Isn't the Roman Empire kinda overrated?

[HerrBobo]

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.

Hmmmmm, yes. However, you have to be careful with the term standardized. If it created an image in your head of a modern army style army, where everyone has a sword, shield, red cloak and armor, you're going down the wrong path. There were several major army reforms during both Republic and the Empire all all of which "standardized" the army to some degree. However, the level of standardization varied a lot from region to region and from Emperor to Emperor. Troops in dangerous regions got the better equipment and if there was a thrifty Emperor in power even they might not get it.

Not to mention the fact that the Axillary troops often used their own native weapons and armor which was very different to that of the ethnic Romans. This is a major point when considering standardization the the Roman army when one considers that by the 1st Century A.D. around half of the total Roman force was made up of Axillary.

If you're interested read some of the texts from the fort at Vindolanda. You'll be amazed to read how much the troops had to provide for themselves.

 

[Korolev]

They aren't overrated, but of course, Western TV focuses on them more since many aspects of Western culture came from the Romans. Look at the US: It has a Senate, it has a Capitol, it speaks a Latin based language and it uses an Eagle as one of its main symbol. The Roman Republican system was a pretty good system for its time.

As for Caesar - he was a smart guy. His military conquests against the Gauls is not what he is primarily remembered for - it was his ability to hold out and DEFEAT the larger army of Pompey the Great (also composed of Roman legions). It was his ability to use politics and alliances to counter-act the Senate. He was a smart guy. Was he the best conqueror in the history of humanity? No - Genghis Khan was probably better, and so was Alexander the Great. But Caesar was nothing to laugh at. He wasn't stupid, and he could command his forces very well. Outnumbered by Pompey nearly 4 to 1 (if you count all of Pompey's client King soldiers from the East), he managed to survive and eventually win. And Pompey was no weakling - he doubled the size of rome, destroyed countless Kings in Asia, and brought back enough loot (unfairly taken) to double the size of Rome's economy.

But it's not so much the conquests that make Rome important, as the organization of Rome. Rome was, for the time, a really radical place. For a long time, they had NO KING! For hundreds of years, it was a republic - with elections, decentralized (but not too decentralized) power, and a citizen army (for a long time, you were only required to fight if you owned land).

Rome was a powerful, organized civilization. Was it the "best" civilization? No. They had problems, which eventually led to the collapse of the Republic and the rise of a cruel and rather vicious empire. But even so they weren't something to sneeze at.

Of course, I think that other civilizations are important. But, as Chinese people tend to focus on the Tang and the Ming Dynasties, and as Indians tend to study the Mughals, Europeans and Westerners focus on the Roman Empire, because, frankly, a lot of our culture came from that place. You can't deny it. It did. It's part of Western heritage, and living in a Western society means that you are going to hear primarily about Western history. That's just the way all cultures work. I suspect if you go to Iran or Uzbekistan, they'll barely teach anything about Rome and focus more on.... say, the Parthian empire, or the Phoenician civilizations or the Ottoman empire.

As for why Western history is taught more than a lot of other histories, well, it's because the West shaped a large part of the modern world. You can't escape that fact: Radar, Microwaves, Calculus, Modern Rocketry, all genetic technologies, most of the modern weapons of the world, the entire modern financial system, lasers, aircraft, computers, and yes, video games, are products of the West, and these products make up a central part of our well. The West has done well for itself.

That of course, doesn't mean that other civilizations are unimportant. The Chinese civilizations are also fascinating and wonderful. India contributed much mathematics and continues to do so today. Chemistry had some of its beginnings in the Arab civilizations and the Arabs contributed immensely to optics.

But the modern invention and customs that shape the world came out of the West and the US. Over the past 200 years, the West has immensely affected the way we all live. There's a reason why (nearly) all leaders of the world now wear western business suits, fly Boeing jets and have Visa or Mastercard credit cards and drive in limos made by Western countries. There's a reason why China has abandoned its culture and joined the Americans - and you can't deny that the Chinese have effectively killed their culture. I'm half-chinese myself, and I have to tell you, there is almost NO DIFFERENCE at all between how a Chinese teenager lives his life and how an American teenager lives his life. Both eat McDonalds or KFC, both listen to their iPods, both play World of Warcraft or watch a soccer/tennis game - China KILLED its culture back in the 60's/70's with the "great leap forward", and it adopted first the Russian system, and when that didn't work out, they adopted the American economic system (while retaining the Russian political system).

