I'm not against Rome, I just don't know much about Rome, and it seems to me they didn't actually do much. Much of their culture and science seems to have come from the Greeks (who were amazing) but they themselves didn't seem to do much. I mean, sure, they conquered much of Europe, but the Mongol Empire was MUCH larger and grew much quicker, not to mention the British Empire. Also, they didn't last that long, relatively. 1000 years seems long, but consider that the Zhou dynasty of China alone lasted nearly that long, and other countries, too, such as Korea have a far longer history (Korea's history as a civilization is over 4300 years old).

In my own opinion, China, India, and Arabia just seem to be greater civilizations (my personal number one? China/ East Asia. Though they fell behind in scientific and military technology by the 1700s, their civilian and economic technology was still number one- in 1820 China alone controlled 33% of the world's economy!)

So, Rome lovers, what's great about Rome? Enlighten me!

Rome basically created western civilization.

No, Rome wasn't the biggest or the longest lasting, but it was the most influential. There are nearly as many Romance language speakers than Chinese speakers.

But wasn't it Greece who was the basis of Western Civilization, not Rome? I thought Rome just assimilated into much of Greek culture.

No. That is a gross oversimplification. Rome adopted aspects of Greek philosophy, architecture and art but they developed their civilization on their own. Just about every aspect of life in the western world is influenced by the Romans, more so than Greek culture. From modern democratic governments and laws to the very letters you are typing with.

But wasn't it Greece who was the basis of Western Civilization, not Rome? I thought Rome just assimilated into much of Greek culture.

You can't say they did not do on their own much .

Rome or more precisely the Roman civilization is part of the Greek civilization and the Greek civilization is part of Rome.

As other things great about Rome that the Greek civilization before encountering them lacked , was Roads , Bridges , use of Cement and generally Engineering. I doubt the Greeks would reach that level on their own on that areas.

In proportion to world population Rome is by far the biggest country ever.

All civilizations build on those that existed before them. No civilization in the world is an exception to this rule, otherwise they would have to rediscover the wheel each time and would have no chance of becoming great civilizations themselves.

The problem is in what they do with those things. The Roman civilization was the first and probably only one (until the European Union maybe), that united most of Europe into one entity. They took much from the Greeks? Sure! Absolutely, but why did they do that? Because they accepted the greatness of the Greek civilization which was, apart from being very developed, also older than theirs. In the Mediterranean world of the time, where the Hellenistic world was an innovator and a culturalizing factor, what options does a rising civilization have? They could adopt the good parts of that civilization, or reject them and start from scratch. In my personal opinion at least, by accepting and taking up Greek culture and traditions, they did the best thing that they could have done.

Disregarding that, the Romans innovated quite an amazing lot themselves. All the architecture of Europe for millenias to come was influenced by the discoveries of Rome. They discovered cement, they built absolutely majestic architecture (like the Collosseum, think at least of DESIGNING such an amazing building), they were the uncontested leaders of engineering of the world until the late middle ages, and I could go on and on. They built an absolutely huge system of roads throughout the whole empire, many of which are still usable today, tens of centuries after they were built! They built aqueducts that were tens of kilometers long, a number of which are intact today. The buildings they made in all new provinces were... what? Theaters and public baths. They were a completely civilizing factor everywhere they went.

Their culture became the common ground of all later European cultures, and since in the era of colonization European states got to control most of the world, the basis of their culture became so incredibly important even more than a thousand years after the Western Empire fell. And considering sheer longevity, which is usually a deciding factor in people loving civilizations such as China (which is indeed incredibly longevive, but don't disregard the other long-living civilizations of the world) - in some form or another, a kind of the Roman Empire existed until 1453 AD, when Constantinopole fell to the Ottoman Turks, and they were the ones to establish the flourishing period known as "Pax Romana" which created a stability that was virtually unseen again until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The organization of the Roman civilization was also incredible - just look at their political system, both in the time of the Republic and in the time of the Empire. It was so complicated and well developed that it took modern scientists a long long time to even decipher it. The laws of the Romans were so developed that almost all of the legal systems of the developed Western world are descended from them, and the Roman Law is still widely studied in universities around the world.

I would post some pictures of achievements of the Roman civilization if I wasn't on a public computer that apparently does not allow right-clicking. :(

I should recommend Rémi Brague on this topic. He wrote some very good books where is he interprets why Romans are so important for western civilization. In short, they took anything useful from other cultures and were improving it during time. They also firstly came with universalism.

Not to mention the direct connection between Rome and Western Europe (and therefore the Americas, Australia), while the Greeks were more Eastern Europe (and I wouldn't be surprised if they are more focused in places like Russia). And the continuation of Rome as a centre of power via the Papacy.
The Eastern civilizations are ignored, because they are that, Eastern. They are not connected to most of us. As for the Arabs, how could we (or rather historians under centuries of strict Christian rule) respect those bloody muslims? And a lack of direct connection.

Not to say Rome wasn't great, but yes it does have an advantage.

Well, I'm Korean (so quite naturally I'm bias... as is probably most people). For Rome being connected to most civ players, that is true. I just wish that people in the Western world would learn more about the other great civilizations... though China gets coverage, most history books seem to downplay their accomplishments. As for the Arabic world and India, history books seem to have little to no coverage at all! I think that the Arabic world really deserves more credit- their scientific advancements provided much of the foundation of Western science. Plus, their rise is just as amazing, if not more amazing, then the rise of Rome. I mean, it went from a single prophet to the largest empire at it's time within a century (or two? I'm not sure).
At least China and India are more fortunate then Arabia in that they are rising superpowers. I can imagine, though... the two probably also have their own version of history.

I guess, in my own conclusion of what others have written, Rome was basically Europe, unified, connected, and civilized. It is the essence of civilized Europe. Am I right?

PS. The Han dynasty actually had as many people as Rome.

I'm not against Rome, I just don't know much about Rome, and it seems to me they didn't actually do much. Much of their culture and science seems to have come from the Greeks (who were amazing) but they themselves didn't seem to do much. I mean, sure, they conquered much of Europe, but the Mongol Empire was MUCH larger and grew much quicker, not to mention the British Empire. Also, they didn't last that long, relatively. 1000 years seems long, but consider that the Zhou dynasty of China alone lasted nearly that long, and other countries, too, such as Korea have a far longer history (Korea's history as a civilization is over 4300 years old).

In my own opinion, China, India, and Arabia just seem to be greater civilizations (my personal number one? China/ East Asia. Though they fell behind in scientific and military technology by the 1700s, their civilian and economic technology was still number one- in 1820 China alone controlled 33% of the world's economy!)

So, Rome lovers, what's great about Rome? Enlighten me!

First of all, every civilization has its own achievements, and each had its own zenith at different times in history.

