Isn't the Roman Empire kinda overrated?

[merck88]

I haven't read every post in this thread but I at least skimmed through it and there are a lot of interesting posts. But, one thing I did not see anyone mention was roads. Never underestimate well maintained roadways. Even if you don't consider cultural, governmental, and technological advancements, those roads alone had a massive effect on European and Mediterranean advancement.

 

[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.

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!

In the period when the Etruscans still had some power, Rome (Latium) and Etruria were two separated entities. They were neighbours at that time and Etruscans never forcefully invaded and conquered Rome, as a city. And conquering most of Rome? When exactly? If you really have a source (other than a map which means nothing), I beg you to give it to me because I spent three months listening to The history of Apennine Peninsula in college, and learning about the prehistoric cultures of Italy, Etruscans and Rome. Maybe I missed some important information.

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.

The map? The map shows the territory that Etruscans had and the territory Rome had. The part of Italy held by the Etruscans was a native Etruscan territory and was conquered by Rome later. The map shows the early stage of Italian history when Latium and Etruria were two neighbouring lands. Rome was on the border, yes, but Etruscans never entered the city through armed conquest. This user explained it too:

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.

While many things are uncertain, like you said, I wouldn't by any chance use the term "sacking of Rome" in context of Etruscans being the ones who did it. I mean, it is known, as I said, that Etruscans did have some power in Rome during some time (three kings were Etruscans) and that even later, they were maybe powerful neighbours that Rome had to please in some way (after all, Etruscans were older than Rome and Romans incorporated many of the Etruscan culture into their own), but the term that @Warforger used was an over-statement. Besides, early Roman history is, as said, uncertain and still debated and it most definitely is not "common knowledge" that they conquered Rome in the sense we're talking about. However, even if they in any way did conquer Rome, how is that even remotely important when Rome conquered their entire territory soon after and incorporated their people into the Republic? Rome was a fairly little city then, with no force or good military or even a known leadership. They might as well walked into Rome and said it's theirs; they were an old civilization that lived there for 400 years already (or more). As soon as Rome mustered some power to be on par with such an old nation, they won.

Etruscans are very important, maybe even pivotal, for Rome, but not because of any of their military achievements. They did have power over the Romans in the early stages of Roman history, but I only found the term "sacking" to be inadequate. "Captured" may be better, but it is still uncertain whether it was really a "capture" (in a military sense; the story about Porsenna is debatable and some historians consider it being only a myth (or half-myth). However, even if he did do something like that, it failed soon after and actually made Rome better and stronger as a Republic). But when Rome got rid of the last king (who was an Etruscan), their power was pretty much non-existent already. In the time of the Republic, Etruscans were really no longer powerful enough to take on Rome nor powerful enough to take on anyone else (they faced some serious defeats in the 5th and 4th centuries BC).

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.

I'm not sure why would there be any resentment for people that pretty much didn't exist (as a unified entity) any more. Their descendants lived in the Republic, there were people of Etruscan ancestry even in the Empire, but they were Roman citizens and didn't differ from anyone other Roman citizen. Etruscans weren't really confined to live in Etruria anymore, they pretty much mixed and merged with the Romans and eventually became Roman citizens; their ancestry wasn't discernible (not at first sight), their language slowly disappeared and there wasn't any kind of Etruscan "colony", "union" or anything similar. Besides, Romans wouldn't steal Etruscan ideas, religion, art and architecture if there was any resentment. And the so called "capture" of Rome was already discussed. I kinda lost track why would that even be important in this topic, to be honest.

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.

And it was. After they defeated Carthage and Hannibal, Rome finally seized the entire Mediterranean. Which was one of the reason why they immediately started to flourish even more afterwards. If Hannibal defeated them, the course of history would be much more different. But they won and became a formidable and dominant force on the Mediterranean and in Europe in general. I never questioned that, that actually goes in favour of how Rome is not overrated, but pretty much deserves praisal for defeating one enemy after another and constantly advancing.

 

[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.

All well and good for China, but they invented laquerwear, which killed their ability to develop the sciences, in particular chemistry and optics, which as we know from our scientific history were kind of important. As for the Caliphate etc, all I have to say is to the victor goes the spoils of war. Thanks to the Romans spreading the concept of a war machine and a proffessional military, we (and by that I mean whitey) are number one. Just cuz we ignored that (and many other great roman concepts) for a few thousand years is irrelevant, as we remembered when it was important.