 

[ScarlettRage]

For the Western world, the Roman Empire had much much more impact, the same way say the mongols had to the Eastern world, if you go to school in say...Japan they teach more about the japanese empire/chinese/mongols than what we teach and less roman empire that we in turn teach.

And to say the roman empire is overrated is false, to start with, all law systems, civil law, the concept of citizenship across the empire and not as a blood thing, and even the fact that we write law down in books and is created by reason as opposed to jus naturalismo, is a result of roman heritage.

Greece had an impact on philosophy, math and political science (arguably more than Rome), but to call the achievements of the roman empire lesser than those of other empires is in my opinion wrong.

And while the mongols had a huge empire that spanned across three continents, the way it worked wasn't comaprable to the way the roman empire assimilated, turned and converted and took care of it's empire.

Sure there are a lot of empires with a whole ton of submissive people, but few had the way of the romans to turn what were once cultures with their own identity, into romans in one way or the other.

The roman empire is not overrated, perhaps more studied sure, but to demean the roman empire, is the same as to say that the entire western civilization didn't do much.

Adding: Also how many empires can say after they're gone, they were the reason for the return of an entire painting/architecture/sculpture style in the 15th century, the reason that gave birth to the crusades, and to top it all off, the basis of 6 languages in europe and influence to countless others.

I have to agree with you, as much as I dislike the Romans, you cannot say they were useless. At least people can make fun of it anyway. Plus all the lovely Logic.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Rome is anything but overrated. It brought the western world art, architecture, roads, philosophy, oratory, wine (can't forget that), legal systems, and countless other advancements that are still influencing us today. At its height, one quarter of the worlds population was under Roman rule. ROem itself was the first city to have a population over 1,000,000

As far as the military goes, it was one of the first to have standardized equipment and training for the masses, creating the first truly professional army. The training was brutal but forged a sense of unit cohesion that is still found in today's military. Just replace the Drill sergeants with centurions and the M-16 for a gladius, and its pretty much the same thing. At the height of the empire, Rome stretched from Britain to Iraq, Northern France to North Africa and managed to maintain order and peace with less than 150,000 soldiers. That's not a light accomplishment.

One last thing, about Julius Caesar. He didn't just conquer Gaul by sacking one city. He conquered Gaul by crushing Gallic armies time and time again, despite being vastly outnumbered and in the Gaul's home territory. The siege of Alesia, Caesar surrounded the city, but was surrounded himself by another army. He fought 80,000 or more on the inside of the city storming out, and a 100,000-300,000 man relief column pushing in, catching him in between with 50,000 men, outnumbering him at least three to one. He defeated both at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia

Rome was hardly overrated. Hail Caesar!

 

[Korolev]

There really is no such thing as a "best" civilization. Everyone has different values. ALL civilizations have had an impact on the world. But it's hard to escape the influence of the West. The current world system that we sorta follow is based on things that came out of the West - the car, the computer chip, the modern stock market, the submarine, the light-bulb, the electric motor, the nuclear power plant, GPS, mobile (that's cellular to the Americans) phones, antibiotics, modern vaccines (I am aware that the Chinese made a type of vaccine against smallpox, but it wasn't as effective as Jenner's vaccine), organ transplants, virtually all plastics and engines of every sort come out of the West, along with Refrigerators, cellular biology and particle accelerators.

America is not the perfect civilization, and neither was Rome. But the legacy of Rome (Western-Europe/USA) is a powerful one. I can't imagine a USA today if Rome had never existed - what would the Senate be called? The founding father's of the US DIRECTLY drew their inspiration for the US from the Roman Republic (not the empire).

 

[HerrBobo]

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.

Hitler was better?! Dude! Read a book!

The only one on your list that challenges Caesar is Alexander.

Caesar conquer Gaul, home of the Celtic tribes, Rome's more fear enemies (with the acceptation of Hannibal), he then marched on an took the most powerful state in the world, with almost no bloodshed. Next he followed the Senatorial armies, three of them, and defeated each in turn. Next he defeated Pharnaces II in Pontus. He returned to Rome and illegal ruler covered in the blood of his country men, and the people loved him.

He won wars on 3 different contents, while out numbered, in the space of 12 years.

On top of all this he ensured that his dynasty lasted for 5 generations (though he did not "created" the Roman Empire, as so many of the misinformed on here say).

