# Rome is best civilization in history



## Tiberius Victrix (Dec 13, 2018)

change my mind


----------



## Tiberius Victrix (Dec 13, 2018)

Rome is best


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 13, 2018)

Define "best"...


----------



## JGCully (Dec 13, 2018)

disagree.

Ming dynasty, China. Rich, powerful, highly educated, technologically advanced, and would have been a leading power were it not for the emperor's premature death and a variety of natural disasters that crippled the country.


----------



## Devor (Dec 13, 2018)

British Empire.  You change MY mind.


----------



## Ban (Dec 13, 2018)

Dutch Empire. Don't even try me.

I'll send a fleet full of tall dutchmen in clogs if you do.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 13, 2018)

The easy answer would be the Greeks, because the Romans looked up to them and imitated them in so many ways. But let's not take the easy answer.

Which Rome do you mean? The Kingdom of Rome? The Republic? The early Empire? Or the Empire as re-made by Diocletian and Constantine? Then again, perhaps you mean the Rome of Justinian or yet again the Rome of the Macedonian dynasty. I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Holy Roman Empire.

Before we can do any convincing, we have to sort out the boundaries of the question.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 14, 2018)

No, the Greeks are the best. Rome is just a thug who jumped Greece in a backalley and ran off with Greece's keys and cards.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 14, 2018)

Gurkhal is of course speaking of the Greeks in Argos. Maybe Thebes. No? You say the real model is Athens? The one that keeps getting beat in wars? Or was it Hellenistic Greece that the Romans admired after all?

(sorry, couldn't resist extending my own theme (theme: n. a meme shared by only one person)  )


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 14, 2018)

skip.knox said:


> Gurkhal is of course speaking of the Greeks in Argos. Maybe Thebes. No? You say the real model is Athens? The one that keeps getting beat in wars? Or was it Hellenistic Greece that the Romans admired after all?
> 
> (sorry, couldn't resist extending my own theme (theme: n. a meme shared by only one person)  )



All of them in their collective Hellenistic civilization from Iberia in the west to India in the east. The Hellens are the greatest!


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 14, 2018)

Yeah, I'd go for the Hellenistic Greeks, though that phrase is roughly equivalent of saying "Europeans."  There was a whole sea worth of difference between Marseilles and Alexandria. And they didn't get all that long to be "Hellenes" before the Romans came and put a spin to everything. 

Those Greeks just needed a firm Macedonian hand to give them some character. ;-)


----------



## Insolent Lad (Dec 20, 2018)

The ones I've made up myself are far preferable.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 20, 2018)

I note that the OP has not replied to any of this. Given that he asked us to convince him of something, I suspect  ...  well, let's call it disinterest.


----------



## Devor (Dec 20, 2018)

skip.knox said:


> I note that the OP has not replied to any of this. Given that he asked us to convince him of something, I suspect  ...  well, let's call it disinterest.



No, he was having trouble posting before (you know the not-spam thread).


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 20, 2018)

Ah, that one. OK. Has probably given up, then.


----------



## Tiberius Victrix (Dec 21, 2018)

Greeks despite their great achievements in realms of philosophy, natural sciences and arts have failed to create one thing that actually matters- the functioning unified state. You could argue that Greek world was far more enlightened than Roman one or that Egyptians were more eloquent, but none of them were safe. Alexander's conquest is a singular achievement of one great person and it spread Greek culture to as far as Pakistan (he founded a city there called Bucephala after his horse). But almost instantly after Alexanders death his empire imploded never to reunite again and Greek Culture went into slow and steady decline as it had nothing new to bring to the table.  And let's not even talk about the logistics of building giant fucking triangles in middle of desert, how much money was wasted constructing these giant pointless coffins, they even barreled down entire treasury's worth of gold, which was later only stolen and dragged away by bandits.
Rome on other hand was undoubtedly part of Hellenistic world. Roman culture was a subset of Greek culture that eventually managed to outdo it's parent, as simple as that. Romans themselves believed this, to them Aeneid was historical document. What separates Rome from all these others states is that they were incredibly industrious and ferocious. They conquered rest of the world, not because they were stronger and more numerious,  but because they were stubborn and cunning.  Romans were engineers and they solved practical problems. Romans built aqueducts, roads, water pipes, latifundias. See  monthy python "What have Romans ever done for us". And most of all Romans brought law, peace, stability and security, things that were virtually unknown to the world outside of their Empire.  Entire provinces were free of all garrisons, because people were simply too happy to rebel. Average lifespan of conquered provinces doubled, roads became save and trade became ferocious. You could travel from Hadrians wall  to Palmyra  with a single passport. Fish caught in Gibraltar straights was packed and shipped to Britain where officers ate it.  Size of Roman empire was 4.4  million square Km, size of entire Planet is 510 million square Km.  And yet within Roman Borders 25% of all worlds population resided.  A peasant boy could become Emperor(justinian, diocletian, Aurelian). A peregrin barbarian could take high office within Roman Empire (Stillicho, Flavius Aetius).  It is true that many of things that Romans are famous for existed before them, like baths,roads, aqueducts and toilet. But they made it accessible for the masses. in 19th century France there were people who walked around with buckets and for a fee man could pee in that bucket. In Rome you just had to find any insulae and go to the toilet that was public and share a sponge.  You wanna wash hands? The fresh water is right there streaming out of that pipe. And before you say that Roman Law was a facade,  Apostle Paul survived crucifixion due to the fact that he was a Roman Citizen. He was untouchable.