The Chinese invented quite a bit more than just laquerwear dude, they invented paper, the printing press, and gunpowder, just to name a few things, and they developed the idea of paper currency centuries before Europe(which is a sign of a VERY good economy) although it didn't last long, there is a reason explorers like Columbus were trying to get to China. Yes, Newtonian physics(which isn't the only type of science, by any stretch of the imagination, nor the only useful one, but it does have certain advantages in the development of industrial technology) was an advantage, but it took 200 years to result in the Industrial Revolution which put Europe ahead of everyone else, meaning that it alone isn't the only answer.

We aren't the victors over the Abbasid Caliphate, like most empires it fell more or less on its own(the final nail being the Mongols) and it was actually through trade that we gained a lot of classical knowledge back from them, mostly things they had already studied, made thorough use of, and improved upon themselves. Also, the Romans didn't invent war machines, that would be Assyrians, or the idea of a professional army, although they, as with many things, made improvements on both.

In sum, you really shouldn't assign one or two simple explanations to why Europe succeeded while places like China, or India, or the various Islamic Empires failed to conquer the world because there are no simple answers. When you are talking about a big, centuries spanning transition and effect there cannot just be one answer, there are a complex web of reasons why Europe succeeded and they are all interconnected, remove some and Europe would have still succeeded, remove others and history could have been much different, but how you judge each reason is an entirely different matter. Yes, the Romans made some important innovations and had many institutions and ideas that are influential to this day but they are influential because Europe succeeded in conquering the world, they are, however, NOT the reason Europe succeeded. At least, I don't think so, all the ideas and developments and innovations of Rome were around and widely known in various parts of the world for more than a thousand years, meaning those ideas and institutions aren't enough to explain Europe's success.

 

[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.

All well and good for China, but they invented laquerwear, which killed their ability to develop the sciences, in particular chemistry and optics, which as we know from our scientific history were kind of important. As for the Caliphate etc, all I have to say is to the victor goes the spoils of war. Thanks to the Romans spreading the concept of a war machine and a proffessional military, we (and by that I mean whitey) are number one. Just cuz we ignored that (and many other great roman concepts) for a few thousand years is irrelevant, as we remembered when it was important.

The Chinese invented quite a bit more than just laquerwear dude, they invented paper, the printing press, and gunpowder, just to name a few things, and they developed the idea of paper currency centuries before Europe(which is a sign of a VERY good economy) although it didn't last long, there is a reason explorers like Columbus were trying to get to China. Yes, Newtonian physics(which isn't the only type of science, by any stretch of the imagination, nor the only useful one, but it does have certain advantages in the development of industrial technology) was an advantage, but it took 200 years to result in the Industrial Revolution which put Europe ahead of everyone else, meaning that it alone isn't the only answer.

We aren't the victors over the Abbasid Caliphate, like most empires it fell more or less on its own(the final nail being the Mongols) and it was actually through trade that we gained a lot of classical knowledge back from them, mostly things they had already studied, made thorough use of, and improved upon themselves. Also, the Romans didn't invent war machines, that would be Assyrians, or the idea of a professional army, although they, as with many things, made improvements on both.

In sum, you really shouldn't assign one or two simple explanations to why Europe succeeded while places like China, or India, or the various Islamic Empires failed to conquer the world because there are no simple answers. When you are talking about a big, centuries spanning transition and effect there cannot just be one answer, there are a complex web of reasons why Europe succeeded and they are all interconnected, remove some and Europe would have still succeeded, remove others and history could have been much different, but how you judge each reason is an entirely different matter. Yes, the Romans made some important innovations and had many institutions and ideas that are influential to this day but they are influential because Europe succeeded in conquering the world, they are, however, NOT the reason Europe succeeded. At least, I don't think so, all the ideas and developments and innovations of Rome were around and widely known in various parts of the world for more than a thousand years, meaning those ideas and institutions aren't enough to explain Europe's success.

Wow, you missed the point with the laquerware there mate. Laquerware was a solution to many problems, or an improvement on old ways. In Europe this wasn't invented, instead that whole problem/improvement fell on glass, which we developed slowly but successfully. Hence optics, hence chemistry et al.

Yes, everything is complicated, everything is interconnected. Im still yet to see how the Romans are "overrated" though. Maybe if you did some work on defining your use of the term it might help me see what you see. All I see is one Empire among many, not the bestest ever, not the least influential, but by far the most popularly known among the decendants of those it conquered. Which hardly strikes me as irrelevant when said descendants own the planet at the moment, insofar as any group can be said to.