It's incorrect to say that the Romans were just cultural descendants of the Greeks. You only confuse that because Roman stone architecture, writing, and mythology look similar. What actually happened was that as the Romans were exposed to Greek culture, they gradually absorbed much of it or adapted it from their own. The Greeks had a longer historical record and so had a more refined culture. It was inevitable that the Romans would acquire much of it.

However, the Romans vastly superceded the Greeks in many ways which ultimately led to their conquest. Some advances include:

Administration. Romans were easily able to assimilate conquered populations by granting graduated citizenship. In time, everyone in the Mediterranean saw themselves as Roman, including the Greeks.

Military doctrine. The Romans had both versatility and discipline. Rather than simply using mass infantry, they would organize units into more mobile forces, allowing tactics to be used with greater effect. Roman discipline also ensured that no matter what general was in command, the army would always operate with maximal efficiency.

Architecture. The Romans invented concrete and the arch, both of which allowed the construction of larger buildings. They also invented the aqueduct, which allowed cities to grow to massive size.

The combination of these and other advances allowed Rome to conquer a large territory around the Mediterranean and keep the peace for several centuries. This prolonged peace generated a flourishing culture that has been emulated for years.

History is just really euro-centric and Christianity started there.

Simple answer: the Romans did a lot.

Roman civilization at one time encompass the entire Mediterranean Basin, much of the Middle East, and most of western Europe and the Balkans. It lasted a long time too - two thousand years (if you include the Byzantine Empire). A lot survived from the Roman times, from architecture to law to language, and these elements of Roman culture had ENORMOUS impact on world history long after the Fall of Rome.

These elements of Roman civilizations can be found in modern Western civilization but also in Islamic civilization and all other cultures which is influenced by the West. Law is the most important aspect of Ancient Rome in the modern world: most countries, from France to Mexico to Japan, have legal system which are more or less based on the laws of Ancient Rome. The Roman sewer system is the basis for the modern sewer systems (a lot of cities grew to enormous size without sewers but it helps to improve living conditions).

The Romans are considered a great civilization because their monuments and armies look cool. That is why they are so prevalant in history books, programmes and films. Coupled with the fact that there are lots of Roman structures still around it tends to make them easy for Europeans to identify with - it's easier to identify with something if you can reach out and touch it.

On the other hand, if you asked me why they were a great civilization I would re-hash a great deal of what various people have already said in this thread. What they shouldn't really be credited with in invention of concrete and aqueducts - like so many things the Romans 'inherited' those inventions. Concrete pre-dates the foundation of Roma by thousands of years, and aqueducts were used by the Harrapans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians and (I think) Etruscans. The unique thing about Roman concrete was it's composition - I believe that it was the first concrete devised that would set underwater. This was almost certainly a fortunate coincidence - the Romans had to use the materials that were available to them in Italy to make their concrete, and it just so happened that the materials available made a concrete that would set underwater. Robert Harris did a very good novel called Pompeii if anyone wants to read something on Roman aqueducts.

One interesting thought - Romans built many of their monuments in concrete, which has very little value if you pull it down and try to re-use it. The Greeks tended to use marble blocks, which were very valuable to anyone who could carry it away. Clever Romans!

They may also have been one of the earliest civs to use wide, well built and well maintained straight roads, but they were by no means the first. Look up the Persian Royal Highway (2500 KM, built sometime before Alexander, therefore at least 350 BCE) or the Mauryan Grand Trunk Road (Taxila - Pataliputra, I'd estimate at least 1500 KM, built sometime before 200 BCE) if you want confirmation of that. The Greeks were in touch with the Persians and (through Alexander's successors) the Mauryans, so to say they would never have developed a widespread system of road building is an underestimation IMO.

The things I think of when I think of Roman civilization (both identified by Nanocyborgasm) are the pretty masterly administration they extended accross Europe, and their military doctrine coupled with incredible staying power that allowed Rome to win war after war.

In the end I think that the Romans were just very good at making the most of what other people developed, which, truely, is one of the greatest skills you could wish for. Mirc's post makes excellent reading I think, though I'd again disagree with some of what he says on the invention of concrete and Roman engineering prowess.

Finally, @ scy12:
You can't say they did not do on their own much .

Rome or more precisely the Roman civilization is part of the Greek civilization and the Greek civilization is part of Rome.

As other things great about Rome that the Greek civilization before encountering them lacked , was Roads , Bridges , use of Cement and generally Engineering. I doubt the Greeks would reach that level on their own on that areas.
Now read up on Archimedes, and look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism), and tell me again that the Greeks were no good at engineering... :lol: I'll not argue with the rest of what you said, but your statement on engineering seems to show an element of ignorance.

[General disclaimer] - Yes, I tend to be biased towards Greeks because I've read so much about them, but I've read a huge amount on Rome too to make up for it. As to the general cultural bias towards western civs: well, I'm western, so it's almost inevitable. I don't discount the achievements of other civs, but as an English speaker it can be hard to locate good sources of information on other ancient cultures. My opportunities are limited to an occational trip to the British Museum to view one of their occasional Persia or (upcoming) Babylon exhibits. I would be MOST grateful if someone could get me really high quality information in English on the make-up of the Persian Achaemenid Empire - how it was organised, military make-up, cultural and religious practices. Such things are most interesting to me, but frustratingly difficult to find any detail on.

You can't say they did not do on their own much .

Rome or more precisely the Roman civilization is part of the Greek civilization and the Greek civilization is part of Rome.

As other things great about Rome that the Greek civilization before encountering them lacked , was Roads , Bridges , use of Cement and generally Engineering. I doubt the Greeks would reach that level on their own on that areas.
Now read up on Archimedes, and look at this, and tell me again that the Greeks were no good at engineering... I'll not argue with the rest of what you said, but your statement on engineering seems to show an element of ignorance.

Ha ha ha. Talk about never expecting this. I guess kids here like to call other people ignorant to feel superior.

Dude i am Greek . (Ask others to confirm it. )I am likely more biased than you in Hellas favor (But not one who likes to call other people ignorant so easily , that is just a complex). I knew about the Antikythera mechanism the first computer far before you did. I watched documentaries and attempted to educate my self on it , in a largest extent than you did and i bet before you did.

The Greeks generally did not have the Roman technology of Road building , Bridges building and as they did not use cement generally their building technology was also more time consuming. In Appearance i prefer the Greek architecture.


I find the discoveries , and generally the writing made by Greek Philosophers,Mathematicians, Doctors and the Greek Literature to be a fountain of knowledge.

Some of them like Thukididis Peloponisian war are considered essential readings for everyone in my opinion.

If you are so fond of anything Greek , how about reading the works of the Comedian and satirist Aristophanes ?

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Live/Writer/Aristophanes.htm

Ha ha ha. Talk about never expecting this. I guess kids here like to call other people ignorant to feel superior.

