Isn't the Roman Empire kinda overrated?

[HerrBobo]

Snip

For the sake of argument I avoided making some of the points that you raise here.

It is, of course, pointless to compare one period of history with another, in the way the OP is doing. Empires and men, should only be judged in their own era, to incorporate them into the modern world is to debased their role is history, but is also quite skews one's findings on a the topic. It is, however, a mistake often made by amateur historians.

I'll put another way; historians are predicting with in the next 100-150 years there will be a bust of Hitler in the DDR in Berlin. Why? Because history will judge him. We cannot, we have no objectivity on his life, yet.

 

[richd213]

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.

largest empire ever? Are you sure about that one?

 

[Warforger]

Herpaderp.

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

You mean like yourself and like almost everyone else who quoted me? I guess it's great you know yourself well.

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.

Other then the Etruscans or Carthage right? Those were bigger threats I'd say.

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

Like several hundred years later, which by that point they weren't much of a threat anymore.

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.

No. You're completely missing the point of this thread. My point is, is that Rome is getting too much credit for influencing the world and others like the Caliphates or Indians are brushed aside and not studied nearly as much. Hence why I called them "Overrated".

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 always true.

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.

Doesn't sound like it's the role of the commander but rather the ideology in the first place.....

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".

Oh look at this great guy demonstrating how smart he is by pointing out a couple spelling errors. Oh someone give him a Nobel Prize for snooty-iness.

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.

Other then like you know conquering a whole bunch of Europe is a few short weeks. It's worth remembering that during 1939-40 the German army had largely outdated equipment and it wasn't fully modernized until 44, during 39-40 most of the weapons as a consequence of the Versailles treaty were outdated weapons from WWI, most of the tanks were the training tanks Panzer 1 and 2's and not the advanced Panzer 3's and 4's, even then most of the army wasn't mobilized and traveled on foot or with horses, only around 30-40% was mobilized, as opposed to Britain and America's 100%.

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.

Caesar on the other hand faced little external threats, Napoleon on the other hand faced constant threats. Like Hitler after him Russia was going to invade and was only allying with him because he was so powerful, it's easy to see this because a couple years earlier Russia did in fact fight Napoleon. Napoleon on top of this fought his way up the ranks of the French, fighting a civil war as well as fighting invading Prussians, British and Austrians. That certainly is a bigger feat then what Caesar did.

*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.

YOU MEAN LIKE YOU DID RIGHT OFF THE BAT! Oh sure.

* "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.

YES! But that's my point, Rome didn't have as much influence in global history as the empires I mentioned, and yet it's treated as such.

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?

No. The Romans did not conquer Latin America, territories which just so happened to be future powerful empires did.

Perhaps that Spanish and Portuguese come directly form Latin?

Or perhaps they had a bigger impact on global history then the Romans?

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.

????What? Wars back then didn't change much because before Napoleon wars were fought by professionals and mercenaries, they didn't effect the home country too much, most people could go on by not having to join the army and it was fine, so of course wars back then aren't going to effect global politics as much besides nations losing international power or gaining debt. Napoleon on the other hand changed all of that, with the industrial revolution in its early stages guns were made more quickly and more reliable, thus huge armies were easier to amass, and so bam instead of a couple hundred thoasand soldiers total armies of millions appear.

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.

No. The Romans did not have any influence in the America's, they had little influence on Africa, they had little influence on the Middle East, they had no influence in China, none in India etc. etc. If Spain or Portugal spreads the Roman ideals then it's Spain or Portugal spreading them; not Rome. It's like saying the Greeks brought Democracy to Iraq in 2003 because they came up with the idea.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

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.

largest empire ever? Are you sure about that one?

They are estimated to have been the largest empire ever in terms of share of world population (around 25%, estimates go for second century AD from 21% to 40%)), not in area. Many other empires had far bigger areas (Mongol, British, Russian, Arabian, Spanish, French and Portuguese)

OT: we need to bare in mind the Roman empire is actually both Greek and Roman. For a start the alphabet you are using is latin (adapted from the greek) and it is tyhe most used in the world. The language you are using despite grouped with germanic languages for its structure and grammatical rules, borrowed most (probably more than 90%) of its words from latin by old French. Modern political and Judicial systems not only in the west but pretty much everywhere are inspired by classical (greek and roman) principles. And the roman empire was far ahead of its time when compared with all others, both artistically, phylosophicvally and engineeringly. In engineering we probably only matched them by the beginning of the 19th century. Phylosophically I would say on the 18th century and artistically on the 15th century.