He was cunning, confident, brilliant luck and ruthless, a model by product of Roman society. In war he never out a foot wrong, to mention him in the same breath as Hitler illustrates how little you know of history.

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.

You seem to have this obsession that the bigger the Empire the more powerful it is. The Russian Empire, in relative terms, was not nearly as powerful as the Roman Empire. In 1905 the Russian Empire took up 1/5 of the worlds land mass, and it got it's ass handed to it, by which country? Japan! That's right a nation that would have fit into the Russian Empire several thousand times over.

The size of an Empire has very little to do with its influence on world history.

As for the fact that German and Russian Empires had a bigger impact of global history. You boggle my mind. The German Empire last 47 years, the Russian 196 years, this against the 1000+ of the Roman Empire!

Dude! Seriously, read a book, for the sake of the children you might one day have.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

The Roman empire had a lot bigger impact on history and scientific development than you are giving it credit for. It set the scene for the middle ages and the enlightenment. It led to Europe as we know it. It spread Latin throughout the region, affecting European languages, and the decline of the Roman empire is the root of a great deal of modern political thought and theory. they may not have done much directly, but the Roman Empire definitely had a huge impact on European history. And as Europe is arguably the heart of "Western" civilization, it's not surprising that the empire that preceded Europe is viewed as important.

Also, I'm relatively certain that Ceasar didn't convert the republic to an empire. I'm almost positive that his grandson Julius was the first emperor of Rome.

 

[jimahaff]

Rome colonized Britannia; which became England and then colonized America. They are our the grandparent of america nationality speaking. Also they absorbed Greek science, philosophy, religion, and culture, and did one important thing that the Chinese and Arabs didn't; they established major trade routes. All this asides the biggest explanation for their longevity is their founding of the Roman Catholic Church Through which they spread Christianity and their culture to well... just about everywhere.

 

[Starke]

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.

EDIT: Strike that, I read your post incorrectly.

He gets credit because he was the one who, in a very concrete way executed that transition. You're right, he didn't do it alone, but he did end up creating a stable groundwork to reform the government. A review of any coup, bloodless or otherwise, in more recent history should illustrate how rare that capacity was.

Now, did he benefit from the system that was already in place, and did that help him perpetuate the Empire? Absolutely. But it doesn't diminish the difficulty of the task.

Should it be Augustus... maybe, that I'm not sure of.

 

[Starke]

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.

You seem to have this obsession that the bigger the Empire the more powerful it is. The Russian Empire, in relative terms, was not nearly as powerful as the Roman Empire. In 1905 the Russian Empire took up 1/5 of the worlds land mass, and it got it's ass handed to it, by which country? Japan! That's right a nation that would have fit into the Russian Empire several thousand times over.

The size of an Empire has very little to do with its influence on world history.

As for the fact that German and Russian Empires had a bigger impact of global history. You boggle my mind. The German Empire last 47 years, the Russian 196 years, this against the 1000+ of the Roman Empire!

Dude! Seriously, read a book, for the sake of the children you might one day have.

If fact, there's a pretty solid argument to be made that Japan's defeat of Russia (the first time an Asian power had defeated a European power in open warfare, actually lead to the increase of Japanese aggression through the 20s and 30s. Including their annexation of Manchuria.

To be fair, a large part of the Russian defeat had nothing to do with either the Russians or the Japanese, but that the French (I think), were in a pissy mood and refused to allow the Russians to move naval forces through the Suez Canal, forcing them to route their supply lines around Africa, so that by the time they were able to bring serious naval forces to bear the war was over. But given that Russia couldn't hold off anyone else during this time...

The trick has never been conquering Russia, the trick has been holding it. Aside from the Vikings, no one has manged to hold it.

 

[Jegsimmons]

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.

British Empire was the largest

and besides as many people have said the Romans had a bigger impact on the west so we cover it more where as eastern countries cover eastern empires

also didnt the roman empire (arguably) last from 509BC (birth of roman republic)until 1453 (fall of constantinople)
thats quite a while

i geuss depending on how you look at the word "Empire". if i'm not mistaken once the western part fell the eastern pretty much became a different nation. and the holy roman empire is something completely different. but i'll have to re-check my history on that.

 

[FalloutJack]

From a contemporary view, plenty of people can SAY an empire is overrated, but that's from the view of present day. Until you can gimme the reason why the common man of the empire days would think so too, I wouldn't say the argument holds water.