Dude i am Greek . (Ask others to confirm it. )I am likely more biased than you in Hellas favor (But not one who likes to call other people ignorant so easily , that is just a complex). I knew about the Antikythera mechanism the first computer far before you did. I watched documentaries and attempted to educate my self on it , in a largest extent than you did and i bet before you did.

The Greeks generally did not have the Roman technology of Road building , Bridges building and as they did not use cement generally their building technology was also more time consuming. In Appearance i prefer the Greek architecture.


I find the discoveries , and generally the writing made by Greek Philosophers,Mathematicians, Doctors and the Greek Literature to be a fountain of knowledge.

Some of them like Thukididis Peloponisian war are considered essential readings for everyone in my opinion.

If you are so fond of anything Greek , how about reading the works of the Comedian and satirist Aristophanes ?

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Live/Writer/Aristophanes.htm

I guessed that you were Greek (or at least Grecophile) from the 'ev oi' below your avatar. I didn't call you ignorant, just suggested that your comment on the Greeks lacking engineering generally seemed ignorant. As you confirm that you know a great deal about the, quite incredible, engineering feats of the ancient Greeks, perhaps you could tell me why you feel that the Greeks 'lacked' engineering before they encountered the Romans?

Like I said in my original post, I don't argue with the other things you said, regarding the use of roads, cement etc.

Thanks for the Aristophanes link, I will certainly be utilising that. :) It's not that easy to get affordable copies of the great Greek dramatists in English. Not in my experience anyway.

I guessed that you were Greek (or at least Grecophile) from the 'ev oi' below your avatar. I didn't call you ignorant, just suggested that your comment on the Greeks lacking engineering generally seemed ignorant. As you confirm that you know a great deal about the, quite incredible, engineering feats of the ancient Greeks, perhaps you could tell me why you feel that the Greeks 'lacked' engineering before they encountered the Romans?

Like I said in my original post, I don't argue with the other things you said, regarding the use of roads, cement etc.

Thanks for the Aristophanes link, I will certainly be utilising that. :) It's not that easy to get affordable copies of the great Greek dramatists in English. Not in my experience anyway.


I didn't call you ignorant, just suggested that your comment on the Greeks lacking engineering generally seemed ignorant. As you confirm that you know a great deal about the, quite incredible, engineering feats of the ancient Greeks, perhaps you could tell me why you feel that the Greeks 'lacked' engineering before they encountered the Romans?

Ah i see. Well you just misinterpreted my post. I did not say the lacked engineering.

I said that in the technology of Bridges , Roads , use of cement , the Romans where better. The General engineering comment is connected with the superior engineering methods of the Romans at building Roads , Bridges and Generally buildings (Aqueducts) as i believe they build them quite fast too.

The Greeks did not "Lack " in Engineering. Unless we compare them with the Romans , who where generally Better Engineers. IMO.

Instead of Engineers how about we use the word Builders ?

That is all. And as you don't disagree with me on my mention of the superior use of Building technology by the Romans , i don't think you disagree with me at all.

As for style ... The Greeks win in my opinion.

There was a thread , "Ancient Greece vs Rome" and you can comment there also if you wish . I choose ancient Greece.

Thanks for the Aristophanes link, I will certainly be utilising that. It's not that easy to get affordable copies of the great Greek dramatists in English. Not in my experience anyway.

Well , Welcome. And i don't think i would call Aristophanes a dramatist .

I wonder , What ancient Greek works did you do in school ?

I think it probably was a misinterpretation - I think that the building skills you're talking about is referred to usually in English as Civil engineering, whilst engineering in general tends to be a very wide range of disciplines, including the intricate work involved in, say, a clockwork mechanism. I'd accept that the Romans were better, more efficient, and more thorough builders.

Like you, in terms of style I'd say the Greeks generally win. :)

I did no Greek studies at all at school. My first experience with any ancient Greek works was when I got to University. Classical Studies (meaning studies in Greek and Latin/Romans) doesn't seem very popular with the British authorities. Regarding Aristophanes being a dramatist - we tend to refer to comedy and satire as being one of the dramatic arts. At least we do in the performing arts college I work at! Again, that might be a cultural difference.

In proportion to world population Rome is by far the biggest country ever.

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires) It had about 25% of the worlds population. Which is impressive, but hardly stellar. China beats it at almost every point in its history.




Law is the most important aspect of Ancient Rome in the modern world: most countries, from France to Mexico to Japan, have legal system which are more or less based on the laws of Ancient Rome.


The laws of the Romans were so developed that almost all of the legal systems of the developed Western world are descended from them, and the Roman Law is still widely studied in universities around the world.

Funny fact: We know jack about Roman law. Or at least, the people who developed our 'Romanesque' law systems knew jack about Roman law. It was completely forgotten in medieval Europe until a copy of the Sixth Century Law Code of the Emperor Justinian was found in Italy circa 1070. On the basis of that law schools sprung up (beginning with Bologna, founded in 1088). The graduates of these places tend to be people in positions of power, they went a good way towards molding our modern legal system. One based on Roman law. The only problem with that is that this Roman law was nothing like that which governed Ancient Rome. The scholarly text it was derived from wasn't only different from the original, it was that of a later, Byzantine law code created by a reforming emperor. Until the 19th century most of what we knew of Roman law was hearsay and fragmented, One of the best sources was a summary of a text book appended onto the law code of a certain Visigoth King, Alaric II, written in 506. Only in 1816 was a full text found, but even that was a palimpset, which means the paper had been washed out and re-used. Fortunately for us, some of the book could still be read.


They discovered cement, they built absolutely majestic architecture (like the Collosseum, think at least of DESIGNING such an amazing building), they were the uncontested leaders of engineering of the world until the late middle ages, and I could go on and on.



Architecture. The Romans invented concrete and the arch, both of which allowed the construction of larger buildings. They also invented the aqueduct, which allowed cities to grow to massive size.

Realistically, I'd have to say that Roman Architecture is distinctly dull. From a technological and engineering viewpoint at least, aesthetics are obviously subjective. Basically, in every significant factor eastern architecture was just superior. Rome simply couldn't build domes like the Parthians could, they didn't have the technology. Roman domes are shallow and flat-topped, built of every lighter circles of blocks while they rested on timber frames, same with the arches. They are basically Igloos writ big. Roman architecture hinged on the keystone, and until that was put in place the structure had no effective support. The availability of massive European forests helped alleviate this by providing raw material from massive scaffolding, but nevertheless Roman architecture had hard-set limits.

