Isn't the Roman Empire kinda overrated?

[doorofnight]

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.

You are conflating two people together

The Roman general and politician who fought Pompey and became dictator was Gaius Julius Caesar and would have often been referred to simply as Caesar and if you see or hear a historian use Caesar and don't qualify it they are probably talking about this guy.

His nephew and adopted successor who reforged the Republic into the Roman Empire and ruled unopposed for 45 years and initiated the great rebuilding of Rome and the Pax Romana was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus, after being adopted by his great-uncle he legally became Gaius Julius Caesar, although his enemies still called him Octavius and so do historians just to avoid confusion, and after the settlement of 27BC which created the Principate form of government he became Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, usually referred to simply by the honorific Augustus.

After Augustus' death Caesar Augustus were names granted to his successors and eventually became so synonomous with the position that it essentially became the title of the position with all emperors being addressed as Caesar Augustus with historians using their original names or various nicknames to try to avoid confusion which Roman naming practices often generate.

The name Caesar specifically became so influential as a title for a monarchic ruler that it became both the Russian Tsar and the German Kaiser.

 

[doorofnight]

Mayhaps because of the cultural heritage and long term effects of roman occupation on the peoples of western Europe made it a bit more relevant to whitey interests?

Yes and no

One the one hand, the reason the influence of some Roman practices can be found around the world is that is of course because of the several centuries of European domination and having forced these practices on other people. And, in truth, part of the reason for Roman influence over the past 500 years in Europe itself is because since the Renaissance Rome has been deliberately emulated and venerated by Europeans who dug up some of their practices and ideas and used them for no other reason than they were Roman.

One the other hand, there are some areas, particularly some aspects of engineering, in which the Romans were unquestionably, and indisputably, ahead of anyone else at the time(the Han Chinese, contemporary with the height of Rome, was the same way, far ahead of anyone else, but in different areas, some things the Romans were better and and some things the Han were unquestionably better at) and do have a legitimate and long term influence. For the other stuff, just because most of what they did only had influence on one region doesn't invalidate its greatness, if that is so then the Arab Caliphates weren't great because they didn't effect much beyond the Middle East and North Africa, and the Han or Tang Dynasties of China weren't great because they never expanded beyond what is now China.

Empire is a tricky definition, but what all three(well four) political entities I have named have in common is a profound and long term influence on human existence over a long period of time and over a large region, and there are others as well that have been mentioned in this thread. None of these empires was perfect, their influence not total or universal or forever, but the greatness and the reach of all of them cannot be denied for those reasons because nothing is universal or forever.

One fact that it is incredible to think about is that the most unified the Human race has ever been is for 200 years or so at the height of both the Roman and Han Empires it is estimated that a full HALF of all humans alive lived within the borders of one of those two empires.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

The Roman Empire has been a huge influence on modern society. They provided much of our political structure and theories, nearly every month on our calendar is named for a Roman god or ruler (January=Janus, August=Augustus etc), they provided a great many mathematical and scientific achievements.

But I see what you mean, seriously, they only formed our calendar, our political structure and made great strides in mathematics. Yeah, not a big deal.

 

[flamingjimmy]

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.

Ceasar was one of the greatest generals in history not just because of his achievements in Gaul, which you have rather unfairly dismissed imo, But also because of his achievements in the civil war. In that he was fighting the troops that had the same training, same equipment, and similar experience to his own, and he was at times outnumbered.

Also, the changing of Rome from a republic to an empire had huge lasting implications for all of europe, let's not forget that both 'Tsar' and 'Kaiser' are both bastardisations of 'Ceasar', his role can not be overestimated in that regard.

Also, lets not forget the huge impact the Roman Empire had on religion, were it not for the roman empire, christianity would not have spread in the way that it did.

Then you've got Latin, as the lingua franca of the mediterranean world (to this day! 2000 years later)

Romance languages, the alphabet that we use, aqueducts, architecture...

Seriously, I could probably keep going all day at this, I've barely even scratched the surface!

Please go read some books.

 

[Exosus]

Is that... is that a thing? Are there ratings for historical societies I'm not aware of? I'll admit I'm only 75% of the way through my classical military history degree, but I haven't noticed any rating going on...

 

[bob1052]

Hey guys, why do so many people like apples.

I mean like lemons are way more sour, what do apples even do?

 

[uzo]

One of the issues regarding Caesar I believe was not his tactical mastery, but rather his understanding of morale and logistics. An army marches on its stomach, something that Napoleon famously stated, and something I'm certain Caesar would wholeheartedly agree.

