point, but much of Western European advancement was straight from the Romans. Without all this spreading of advancement, it's very likely Western Europe would have taken a backseat to Islam and Eastern Europe for a lot, lot longer than it did. The Romans traded with almost everybody, and they spread their ideas like wildfire - see the example of introducing coinage to Britain.

4. Citizenship, and specifically national citizenship. While the Greeks identified each other as belonging to a polis or city, the Romans extended citizenship to span across its entire empire. In addition, the Romans were unafraid to extend citizenship to "barbarians" to legitimize rule over a region. The result is identity with a state rather than of a city, pretty much creating modern nations as we know them.

5. A primitive bill of rights associated with the privileges of a Roman citizen, the modern legal system, and even a system of international law. The Romans definitely had a much better system for handling legal disputes than any other civilization at the time, and it should be no surprise by now that the Roman legal system was just accepted as the standard model for Europe.

I'm missing all the cultural innovations, the "architecture", and actually, everything after the Roman Republic. I won't even get into the Empire, partly because I'm not as familiar with it, but mostly because everyone else in this thread will talk about it.

 

[JWAN]

Yeah, man, I liked the Romans better when they were underground. Then they conquered Greece and sold out.

l
o
l
The Romans shaped the western world and those other ancient cultures shaped other parts of the world.
So no they are not underrated.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I dunno, is indoor plumbing overrated? I kinda like it.

 

[Lava381]

From my understanding the Romans were influenced by the Greeks a fair bit, especially in architecture and government.

 

[Ghengis John]

The roman empire is important to the west for it's contributions to thought, architecture, science, culture and government. In the scope of the entire world, maybe not the most important. But then again we don't eat with chopsticks or practice sharia so it's hard to argue other great empires meant much to us.

In how wonderful and civilized it was however it was surely overrated through British romanticism. Blood sports, mob violence, lack of public education, ridiculous decadence. These were people who could not even look at animals without killing them and who threw people with ideological differences to lions, to say nothing of how they treated the barbarians. With no concept of human rights they were just barbarians themselves, in nicer clothes.

Yeah, other ancient societies did stuff too, but Rome was damn near modern.

Scarily so. This was a full on consumer culture that even had CELEBRITY CHEFS. I want you to think about that for a moment. While other people were still making houses out of animal skins these guys had celebrity chefs. To say nothing of people who made their entire living by satirizing things, conducting experiments, designing clothes or reviewing plays. Intellectual property and image as a commodity? Wow.

 

[DSK-]

Overated? I don't think so. From wikipedia it shows that they built Arc de Triomphe in likes of France, Greece, Libya, Spain, Syria, Turkey, Algeria, Lebanon, Austria, Croatia, Tunisia and Jordan. That's a fair amoung of countries - and they are JUST the ones with Triumphal Arches.

They didn't conquer these countries out of pure luck you know.

 

[CommanderKirov]

The Romans are responsible for most of the culture and language in Europe.

 

[Naeo]

Rome shaped much of the culture and languages of most of Western Europe for the next two thousand years. Architecture, philosophy, science, literature, etc is still prevalent today. Rome was "the big European empire" of ancient times, so of course Europe loves it. Also, it was the largest army in the world and one of the most organized, to this day, so people still jizz in their pants about the military maneuvers.

Also I'm sure in places like Ukraine and Mongolia they give a good deal more attention to the Mongolian Empire, and in the Middle East they give a lot more attention to the various Islamic empires. It's a matter of geography on that count. But as for why the whole world seems to love Rome, that's a figment of, I believe, Western Europe becoming the dominant cultural force on a global scale. Ergo, what western Europe loves got loved by a lot more people. Oh also Rome is much older than the Mongolian Empire and the Islamic Caliphates, and people love to study "the oldest empire". Even though Egypt predates Rome by thousands of years, and Sumeria/Akkadia predate Egypt by hundreds. But Rome was the first massive, expansive empire that's shaped our view of what an empire is to this day.

Oh and Rome also kind of created slavery as we think of it today.

 

[YawningAngel]

I might even move onto say Caesar is even MORE overrated, he...

I stopped reading after this line Caesar was a title not an individual. The rest of the posters pretty much nailed what you missed as well.

I'm sorry? Julius Augustus Caesar is well known by his last name alone.

 

[Silver PBall]

Yeah, the Romans were cool and stuff back in the day, but what have they done lately?

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Because it had a huge, HUGE impact on Europe.

Who are the major historians/who are they descended from? You guessed it, Europe.
Ever heard of the Romance languages? Came from Latin. Who spoke Latin? Rome.

 

[kidd25]

Yeah, man, I liked the Romans better when they were underground. Then they conquered Greece and sold out.

Lol. I'm sorry this phrase is so good, i can't place my thoughts in this thread.

 

[Blitzkreg]

Everyone on the pro Roman Empire side I agree with.
The phrase "History is written by the victor" comes to mind.
European society has basically dominated the world culturally and technologically.
European society takes the vast majority of its cues from the Roman empire.
By that rational, the Roman Empire, and its children states have effectively ruled the known world since about 50 BC.
Adding on to the known world statement, the Roman Empire conquered everything they saw fit to conquer. They barely knew of the rest of the world, and because it had little value to them, they did'nt bother.

 

[Rex Fallout]

I mean it didn't conquer too much to make an impact on the world, yah it had great engineering feats but so did the Chinese, the Arabs, the Indians etc. Yah it conquered alot but the Islamic Caliphates conquered more, ALOT more that had a greater impact on world history and scientific development, and yet in history classes they're just skimmed over while the Roman Empire is raved about alot. Moving on the Mongol Empire conquered MUCH more and had an even greater impact then the Roman empire, all the way from Korea to The Ukraine to Egypt, a testament to this is that Baghdad before the Mongol invasion was one of the most prosperous cities in the world, after the Mongol invasion however it never got to the richness and prosperity it once had. And yet again they're not as talked about in detail as say Greece or the Roman Empire.