Mesopotamia and Persia had no such woodlands, so they were forced to innovate. Every roof was vaulted, thanks to lack of timber. The technology that allowed them to do this was an instantly drying cement unknown in Europe; it was made out of gypsum. This technology allowed the construction of high paraboloid domes impossible in the Roman empire. Thanks to the nature of the cement, the construction of such domes involved a team of men working in complete synchronisation at high speeds. Of course, even had the Romans possessed the technology they would never have been up to the intellectual strain of the architecture. Making curved glazed pieces to fit the paraboloid surface required complex geometric solutions. Quadratic equations and trigonometric curves needed to be resolved to keep the roof over ones head. Babylonic, Eastern and Hellenic maths could rise to the challenge. Roman Maths could not. Not to put to fine a point on it, but Roman maths was sh*t.



They were the ones to establish the flourishing period known as "Pax Romana" which created a stability that was virtually unseen again until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.



This prolonged peace generated a flourishing culture that has been emulated for years.


I'd hesitate to call this period peaceful. I think an explanation is in order. IIRC the imperial history of Rome is characterised by recurrent and destructive civil war, repeated invasion and looting (Dacia, for example), endless struggles against Parthia, followed by endless defeats against the Sassanids. To top it off, when a usurper wasn't going after the throne odds on some benighted corner of the empire is rebelling. No doubt the above examples of less-then-peaceful times explain why the Empire felt it necessary to keep at the very least twenty legion in the field, and to have well over 350,000 professional soldiers ready for war. A factor that might explain why something like 80% of taxes went to the army. Anybody would think that the army controlled the empire!


The organization of the Roman civilization was also incredible - just look at their political system, both in the time of the Republic and in the time of the Empire.


This is the same political system which is able to create a list of major usurpers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_usurpers#Elagabalus:_218-222) that is pushing on a hundred? I think I'll pass :p

Realistically, I'd have to say that Roman Architecture is distinctly dull. From a technological and engineering viewpoint at least, aesthetics are obviously subjective. Basically, in every significant factor eastern architecture was just superior. Rome simply couldn't build domes like the Parthians could, they didn't have the technology.
But there are many things that the Romans could build and the others couldn't. I'm not saying they were the only good architects of the world (just think of Egypt such a long time before, for example), but they were simply amazing architects in my opinion.

Roman domes are shallow and flat-topped, built of every lighter circles of blocks while they rested on timber frames, same with the arches. They are basically Igloos writ big. Roman architecture hinged on the keystone, and until that was put in place the structure had no effective support. The availability of massive European forests helped alleviate this by providing raw material from massive scaffolding, but nevertheless Roman architecture had hard-set limits.
So their domes are shallow and flat-topped? Now, I could provide examples of domes that were not like that, but that would not actually bring anything in the discussion. In any case, nobody's opinion on art (yes, I consider architecture an art) could ever be presented as fact (and I'm not saying that you do that), but frankly, I find Roman buildings more awe-inspiring than most of the buildings of the time, if not all.

You are presenting the keystone technology as something bad... I find that strange, because I personally think it was a great innovation.


This is the same political system which is able to create a list of major usurpers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_usurpers#Elagabalus:_218-222) that is pushing on a hundred? I think I'll pass :p

Pushing on a hundred, but over what kind of timespan? ;)


My time at the computer of the hotel is ending... I seriously DO NOT mean to ignore your other points, I'm very sorry that I don't have the time to answer more (especially since I think I have some pretty interesting counter-arguments to what you brought up :)).


I'm enjoying this thread a lot, keep it up, people. :D :D

PS. The Han dynasty actually had as many people as Rome.

No, it wasn't even close. That's like saying America has as many as China. Equal power maybe , equal population no. The population ratios didn't flip for another few hundred years.

Just about every aspect of life in the western world is influenced by the Romans, more so than Greek culture. From modern democratic governments and laws to the very letters you are typing with.

I don't think this is true. I think that this is something of a Renaissance myth, when humanist scholars and others decided that the Middle Ages had been an uninteresting and sterile period, and tried to recover everything they could of classical antiquity, which they reinterpreted as the cradle of civilisation. But arguing over whether Rome or Greece contributed more to western civilisation ignores the contributions of northern European cultures. Yes, the letters we are using are Roman, but we are using them to type a northern European language that comes from the "barbarians". As we type we are wearing clothes that ultimately derive from the "barbarian" style (unless anyone's sitting there wearing a toga). The current month may be named after a Roman emperor, but the day is named after a "barbarian" god. And I doubt that many people here eat reclining on a sofa, spend the afternoon in a sauna, or go to bed at dusk. The general pattern of everyday life in the modern western world is nothing like that of the classical world.

I don't think this is true. I think that this is something of a Renaissance myth, when humanist scholars and others decided that the Middle Ages had been an uninteresting and sterile period, and tried to recover everything they could of classical antiquity, which they reinterpreted as the cradle of civilisation. But arguing over whether Rome or Greece contributed more to western civilisation ignores the contributions of northern European cultures. Yes, the letters we are using are Roman, but we are using them to type a northern European language that comes from the "barbarians". As we type we are wearing clothes that ultimately derive from the "barbarian" style (unless anyone's sitting there wearing a toga). The current month may be named after a Roman emperor, but the day is named after a "barbarian" god. And I doubt that many people here eat reclining on a sofa, spend the afternoon in a sauna, or go to bed at dusk. The general pattern of everyday life in the modern western world is nothing like that of the classical world.

yes. you are right.

BUT it wont make their strength and civilization fade away if you enlist the things which wasnt applied to our civilization. the matter of fact is that its quite poor to enlist THIS few things which came from other cultures.

in fact rome was a lot like our world.
for example the so-called democratic system of the republic which then has fallen thanks to a dictator named augustus. its like when dictators emerged in the 20th century.
but i can mention the aquaduct which is one of the greatest invention of the romans. it could carry the water to a city which was 20 km from the source with only 2-3 meters fall.

their greatest achievement however was that they carried all of the ancient worlds' achievements - from greece to egypt and to the middle east - and make it spread in western europe.

note: the arabs, who actually preserved the ancient technologies and make it possible for the middle ages to use them, has gotten the 'stuff' from the romans.

Realistically, I'd have to say that Roman Architecture is distinctly dull. From a technological and engineering viewpoint at least, aesthetics are obviously subjective. Basically, in every significant factor eastern architecture was just superior. Rome simply couldn't build domes like the Parthians could, they didn't have the technology. Roman domes are shallow and flat-topped, built of every lighter circles of blocks while they rested on timber frames, same with the arches. They are basically Igloos writ big. Roman architecture hinged on the keystone, and until that was put in place the structure had no effective support. The availability of massive European forests helped alleviate this by providing raw material from massive scaffolding, but nevertheless Roman architecture had hard-set limits.