Imagine the mammoth task of simply feeding a vast physical army (remember - these men marched everywhere, they didn't have hummers and heaters - they required HUGE numbers of calories to function) deep in enemy territory for seven years. And somehow Caesar not only succeeded at this, but his men loved him and marched on their capital city for him. Think how 'disciplined' soldiers these days would react if you gave them 7 years of forced marches.

Now THAT will win wars.

 

[Warforger]

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.

Ceasar was one of the greatest generals in history not just because of his achievements in Gaul, which you have rather unfairly dismissed imo, But also because of his achievements in the civil war. In that he was fighting the troops that had the same training, same equipment, and similar experience to his own, and he was at times outnumbered.

I still don't see how he's one of the greatest generals in history. Hitler was better, Genghis Khan was better, Alexander the Great was better, Napoleon was better, the IDF is better etc. etc. sure he may have been a little above average, but he wasn't really a "conquerer" in the sense that he didn't conquer too many new territories.

Also, the changing of Rome from a republic to an empire had huge lasting implications for all of europe, let's not forget that both 'Tsar' and 'Kaiser' are both bastardisations of 'Ceasar', his role can not be overestimated in that regard.

Yes, which is what bewilders me, the Tsars created a bigger, more powerful empire then the Romans did, the Kaisers I'd guess the same thing. Those two nations had a bigger effect on the direction of global history then Rome ever had.

Also, lets not forget the huge impact the Roman Empire had on religion, were it not for the roman empire, christianity would not have spread in the way that it did.

Which again, it just so happened to have spread it to places which would just so happen to conquer most of the world.

Then you've got Latin, as the lingua franca of the mediterranean world (to this day! 2000 years later)

Ok? French and English is the lingua franca of Africa, that seems to be a huger impact them the Mediterranean world.

Romance languages,

Opinions really. If say French is romantic, then what is Japanese? What's German?

the alphabet that we use,

We of course, not all. My point being that in the global sphere the Roman Empire itself had little sway in the world and takes too much credit for what it did IMO, and other empires that had a bigger impact on global history like the Caliphates don't get nearly as much.

aqueducts, architecture...

Which again, pretty much every major empire built engineering feats, hell didn't the Indians build pipes? Got ahead of the Romans didn't they?

Seriously, I could probably keep going all day at this, I've barely even scratched the surface!

Please go read some books.

Or you could try harder to figure out what I'm saying. I'm not saying the Roman Empire was a worthless piece of junk, what I am saying though is that it gets too much credit when in all of reality it itself had little impact on global history and other nations gave it relevance, I mean the Islamic Caliphates achieved more, the Chinese thoasands of years before achieved more, but no the Roman empire tends to be in the spotlight for studying the ancient world.

 

[Blue_vision]

Romans have probably had the most impact to the modern western world than any other 'ancient' civilisation.

I'd argue that the Islamic Caliphates deserve to be included in the "founding of Modern Western civilization". At the very least, I think you could bunch together the Greeks, Romans, and Caliphates as the basis for Modern Western civilization. The Greeks started a ton of trends, the Romans made them a Western standard, and the Caliphates safeguarded a bunch of the Greek/Roman stuff, while improving it and adding in their own stuff (i.e. the Arabs basically invented modern economics.) I also think that the Eastern Roman Empire gets skimmed over more than it should. I feel like a huge number of people think that the Roman Empire was no more after 476, when it was actually still kicking for another millennium.

But in terms of influence, China has always been hugely influential on almost all of the world (tonnes of stuff that we'd consider essential to modern European civilization originated in China.) India and Persia also had pretty big influences. But I've never seen any course on Western history delve into these civilizations other than that they existed, and maybe that they were mean to a Western civilization at one point. China in particular is an egregious example, because China was without a doubt the greatest intellectual, military, and economic powerhouse in the world well into the 16th century.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm a bit late on this, especially you Leviathan, who had to put up with this discrediting quote.

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

Bah, the Mesopotamian Empire is so much better than your Roman and Mongolian empires.

 

[OpticalJunction]

Rome had a huge impact on Europe, and Europe subsequently had a huge impact on the rest of the (industrialized) world.

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

I thought his name was Gaius Julius Caesar

 

[MightyRabbit]

Primarily. It's a mix of several Germanic and Norse dialects with large amounts of French & Latin in the more 'stately' or 'poetic' areas of language and a healthy smattering of Greek in in the intellectual regions. Example, field = Germanic roots, sincere = French roots, feline = Latin, Alphabet = Greek.

