Why does everyone consider Rome such a great Civilization?

[Yui108]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[chaba]

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.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

 

[jungmo]

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)

 

[jungmo]

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.

 

[Dachs]

No. 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.

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 that is pushing on a hundred? I think I'll pass

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.

 

[lovett]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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).

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

 

[Séamas]

Rome was first sacked in 412

Actually, Rome was sacked twice before this.

 

[Dachs]

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.

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.

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...

 

[jungmo]

Wow, this is a lot of information- everyone seems to know what everyone else is talking about except me . 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?

 

[Tee Kay]

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.

 

[Sofista]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[Jazzmail]

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.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

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 ) 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...

 

[Traitorfish]

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. 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, 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?