Mesopotamia and Persia had no such woodlands, so they were forced to innovate. Every roof was vaulted, thanks to lack of timber. The technology that allowed them to do this was an instantly drying cement unknown in Europe; it was made out of gypsum. This technology allowed the construction of high paraboloid domes impossible in the Roman empire. Thanks to the nature of the cement, the construction of such domes involved a team of men working in complete synchronisation at high speeds. Of course, even had the Romans possessed the technology they would never have been up to the intellectual strain of the architecture. Making curved glazed pieces to fit the paraboloid surface required complex geometric solutions. Quadratic equations and trigonometric curves needed to be resolved to keep the roof over ones head. Babylonic, Eastern and Hellenic maths could rise to the challenge. Roman Maths could not. Not to put to fine a point on it, but Roman maths was sh*t.

I don't know what you're talking about. Roman mathematics was borrowed mathematics from the Greeks, which, after some improvement, had borrowed it from Babylonian and Egyptian sources. By the first century AD, I suspect the entire Mediterranean and Near East were using the same math. As for Parthian architecture, I find it hard to believe you can know that it was so superior, considering we have next to no remains of it. Only a few artefacts and statues have been discovered, and much information regarding the Parthian Empire is derived from foreign contemporary accounts.


I'd hesitate to call this period peaceful. I think an explanation is in order. IIRC the imperial history of Rome is characterised by recurrent and destructive civil war, repeated invasion and looting (Dacia, for example), endless struggles against Parthia, followed by endless defeats against the Sassanids. To top it off, when a usurper wasn't going after the throne odds on some benighted corner of the empire is rebelling. No doubt the above examples of less-then-peaceful times explain why the Empire felt it necessary to keep at the very least twenty legion in the field, and to have well over 350,000 professional soldiers ready for war. A factor that might explain why something like 80% of taxes went to the army. Anybody would think that the army controlled the empire!

The army did control the empire, and there were frequent periods of turmoil, but this is what passed for peace in antiquity. There were foreign wars and occasional rebellions at the periphery of the empire, but the core of the empire was relatively stable, such that when Rome was first sacked in 412, it came as a surprise, even though it had been rotting at the core for centuries. Again, the usurpers usually did not create much upheaval for the average Roman, as it was little more than a change in management.

No, it wasn't even close. That's like saying America has as many as China. Equal power maybe , equal population no. The population ratios didn't flip for another few hundred years.

Well, actually, the Han dynasty had roughly 59.6 million people at 2 AD, while Rome had roughly 60 million people in the first century. I'm not going to quibble about 400,000 people in an empire of 60 million, especially considering that official censuses could easily have been off by that number. Plus, the statistic from Rome comes a bit later, so the Han Dynasty could have grown in population by then. The long and short of it: Both were equally sized.

(Not to mention in 1820 the Qing had a mind boggling 37% of the world population- unrelated, but interesting)

note: the arabs, who actually preserved the ancient technologies and make it possible for the middle ages to use them, has gotten the 'stuff' from the romans.

Well, this is exactly what the Romans did, according to you, right? Got all the 'stuff' from the Egyptians, Greeks, Mesopotamians, etc. and built on it. Well, you can say the same for the Arabs- plus their culture was quite distinctive, while when you compare Greece and Rome, you can't quite say that (even the Gods were basically the same!). I'm not trying to demote the Romans here, just pointing out that the Arabs, who get much less attention then the Romans, were just as great.

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires) It had about 25% of the worlds population. Which is impressive, but hardly stellar. China beats it at almost every point in its history.
That 60 million number seems low; I usually hear anywhere from 88 million to upwards of 120 million quoted for the Principate. Perhaps they aren't counting slaves in the estimate.
I'd hesitate to call this period peaceful. I think an explanation is in order.
Good - the 'pax Romana' can only be called such by comparison with the period immediately preceding it. By any standards it was as bloody and vicious an era as most others.
repeated invasion and looting (Dacia, for example),
During the period of the 'pax Romana' (not counting what Augustus brought into the Empire): Britannia, the Agri Decumates, Dacia, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Arabia Nabataea.
followed by endless defeats against the Sassanids.
This particular statement isn't really correct. Roman and Sassanid honors were usually well divided between the two if not balanced slightly towards the Roman side. The Sassanids were able to capture Valerianus through treachery, for example, and under Khosrau II pushed an extremely tenuous hold to the Bosphorus for ten years, but it was more than balanced by the Roman intervention in the Sassanid civil wars, especially later on in that Empire's history, not to mention the exploits of Herakleios.

Too, the Sassanids arose after the pax Romana was over. :p
A factor that might explain why something like 80% of taxes went to the army.
What else is the Empire going to spend its money on when it's that big? Especially considering how the level of infrastructure was excellent for such a comparatively ancient civilization, and how the government system puts most of the burden of public works on the curials and other people who are at the lower levels of civic participation. Considering the ratio of force to space, 350,000 men seems like an awfully low number to guard that area, and it seems to have performed exceptionally well, keeping the Roman Empire generally within the same territorial boundaries - with a few obvious exceptions, of course - for well over four centuries, plus allowing for frequent offensive campaigns, especially in Persia. Besides, outside of the grain dole, the concept of an entitlement program didn't exist, so the massive budget outlays of the modern day United States (for social security and its related programs, for example), let alone a European welfare state, wouldn't be necessary. One finds that in most of the classical empires, army upkeep and training costs are the largest budget items; no need to harp on Rome for that.
This is the same political system which is able to create a list of major usurpers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_usurpers#Elagabalus:_218-222) that is pushing on a hundred? I think I'll pass :p
It's also a political system which guarantees the rights of property owners, which may be unfashionable in this world but sure as hell seems nice to me.
Well, actually, the Han dynasty had roughly 59.6 million people at 2 AD, while Rome had roughly 60 million people in the first century. I'm not going to quibble about 400,000 people in an empire of 60 million, especially considering that official censuses could easily have been off by that number. Plus, the statistic from Rome comes a bit later, so the Han Dynasty could have grown in population by then. The long and short of it: Both were equally sized.
That statistic seems to me to be smaller than actual size (woohoo Wikipedia!), and partly an artifact of the Roman Imperial census' failure to count slaves, which made up a gigantic portion of the population in most areas.

EDIT:
plus their culture was quite distinctive, while when you compare Greece and Rome, you can't quite say that (even the Gods were basically the same!).
The Greek and Roman gods were most certainly NOT the same. They may have been identified with one another (you know, Venus with Aphrodite, Mars with Ares, etc.) but their origins were wildly different. This is a phenomenon across the Middle East and early Mediterranean, a much more relatively relaxed attitude about religion, leading to a concept of identifying gods in one religion with ones in another so adherents of the one would have a temple to worship in when they went somewhere else. I mean, the Greeks compared their deities with those of the Egyptians, too, but they weren't linear descendants. It's sort of the same error that one would make in attempting to draw a direct parallel between the Christian God and Allah; they are the same type of figure in many ways but the origin of one is not really the same as that of the other.