That's of course a rather potted account that sells the philological and etymological history of English short, but Latin's A big influence, but not THE biggest.

 

[MightyRabbit]

Really? One of the major bases of the English (and many others, particularly French) language is Latin

Except it isn't. English is a Germanic language.

Except it is. English is a hodge-podge of German and French, French being a Latin-based language.[/quote]

Exactly, it's roots are primarily Germanic/Norse, but the Norman invasion and the Catholic faith spread a lot of Latin and French among the upper classes which eventually trickled down into more common parlance. Also, there's quite a hefty amount borrowed from Greek too in the realms of intellectualism.

 

[DarkRyter]

Well, I would assume the most people know of it comes from Caesar's Legion from Fallout:New Vegas.

Though I may just be speaking for myself.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Romance languages,

Opinions really. If say French is romantic, then what is Japanese? What's German?

Oh wow! That's adorable!

You've got it the wrong way round, the very word 'romance' comes from 'roman', those languages are not 'romance languages' because of some subjective judgement that they are romantic, if you'd only spent more than 15 seconds on google perhaps you might've learned that for yourself.

Seriously, my advice is stop arguing about this on here, and go learn more about it, read some books, there are literally hundreds of books and articles and dedicated histroy forums where you'll find a wealth of information about Ceasar and Rome and some lively, and often silly Ceasar vs Alexander threads. Perhaps once you're a little more knowledgeable of the subject you might begin to see why the Roman empire was such a big deal, and why Ceasar was such a great general. That you spoke of Hitler and Ghengis Khan instead of Rommel and Subutai tells me you're not exactly a military history buff as it is.

 

[HerrBobo]

All the impact that Rome had was as a Republic, so yeah, the Empire is overrated. The decline of the Roman Empire is effectively the entire of the Empire's existence. While there were periods of expansion/success, the imperial/caesarean system was always doomed to failure, because for all I admire him, Augustus didn't ensure the succession of the right men.

Could not be more wrong. The Republic fell in A.D. 27, THE Empire lasted until A.D. 476 in the West, and arguably, till 1450(ish) in the East.

The Empire was at its political, influential and physical height around, A.D. 100-200. That is almost 180 years after the begin of your so called decline.

As for you comments that Augustus did not ensure the succession of the right men begin the reason for this decline. The Julio-Claudian dynasty has 5 Emperors, that's 5, out of the 147 that the Empire had, this hardly caused the decline of the Empire. Not to mention that one of them, Claudius, was a damn solid Emperor, if a little unspectacular.

So, yeah, you were way off.

Though I disagree that the Roman Empire's influence is overrated, I feel that I must point out that the main reason why it has had such and influence on modern western society is because ever since the fall of the Roman Empire, Western European civilizations have put the Romans on some sort of holy altar. If it weren't for Charlemagne's insane obsession with imperial trappings, it's quite possible that European culture would have taken more from Germanic culture than from Latin.

Maybe, but you have proved the point. The power, influence and prestige of Rome was so strong that even in defeat, its conquers mimicked it. We take less from the Germanic culture because the Germanic invaders took more for the Latin culture.

 

[Zetsubou-Sama]

Wow, I've been sorely misquoted in some of these posts =O, imagine my face when i go to my inbox and am confronted with a ton of arguments i've never made, i was thinking wtf for a bit.

 

[cheese_wizington]

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.

I felt the need to quote you because Caesar did not change the Republic into an Empire, Octavian did. Caesar simply wanted the absolute power for a short time so he could get the Republics shit together without any corrupt idiot standing in his way, which he did admirably. He declined the invitation to become King three times I IIRC. Then some crazed idiots who thought he would never give his power up stabbed the shit out of him.

Anyways, the Western world is shaped basically by Greece and Ancient Rome, while the Eastern world as it's called is more over by the Mongols etc. It was less about the size of the Empire but more over the advancements that happened in it. Also few other (if any) empires were as sophisticated as Romes. The city of Rome was the worlds first metropolis that paved the way for nearly all future Western city. The Legacy of the Romans is incredible.

 

[HerrBobo]

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.

Gah! Will people stop saying the Julius Caesar created the Roman Empire! He didn't, it lasted for almost 20 years after his death. He was the dictator of the Roman Republic, a position that had been held by many, many men over the long history of the Republic. Yes the means by which he acquired this power were unsavory, but no more so the Marius or Sulla before him.

In effect, it took far more then one man to bring down the Republic, though Augustus contributed far more then any other.