----------



## Tiberius Victrix (Dec 21, 2018)

And almost forgot. European Empires like British and French are essentially updated versions of Roman one.  Their achievements were brought by progress of technology and semi-successful attempts to imitate Romans, they however remained barbarians in their hearts well into the mid 20th century. ( see world war 1&2)


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2018)

>failed to create one thing that actually matters- the functioning unified state.
Here you set up a condition to measure success which you already declare the Greeks did not meet. That's a logical fallacy. Without going down that road, though, let's consider the proposition of a unified (leave aside "functioning" as a non-functioning state pretty much doesn't exist) state. You said the Greeks failed to do this. 

I suggest that, on the contrary, they succeeded multiple times over. There is failure only if you decide that "Greece" should somehow conform to the modern nation-state. In fact, Hellas consisted of a large number of states, some of which lasted far longer than the U.S. (no comment here on our prospects for longevity).  You may want to reconsider your measuring standard here.

>[Rome] conquered rest of the world
You probably do not mean to include China or Australia, but even within the parameters of the "known" Roman world Rome did not conquer all of it. The geographic details of that are easily discovered. Rome conquered a large area. That is sufficient, without hyperbole. But is greatness really going to be measured by geographic extent?

>Romans built aqueducts, roads, water pipes, latifundias.
Just a point of pedantry here. Latifundia merely means a large estate. It's not an object like an aqueduct or road. I'm sure you know this; I bring it up so other readers are not misled.

>Romans brought law, peace, stability and security, things that were virtually unknown to the world outside of their Empire.
Truly? No other civilization knew peace? All others were unstable? Whether Rome could be called stable is another question open for discussion. In any case, for a good many peoples, Rome brought fire and sword and subjugation. One really has to consider individual cases.

>Average lifespan of conquered provinces doubled,
I would be interested to see the source for this. As a medievalist, I'm well aware of how very thin is our demographic information.

>But they made it accessible for the masses.
Again, sources?

>Apostle Paul survived crucifixion due to the fact that he was a Roman Citizen
I may misunderstand the wording here. He was crucified and survived? Source for that? I tend to go with Eusebius, who said Nero had him decapitated. 

To close, I return to the questions I posed earlier. Which Rome do you mean? The Kingdom? The Republic? The Empire? For that matter, which Romans? There was a time when only those born in Latium were considered "Roman." That was extended in various ways, but there were Romans by citizenship who were sneered at as little more than barbarians by more "pure" Romans. If we are going to claim some sort of genetic superiority, we need to be clear as to which gene pool we mean.


----------



## Tiberius Victrix (Dec 24, 2018)

- I think that is a standard of state that anything can conform to. Anyone who built a walled settlement and declared themselves  independent becomes a state in the same sense that Roman Empire is state. I think it's unfair to Rome. You speak of modern notion of nation state, yet this very notion was achieved 2000 years ago by Rome and nobody else up until modern times.  I think that is a pretty big achievement.

-  I  mentioned  that Rome controlled  a fraction of earth's territory and yet housed 25% of population at the time. It was greatest empire of it's time. That is what I meant by world domination.  If we measure greatness by geographic extent the winner is British Empire, not Roman one. So I cannot take that measurement, I'd be factually wrong.  But Roman Empire was around for nearly 1500 years.  The state of Rome itself far longer 753 BC-1453 AD. I do not think that any other state can boast such longevity, despite monstrous adversities the Empire faced.
-The latifundia (Latin: _latus_, "spacious" and _fundus_, "farm, estate. The _latifundia_ were the closest approximation to industrialized agriculture in Antiquity, and their economics depended upon  slavery.
Quote is from Wikipedia.
-Google Pax Romana. I do not think that any other period except for last 70 years of our modern world can compare to it. Opinions differ on the matter among modern scholars, but I am not in the minority camp.