That 60 million number seems low; I usually hear anywhere from 88 million to upwards of 120 million quoted for the Principate. Perhaps they aren't counting slaves in the estimate.


Ironically, estimates of peak Roman population vary wildly. Obviously some censors weren't doing their job ;)

Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to place mid second century Roman population (peak) at between 60-70 million. That's because we tend to regard Augustus' census quite highly, which places the empires population at about 45 million circa AD 10. An upwards change of 15-25 million in a century is pretty believable. I find 75 million less so.

This particular statement isn't really correct. Roman and Sassanid honors were usually well divided between the two if not balanced slightly towards the Roman side. The Sassanids were able to capture Valerianus through treachery, for example, and under Khosrau II pushed an extremely tenuous hold to the Bosphorus for ten years, but it was more than balanced by the Roman intervention in the Sassanid civil wars, especially later on in that Empire's history, not to mention the exploits of Herakleios.

Too, the Sassanids arose after the pax Romana was over. :p



Fair enough, but It's certainly true that Shapur I at least made Roman Legions look like children for the better part of his reign. As if militarily humiliating both Gordian III and Philip the Arab wasn't enough, as you mentioned he also managed to capture Valerian. This was after a battle in which Roman Forces outnumbered his almost 2-1, yet their entire force of 70,000 was annihilated. Minimal Sassanid casualties. And as far as it goes, the only reason we have to believe Valerian was captured by treachery is hearsay. Funnily enough, hearsay repeated exclusively by the Romans.


What else is the Empire going to spend its money on when it's that big?


Keeping a pure currency would have been a start. When you put copper in your silver coins because the army requires all your funds, that's a sign to re-juggle the finances. Of course, there's the slight problem that your personal guard will murder you if you do this. But needs must.


Considering the ratio of force to space, 350,000 men seems like an awfully low number to guard that area, and it seems to have performed exceptionally well, keeping the Roman Empire generally within the same territorial boundaries - with a few obvious exceptions, of course - for well over four centuries, plus allowing for frequent offensive campaigns, especially in Persia.


True, most places most of the time the army did work rather well. But ratio of men to land is a bad way to judge it. Even ratio of soldiers to population has problems. This is for two reasons. Firstly, standing armies were largely unheard of in areas outside Rome. Those 350,000 men stick out like a sore thumb. Linked to that is that having a standing army in 100AD means something very different then have a standing army in 2008AD, economically at least. The Roman economy was overwhelmingly agricultural, and mostly subsistence. Obviously, today we have a quite different set of conditions. The point being that an agricultural economy doesn't produce much usable surplus. Different kind of goods that people want to trade. And (unfortunately) you can't pay troops in grain. They might kill you for that too. That means that even a small army poses a disproportionate strain on such an economy. They have to be paid in the precious little usable surplus that exists, which tends to inhibit trade and production.
[/QUOTE]




You are presenting the keystone technology as something bad... I find that strange, because I personally think it was a great innovation.-Mirc/QUOTE]

I'm not really saying it was bad. But it imposes more limitations. It's less advanced.

[QUOTE]
Pushing on a hundred, but over what kind of timespan? ;) -Mirc
/QUOTE]

Let's say 450. Which means one Usurper every four and a half years :eek:

I don't know what you're talking about. Roman mathematics was borrowed mathematics from the Greeks, which, after some improvement, had borrowed it from Babylonian and Egyptian sources. By the first century AD, I suspect the entire Mediterranean and Near East were using the same math.


Intriguing. Also intriguing is that fact that whilst the Romans could have borrowed all that great mathematics expertise, they just didn't. That's why you can't name a single Roman mathematician who holds a candle to Archimedes, or even Euxodus. Ptolemy comes close, but one guy in 500 years of empire? That's poor. It's also why the Roman calendar was so goddamn awful. They had October falling in the middle of summer and summer in the middle of spring. You have to have decent mathematicians to properly link both lunar and solar calendars, and Rome just didn't. That's partly because Maths is such an unroman subject. It's not practical and certainly won't help you kill somebody. It won't woo the masses and is never going to give you political power. No wonder they didn't care for it much.



As for Parthian architecture, I find it hard to believe you can know that it was so superior, considering we have next to no remains of it. Only a few artefacts and statues have been discovered, and much information regarding the Parthian Empire is derived from foreign contemporary accounts.

The entire Iwan style of architecture is a basic continuation of Parthian and Sassanid building. Just look at cities like Samarkand in central Asia, full of vaulted roofs and paraboloid domes.

The Greek and Roman gods were most certainly NOT the same. They may have been identified with one another (you know, Venus with Aphrodite, Mars with Ares, etc.) but their origins were wildly different. This is a phenomenon across the Middle East and early Mediterranean, a much more relatively relaxed attitude about religion, leading to a concept of identifying gods in one religion with ones in another so adherents of the one would have a temple to worship in when they went somewhere else. I mean, the Greeks compared their deities with those of the Egyptians, too, but they weren't linear descendants. It's sort of the same error that one would make in attempting to draw a direct parallel between the Christian God and Allah; they are the same type of figure in many ways but the origin of one is not really the same as that of the other.

I have to disagree with you. They certainly where not the same. But some of them "Where" as Same as it goes. There was many more similarities between the Roman Pantheon and the Greek Pantheon than with the Greek Pantheon and the Egyptian Pantheon for example.

Not the same. But very similar and not comparable to the level of similarity between Egyptian and Greek Gods.

On the same way . Monotheistic Gods of (the three) Monotheistic Religions are very similar with each other but not the same. They are more similar with each other than with other Religions.

Those 350,000 men stick out like a sore thumb. Linked to that is that having a standing army in 100AD means something very different then have a standing army in 2008AD, economically at least. The Roman economy was overwhelmingly agricultural, and mostly subsistence. Obviously, today we have a quite different set of conditions. The point being that an agricultural economy doesn't produce much usable surplus.

But it does. Not only did the roman economy had some capitalist points such as large commercial agriculture using slaves as "capital" (ironically there were actually worse than the small farm model as far as tax collection went...), they also had a lot of surplus. Indeed they'd need it just to feed the large cities, especially Rome. They had administrative problems, and this was natural in an ancient empire, but their agricultural economy wasn't a problem by itself. The problem was collecting taxes on it (something which the feudal system would "solve"). This forced the roman empire, and other ancient empires, to rely mainly on duties and the taxing of mining and some "industrial" activities. Mining did seem to decline after the 3rd century, and that may have played an important role on the financial problems of the roman empire.


Different kind of goods that people want to trade. And (unfortunately) you can't pay troops in grain. They might kill you for that too. That means that even a small army poses a disproportionate strain on such an economy. They have to be paid in the precious little usable surplus that exists, which tends to inhibit trade and production.