Even Roman cities despite not being perfect (none is even today) they are the footprint to any modern city, from US to Japan, from Iceland to South Africa. And Rome was the first city to pass the mark of the million, almost 2000 years before London, Paris and Moscow doing it in the mid 1800's.

Was defenetly a remarkable empire for inumerous reasons.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Snippety Snip

You missed the entire point of the post he was making...

It's called Latin America because it was influenced by Spain and Portugal.

Spain and Portugal were influenced directly by...MY OH MY, ANCIENT ROME! Wouldja look at that. The point he was making is that Rome influenced Europe, who, in turn, influenced the ENTIRE WORLD using techniques if not invented by then fully utilised by the Romans. Also I agree with the irony that you're writing this whole argument on a Forum XD

Also 'Herpaderp' in response to, you know, real words, is a terrible arguing technique - especially when you refute a point with it; if you disagree with the historical fact he brought up then use an actual argument - bring up links, proof!

Just sit back, take a couple of minutes to properly review the arguments made against your claim, remember that you're not a professional historian (at least for this field), and don't seem to have read about on the topic very much, and take a deep breath. Don't get flustered, because all that's seeming to do is make you annoyed and rude.

 

[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.

largest empire ever? Are you sure about that one?

in ancient times anyway when you consider land AND population (sure gengis kahn had some land size but it wasnt as packed as the roman empire and didnt really have AS BIG of an influence. but i guess its how you look at it.)

 

[uzo]

Obvious troll is obvious

 

[Warforger]

Snippety Snip

You missed the entire point of the post he was making...

It's called Latin America because it was influenced by Spain and Portugal.

Spain and Portugal were influenced directly by...MY OH MY, ANCIENT ROME! Wouldja look at that. The point he was making is that Rome influenced Europe, who, in turn, influenced the ENTIRE WORLD using techniques if not invented by then fully utilised by the Romans. Also I agree with the irony that you're writing this whole argument on a Forum XD

I swear you didn't even read what you quoted did you?

That argument makes no sense, but hey I'll just copy&paste what I wrote in the same post you quoted which you probably read.

"No. The Romans did not have any influence in the America's, they had little influence on Africa, they had little influence on the Middle East, they had no influence in China, none in India etc. etc. If Spain or Portugal spreads the Roman ideals then it's Spain or Portugal spreading them; not Rome. It's like saying the Greeks brought Democracy to Iraq in 2003 because they came up with the idea."

Also 'Herpaderp' in response to, you know, real words, is a terrible arguing technique - especially when you refute a point with it; if you disagree with the historical fact he brought up then use an actual argument - bring up links, proof!

Disagree with a historical fact? He was speaking his own opinion as fact and it was an obvious flawed idea so that's why I said "Herpaderp".

Just sit back, take a couple of minutes to properly review the arguments made against your claim, remember that you're not a professional historian (at least for this field), and don't seem to have read about on the topic very much, and take a deep breath. Don't get flustered, because all that's seeming to do is make you annoyed and rude.

What the fuck? You should like read all the other posts in this thread because they right off the bat they insult me. If anything they're insulting me because they can't come up with anything good and so have to resort to insults.

Come to think of it, you also didn't read my post at all, I was about as angry as an orange, but of course since you have no real argument you have to resort to insults.

 

[HerrBobo]

Snip

You know, I was about to start another long post, about how neither the Etruscans, nor the Carthaginians sacked Rome, and about how your simple spelling mistakes debase your whole argument, as it clear you can not even be bothered to spell-check your words, never-mind construct decent counter arguments.

I was going to do that, but its 3.27am, I'm just home from work, I have to go to college in the morning to work on my thesis which is due in a month. I don't have the motivation to keep banging my head against the brick wall of your silly half though, half baked arguments.