 

[Dyme]

I mean it didn't conquer too much to make an impact on the world

LOOOOL
stopped reading here.

Ever heard of Spanish? Yea that looks a lot like Latin.
Italian? Latin.
French? Kinda Latin.

~All literature in medieval times: Latin.

Big big big parts of our law system? Yea. All done by Romans.

Many big cities, founded by Romans. (Such as Cologne)

I am sure there are ~infinity more examples on how they had a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge impact on even our todays life.

 

[Warforger]

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.

Hitler was better?! Dude! Read a book!

The only one on your list that challenges Caesar is Alexander.

Herpaderp.

Caesar conquer Gaul, home of the Celtic tribes,

Not that impressive.

Rome's more fear enemies (with the acceptation of Hannibal),

No. Rome just wanted to conquer the territory and had never been before able too.

he then marched on an took the most powerful state in the world, with almost no bloodshed. Next he followed the Senatorial armies, three of them, and defeated each in turn. Next he defeated Pharnaces II in Pontus. He returned to Rome and illegal ruler covered in the blood of his country men, and the people loved him.

And this compares how? He won a civil war, if the other generals were as good as he was then yah of course.

He won wars on 3 different contents, while out numbered, in the space of 12 years.

Hitler defeated the strongest nations in a couple years, Napoleon spread idealology across Europe that would change it's course of history and again both of them faced tougher opponets that also outnumbered them.

On top of all this he ensured that his dynasty lasted for 5 generations (though he did not "created" the Roman Empire, as so many of the misinformed on here say).

He was cunning, confident, brilliant luck and ruthless, a model by product of Roman society. In war he never out a foot wrong, to mention him in the same breath as Hitler illustrates how little you know of history.

*facepalm* You also don't much history do you?

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.

You seem to have this obsession that the bigger the Empire the more powerful it is. The Russian Empire, in relative terms, was not nearly as powerful as the Roman Empire. In 1905 the Russian Empire took up 1/5 of the worlds land mass, and it got it's ass handed to it, by which country? Japan! That's right a nation that would have fit into the Russian Empire several thousand times over.

Due to other reasons. And again, gaining more territory was what made the Roman Empererors popular, each would try to send more forces to conquer more territories when their popularity was going down, this is the same with the Russians. As such the Russians faced the same problems the Romans did i.e. having trouble maintaing the empire.

But again, my point isn't just the territory, but that empires like the Caliphates while they were arguably greater then the Romans don't get nearly as enough attention, they advanced math science and engineering greatly to the point that some of the contraptions are still used to this day, they made an entire region on their own, and yet they're given a brief skimming when talked about while the Romans have a vast library of history to that everyone knows. Even though they only affected one region.

The size of an Empire has very little to do with its influence on world history.

What? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Go read a 5th grade history textbook or something. The bigger the empire the more influence it has on the world, take say latin America, due to the size of Portugals and Spains territories nearly every country in it speaks Spanish or Portuguese and they don't have many unique languages, thus the entire continents history was changed due to two countries actions. That's alot bigger then what the Romans did. That's not even it, I could go on with the Caliphates again, or the Ottomans etc. etc.

As for the fact that German and Russian Empires had a bigger impact of global history. You boggle my mind. The German Empire last 47 years, the Russian 196 years, this against the 1000+ of the Roman Empire!

And so that means it had a bigger impact on global history? The German empire created one of the biggest wars in history that made all of the existing empires face harsh realities by accident, the Russian empire managed to do what the Spaniards and Portuguese did in Latin America in much of its territories. Just those couple hundreds of years changed global history much more then the thousand of the Roman Empire.

Dude! Seriously, read a book, for the sake of the children you might one day have.

I think you should learn history before telling me too.

I mean it didn't conquer too much to make an impact on the world

LOOOOL
stopped reading here.

Ever heard of Spanish? Yea that looks a lot like Latin.

*facepalm* I meant globally, EUROPE ISN'T THE ENTIRE WORLD. And again, on its own if its territories did not conquer the world then it wouldn't be as popular.

Italian? Latin.

Hahaha, yah because the Italians did anything to make them a significant global power.

~All literature in medieval times: Latin.

Big big big parts of our law system? Yea. All done by Romans.

Many big cities, founded by Romans. (Such as Cologne)

I am sure there are ~infinity more examples on how they had a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge impact on even our todays life.

