Isn't the Roman Empire kinda overrated?

[Warforger]

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

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

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

 

[Leviathan_]

Because they have silly helmets.


Oh and their architecture pretty much shaped our view on building shit even till this day.

 

[Zetsubou-Sama]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kahunaburger]

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

 

[teebeeohh]

i think you severely underestimate the impact Rome had on Europe, and through that on the rest of the world that was dominated by Europe for a few centuries.

 

[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.

 

[SckizoBoy]

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.

 

[MightyRabbit]

Really? One of the major bases of the English (and many others, particularly French) language is Latin, the Roman Catholic Church is one of, if not the, most influential in human history, they took down several huge empires, pretty much stamped out dozen of cultural identities and had the world's first highly organised army and so on and so forth. Plus the Romans were around in one form or another for over a thousand years. The Romans are a huge deal. Intellectually we borrow a lot more from the ancient Greeks and to focus only on the Romans to the exclusion of the achievements of the Arabs, Chinese & Indian civilisations for example is fallacious, they're taught so much cause they're damn important.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Spoiler: ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!

What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
It says, "Romans go home. "
No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Er, "Romanus" !
Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
Er, er, "Romani" !
"Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
So, "eunt" is...?
Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
Aaagh ! The imperative !
Which is...?
Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
How many Romans?
Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !
"Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
Dative ? Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !
But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
Er, "Domum" !
Understand? Now, post it a hundred times.
Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off. ​

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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

We have a winner!

Put simply the Roman Empire had a massive effect on how modern Europe has developed, and the Roman architecture, buildings, street layouts etc. can still be seen throughout most European cities. Did you know that a large part of the London sewer system that was built by the Romans is still being used today.

They were an Empire that spanned the whole of Europe, and who brought many changes and technological advances to the countries they invaded, many of which can still be seen today. Of course we may unintentionally overrate them in the scope of world history, by focusing on them so much, even though there were many other Empires out there that were larger, made more advances, etc. But to us Europeans they are extremely important in understanding how the histories of our countries were shaped.

Do you want to understand why the European cities streets are laid out in their weird way? It was the Romans. Do you want to know why Christainity spread so widely? It was the Romans. Do you want to know why most European languages are quite similar? It was the Romans' language. Do you want to know why Britain has a period where we suddenly went technologically backwards and it took us a few hundred years to get back to everyone elses standard? It was the Romans (leaving)

 

[Uncreation]

No. You are severelly underestimating the romans as far as things such as culture (theatre, literature, architecture etc.) and historical impact go. Also, they basically helped form several european languages and peoples. So, no, they are not overrated.

 

[Rayne870]

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.

 

[F'Angus]

The Roman Empire changed the whole landscape of Europe and northern Africa.. they healp shape the boundaries of modern countries.. they're responsible for the spread of Christianity.. they even had contact with China and India, which is one helluva distance to travel.

And Caesar (Augustus) was overrated because he did that himself, he made out that he was the Saviour of the Republic and glorified the old days, Caesar (julius) is overrated because he gained the loyalty of vast armies and Augustus painted him as a hero also and had him deified.

I think what you should be asking is why are these other empires so underrated. The answer being that that is just how history went, we concentrated on one rather than the other.

 

[LokiSuaveHP]

A lot of what is in this thread is correct, and it is largely because you are from a western country, and the impact that the RE had on Europe is undeniable. This isn't even western Europe, but also throughout the Balkans, Mesopotamia, even going further east. The religion, the cultural thinking system (which was adopted from the Greeks, who set up a large portion of the infrastructure that allowed the Romans to exploit).

I'm sure that if you were in Iran before the Muslims took over your history would be based on the great Persian Empires and the Islamic conquests, if you were in Northern Africa you would get the story of the Caliphs. It is because the Roman Empire had a massive impact on the world that YOU live in, so you should be informed about it in most general courses.

So, if you want to know about Chandragupta-Moria, or Gengis Kahn outside of the Mongol Peace, or Medieval Japan, then you'll probably have to wait until you take a few college history courses to get there, or, go do yourself a favor and go try and find a good book about it.

 

[HerrBobo]

Snip

Overrated by whom?

Were are you getting your information from?

You say that the Mongol Empire had a greater impact then the Roman Empire, where is the evidence of this? Can you give me some examples how this is illustrated?

As Zetsubou-Sama said, the Roman Empire has directly impacted the development of almost all mainland Europe, and therefor, all of North America as well as parts of the Middle East. The laws of the Western world are very much based upon the ones that the Romans laid down. On top of this we have Latin, still very much alive and well in the Romance languages, as well as in the Vatican.

It is no surprise then that the West teaches much about the Roman Empire, it is an essential part of our history, you can not talk about the history of the Western World with out mentioning the Roman Empire. It stands to reason that in other parts of the world the Roman Empire is not as important. Why would it be? The history of China was never influenced by the Romans, bar some trade, perhaps.

The impact of an Empire is not,necessarily, tide up in how much land it took. There are always political influences when dealing with Roman conquest. Rome, as a force, could have taken quite a bit more then it did, but things get in the way. I don't have the time to go into it now, but suffice to say that plague, deaths of Emperors, rebellions, the decree by Augustus not to expand that Empire, jealousy and sheer bad luck all stopped the Empire for expanding from one time or another. To judge the Roman Empire, or any, on its size alone is folly. It was the most successful of all time, that can not be disputed.

Also, there were a few historical mistakes in your post which I feel the need to correct.

Alesia was not capital of Gaul, it was just one of the major town of the tribe of Mandubii who were one of many that rallied to Vercingetorix's banner. Gaul did not have a capital because it was not a united nation, it was a collection of often warring tribes.

Caesar did not fail to conquer Britain. It is not even clear if it was a full invasion or a recon in force. Caesar defeated every army the natives put into the field an won several consciousness form them. Was his greatest campaign? No. However, Caesar was far more interested in political maneuverings in Rome and this may have led to him returning to Gaul. If this was the case it would be a perfect example of politics getting in the way of Roman brute force, like I said above.

Caesar did not change the Republic to an Empire. He was simply the dictator of the Republic. A fine line, sure. However the important point is that the Romans themselves believed that the Republic still existed until Augustus came to power. Modern historians put this date at 27BC. Some 17 years after Caesar's death.

 

[Kair]

A single city ruled the known western world for over 1500 years. That is more control than any other empire has had.

That, and the Romans were not just about military might. The Romans shaped Europe in a completely different way than the way the Chinese conquered regions that already shared their culture and the way the Mongols conquered but had no culture to bring to the conquered lands.