You clearly have some knowledge of history, and in a way it is good that you are questioning the status quo of the stance on the reception of the Roman influence on the modern world. However, you arguments are shocking, they are ill constructed, heavily based on speculation rather then fact. It seems to me that you read one shit book, or watch one program on the History channel about some of the topics you mentioned and just threw it all together with out any thought or research. Your comments of Hitler and WW2 are so far off it actually laughed when I read it.

I tried to educate you, just a wee bit, but you're a lost cause.

I wash my hands of this thread.

Also, this, cause he answered your point, to my point, quite well.

You missed the entire point of the post he was making...

It's called Latin America because it was influenced by Spain and Portugal.

Spain and Portugal were influenced directly by...MY OH MY, ANCIENT ROME! Wouldja look at that. The point he was making is that Rome influenced Europe, who, in turn, influenced the ENTIRE WORLD using techniques if not invented by then fully utilised by the Romans. Also I agree with the irony that you're writing this whole argument on a Forum XD

Also 'Herpaderp' in response to, you know, real words, is a terrible arguing technique - especially when you refute a point with it; if you disagree with the historical fact he brought up then use an actual argument - bring up links, proof!

Just sit back, take a couple of minutes to properly review the arguments made against your claim, remember that you're not a professional historian (at least for this field), and don't seem to have read about on the topic very much, and take a deep breath. Don't get flustered, because all that's seeming to do is make you annoyed and rude.

 

[Dyme]

You mean in Europe.

I don't know where you are from, but stop trolling.
You can't say "IF Europe had not conquered the whole world, then he Roman Empire wouldn't have had a impact on everyone's life, therefore the Roman Empire wasn't as great as the Mongols."
What? Europe conquered the whole world, and because Europe was heavily influenced by the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire HAS a huge impact on the whole world, even today.
You can't just pretend Europe didn't conquer the whole world, because it did.
Catholic church? Oh they also speak Latin. But of course the catholic church only exists in Europe?

On another note, the Roman Empire lasted much longer than the Mongol Empire.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Snippety Snip

You missed the entire point of the post he was making...

It's called Latin America because it was influenced by Spain and Portugal.

Spain and Portugal were influenced directly by...MY OH MY, ANCIENT ROME! Wouldja look at that. The point he was making is that Rome influenced Europe, who, in turn, influenced the ENTIRE WORLD using techniques if not invented by then fully utilised by the Romans. Also I agree with the irony that you're writing this whole argument on a Forum XD

I swear you didn't even read what you quoted did you?

That argument makes no sense, but hey I'll just copy&paste what I wrote in the same post you quoted which you probably read.

"No. The Romans did not have any influence in the America's, they had little influence on Africa, they had little influence on the Middle East, they had no influence in China, none in India etc. etc. If Spain or Portugal spreads the Roman ideals then it's Spain or Portugal spreading them; not Rome. It's like saying the Greeks brought Democracy to Iraq in 2003 because they came up with the idea."

It's not like saying that at all - Rome influenced these countries directly, who, using knowledge taught to them went to take over a large part of the world.

Hey, check out this link, it'll be an interesting read for you I can tell. [http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/]

Also 'Herpaderp' in response to, you know, real words, is a terrible arguing technique - especially when you refute a point with it; if you disagree with the historical fact he brought up then use an actual argument - bring up links, proof!

Disagree with a historical fact? He was speaking his own opinion as fact and it was an obvious flawed idea so that's why I said "Herpaderp".

On this count I admit I misread, however you responded to his reasoned opinion by insulting it. You didn't say why, you just made yourself look childish.

Just sit back, take a couple of minutes to properly review the arguments made against your claim, remember that you're not a professional historian (at least for this field), and don't seem to have read about on the topic very much, and take a deep breath. Don't get flustered, because all that's seeming to do is make you annoyed and rude.

What the fuck? You should like read all the other posts in this thread because they right off the bat they insult me. If anything they're insulting me because they can't come up with anything good and so have to resort to insults.

Come to think of it, you also didn't read my post at all, I was about as angry as an orange, but of course since you have no real argument you have to resort to insults.

Only a couple insult you, and a lot of them were just offering reasonable counterpoints to your arguments, supported by reasoned evidence - something you were lacking. I apologise as I came off as rude in that last post, but I'm going to agree with HerrBobo and leave this topic now.