You mean in Europe.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Wait, so in the same post you say that 'Spanish, Portugese, and French' were all spread by their colonies which make them important, and then when someone says that Latin was the base for these three nations you say that it's only Europe that speaks them?

You seem to be missing a point here that Rome influenced Europe, and then Europe influenced a MASSIVE part of the world.

Italians didn't do anything important in history?

Damn, I guess the renaissance wasn't that important after all.

You seem to think that Rome could've influenced countries they didn't even have access to at the time (America, for example), and then are pointing this out as some kind of weakness.

I understand that you are too obstinate to listen to the points people have made against you, and are now just trying to be pernickety and point out small interpretive errors in the posts of others without supporting your reasoning, but dude...stop. You're just embarrassing yourself and looking like a child! Man up and face that your statement was ill researched and ill thought out! We won't think any less of you for it.

 

[Alon Shechter]

Meanwhile in the English speaking Roman Jerusalem

And I don't think Rome was overrated. Without them the face of the world now would be quite different.

I was just about to respond with:

 

[Beliyal]

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.

Hitler was better?! Dude! Read a book!

The only one on your list that challenges Caesar is Alexander.

Herpaderp.

Awesome argument. I'll borrow it, my professor will love it.

Caesar conquer Gaul, home of the Celtic tribes,

Not that impressive.

Granted, I'm not that much fascinated by Julius Caesar myself, but I can't deny he was a great general. Maybe not the best and he is not single-handedly responsible for the entire Roman civilization. He is, however, a pivotal figure for the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire. That transition period is very important for Roman history so, naturally, he gets more "screen time" than someone else. We also have a lot of information on the time he lived in and his life, so he is attractive to explore and teach about. He was also not only a dumb brute, but wrote books that have historical value (his De Bello Gallico is a goldmine of information about the Gauls themselves and about the whole war campaign).

He won wars on 3 different contents, while out numbered, in the space of 12 years.

Hitler defeated the strongest nations in a couple years, Napoleon spread idealology across Europe that would change it's course of history and again both of them faced tougher opponets that also outnumbered them.

Hitler lived in the 20th century, Napoleon in the 18th/19th century. You're comparing two different worlds. What is impressive about Rome is that they did all those things 2000 years ago, without the technology and the knowledge about the world that Napoleon and Hitler had. What's more important, both Napoleon and Hitler wouldn't have a professional army if Rome didn't reform the army to make it a profession (Gaius Marius did so at the end of the 2nd century BC). That act was unprecedented (aside from Spartan army, which was professional, but very localized, as Sparta was only a city-state), and while maybe it wasn't the best army that ever walked the Earth, it certainly left the most impact on the world and was the most organized and well-prepared one, that ruled the world for 500 hundred years and more, if we count in its heritage. The point here is not were they the most badass, but how much we inherited from them; how much from what they did is not just an interesting read in the history books, but widely still applied in the world today. And when you mentioned Hitler, I suppose you do know how much inspiration both him and Mussolini drew from Rome (insignia, eagles, marching, the rising of the right hand salute? All inspired by Rome. Official greeting in Rome was done by raising your right hand, just like the Nazi salute). You do know that the word "fascism" comes from the Latin "fasces", which was a certain object in the form of an axe that was carried around by lictors, who were the personal protectors of the members of the Senate (depending on your position in the Senate, you had some various number of lictors who followed you through the city and protecting you. Dictators had the biggest number of lictors; 24). Oh, and while we're on Latin, the word "army" comes from Latin "arma" which means "weapon" or "arms". So, you tell me who had the most impact on the world. The words you use every single day (the ones we use right now to have this conversation) are in constant use for the last 2500 years. Because of Rome, not the Mongols.

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.

You seem to have this obsession that the bigger the Empire the more powerful it is. The Russian Empire, in relative terms, was not nearly as powerful as the Roman Empire. In 1905 the Russian Empire took up 1/5 of the worlds land mass, and it got it's ass handed to it, by which country? Japan! That's right a nation that would have fit into the Russian Empire several thousand times over.

Due to other reasons. And again, gaining more territory was what made the Roman Empererors popular, each would try to send more forces to conquer more territories when their popularity was going down, this is the same with the Russians. As such the Russians faced the same problems the Romans did i.e. having trouble maintaing the empire.