Actually, you can. Or at least you can organize things on a semi-feudal system, which the eastern empire did with the themata.
And anyway those soldiers, if paid in coin, would have to spend it. It'd shift trade patterns, but I doubt it would reduce the volume of trade (just a guess, but some historian must have studied this by now, I'm sure).

Intriguing. Also intriguing is that fact that whilst the Romans could have borrowed all that great mathematics expertise, they just didn't. That's why you can't name a single Roman mathematician who holds a candle to Archimedes, or even Euxodus. Ptolemy comes close, but one guy in 500 years of empire? That's poor. It's also why the Roman calendar was so goddamn awful. They had October falling in the middle of summer and summer in the middle of spring. You have to have decent mathematicians to properly link both lunar and solar calendars, and Rome just didn't. That's partly because Maths is such an unroman subject. It's not practical and certainly won't help you kill somebody. It won't woo the masses and is never going to give you political power. No wonder they didn't care for it much.

So what? The Romans thought they had everything they needed from foreign sources, like Greeks. Yes, they took little interest in math. Tell me something I don't know.


The entire Iwan style of architecture is a basic continuation of Parthian and Sassanid building. Just look at cities like Samarkand in central Asia, full of vaulted roofs and paraboloid domes.

You must have some sort of omniscience, because as I said, we have no remains of Parthian architecture. We have hardly any Parthian artifacts at all. The style you refer to is from the Sassanid Persian Empire, which followed the Parthian. It may have predated the Sassanid but we wouldn't know. I fail to see how you could.

Rome was first sacked in 412

Actually, Rome was sacked twice before this.

Ironically, estimates of peak Roman population vary wildly. Obviously some censors weren't doing their job ;)
Yeah, well, demography is damned hard when you can't travel any faster than a horse can and your bureaucracy is relatively tiny. :p
Fair enough, but It's certainly true that Shapur I at least made Roman Legions look like children for the better part of his reign. As if militarily humiliating both Gordian III and Philip the Arab wasn't enough, as you mentioned he also managed to capture Valerian. This was after a battle in which Roman Forces outnumbered his almost 2-1, yet their entire force of 70,000 was annihilated. Minimal Sassanid casualties. And as far as it goes, the only reason we have to believe Valerian was captured by treachery is hearsay. Funnily enough, hearsay repeated exclusively by the Romans.
Well, the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription being as somewhat vague as it is on the means, it seems safer to me to agree with the (three?) ancient sources on the subject of the Battle of Edessa. But the coin, it does have another side: sure even Shapur did great, but Odenaethus beat him up as well, and all Shapur had to show for it in the end was the old Euphrates frontier despite all his exertions and great victories because he lost great battles too. Galerius did a real number on the Sassanids, balanced by Iulianus and Iovianus utterly failing against them; Constantius II and Shapur II seem to have divided battlefield honors roughly equally amongst themselves. And then, after the quiet fifth century, we see Iustinianus' wars in the east, which amounted to very little for either side, and then something unprecedented in either empire's history: Maurikios' intervention in the Khosrau/Vahram civil war and actually putting one of the Kings of Kings on the throne. The Sassanids never did that. And then there were the reigns of Herakleios and Phokas...

In any event, yes, the Sassanids did have successes against the Romans but I think it is intellectually dishonest to favor one side over the other for most of their history, except, in the end, the Romans survived and the Sassanids, who had previously lost disastrously to the Romans, did not.
Firstly, standing armies were largely unheard of in areas outside Rome.
You like Partho-Sassanian-style feudalism better? Certainly did wonders for their political system (;)), they had just as many civil wars as the Romans did, complete with feudal power struggles that were relatively absent from the Roman Empire. There is a reason that the Romans turned largely to a standing army; their strategy of first preclusive and then a combination of cordon and elastic defense (which sounds about as weird as it was).
Those 350,000 men stick out like a sore thumb.
Compared to whom? Other than the Sassanians - who were not even close to the size of the Roman Empire - the Romans didn't really have any rivals big enough to raise that many men. It was the aggregate threat on the frontiers from the Great Power of the Parthian and later Sassanid states, combined with the barbarians in the north, that required such a large total.
That means that even a small army poses a disproportionate strain on such an economy. They have to be paid in the precious little usable surplus that exists, which tends to inhibit trade and production.
Except Tchalenko's work from the 1950s and 60s indicates growth in the time of the later Empire in agricultural terms, and we know North Africa was a trading emporium of vast proportions. The bite of the taxman to support the military wasn't breaking anyone's back. It's the old 'beak-wetting' stuff from the Mafia.
I have to disagree with you. They certainly where not the same. But some of them "Where" as Same as it goes. There was many more similarities between the Roman Pantheon and the Greek Pantheon than with the Greek Pantheon and the Egyptian Pantheon for example.
I in fact noted their similarity which allowed one to be 'identified' as another, e.g. Mars and Ares, Venus and Aphrodite, Zeus and Iuppiter, and so on and so forth. It would be ludicrous of me to dispute that many of the Roman and Greek deities were similar. But they had radically different origins; it was not a case of the Romans looking at the Greek gods, renaming them and giving them a few new stories. In many cases the gods were radically different; take Saturn/Kronos, for example, who in Greek was the lord of Time and youngest of the Titans, successor to Ouranos, while in Roman he was a harvest god. As time went on, many of the stories attributed to one kind of 'moved' to the other, but their origins never were the same, and that's the only point I was trying to make.
Actually, Rome was sacked twice before this.
:lol: It's true, but mentioning the 387 BC sack might be misleading. The 410 one is fair game though. Incidentally, there was no sack of Rome in 412...

Wow, this is a lot of information- everyone seems to know what everyone else is talking about except me :p. Oh well~

Still, even after all this, my opinion hasn't changed that much, to be honest. Sure, Rome had great infrastructure, was well organized, and pulled together technology and culture from other civilizations, added to it/ modified it, and thus provided the basis of modern European culture.

But still, Rome still seems to get a disproportionate amount of attention/credit for what it did. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but that's my honest-to-god opinion. I mean, as I repeated often before, a good comparison is Arabia. Arabia was just as great, and in my opinion, deserves as much discussion/credit as Rome does. The story of their rise is fascinating, and for the most part even more amazing then the Romans. They too unified the entire middle east (similar to Rome's takeover of much of Europe), and their influence can be seen everywhere, from astronomy to medicine to the number 0. They were the basis of the extremely powerful Ottoman empire (a superpower at it's peak) and their sprawling cities, works of art, and bustling markets all show that the Arabs were truly one of the most influential empires of all time, even perhaps beating Rome (once again, sorry if I offend any Rome extreme-lovers, there seems to be many here). So, why does Arabia (or, for that matter, China, India, the Ancient African civilizations, etc) get FAR less attention the Rome?