I might even move onto say Caesar is even MORE overrated, he just conquered a big country of barbarians by laying seige to its capital, not a huge strategic masterpiece at all considering he did it by walling it in, he tried to conquer Britain, but failed. He changed the Republic to an Empire, but I can't think anything else he did or anything to make him the iconic leader of Rome. Later leaders would conquer much more then he did and again, I don't recall any of them making a difference in world history beyond Europe.

It could be arguable that the Roman Empire inspired the European ones, Russia more then any other, so in that sense its important as these empires would basically conquer most of the world and bring into submission the rest barring a few exceptions.

It conquered almost all of the known world. It layed the foundation's of all modern civilized societies. It had irrigation, plumbing, and hot water centuries before other people, and lasted longer than any other empire in history, not by years, or decades, by CENTURIES. Say what you want but the Roman Empire is ANYTHING but over rated. It had one of the most sophisticated systems of roads of any nation in history, dwarfed only by the current system in the United States. I dont think you understand anything about what Rome accomplished.

 

[x0oo0]

um the roman empire is credited for starting western culture and for having the largest empire ever and when it collapsed it sent Europe into the dark ages. saying that such a gigantic period in history is over rated doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm sorry but while it does deserve credit for starting western culture, it was no where near as large as the Russian, Mongolian or British Empires, or even Macedonian Empire.

 

[doorofnight]

1)Longevity, there was a state that identified itself as Roman for almost 2000 years, only China can claim a longer use of the same name(so far as I am aware). More importantly the Roman Empire was the dominant power in Europe and the Mediterranean for 800 years(roughly 100BC to 700 AD), even losing Italy and Rome itself for the last 200 years of that didn't change their dominant status even if they weren't a huge empire any longer. No other empire or Dynasty can claim that kind of longevity of dominance.

Technically the Roman empire did exist until 1453, but the Byzantines stopped identifying themselves as "Roman" around the fall of Rome. They still exerted influence in the eastern part of the mediterranean, but none at all in western Europe.
And even when taking the 2000 years at face value you're forgetting somebody: the Egyptians. Admittedly they've been less enthusiastic conquerors than the Romans, but the same goes for the Chinese.

Two points: The Eastern Roman Empire ALWAYS identified itself as the Eastern Roman Empire, until maybe the last couple centuries, other people and historians use the Byzantine Empire to avoid confusion, they called themselves Romoi, meaning the Romans in Greek

While I agree that there has been an Egypt for a very long time, I have to respectfully disagree that it, save for very few times during its existence, was an empire. Now I am fully aware, because it is something that I have been interested in for some time, that what exactly defines an Empire is tricky and open to debate but for most of its existence Egypt didn't really expand much beyond what is now egypt, it was hugely influential and economically and culturally powerful but it didn't really conquer far and wide. Of course you are free to disagree with my judgement there, but that is my opinion on it.

2)Related to that, virtually all other empires rise quickly and fall quickly, the Roman Empire rose slowly and fell slowly.

Once again the Egyptians would like to prove you wrong. This time around together with the Greek, whose influence in their diaspora took even longer to fade.

Again, I would like to question whether Egypt was an empire, although I concede that they are another power that stayed around for quite some time. However, my Egyptian history is weak but I seem to recall some very low periods were they were conquered or nearly so as well. Like the Greeks they had massive and far reaching cultural influences but I don't really think either would rightly be considered an Empire(the Greeks only had an empire when they were ruled by the Macedonians, and that fits the 'rose fast, fell fast' definition of most empires.

3)Engineering, while not the only great builders and, again, they didn't invent most of what they used to so great effect, but there are a number of Roman engineering achievements that were not surpassed until the 18th century when steel reinforcing came into wide use. They built aqueducts stretching dozens if not hundreds of miles that were carefully built to only descend about 6 inches per mile and provided millions of gallons of water per day, they had running water on the third floor of the coliseum which could be emptied in less than 20 minutes, and the dome of the Pantheon is STILL the largest unreinforced concrete dome ever built(that has never cracked, others were built larger, all of them cracked) and no dome was made larger period until 1850.

This one for once is absolutely true, even though you fail to mention one of their larger achievements in that field: roads. Even now we're actively using many Roman roads, and until we tarred them many of them were barely maintained. And yet they lasted two millennia.

I didn't include the roads for two reasons, I didn't want to give every example I could think of, I could have mentioned their sewer systems, the bath complexes they built, their innovations in bridge design, and a number of other engineers renovations but I figured I'd save a little space. The other reason is that, while not as long lasting, the Romans were not the first great road builders, that would by the Achaemenid Dynasty of the Persian Empire, although, as usual, the Romans did make some revolutions to the design and built a lot more roads, but that was over several hundred years.

4)Law, even the Greeks recognized the Roman preeminence in Law, and as already noted their law codes are still hugely influential around the world.

I'd take "influential" with a grain of salt here, as it is watered down quite a lot since then. The Romans inspired the Renaissance, which inspired the age of Reason, during which many of the laws as we know them today were written.

I know, this all falls under my initial point about the Romans not being the only ones to do something or necessarily the best at everything, but the fact that the Roman legal system still has influence to this day and we still use some of their forms and concepts really says a lot(even though the legal system in our country is more based on English Common Law)