Isn't the Roman Empire kinda overrated?

[Rule Britannia]

The Romans structered the way british persons lived without them british people wouldn't be as awesome and amazing as they are now

 

[Booze Zombie]

Because they have silly helmets.


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

You give a very concise and logical reply. Oh how I hate you, you ninja stained in the blood of many an stillborn post!

 

[AnOriginalConcept]

The Pax Romana was 200 years of Roman peace. That's better than most modern nations...

 

[Scipio1770]

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.

any historian will tell you the flavian dynasty was the height of roman influence, and that was well into the empire's lifetime.

 

[Zanaxal]

They were one of the first to have running sewer systems and water supply, They invented to concrete and paving of roads for wheeled transport etc. All taken for granted now.

You also had the senate which was one of the earliest type of democracy like institutions when the rest of the worlds were pretty much kings and dictators.

So it wasnt all bloodshed and gladiators that crappy tv wants you to know.

Well Ceaser managed to take over gaul (France area) and bring them to the roman empires control which was a huge bit of land. Plus he won a civil war vs Pompei and Got Egypt and Cleopatra to join in alliance with rome and secure grainsupplies (well atleast what rome tvseries say i'm no historian) Also I played some rome vae:victis lol lolz

 

[Warforger]

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.

Yes, but I do still find it annoying how if you watch any historical programming alot of it is on Rome.

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.

Writing down laws doesn't seem to be much of an advance no one else could also think of.

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.

I'm not saying lesser, but rather average.

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.

Yes, but it had a bigger effect on the course of the history of those territories it conquered and due to more being conquered this means more of an impact on the world. Rome had to wait for its successors to do such, almost all of which created bigger, more expansive and more impactful empires.

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.

You mean like the Islamic Caliphates?

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.

Erm isn't that kinda the opposite of a unified empire as you were trying to paint out? I'll bring up a counterpoint: The Islamic Caliphates. They spread the Islamic religion all over the world being stopped at France and China, and under them the Islamic world made many advances in engineering math and science. Hell some of the old contraptions are still in use today because they worked so well! And now in the 70's they had a sort of rebirth. If you read OBL's messages his plan is this Step 1 bring the West into an expensive guerilla war to bring their economies down Step 2: Because of this maintaing troops in the Middle East will be too expensive so they will be forced to stay out of it Step 3: Now without the support of the West the oppressive dictatorships will be brought down and Islamic states in their place back to the days of the Caliphates Step 4: Things are prospering again. Not that it makes sense, that would be like the French going to war with the Germans and thinking they'll win because they're French and are lead by a guy also named Napoleon.

 

[Fleischer]

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

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

 

[Ace of Spades]

Yeah, because shaping the development of European society is nothing compared to conquering a bit of territory.

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

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

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

 

[Tiger Sora]

Meanwhile in the English speaking Roman Jerusalem

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

 

[Matthew Valkanov]

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.

Actually the title was created from the Cognomen, or nickname, of Julius Caesar, the person to whom the OP is referring. So yeah...

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

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

You clearly missed the point.

While sure, Arab or Far East empires had maybe even greater achievements in the ancient times, their deeds did not really affect the Europe itself till much much later. Rome, however, created the Europe as we know it, through their politics and organizations they pushed forward the civilization across the continent. Along with heir military force and doctrine came roads, technological advancement, latin as a "common" language, education system, etc.

A lot what happened later would not be possible if not the doing of Julius Caesar, history is not about "who conquered the most" but whose action influenced the following centuries the most. If not the transformation from Republic to Empire, Romans would fall much much earlier due to civil wars. He was just there at the right time at the right place.

True, too bad part of that was temporarily lost during the Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages. Huzzah for the Rennaisance, I suppose.

Speaking of great influence and East Asia, one could say the same thing about Imperial China, the Mongol Empire and India. My knowledge of history is very limited, but it seems to me they left quite their mark on East Asia. As far as I know, much of old Korean and Japanese culture is derived of the Chinese, including most of their script, similar to how we are currently using the Roman alphabet.

OT: Back to the Roman Empire. They gave us the concept of paved roads as opposed to muddy tracks; the archway and the dome; mortar and cement; taxes; spread democracy (to an extent) much farther that Athens ever did; plumbing; multi-storied buildings, bricks etc... hmm, yes.. I suppose that's all a bit overrated.