I think we might be arguing at slightly cross purposes. I am not arguing that the Roman Empire is overrated, I am arguing that the ideas and innovations developed by the Romans(or the greeks for that matter) aren't the reason Europe succeeded, they are a defining part of our cultural heritage, which we've forced onto quite a bit of the rest of the world, but aren't the reason why have been politically and economically dominant for about 200 years now. I am also arguing that there are large parts of the world that have very good knowledge and memory of their own ancient histories and that just because people of European descent don't know that history doesn't mean it isn't well known or highly influential.

Yes, the Roman's left a great impression on those they conquered, in the west. They conquered the east too and held onto it longer, but their influence is far weaker in those areas that had already had a much older tradition of states and empires. In the west, and to a degree in North Africa, which was largely, although not entirely, rural the Romans were vastly influential in part because of the technological innovation(especially the amenities of city life, if there was one area that the Romans can truly be said to be the best pre-modern empire is their engineering skill) and increased trade that they brought. The Romans also developed the idea of citizenship, and tiered citizenship as well, with increasing privileges which gave people something to strive for and to gain. And again, it is important to remember that the popularity of Roman stuff among Europeans was a conscious CHOICE by people starting in the Renaissance, stemming from a desire to recapture the glory of the Roman Empire, and in the process they brought a lot of Roman and Greek practices back into European Culture, most of which had fallen out of use because there were other things that were preferred or more effective at the time.

 

[Prince Regent]

It's unlikely that christianity would have made the same impact on the world without the roman empire.

The influence of that alone is still noticable.

 

[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.

All well and good for China, but they invented laquerwear, which killed their ability to develop the sciences, in particular chemistry and optics, which as we know from our scientific history were kind of important. As for the Caliphate etc, all I have to say is to the victor goes the spoils of war. Thanks to the Romans spreading the concept of a war machine and a proffessional military, we (and by that I mean whitey) are number one. Just cuz we ignored that (and many other great roman concepts) for a few thousand years is irrelevant, as we remembered when it was important.

The Chinese invented quite a bit more than just laquerwear dude, they invented paper, the printing press, and gunpowder, just to name a few things, and they developed the idea of paper currency centuries before Europe(which is a sign of a VERY good economy) although it didn't last long, there is a reason explorers like Columbus were trying to get to China. Yes, Newtonian physics(which isn't the only type of science, by any stretch of the imagination, nor the only useful one, but it does have certain advantages in the development of industrial technology) was an advantage, but it took 200 years to result in the Industrial Revolution which put Europe ahead of everyone else, meaning that it alone isn't the only answer.

We aren't the victors over the Abbasid Caliphate, like most empires it fell more or less on its own(the final nail being the Mongols) and it was actually through trade that we gained a lot of classical knowledge back from them, mostly things they had already studied, made thorough use of, and improved upon themselves. Also, the Romans didn't invent war machines, that would be Assyrians, or the idea of a professional army, although they, as with many things, made improvements on both.

In sum, you really shouldn't assign one or two simple explanations to why Europe succeeded while places like China, or India, or the various Islamic Empires failed to conquer the world because there are no simple answers. When you are talking about a big, centuries spanning transition and effect there cannot just be one answer, there are a complex web of reasons why Europe succeeded and they are all interconnected, remove some and Europe would have still succeeded, remove others and history could have been much different, but how you judge each reason is an entirely different matter. Yes, the Romans made some important innovations and had many institutions and ideas that are influential to this day but they are influential because Europe succeeded in conquering the world, they are, however, NOT the reason Europe succeeded. At least, I don't think so, all the ideas and developments and innovations of Rome were around and widely known in various parts of the world for more than a thousand years, meaning those ideas and institutions aren't enough to explain Europe's success.

Wow, you missed the point with the laquerware there mate. Laquerware was a solution to many problems, or an improvement on old ways. In Europe this wasn't invented, instead that whole problem/improvement fell on glass, which we developed slowly but successfully. Hence optics, hence chemistry et al.

Yes, everything is complicated, everything is interconnected. Im still yet to see how the Romans are "overrated" though. Maybe if you did some work on defining your use of the term it might help me see what you see. All I see is one Empire among many, not the bestest ever, not the least influential, but by far the most popularly known among the decendants of those it conquered. Which hardly strikes me as irrelevant when said descendants own the planet at the moment, insofar as any group can be said to.