 

[Warforger]

Snip

You know, I was about to start another long post, about how neither the Etruscans, nor the Carthaginians sacked Rome,

Wha.....You...your....kidding.....right? Wikipedia proves you wrong on the Etruscans with just the image of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etruscan_civilization_map.png

On top of this you're forgetting Hannibal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hannibal_route_of_invasion.gif

Simple images can show how far off that comment is.

and about how your simple spelling mistakes debase your whole argument,

Wow. That makes so much sense.

as it clear you can not even be bothered to spell-check your words, never-mind construct decent counter arguments.

Ahuh that makes so much sense.

I was going to do that, but its 3.27am, I'm just home from work, I have to go to college in the morning to work on my thesis which is due in a month. I don't have the motivation to keep banging my head against the brick wall of your silly half though, half baked arguments.

That's exactly how I feel! Seriously you're just insulting me because I am so evil that I disagree with you.

You clearly have some knowledge of history, and in a way it is good that you are questioning the status quo of the stance on the reception of the Roman influence on the modern world. However, you arguments are shocking, they are ill constructed, heavily based on speculation rather then fact. It seems to me that you read one shit book, or watch one program on the History channel about some of the topics you mentioned and just threw it all together with out any thought or research. Your comments of Hitler and WW2 are so far off it actually laughed when I read it.

And yet a couple posts earlier you were talking about how I was using insults instead of arguing with you. Oh gee I guess don't be a hypocrite isn't something you live by.

I tried to educate you, just a wee bit, but you're a lost cause.

I wash my hands of this thread.

It sounds like you cannot formulate arguments and instead do the weak-minded thing and resort to insults.

Also, this, cause he answered your point, to my point, quite well.

You missed the entire point of the post he was making...

It's called Latin America because it was influenced by Spain and Portugal.

Spain and Portugal were influenced directly by...MY OH MY, ANCIENT ROME! Wouldja look at that. The point he was making is that Rome influenced Europe, who, in turn, influenced the ENTIRE WORLD using techniques if not invented by then fully utilised by the Romans. Also I agree with the irony that you're writing this whole argument on a Forum XD

Nope I fully got it and responded to it and he hasn't given a good response. I'm not going to copy&paste what I just copy and pasted.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Well, they did conquer almost all of the known (to them) world.

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.

It's Julius's family name.
It became a title after that.

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.

He's also the one that made that big country so big in the first place.

 

[Bassik]

The fall of the Roman Empire inspired a young Isaac Asimov to write about the fall of a Galactic Empire, and of one mathematician's plan that spanned over a thousand years, wich would eventually lead to a second, more stable empire, forged in science and reason. You may have heard of it, it's pretty well known: Start Trek II: The Wrath of... no wait, that's not true at all!

 

[Beliyal]

Snip

You know, I was about to start another long post, about how neither the Etruscans, nor the Carthaginians sacked Rome,

Wha.....You...your....kidding.....right? Wikipedia proves you wrong on the Etruscans with just the image of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etruscan_civilization_map.png

On top of this you're forgetting Hannibal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hannibal_route_of_invasion.gif

Simple images can show how far off that comment is.

Do you know what "sacked Rome" means?

sack 2 (sk)
tr.v. sacked, sack·ing, sacks
To rob of goods or valuables, especially after capture.
n.
1. The looting or pillaging of a captured city or town.
2. Plunder; loot.

Etruscans and Carthaginians never captured and looted and pillaged the city of Rome. Etruscans and Romans had their fair share of struggles between each other (most notable being the battle of Veii, which lasted for ten years (or so they said to make it look more epic, like, for example the siege of Troy); the Romans won and sacked Veii), but the Etruscans never captured Rome. Rome defeated the Etruscans and incorporated their territory into the Republic. Three Roman kings were actually of Etruscan descent (out of seven in total). Etruscans made a great influence on Rome (through religion, some ideas (city planning for example) and other things). Etruscan power began to fade somewhere in the the 4th century BC, due to wars with Rome (which they kinda all lost). Rome soon captured their territory, the Etruscans slowly merged with the Romans and their culture slowly began to disappear. Interesting thing to note, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, there were still some people left who were of the Etruscan descent and still knew their language. Emperor Claudius himself is known to have written a series of 20 books called the Tyrrhenica (Greeks called the Etruscans "Tyrrheni"), which consisted of Etruscan history, language and even a dictionary. Claudius knew how to speak Etruscan. The book was lost or destroyed and only some accounts of its existence survived. Around that time (1st century AD), the last of the Etruscan descendants died out and the language was forgotten.