 

[Matthew Valkanov]

\

I'll be interested in other civilizations though when more people are interested in Australia's contributions to war in the last 150-200 so years (which probably won't happen)

Oh, they already are. Unfortunately they don't seem to remember anything other than Gallipoli -_-'

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's only (maybe) over-rated if, after mentioning the power and influence of Rome, you fail to mention the power and influence of at least vaguely comparable societies. Which, yes, often happens.

 

[doorofnight]

While the Romans weren't the only great empire, with others conquering more territory and faster, and there are a number of great innovations which others take deserved credit for(and most of what the Romans did was not invented by them, their genius was taking older forms and vastly improving upon them). But there are several reasons why the Roman Empire could rightly be considered the most successful empire there has ever been.

1)Longevity, there was a state that identified itself as Roman for almost 2000 years, only China can claim a longer use of the same name(so far as I am aware). More importantly the Roman Empire was the dominant power in Europe and the Mediterranean for 800 years(roughly 100BC to 700 AD), even losing Italy and Rome itself for the last 200 years of that didn't change their dominant status even if they weren't a huge empire any longer. No other empire or Dynasty can claim that kind of longevity of dominance.

2)Related to that, virtually all other empires rise quickly and fall quickly, the Roman Empire rose slowly and fell slowly.

3)Engineering, while not the only great builders and, again, they didn't invent most of what they used to so great effect, but there are a number of Roman engineering achievements that were not surpassed until the 18th century when steel reinforcing came into wide use. They built aqueducts stretching dozens if not hundreds of miles that were carefully built to only descend about 6 inches per mile and provided millions of gallons of water per day, they had running water on the third floor of the coliseum which could be emptied in less than 20 minutes, and the dome of the Pantheon is STILL the largest unreinforced concrete dome ever built(that has never cracked, others were built larger, all of them cracked) and no dome was made larger period until 1850.

4)Law, even the Greeks recognized the Roman preeminence in Law, and as already noted their law codes are still hugely influential around the world.

On the other hand, I kind of agree that Julius Caesar is a bit overrated. He was a great man, sure, and he did extraordinary things, but while a great general, Pompey was better(Pompey lost the civil war in part because while a fantastic general he had been out of the field for 10 years, had an inexperienced army, and, most importantly, he clearly never understood Caesar while Caesar seemed to be able to read him like a book). He was a great speaker, but Cicero was better, he was a great Politician but Augustus was FAR better, and he almost single-handedly destroyed the Republic(although its demise was perhaps inevitable by the time Caesar came along, if it hadn't been him that killed it, someone else would have) and died perhaps because he didn't understand that sometimes form is more important than function(i.e. even if the Republic didn't work and one man rule worked better(and it does, if you have a sane and capable person as the one man, two VERY big ifs, hence why such systems often don't last long and are not preferred by most people) the form of the Republic was still important to people. Most importantly, however, is that while he did great things and was hugely influential what he did, and his influence, pales in comparison to the achievements of his great-nephew and successor Augustus.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Genghis Khan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Western_Xia_Dynasty] began is military campaign in 1206CE.

The Islamic Golden Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age] started circa 750CE

Rome [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome] was founded circa 1000BCE

So, there's really no comparison, unless you want to toss in the British Empire, the USSR and the United States.

Egypt, on the other hand...

238U.

 

[The Dark Umbra]

I actually don't think the Roman Empire was overrated. As you said amazing engineering, that last the test of time. Yea the Mongols were just barbarians that didn't add to culture. All they used was force which was unsustainable.Actually how long did the mongols rule and what amazing feats did they leave behind? Also, the Roman Empire shows us America's eventual collapse. Corruption and economic inflation helped them meet their demise. Which is enviable for any republic. 200 years is the accepted life span give or take.

 

[Kargathia]

It's a nice paradox here, isn't it? The Roman Empire isn't overrated because it is overrated.
What they have done is largely irrelevant - what counts is that we still remember them for it.

While the Romans weren't the only great empire, with others conquering more territory and faster, and there are a number of great innovations which others take deserved credit for(and most of what the Romans did was not invented by them, their genius was taking older forms and vastly improving upon them). But there are several reasons why the Roman Empire could rightly be considered the most successful empire there has ever been.