I think we might be arguing at slightly cross purposes. I am not arguing that the Roman Empire is overrated, I am arguing that the ideas and innovations developed by the Romans(or the greeks for that matter) aren't the reason Europe succeeded, they are a defining part of our cultural heritage, which we've forced onto quite a bit of the rest of the world, but aren't the reason why have been politically and economically dominant for about 200 years now. I am also arguing that there are large parts of the world that have very good knowledge and memory of their own ancient histories and that just because people of European descent don't know that history doesn't mean it isn't well known or highly influential.

Yes, the Roman's left a great impression on those they conquered, in the west. They conquered the east too and held onto it longer, but their influence is far weaker in those areas that had already had a much older tradition of states and empires. In the west, and to a degree in North Africa, which was largely, although not entirely, rural the Romans were vastly influential in part because of the technological innovation(especially the amenities of city life, if there was one area that the Romans can truly be said to be the best pre-modern empire is their engineering skill) and increased trade that they brought. The Romans also developed the idea of citizenship, and tiered citizenship as well, with increasing privileges which gave people something to strive for and to gain. And again, it is important to remember that the popularity of Roman stuff among Europeans was a conscious CHOICE by people starting in the Renaissance, stemming from a desire to recapture the glory of the Roman Empire, and in the process they brought a lot of Roman and Greek practices back into European Culture, most of which had fallen out of use because there were other things that were preferred or more effective at the time.

So, you don't think little things like having a common language in which to write and converse for 2000+ years was an advantage? As for why we're dominant, some theories involving ready access to various resources may have a bunch more to do with it than anything else anyhow...

Having a common language is useful, but Arabic and Chinese are also widely used languages of the trade of ideas that conferred the same advantage. Ironically, Europe's advantage was more that it had a common language to communicate in but was politically divided, which meant that all states were short on resources and in competition with one another, but when one power came up with a new idea they could still communicate with each other.

Yes, resources are the key to Europe's success, but the irony is that it was their lack of resources that gave them the advantage. Europe is short on certain very important raw materials, and those that it isn't short on are divided among several different states, meaning that states were constantly in competition with each other and, more importantly, they had to look elsewhere to make up the deficiencies, thus giving the impetus to exploration and colonization. It also gave the motive for the development of new technologies, such as the steam engine, so that they could get out the resources they did have, like coal. China, large, unified, and economically vibrant had no need of exploring, it had all the raw materials it needed right on hand. The Arabic lands, while not as resource rich as China had a number of lucrative trade goods and also benefited from the fact that for goods to get from China to Europe, or vice verse, they had to go through their lands first. The economic weakness of the Arabic lands in the last couple of centuries stems from the shift of the center of trade from the Middle East to Europe when navigating the ocean became easy and practical.

In many ways also, the triumph of Europe can really be seen as the triumph of Eurasia over the rest of the world. Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia(in particular China) are all on roughly the same latitude, or at least close enough so that you can travel from one to the other without having to cross any major ecological obstacles. From ancient times there was a tremendous amount of trade of goods and ideas between those three areas and at any given time they all had roughly the same technological sophistication, with the three groups alternating as to who was the most advanced and who was lagging behind, but they all, in various ways, could be said to move each other ahead. It was a combination of different factors, some advantages and some, ironically, disadvantages(or had previously been disadvantages), that allowed Europe to take the lead in dominating the rest of the world.

 

[doorofnight]

It's unlikely that christianity would have made the same impact on the world without the roman empire.

The influence of that alone is still noticable.

Impossible to say really, the relationship between the early christians and the Roman Empire was. . .complicated. One the one hand, the very existence of the Roman Empire allowed easy travel and the relative peace that existed at the time allowed them to move easily and spread the new religion to virtually every city in the empire within 50 years. On the other hand, the early christians annoyed the Romans quite quickly, since they were going around preaching that people should convert because the world would be ending soon which didn't exactly endear them to Roman Officials, and they refused to make sacrifice for the emperor and the stability of the empire, so you start seeing sporadic persecutions very early. There is also the fact that the idea would probably have spread pretty quickly anyway since, even in a world at relative peace, the idea of a pleasant afterlife was quite appealing.

Yes, christianity spread through the Roman Empire quickly, but there was nothing really to compete with it at the time, the Greco-Roman Underworld wasn't exactly a pleasant place, and while there were some other cults promising a good afterlife, like the cults of Mithras and Isis, but both of those had some rather strange practices involved with them, whereas the requirements of christianity were and are quite simple. Christianity didn't spread all that effectively to the East because the Persians had Zoroastrianism which is another Monotheistic 'afterlife' religion. By the time the Roman Empire endorsed christianity, christianity had already one, and not only that but they had made far greater and quicker advances in the third century when the empire was in disarray and the Romans were heavily persecuting them and it had already spread beyond the bounds of the empire.