But again, my point isn't just the territory, but that empires like the Caliphates while they were arguably greater then the Romans don't get nearly as enough attention, they advanced math science and engineering greatly to the point that some of the contraptions are still used to this day, they made an entire region on their own, and yet they're given a brief skimming when talked about while the Romans have a vast library of history to that everyone knows. Even though they only affected one region.

You are again mentioning the world after Rome. It would be comparable if they lived side by side, in time. But the Caliphates only began after Rome's collapse. It is a natural succession; one great Empire falls and another rises. Of course they advanced technology and science, but so did Rome. Half a century before them. You're talking about things still used to this day, but some of the essential things you have in your home are in constant use since the Romans, who existed before the Caliphates. Yes, we use Arabic numerals, but you have your indoor plumbing because of the Romans. It doesn't matter where you live; Romans improved and perfected sewers and plumbing and it was done so greatly, that nobody bothered changing it because it works so well. It was passed on around Europe and eventually spread across the world. Plumbing in Australia wasn't invented by the Aborigines, it is still a Roman invention. That's why it's important. Now, if you like some other culture more than Rome, that's fine. I do too. But I acknowledge their importance. Besides, the amount of material and information about Rome could fill five documentaries a day and we wouldn't ran out of documentaries for another 200 years. No culture is less important than another, but some cultures contributed to the society more, practically speaking. Rome is the foundation of the Western civilization and it's not just important for Europe. Europe was built from Rome and Europeans went over to Americas and the rest of the world and built their cultures there further. Yes, it was the Britons, the Dutch, the Spaniards, but they are all sons and daughter of Rome.

The size of an Empire has very little to do with its influence on world history.

What? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Go read a 5th grade history textbook or something. The bigger the empire the more influence it has on the world, take say latin America, due to the size of Portugals and Spains territories nearly every country in it speaks Spanish or Portuguese and they don't have many unique languages, thus the entire continents history was changed due to two countries actions. That's alot bigger then what the Romans did. That's not even it, I could go on with the Caliphates again, or the Ottomans etc. etc.

Again, you're going far away in history. Of course that colonial forces had bigger Empires; they knew three more continents. In terms of antiquity, Rome had one of the biggest and most influential Empires. Only the Achaemenid Empire was bigger (they existed almost as much as Rome, but their Empire collapsed earlier). And still, their influence on the world is not greater than the influence that Rome had, at least not for the Western world. I would be glad if we took the same amount of time to explore each Empire and culture that ever existed, but time is not without limits. When teaching the basics, some choices have to be made; and in terms of which culture shaped the Western world the most, it is Rome, so most time is dedicated to them. If you have a passionate interest in some other culture, I suggest you to stop waiting for documentaries and hurry up to the library. Alternatively, you can always go and study the said culture. I study archaeology because I love ancient cultures and Rome is not my favourite culture. But I don't think any other culture had such great impact on our world and I don't believe we should switch our classes about Rome and learn about something else instead. It would be nice, but it wouldn't be wise. If I want, I can specialize in something and dedicate my life to the culture I love the most. But I still need to know the importance of Rome, as everyone should know it.

As for the fact that German and Russian Empires had a bigger impact of global history. You boggle my mind. The German Empire last 47 years, the Russian 196 years, this against the 1000+ of the Roman Empire!

And so that means it had a bigger impact on global history? The German empire created one of the biggest wars in history that made all of the existing empires face harsh realities by accident, the Russian empire managed to do what the Spaniards and Portuguese did in Latin America in much of its territories. Just those couple hundreds of years changed global history much more then the thousand of the Roman Empire.

Again, you're talking about things that happened 2000 years after antiquity. We're talking about things out of context. You can't go on and compare anything with anything. That would be like comparing the 21st century with early modern humans that painted caves and saying we're more important because we can explore the universe and cure almost all diseases. Yes, but we wouldn't get here without those primitive people that painted caves. None of the great Empires would exist if it weren't for Rome which put the foundations for others. Rome influenced all of Europe, which means Germany too, and through those descendants, in essence, influenced the entire world.

I mean it didn't conquer too much to make an impact on the world

LOOOOL
stopped reading here.

Ever heard of Spanish? Yea that looks a lot like Latin.

*facepalm* I meant globally, EUROPE ISN'T THE ENTIRE WORLD. And again, on its own if its territories did not conquer the world then it wouldn't be as popular.

