Why does everyone consider Rome such a great Civilization?

[jungmo]

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!

 

[Bugfatty300]

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.

 

[jungmo]

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

 

[Bugfatty300]

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.

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[Yui108]

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

 

[Mirc]

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.

 

[REDY]

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.

 

[say1988]

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.

 

[jungmo]

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.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

 

[chad187]

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

 

[Tee Kay]

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).

 

[Keroro]

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, 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.

[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.

 

[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, 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

 

[Keroro]

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.

 

[scy12]

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 ?

 

[Keroro]

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.

 

[lovett]

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

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.

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

 

[Mirc]

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

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.