Caius Maxentius

Taelactin, If you're writing a story about this, check this out: <http://www.meta-religion.com/Archaeology/Asia/romans_in_china.htm> There's a hypothesis that some of the surviving legionnaries of the battle of Carrhae ended up serving in the Persion army, and eventually ended up in battle in China! (I don't know if this has been discussed before, I'm kind of new here...) This group of soldiers was described in Chinese records as fighting in what looks like a Roman "testudo" formation. At any rate, there's a study looking at whether or not China's town Lichien was actually originally settled by these displaced Roman soldiers. It's a fascinating historical episode to imagine. http://www.meta-religion.com/Archaeology/A...ns_in_china.htm Sorry, here is the proper hypertext for the link.

I've often wondered this myself. It's definitely changed over time, for me. As a teenage boy, I loved Rome for all the stereotypical teenage boy reasons -- the images of power, the cool military uniforms, the way Rome embodied all the so-called masculine virtues (military prowess, effectiveness in engineering and using tools, obsession with building huge things...). And for some reason, I was obsessed with maps, and loved looking at all the phases of Rome's expansion and contraction. Now, I'm fascinated by the how the culture transformed, especially during the later years of the empire. It's like a big puzzle, looking at how Romanitas was transmitted and transformed as it passed to the German peoples, how its structures and influences were adopted by successor states, even by the Arabs to some degree. But, I have to admit, I still love looking at those cool uniforms...

Not sure what to say about metric vs. imperial, but to address the original question, maybe one of Rome's best legacies to us is also one its most cursed -- jurisprudence. It's benefitted us in many ways, but in these litigious times, when anyone can be sued for almost any frivolous whim, the law can be an ass, indeed!

Thanks to Long Bow and Pantagathus for these replies. I think I understand the British context better. I still find the Romania question fascinating. I read that Aurelian pulled much of the Dacian population south of the Danube at the time of abandonment to beef up poor, depleted Moesia. Is it fair to say that enough of the latinized population remained north of the Danube to act as a cultural and linguistic base? I take it that Dacia was simply settled less by other linguistic groups than the former provinces of Moesia, Pannonia, Rhaetia and Noricum?

I think you mean Jubilate Deo? "Shout with joy to God."

I'm puzzled as to why Romania ended up with a Romance language but not Britain. Dacia was a province for only about 170 years, whereas Britannia lasted over 350. Moreover, Dacia trampled over by all kinds of peoples -- Goths, Huns, Magyars, Avars, Slavs, Pechenegs, Cumans, Bulgars, Turks, etc. Britain didn't have quite this level of traffic, did it? Why is there so little Latin in Welsh and Cornish?