Europe isn't the entire world, but it carried its culture to the New world. Rome put the foundations for Spain (in language and culture), they conquered half of the world and carried their language and culture to Americas (and elsewhere). Same thing with other European countries.

Italian? Latin.

Hahaha, yah because the Italians did anything to make them a significant global power.

Oh no, they were only the home of the Renaissance which did just a little tiny bit of advancing culture, art, customs, medicine, science and technology on which foundations we built the modern world. Oh, Italy was also just a home of fascism. No big deal, really. Also, of course, home of the Roman civilization itself and today the home of one of the biggest and most influential religions to date. Yes, maybe today they are not that big and important force (which is debatable), but to dismiss Italy in any way, is wrong by all accounts.

~All literature in medieval times: Latin.

Big big big parts of our law system? Yea. All done by Romans.

Many big cities, founded by Romans. (Such as Cologne)

I am sure there are ~infinity more examples on how they had a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge impact on even our todays life.

You mean in Europe.

Americas and Australia, and a big part of Africa and Asia underwent the thorough colonization (usually forceful) from Europe. People living in Americas and Australia (apart from the natives) are descendants of Europeans, who in turn, almost definitely have at least one Roman ancestor. What is important for Europe, is important for the rest of the world. It maybe sounds unfair, and I believe it is, because forceful colonization is something I am deeply disgusted with, but that's how history went. I myself am very interested in Asia and its cultures (and the cultures of all other continents, for that matter), but they mostly didn't forcefully share those cultures with the rest of the world, thus, not making their impact bigger than the impact that Europe (built on the foundations of Rome) brought to the rest of the world.

I believe we swayed from the topic. Is Rome the best culture ever that invented everything in existence? No. Is Rome very influential and has set the standard and the foundations for all the world that existed later? Yes, in many areas. Is it "overrated", in whatever sense we explain that word in this context? I don't think so. Is there a significantly bigger amount of documentaries and movies and books and media in general about them? Yes. Is it fair? Well, probably not, but I see why it is like that, and logically, it makes sense, as we have an extremely bigger pool of information about Rome than about some other culture.

Nobody "overrated" the culture because they have no better things to do in life. Nobody rates history. It speaks for itself. And while your personal likes and dislikes may vary from the general opinion about something, objectively the scientific consensus is that Roman civilization had one of the biggest impacts on the world today, in areas ranging from art and culture to daily life, army, weapons, technology, science, medicine and other, which doesn't exclude the impact that other cultures had on the world too, but in terms of the Western civilization, Rome "impacted" us more. That's why our media is more concentrated on Rome, and not the Mongols or the Caliphate. However, if you really want to know about the Mongols or the Caliphate, you can find any information you want elsewhere, or even go and dedicate your life to it by studying it.

Sorry for this gargantuan post.

 

[HerrBobo]

Herpaderp.

Oh, I love when people run out of argument and just throw in something like this. It shows the limit of their intellect.

Not that impressive.


No. Rome just wanted to conquer the territory and had never been before able too.

Yes, well that is only your, incorrect, opinion. Rome was sacked by Celtic tribes in 390 BC. This was one of the turning points of Roman history. The city was destroyed and the population seriously considered moving to another area. However, they did not, the rallied, rebuilt and went on to conquer all of Italy.

The sack let a scar on the Roman national physic though. For the first time walls were constructed around the city, and the sack was a reference point for hardship for several centuries. The Celtic tribes to the North were Rome's most hated and feared enemies, often attempting to invade Italy.

When Caesar finally defeated them, the Roman people considered it as great a victory as Pompey's conquest in the East

You're making the a common mistake of most amateur historians, you're looking at it from your limited modern perspective. Go read some of the ancient Roman Historians, they'll put you straight.

And this compares how? He won a civil war, if the other generals were as good as he was then yah of course.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this.

A Civil war is, historically, much harder to win then a international one. The opponent you face has the same equipment, tactics and training as you. Not to mention the massively difficult job of keeping your troops loyal (the most common reason a civil war is lost is dis-loyalty) and the hot politics that comes with it. To win a civil war is one of he ultimate tests for a commander.

Hitler defeated the strongest nations in a couple years, Napoleon spread idealology across Europe that would change it's course of history and again both of them faced tougher opponets that also outnumbered them.

Firstly it's, "ideology" and "opponents".