The growth of a major religion is, of course, extremely difficult to define and explain and trace, largely because we know what people did, but with very few exceptions we do not know what people actually believed, so you could ultimately be perfectly correct and christianity would not have succeeded without the Roman Empire, or conversely it is just as possible that christianity would have succeeded anyway and it is associated so strongly with Rome merely because that was the dominant power of the region the religion came about in.

 

[22steve5150]

well warforger, you probably live in a western country so it should make more sense that the romans would get much more coverage than the arabs, chinese, or mongols since the romans made a huge contribution to WESTERN world history. I would hardly believe that they are overrated but I do think that they are over-romanticized ( people forget that they were militaristic and bloodthirsty (even for ancient standards) slavers who voluntarily gave up their own form of democratic government in favor of despotic tyranny).

 

[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.

All well and good for China, but they invented laquerwear, which killed their ability to develop the sciences, in particular chemistry and optics, which as we know from our scientific history were kind of important. As for the Caliphate etc, all I have to say is to the victor goes the spoils of war. Thanks to the Romans spreading the concept of a war machine and a proffessional military, we (and by that I mean whitey) are number one. Just cuz we ignored that (and many other great roman concepts) for a few thousand years is irrelevant, as we remembered when it was important.

The Chinese invented quite a bit more than just laquerwear dude, they invented paper, the printing press, and gunpowder, just to name a few things, and they developed the idea of paper currency centuries before Europe(which is a sign of a VERY good economy) although it didn't last long, there is a reason explorers like Columbus were trying to get to China. Yes, Newtonian physics(which isn't the only type of science, by any stretch of the imagination, nor the only useful one, but it does have certain advantages in the development of industrial technology) was an advantage, but it took 200 years to result in the Industrial Revolution which put Europe ahead of everyone else, meaning that it alone isn't the only answer.

We aren't the victors over the Abbasid Caliphate, like most empires it fell more or less on its own(the final nail being the Mongols) and it was actually through trade that we gained a lot of classical knowledge back from them, mostly things they had already studied, made thorough use of, and improved upon themselves. Also, the Romans didn't invent war machines, that would be Assyrians, or the idea of a professional army, although they, as with many things, made improvements on both.

In sum, you really shouldn't assign one or two simple explanations to why Europe succeeded while places like China, or India, or the various Islamic Empires failed to conquer the world because there are no simple answers. When you are talking about a big, centuries spanning transition and effect there cannot just be one answer, there are a complex web of reasons why Europe succeeded and they are all interconnected, remove some and Europe would have still succeeded, remove others and history could have been much different, but how you judge each reason is an entirely different matter. Yes, the Romans made some important innovations and had many institutions and ideas that are influential to this day but they are influential because Europe succeeded in conquering the world, they are, however, NOT the reason Europe succeeded. At least, I don't think so, all the ideas and developments and innovations of Rome were around and widely known in various parts of the world for more than a thousand years, meaning those ideas and institutions aren't enough to explain Europe's success.

Wow, you missed the point with the laquerware there mate. Laquerware was a solution to many problems, or an improvement on old ways. In Europe this wasn't invented, instead that whole problem/improvement fell on glass, which we developed slowly but successfully. Hence optics, hence chemistry et al.

Yes, everything is complicated, everything is interconnected. Im still yet to see how the Romans are "overrated" though. Maybe if you did some work on defining your use of the term it might help me see what you see. All I see is one Empire among many, not the bestest ever, not the least influential, but by far the most popularly known among the decendants of those it conquered. Which hardly strikes me as irrelevant when said descendants own the planet at the moment, insofar as any group can be said to.

I think we might be arguing at slightly cross purposes. I am not arguing that the Roman Empire is overrated, I am arguing that the ideas and innovations developed by the Romans(or the greeks for that matter) aren't the reason Europe succeeded, they are a defining part of our cultural heritage, which we've forced onto quite a bit of the rest of the world, but aren't the reason why have been politically and economically dominant for about 200 years now. I am also arguing that there are large parts of the world that have very good knowledge and memory of their own ancient histories and that just because people of European descent don't know that history doesn't mean it isn't well known or highly influential.