Carthaginians also never captured the city of Rome. Hannibal did cross the Alps and enter Italy, and he even managed to go all the way to south Italy, but he never captured Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hannibal_route_of_invasion-en.svg But fine, we can also use your picture too, a bigger version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Hannibal_route_of_invasion.gif Hannibal never reached Rome, even if he did try. He never entered, let alone captured and sacked it.

 

[Warforger]

Snip

You know, I was about to start another long post, about how neither the Etruscans, nor the Carthaginians sacked Rome,

Wha.....You...your....kidding.....right? Wikipedia proves you wrong on the Etruscans with just the image of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etruscan_civilization_map.png

On top of this you're forgetting Hannibal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hannibal_route_of_invasion.gif

Simple images can show how far off that comment is.

Do you know what "sacked Rome" means?

sack 2 (sk)
tr.v. sacked, sack·ing, sacks
To rob of goods or valuables, especially after capture.
n.
1. The looting or pillaging of a captured city or town.
2. Plunder; loot.

You are of course assuming that Romans will only be angry just because someone pillaged the city and not like for other reasons, LIKE SAY CONQUERING MOST OF ROME!

Etruscans and Carthaginians never captured and looted and pillaged the city of Rome. Etruscans and Romans had their fair share of struggles between each other (most notable being the battle of Veii, which lasted for ten years (or so they said to make it look more epic, like, for example the siege of Troy); the Romans won and sacked Veii), but the Etruscans never captured Rome.

Yes, they did. The map itself is clear statement of that and it's pretty common knowledge they DID conquer the city of Rome.

Rome defeated the Etruscans and incorporated their territory into the Republic. Three Roman kings were actually of Etruscan descent (out of seven in total). Etruscans made a great influence on Rome (through religion, some ideas (city planning for example) and other things). Etruscan power began to fade somewhere in the the 4th century BC, due to wars with Rome (which they kinda all lost). Rome soon captured their territory, the Etruscans slowly merged with the Romans and their culture slowly began to disappear. Interesting thing to note, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, there were still some people left who were of the Etruscan descent and still knew their language. Emperor Claudius himself is known to have written a series of 20 books called the Tyrrhenica (Greeks called the Etruscans "Tyrrheni"), which consisted of Etruscan history, language and even a dictionary. Claudius knew how to speak Etruscan. The book was lost or destroyed and only some accounts of its existence survived. Around that time (1st century AD), the last of the Etruscan descendants died out and the language was forgotten.

.....Yah, of course, that still doesn't change the fact of this 1. There was huge resentment of the Etruscans because of what they did 2. they captured Rome.

Carthaginians also never captured the city of Rome. Hannibal did cross the Alps and enter Italy, and he even managed to go all the way to south Italy, but he never captured Rome.

Yes he didn't, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a hated enemy because him just managing to get to Italy and wreak the country is enough to make him a major enemy of the state and any general good enough to defeat him would be honored to the highest degree.

 

[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.

Name 10 important Han Dynasty figures without googling. Bet you can do that with the Romans though. Our culture (in western Europe) came through the greeks then on through Rome, Rome imposed its culture on the celts of northwestern europe and on the goths also. People still speak latin and use it for a universal language in many fields, not least science and the law. As a person of western European descent, I'm more effected by Roman history, roman quotes, roman attitudes, roman concepts etc etc than I have been by anyone who came out of any of those other empires you mentioned.

In the end, the romans conquored/converted the peoples who would, collectively, end up on top of the pile at this particular point in history. I agree that the Chinese probably have a longer and more populous history and people. Culturally, most outside of China view this as just being the Mao Dynasty, no different to any dynasty before. SUre they'll be on top soon if they don't screw up, but in my judgement they'd have to stay there for 800 years to catch up to the legacy of the romans...