-I have heard that notion in Mike Duncan's podcast of Ancient Rome and few other places.  I have found no written articles supporting my claim, nothing that can serve as concrete proof.  Neither can I recall the exact videos I have watched on the subject. But once I find them I will be sure to give you the sources. I won't forget trust me.
- For the source on this one you should google "sanitation in ancient Rome", wikipedia and read it.  But I personally read it in book called "Wissen Erleben Das Alte Rom" in german. I could provide link but it doesn't allow me. Haven't met the requirements. You can google, it's on amazon. It has Hadrian on cover on red background.

-He survived crucifixion and was released few times prior to his last arrest precisely because he was Roman citizen. Jesus was crucified, Paul was not, he was beheaded and he was apprehended in Jerusalem and later shipped to Rome because he appealed as citizen of Rome to be judged by Caesar.There are mentions that he appealed as citizen in wikipedia. I would go on more about this topic but I can't find the exact passage in my books where it is precisely mentioned, except for my really old children's book where it is merely stated. I am busy reading through my books and once I find the concrete passage I will link you the book and the page. Right now you have to be satisfied with what Wikipedia says.

-Well I am speaking about the imperial period. Mainly from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Those are most distinguished.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 24, 2018)

Just one more post and then I think I'm bowing out on this one. I disagree with the original premise. "Greatest" is a fundamentally ahistorical evaluation. Other people are welcome to discuss the issue, but saying one civilization (a problematic term in itself) is greater than another is much like saying one person is greater than another. Even if a case can be made, it doesn't get us much of anywhere.

I love Roman history, though I prefer the Republic to the Empire. As a medievalist I can't claim to be any more than an amateur in the field, but I'll certainly argue that it's a topic that will well repay anyone's study of it. Beyond that, I'll leave value judgments to others.


----------



## Tiberius Victrix (Dec 25, 2018)

I understand your position, although I utterly disagree with it.  Despite my disagreement I believe that as an amateur in the field you have made a good case for your argument and it was certainly an interesting conversation. you forced me to spend quite few hours sifting through my pile of books and reading on internet. Good luck to you.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 26, 2018)

One bows out but another joins in. This is a bit of a hyperbole, of course.

Its evident that the Greeks were the greatest civilization of the ancient world, far superior to Rome.

For the first part the Greeks created the entire intellectual foundation on which Rome managed to build anything save brutish and violent behavior. In Fantasy terms you could say that Greece produced Tolkien, while the Romans produced the numerous hacks trying to ripp off Tolkien. 

Secondly, if we only take the creation of a state as evidence of greatness, then the Greeks also managed to outdo the Romans. The Greeks create numerous states and with numerous different forms of organization and government. The Romans created one state with essentially three different types of rule and all of them failed just as badly as any ancient Greek did. In fact I would even say that the Romans outdid the Greeks in screwing over their own people to a degree that the Greeks never managed.

Thirdly, the Greeks conquered the whole of Persia and reached India, something that the Romans never came close to.


----------



## Tiberius Victrix (Dec 26, 2018)

-The fact that we are having this discussion already shows that it is not evident that Greeks are greatest civilization.

- With that said. Greek civilization cannot be more superior than Roman one, simply because Rome is part of Greek world. If you want to make a good comparison regarding Fantasy terms, Rome is more like Christopher Tolkien as he continued on where the Greece left off. Roman culture is essentially expansion of Greek one. You can only  fairly compare Rome to other contemporary Greek states that were stuck in the past and failed to adapt to challenges of the new world.

-You know I do not see how having a disunited swarm of fractured city states is an achievement. I mean when Rome fell it's territory was carved up by local Kingpins. So now the dark ages of western Europe are suddenly managed to outdo Romans in matter of statecraft. I don't think this is fair towards Romans, or even Greeks for that matter. Saying that Roman state failed is essentially incorrect as after the brutal civil wars Rome managed to reform itself and reinvent it's identity several times. As far as i know very few states had managed to go through such crucial reformations as many times as Rome did and survived.  
Founding the city->Kicking out kings and establishing the republic->Hannibal->Establishing a Principate-Surviving the crisis of third century-Surviving the Tetrachy- Changing the state Religion-Adrianople-Attila-Fall of western Empire- Rise of islam-disaster at manzikert- the fourth crusade- and fall of constantinople. 

No other state in history has matched Romans in stubbornness. Just one of these calamities would be enough to wipe out most countries without leaving a trace. 

And as for the last. It was Alexander that reached Pakistan. Not Greeks. The Greeks had failed to reproduce their one time achievement, something that Romans managed to do repeatedly. And as for screwing over their own citizens. Greek states failed to protect their own citizens and Greece was conquered and enslaved. How is that not a failure?