While I agree with your conclusions, I disagree with quite a few of your arguments.

1)Longevity, there was a state that identified itself as Roman for almost 2000 years, only China can claim a longer use of the same name(so far as I am aware). More importantly the Roman Empire was the dominant power in Europe and the Mediterranean for 800 years(roughly 100BC to 700 AD), even losing Italy and Rome itself for the last 200 years of that didn't change their dominant status even if they weren't a huge empire any longer. No other empire or Dynasty can claim that kind of longevity of dominance.

Technically the Roman empire did exist until 1453, but the Byzantines stopped identifying themselves as "Roman" around the fall of Rome. They still exerted influence in the eastern part of the mediterranean, but none at all in western Europe.
And even when taking the 2000 years at face value you're forgetting somebody: the Egyptians. Admittedly they've been less enthusiastic conquerors than the Romans, but the same goes for the Chinese.

2)Related to that, virtually all other empires rise quickly and fall quickly, the Roman Empire rose slowly and fell slowly.

Once again the Egyptians would like to prove you wrong. This time around together with the Greek, whose influence in their diaspora took even longer to fade.

3)Engineering, while not the only great builders and, again, they didn't invent most of what they used to so great effect, but there are a number of Roman engineering achievements that were not surpassed until the 18th century when steel reinforcing came into wide use. They built aqueducts stretching dozens if not hundreds of miles that were carefully built to only descend about 6 inches per mile and provided millions of gallons of water per day, they had running water on the third floor of the coliseum which could be emptied in less than 20 minutes, and the dome of the Pantheon is STILL the largest unreinforced concrete dome ever built(that has never cracked, others were built larger, all of them cracked) and no dome was made larger period until 1850.

This one for once is absolutely true, even though you fail to mention one of their larger achievements in that field: roads. Even now we're actively using many Roman roads, and until we tarred them many of them were barely maintained. And yet they lasted two millennia.

4)Law, even the Greeks recognized the Roman preeminence in Law, and as already noted their law codes are still hugely influential around the world.

I'd take "influential" with a grain of salt here, as it is watered down quite a lot since then. The Romans inspired the Renaissance, which inspired the age of Reason, during which many of the laws as we know them today were written.

 

[JoJo]

Yes, but it had a bigger effect on the course of the history of those territories it conquered and due to more being conquered this means more of an impact on the world. Rome had to wait for its successors to do such, almost all of which created bigger, more expansive and more impactful empires.

Impact of an empire isn't just due to size but also due to length of existence. While the Mongol Empire was massive it barely lasted more than a century compared to the Roman Empire which lasted over a thousand years. The Romans gave us Europeans and all those who live in societies descended from ours an incredible amount of culture and influence, far more than any other ancient empire.

snip

Nice first post, I agree with all of that. Welcome to the Escapist, stick to the rules and keep out of the basement and you should do just fine here :-D

 

[Player 2]

Did you watch the last space shuttle launch recently?

If you did you will have noticed that the shuttle was attached to three fuel tanks, the big red one and the two white boosters. The engineers would actually have like to make the white ones (the SRBs) a bit bigger, but they couldn't because they produce them off-site and have to bring them in via the railway.

Why is the railway too small to take bigger boosters?

The standard width between rails on a railtrack in the US is 4ft 8.5inches. This seems like quite an odd number to set. The standard was taken from the British railroad at the time, which in turn was taken from the pre-railroad tramways. The tram makers used that measurement because they were using the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons and the wagons were built that way because if they used any other measurements the wagons wouldn't fit into the wheel ruts in the old English roads and their wheels would break.

Who built the old English roads and the original wagons that made the ruts?

The Romans did. The SRBs on the space shuttle were the size of a Roman chariot.

Also; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

 

[Inkidu]

The Roman Empire was the mightiest empire in the Western world and if you count density I'm sure they conquered more than the Caliphates (plus they conquered Constantinople which was Roman first)

It's romanticized. Chill out. They were once a world power and they had a rich and varied history. Plus America and most of Western Europe (the Romance languages) is founded on Roman ideals and traditions. Seriously, Washington D.C. was going to be called Rome and have it's own Tiber River.

It's not how big you are, it's how you use it.