Yes, the Roman's left a great impression on those they conquered, in the west. They conquered the east too and held onto it longer, but their influence is far weaker in those areas that had already had a much older tradition of states and empires. In the west, and to a degree in North Africa, which was largely, although not entirely, rural the Romans were vastly influential in part because of the technological innovation(especially the amenities of city life, if there was one area that the Romans can truly be said to be the best pre-modern empire is their engineering skill) and increased trade that they brought. The Romans also developed the idea of citizenship, and tiered citizenship as well, with increasing privileges which gave people something to strive for and to gain. And again, it is important to remember that the popularity of Roman stuff among Europeans was a conscious CHOICE by people starting in the Renaissance, stemming from a desire to recapture the glory of the Roman Empire, and in the process they brought a lot of Roman and Greek practices back into European Culture, most of which had fallen out of use because there were other things that were preferred or more effective at the time.

So, you don't think little things like having a common language in which to write and converse for 2000+ years was an advantage? As for why we're dominant, some theories involving ready access to various resources may have a bunch more to do with it than anything else anyhow...

Having a common language is useful, but Arabic and Chinese are also widely used languages of the trade of ideas that conferred the same advantage. Ironically, Europe's advantage was more that it had a common language to communicate in but was politically divided, which meant that all states were short on resources and in competition with one another, but when one power came up with a new idea they could still communicate with each other.

Yes, resources are the key to Europe's success, but the irony is that it was their lack of resources that gave them the advantage. Europe is short on certain very important raw materials, and those that it isn't short on are divided among several different states, meaning that states were constantly in competition with each other and, more importantly, they had to look elsewhere to make up the deficiencies, thus giving the impetus to exploration and colonization. It also gave the motive for the development of new technologies, such as the steam engine, so that they could get out the resources they did have, like coal. China, large, unified, and economically vibrant had no need of exploring, it had all the raw materials it needed right on hand. The Arabic lands, while not as resource rich as China had a number of lucrative trade goods and also benefited from the fact that for goods to get from China to Europe, or vice verse, they had to go through their lands first. The economic weakness of the Arabic lands in the last couple of centuries stems from the shift of the center of trade from the Middle East to Europe when navigating the ocean became easy and practical.

In many ways also, the triumph of Europe can really be seen as the triumph of Eurasia over the rest of the world. Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia(in particular China) are all on roughly the same latitude, or at least close enough so that you can travel from one to the other without having to cross any major ecological obstacles. From ancient times there was a tremendous amount of trade of goods and ideas between those three areas and at any given time they all had roughly the same technological sophistication, with the three groups alternating as to who was the most advanced and who was lagging behind, but they all, in various ways, could be said to move each other ahead. It was a combination of different factors, some advantages and some, ironically, disadvantages(or had previously been disadvantages), that allowed Europe to take the lead in dominating the rest of the world.

Then surely Rome, whoich influenced all three great civilisations to some extent or another were pretty important then?

And they influenced Rome. But yes, Rome's importance is undeniable, perhaps overstated by some western historians, but that isn't the same thing as overrated.

 

[dashiz94]

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.

The Empiric times were when a lot of major architectural advances occured. A lot of them were used for nihilistic purposes by the emperor, but they did devise incredibly intricate and complex masonry.

 

[Fizzly182]

Can you read the words on this Web site?
Do you use a calendar to find out when it's your birthday?
Does your country take a census or a count of the number of people every ten years?
Do you live in a country that has laws that people must obey?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, then yes, Rome was quite important.

 

[Rex Anglorumensis]

caliphate was overrated. the Ottomans were the greatest Muslim empire. Rome was NOT overrated. And land means shit. The Mongols did some good like security (like the legend a person could walk from China to Russia with a golden hat and not be mugged...) but then not much else. Land alone means nothing. From language, to culture, religion, the calendar, politics, philosophy (Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan have no book people read after 2000 years, do they?), roads, cities (London, Paris, to name but two of many), country names (Spain, Germany, Portugal, to name a few). Caesar wasn't overrated. He was Rome's greatest general, in literally 2000 years of Roman history (753 BCE to 1453 CE) and invented the Calendar and pre-Augustus was arguably the most powerful Roman ever. Augustus was the first Emperor, but his name was all Emperors' official title. To say Rome was overrated is kind of dim, and to compare it to the Mongols is equally dim....

 

[Rex Anglorumensis]

Oh, and there are buildings today still standing, in use even, that Genghis and co. don't have. Oh, and no Asian language is largely descended or influenced by Mongolian languages. Geghnis' legacy is from rape and concubines...not at all to be offensive, but this is fact, since millions today in central/Eastern Asia are descended from him....

 

[BytByte]

The impact they did for everything, from lanGuage to territory makes them hugely important, especially because Europe ended up being the dominant world power for so long.