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 26, 2018)

Tiberius Victrix said:


> - With that said. Greek civilization cannot be more superior than Roman one, simply because Rome is part of Greek world. If you want to make a good comparison regarding Fantasy terms, Rome is more like Christopher Tolkien as he continued on where the Greece left off. Roman culture is essentially expansion of Greek one. You can only  fairly compare Rome to other contemporary Greek states that were stuck in the past and failed to adapt to challenges of the new world.



I'd say that at the best of times the Romans can be Christopher Tolkien but more often they are the random Fantasy hacks trying in vain to steal the talent and hard work they are unable to have or do themselves.

Also I would refuse the notion that the Romans were part of the Greek world. At no point did they consider themselves, or were considered, Greeks. In fact I'd say that the Romans are distinctly Italic. They were influenced by the Greeks but not nearly enough to be considered Greeks any more than say the Lydians were.

For some recommendations on a good book about ancient Italy I'd suggest the following. I haven't finished it yet but the parts I did have time to read were really interesting and thus I recommend it.

https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Ital...8&qid=1545819025&sr=8-2&keywords=corinna+riva

Also the Greeks were adapting all the time and never stuck in the past. The sheer lunacy of that statement made the chuckle.



Tiberius Victrix said:


> -You know I do not see how having a disunited swarm of fractured city states is an achievement. I mean when Rome fell it's territory was carved up by local Kingpins. So now the dark ages of western Europe are suddenly managed to outdo Romans in matter of statecraft. I don't think this is fair towards Romans, or even Greeks for that matter. Saying that Roman state failed is essentially incorrect as after the brutal civil wars Rome managed to reform itself and reinvent it's identity several times. As far as i know very few states had managed to go through such crucial reformations as many times as Rome did and survived.
> Founding the city->Kicking out kings and establishing the republic->Hannibal->Establishing a Principate-Surviving the crisis of third century-Surviving the Tetrachy- Changing the state Religion-Adrianople-Attila-Fall of western Empire- Rise of islam-disaster at manzikert- the fourth crusade- and fall of constantinople.



The point I wanted to make was that the Greeks were capable of creating many different kind of states, just like the Romans could adopt theirs, But the main issue I see here is that between quantity and quality. And I think that the Greeks who invented democracy and Athens who managed to take the first few steps towards what we know today as democracy is superior to the Roman Republic. Not in quantity but in quality as they did get a popular rule and were not stuck half-way there with power ever resting in the irresponsible hands of the aristocracy.

And I will be totally honest. Political unity is not the greatest achivement by which I judge a civilization by. Cultural achivements and social progress is just as important and while the Romans do not come up empty on either, neither did they make as much as the Greeks. Hence I will totally agree that the Roman empire lasted even longer than ancient Greek history but I think the Greeks managed to do more in their time than the Romans did in theirs. Becasue at the end of the day political unity and military victories is all the Romans have to show for themselves. And guess what, those thing are gone now while the, for example, vast literary accomplishments of the Greeks remains to be read and admired by a greater degree than what was produced in Latin.



Tiberius Victrix said:


> No other state in history has matched Romans in stubbornness. Just one of these calamities would be enough to wipe out most countries without leaving a trace.



Yes, the Romans had a certain zealous warmongering that few could match.



Tiberius Victrix said:


> And as for the last. It was Alexander that reached Pakistan. Not Greeks. The Greeks had failed to reproduce their one time achievement, something that Romans managed to do repeatedly. And as for screwing over their own citizens. Greek states failed to protect their own citizens and Greece was conquered and enslaved. How is that not a failure?



For the first part last I checked the Macedonians were a Greek tribe or at least become one by the time that Alexander ruled as is evident by Philip II's efforts to make the Macedonians be accepted as Greeks, if they were not that already. Thus Alexander was a Greek king, of the Macedonian tribe, who conquered the East with Ionian, Doric, Achaean, Aeolian and Macedonian troops. Hence the Greeks did it.

Romans did not managed to repeatedly do their one-time-stunt. If such had been the case we would not have a long, long list of all the provinces that the Romans lost as opposed to the rare few they managed to retake, for a short while, before losing those provinces again permanently.

The last part makes no sense. What an bloodthirsty aggressor, like Rome, did falls at the aggressor's feet. Not the feet of its victims. The conquest and great enslavement happened because the Romans wanted to do it and the Greek themselves had precious little to do with if it should happen or not. Hence its more of a mark of the ever present bloodthirst of the Romans than anything else. In fact I'd still say that the Romans screwed over their own people harder than then the Greeks managed. I am pretty sure that the Greek world in general was not as caught up in civil wars, persecutions and purges, be they political or religious, as the Roman Empire was, starting with the late Republic and never really stoping. Not to mention the charming squeshing out of the small farmers during Republic's second half or so.

EDITED: Removed some stuff.


----------