So, why does Arabia (or, for that matter, China, India, the Ancient African civilizations, etc) get FAR less attention the Rome?

In a word, eurocentrism. Western or western-inspired history is thought everywhere in the world these days. I dare say your average schoolkids South East Asia know more about Ancient Rome than about the Khmer Empire (with possible exception for Cambodian kids). I know for sure people in Australia know a lot more about Ancient Rome than the history of neighbours like Indonesia.

Western popular history taught that Western civilization which everyone knows is the dominant force in the modern world (and it is) began in Ancient Greece and later succeeded by Ancient Rome. Contributions from other civs are toned down (the Arabs merely "preserved" the classical knowledge which is what brought Europe out of the Middle Ages, China invented many things but never done anything with it, etc). It's a legacy of the imperialism and colonisation over the last 200 years.

And of course when people try to bring out some of the contributions of non-western civilisations they are denounced as "revisionists", "nationalists" or, in the case of Islam in particular, "apologists".

Of course it's not as straightforward as that. The reasons for why history is taught the way it is is complex, but I think this is the single most important factor.

What's wrong with learning one's history?

In England they study the English kings, in France the French ones, and so on; and Rome came before that.

It's also because, as I said before, early modern Europeans reinvented their own history to make the "classical" civilisations more important than the others. That is, they effectively decided that all that was good in European civilisation came from Greece and Rome. They tried to imitate what they thought Greek and Roman society were like. So obviously the teaching of history greatly exaggerated the importance of those civilisations, which in turn meant that more poeple knew about those civilisations, focusing interest on them even further.

Simple way to explain the influence of Rome: we are looking at it right now.

The roman alphabet is used in the north america, south america, australia, europe ofcourse and most of africa. That's only leaves one continent Asia that doesn't use the alphabet.

So, Rome lovers, what's great about Rome? Enlighten me!

system(organization/bureaucracy), enduring/long lasting, adaptability/ability to pick new useful things from other civilizations/renew/restart/non static(#1 in history by a mile) - the Far East for comparison being awful at this vital characteristic. Surviving/expanding/adapting in a very open environment(contrary again to Far East which was close).

So, why does Arabia (or, for that matter, China, India, the Ancient African civilizations, etc) get FAR less attention the Rome?

if you take Omeiads+Abbasid(while they actually had a strong influence) it's 7th century to end of 9th century - so not so much length.

Compared to Ancient Africa and such(though actually compared to anyone... maybe China is over them, but probably that's about it) the Romans wrote. Tons; it's hard to know someone's history when not much survives.

China also has a technical problem for probably everyone non Far East Asian. Either pinyin is rather crappy or something else is missing, but honestly, I had over 5 attempts to learn the Chinese history. Each time the names got in the way; they all seemed the same till you actually spelled them(and normally you don't read letter by letter, you usually "photograph" words and hell... they all seemed alike). I never managed to figure out who's who. Worse, listening won't connect with reading(look at the amount of pronunciation rules - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin); if you read something(not aware of spelling) and then talk with a Chinese about that section of history, you'll wonder who the heck they're talking about... And after talking with other people from different European countries, the statement was pretty much the same in the vast majority of cases.
Frankly, after trying(ok, not as an 8h/job, obviously :p) for quite some time I think I can go through dynasties and major rules and even that hardly(still is fuzzy who did what in a certain rule and I always wonder if I don't confuse the secretary with the general and vice versa).

And, what you don't know, you can't evaluate; and knowing "they invented paper gunpowder blablabla" won't get you too far in figuring what happened there...

Realistically, I'd have to say that Roman Architecture is distinctly dull. From a technological and engineering viewpoint at least, aesthetics are obviously subjective. Basically, in every significant factor eastern architecture was just superior. Rome simply couldn't build domes like the Parthians could, they didn't have the technology. Roman domes are shallow and flat-topped, built of every lighter circles of blocks while they rested on timber frames, same with the arches. They are basically Igloos writ big. Roman architecture hinged on the keystone, and until that was put in place the structure had no effective support. The availability of massive European forests helped alleviate this by providing raw material from massive scaffolding, but nevertheless Roman architecture had hard-set limits.
It seems you've never heard of the Pantheon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pantheon). It includes the the widest pre-modern dome ever constructed (a title which had actually belong to Rome since the 1st century BC with the construction of the Temple of Mercury in Baiae), unsurpassed until 1881, and remains the largest all-concrete dome ever constructed? On top of that, the dome is a perfect hemisphere, and the lowest point of the "invisible" lower hemisphere meets the floor almost exactly, coming within a a few centimeters.
Maybe these methods aren't as "interesting" as you'd like, but I'd say the results pretty much speak for themselves. The Romans were, pretty inarguably, the greatest engineers of the pre-modern world. Nothing else compares- where else in the ancient worlds do you find buildings, domes, bridges or aqueducts to rival Rome's? The only Ancient Eastern rival to the Pantheon which I can think of is the Arch of Ctesiphon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taq-i_Kisra), which is barely half the width and three quarters the height of the dome of the Pantheon. True, it was built without centring, but I'm not sure that you can really write off superior construction methods as "cheating" like that, especially when it was built about 400 years after the Pantheon (and, incidentally, by the Sassanids, not the Parthians).

And of course when people try to bring out some of the contributions of non-western civilisations they are denounced as "revisionists", "nationalists" or, in the case of Islam in particular, "apologists".
And if someone refuses to give disproportionate praise to non-Western civilisation they are branded "reactionary" and "Eurocentric". Isn't life grand?

And if someone refuses to give disproportionate praise to non-Western civilisation they are branded "reactionary" and "Eurocentric". Isn't life grand?

What defines disproportionate?

The same thing that defines disproportionate when it comes to Far Eastern civilizations...

Simple way to explain the influence of Rome: we are looking at it right now.

The roman alphabet is used in the north america, south america, australia, europe ofcourse and most of africa. That's only leaves one continent Asia that doesn't use the alphabet.

and that continent is home to 60% of world population:king:
and btw you missed the slavic states and the muslims:crazyeye:

You mean the Arabs. There are Muslim countries that use the Latin alphabet. Otherwise, of course, you're right.

and btw you missed the slavic states and the muslims:crazyeye:

Not all of the Slavic countries use the Cyrillic alphabet...

Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria do.

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, don't (although in Serbia and Bosnia the Cyrillic alphabet is still an accepted alphabet, it's used in parallel with the Latin one).

Overall, the Latin alphabet is used by the great majority of the world. And you know, it is used in the LARGEST MUSLIM COUNTRY in the world too...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Latin_alphabet_world_distribution.svg/800px-Latin_alphabet_world_distribution.svg.png