Of course I can name more important figures from the Roman Empire, a)I am of European descent and b)I have a master in Roman History but I have taken enough classes in World History to know that it really isn't that simple. The true culmination of ancient history, including the things developed by the Greeks and Romans was the Abbasid Caliphate, not Western Europe, Europe's history was considerably more related to the earlier Germanic peoples and their culture than the Romans, although they did use Latin, that was because of the Church. It wasn't until the Renaissance, which was started largely through increased trade with the Arabic people which brought much ancient and classical learning, which had been completely lost, back to Europe and seeing this previous learning people started consciously emulating Greek and Roman ideas and architecture and such.

It is also a fact that until 1830 China was the most populous, unified, advanced(at least in some areas), and wealthy country on earth and had been for roughly 800 years before that, even during times of hardship like the century of Mongol overlordship and the 1600, China was still number one(and number one by a lot) and for most of that time Europe, even in the first two centuries of colonizing, was a poor, backward fringe region in comparison. The reasons Europe succeeded in overtaking China in 1830 are highly complex and hotly debated but it essentially boils down to the fact that the geographic, resource, and population limitations of Europe, as well as its lack of unity and general economic weakness created the breeding ground from new technology, new science, and the drive to expand. Traveling to the Americas and colonizing/conquering the rest of the world was well within China's capabilities a century before Columbus set sail(look up the voyages of Zheng He, whose flagship was literally about 10 times the size of Columbus' and had a fleet of 200(possibly as many as 300) ships and 30,000 men) but since there was economic reason or need to colonize or continue to explore, they stopped.

In conclusion, I would definitely say that the reason we in the west no so little about China is the result of ignorance resulting from China's century so of economic backwardness and outside domination and then the Communist domination. China's rising economy, which will overtake the US in a few decades isn't the rise of China, but rather the return of China to the status of economic domination that it has held for the vast majority of its recorded history.

 

[doorofnight]

Snip

You know, I was about to start another long post, about how neither the Etruscans, nor the Carthaginians sacked Rome,

Wha.....You...your....kidding.....right? Wikipedia proves you wrong on the Etruscans with just the image of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etruscan_civilization_map.png

On top of this you're forgetting Hannibal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hannibal_route_of_invasion.gif

Simple images can show how far off that comment is.

You are correct about the Etruscans controlling Rome for a time, but I would debate the question of them sacking it, since they might well have founded it(it is a point of quite a lot of debate) or at least dominated it for a time. An Etruscan family did rule Rome for a while(the family cast out when Rome became a Republic) but they didn't conquer Rome, they were an aristocratic family that moved to Rome and ended up in charge(which happened with some frequency at the time). There are some sources that indicate that an Etruscan named Porsenna did conquer Rome(which is another hotly debated question about whether or not that is true) but either way the Romans either quickly regained their freedom or Porsenna gave them back their freedom and allied with them once it was realized that they had a common enemy. Of course, this is back in the early history of the Roman Republic which is, a)confusing and highly uncertain, and was even to the Romans and b)was long, LONG before the Romans became a major power and thus I don't think it really harms the prestige of Rome any.

However, on the point of Hannibal you are completely wrong. He neither sacked Rome nor even really threatened the Roman Republic as a whole, in fact one could argue he made it stronger, and there are two reasons why:
1) While Hannibal did ravage Italy and destroyed three large Roman armies his invasion was a failure. He did not force the Romans to surrender and Rome was powerful enough and had such good control over Italy that even destroying an army of 80,000 men all the Romans did was raise another one and everywhere the Hannibal took, as soon as he left the Romans took it back again. And such was the loyalty of Rome's allies that only a few recently conquered places switched sides to Hannibal, and they were all quickly beaten down. Also, he was in Italy for 12 years as the Romans slowly whittled down his forces and in all that time he only got near to Rome once and did not have the manpower or the siege equipment necessary to take it, or even try to take it.

2)Hannibal lost, the Romans were the victors in the Second Punic War and that left them THE dominant power in the Western Mediterranean and within 50 years the Roman would conquer Greece and destroy two the Macedonian Kingdoms and become the dominant power in the entire Mediterranean. Hannibal succeeded in causing a great deal of devastation in Italy but did not really ever seriously threaten the Roman Republic and, as noted, in the end was beaten in a pitched battle by a Roman General who used his own tactics against him. In fact, many historians consider the Hannibalic War as the moment when Rome ascended from being a regional power to a world power(by the standards of the ancient world anyway).