Hmmmm, what "strongest" nations did Hitler, as a military commander, defeat? Certainly not Poland, there were clearly an inferior nation, not Greece, that's for sure.... The only one I can think of was France, who were considered the heavy weights of Europe before WW2. Of course the problem with that is Hitler only took over the command of the Germany army in late 1941, well after the defeat of France. From that date Germany lost every major battle, on every front. Hitler was a good civilian politician , but he is one of the worst military commanders of all time. He almost single-handedly lost the war for Germany.

Napoleon, was clearly better the Hitler, but no match for Caesar. While he was very good on the battlefield he was weak politically, to the point where he isolated himself to such an extent that he had to fight all of the major European powers at once. His invasion of Russia was one of the biggest blunders in all history, it was ill timed, ill conceived and unnecessary. He did it because he was over confident, and at that stage in a desperate position, politically.

Like I said, one of the biggest mistakes in history. He is good, but several ranks below Caesar.

*facepalm* You also don't much history do you?

Again, you display the limits of your intellect. I put together a well thought out post, with several good points, and you do this. Are you too lazy to make a proper post, or unable to counter my points?

The latter, I feel.

Due to other reasons. And again, gaining more territory was what made the Roman Empererors popular, each would try to send more forces to conquer more territories when their popularity was going down, this is the same with the Russians. As such the Russians faced the same problems the Romans did i.e. having trouble maintaing the empire.

But again, my point isn't just the territory, but that empires like the Caliphates while they were arguably greater then the Romans don't get nearly as enough attention, they advanced math science and engineering greatly to the point that some of the contraptions are still used to this day, they made an entire region on their own, and yet they're given a brief skimming when talked about while the Romans have a vast library of history to that everyone knows. Even though they only affected one region.

* "Emperors" and "maintaining". I assume this is what you were going for?

First, every Empire has trouble maintaining it's self, if this were not the case they would never fall.

Like myself and other has said already, the Caliphates had my less of an impact on European history then the Romans. If you live in Europe you are going to learn more about the Romans, they are more important.

If you live in Africa, or the Middle East, I'm sure you learn more about the Caliphates, as they are more important than the Romans in that part of the world.

What? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Go read a 5th grade history textbook or something. The bigger the empire the more influence it has on the world, take say latin America, due to the size of Portugals and Spains territories nearly every country in it speaks Spanish or Portuguese and they don't have many unique languages, thus the entire continents history was changed due to two countries actions. That's alot bigger then what the Romans did. That's not even it, I could go on with the Caliphates again, or the Ottomans etc. etc.

*"Portugal's", "Spain's", "Latin", "a lot".

Did the fact that it's called LATIN America not dawn on you how poor your point is?

Perhaps that Spanish and Portuguese come directly form Latin?

I'll respond this the "points" your making here in the next quote, as they are related.

And so that means it had a bigger impact on global history? The German empire created one of the biggest wars in history that made all of the existing empires face harsh realities by accident, the Russian empire managed to do what the Spaniards and Portuguese did in Latin America in much of its territories. Just those couple hundreds of years changed global history much more then the thousand of the Roman Empire.

See this is your major problem. The German Empire was involved in one of the biggest wars in history, 80 years ago. That is like yesterday for historians. The full impacts of that war are still ongoing and can not fully be assessed yet. It is still in living memories, it is too soon to get an objective view on the the causes, the war and it's ramifications. Come back in a few another 100 years or so and them we can begin to talk about it.

The Spanish and Portuguese Empires were huge and have influenced Global history for the last 200 years, or so. Roman history has influenced the world for the last 2000 years are so. Your point is moot.

 

[Daniel Clarke]

Going back to the Julius Caesar point, he was arguably better than any of the examples shown previously because of his actual 'job' (for want of a better word) as a Lawyer and a politician, unlike Genghis Khan and Alexander. Yes, a lawyer. A lawyer conquered France, defeated Pompey the Great, and re-captured most of the Mediterranean from Pompeian forces with superior numbers, finance. He was also the first general to effectively counter elephants in the field without running flaming pigs at them.

The two legions he raised, the 10th and the 8th, were also so well known and feared throughout the Empire's enemies that it was recorded at one point a Pontic army surrendered because they had taken the field. Caesar also took and held Alexandria with a single Legion (yes, the 10th) after they gave him Pompey's head in a jar.

But I suppose that doesn't affect how overrated he is. However, can I point out that you are currently using a forum? You know, "a gathering place of great social significance, and often the scene of political discussions and debates"