What Did The Romans Ever Do For Us?

[cornelius_sulla]

Without Rome, there'd have been no Life of Brian, and the world would have been a much sadder place.

[caldrail]

Sewers and Aqueducts. The Etruscans taught the Romans how to make sewers (and roads). There were aqueducts in other parts of the world as well as Rome - e.g. fifth century Athens - (anyway aqueducts never caught on in Britain for some reason).

Aqueducts were built to supply urban areas and since britain was on the fringe of empire the need to develop urban areas wasn't as keenly felt as say Italy, and in any case, britain was well watered so the cost of such infrastructure was deemed too expensive.

 

Town planning with a grid system - Hippodamus - was Greek and did it for the Piraeas in Athens and Alexandria in Egypt. Oratory - before Cicero there was Demosthenes, and before Demosthenes there was Pirekles. Currency and alphabet - Phoenicia, and laws, Hammaburai.

Ok, but these were remote from Britain. The romans physically arrived and established their own culture here and so taught the british directly. Town planning comes from a sophisticated organised culture (and goes back a suprisingly long way into human history in places like Egypt or the Indus Valley) but even if this sort of thing is known of, it doesn't mean its adopted. After all the medieval towns weren't so well planned despite the roman tradition and existing town layouts left to crumble during the dark ages.

 

Language - our language system is basically Germanic, though we use some Latin vocabulary (which we got mostly from the French after 1066). However, English uses auxilaries and basic verb forms with word order for meaning, whereas Latin uses a rigid inflexion system.

Not entirely true. Latin was preserved by christianity and educated people have been taught the language ever since, though that tradition has now declined somewhat.

 

So, assuming the Brits were not stupid (and Stonehenge predates the pyramids, so they knew a bit) they would have picked up most of what the Romans had anyway.

Not necessarily. Improvements in London sewage arrangements only came about when a ship foundered in the Thames Estuary in the early victorian period and the people attempting to swim to safety suffocated in effluent. Advances occur more often because of necessity or instruction, not because it seemed like a good idea at the time

 

Particularly Roman innovations seem to have been gladiatorial shows

Thats an advance?

Edited April 8, 2008 by caldrail

[Nephele]

Particularly Roman innovations seem to have been gladiatorial shows

Thats an advance?

 

Caldrail, you omitted "fast-drying cement" from Maty's last sentence -- which was not only a genuine Roman innovation but also an advance.

 

Not all innovations are necessarily advances and, while we don't have gladiatorial games today (at least, not practiced quite the same way as the Romans did), I appreciated Maty's irony in including gladiatorial games (a genuine Roman innovation) in his list.

 

While I'm sure that most people here can agree that much was learned from the Romans, I believe that the point Maty was making was to separate genuine Roman innovations from those things for which the Romans may have been unduly credited with having originated.

 

And, Maty and Longbow, I'd like to know more about those ball-bearings, too! (Which Longbow brought up earlier in this thread.)

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

Somewhat along the lines of Maty's argument, I'd say that the Romans' greatest lasting contribution was the spread of Hellenization. Far from being inevitable, the survival and evolution of Greek culture--including secular theatre, literature, philosophy, government, education and the visual arts--seems to have depended on the Romans. The only other possible conduit for Hellenization would have been the successors to Alexander, who were far more like Xerxes than Demosthenes.

 

Moreover, looking beyond Europe, it was the Roman--and not the Greek--model of government (as well as the Roman spirit of republicanism) that inspired the American constitution.

 

EDIT: In terms of technology, we also owe the Romans the coin-operated vending machine.

Edited April 8, 2008 by M. Porcius Cato

[Nephele]

Moreover, looking beyond Europe, it was the Roman--and not the Greek--model of government (as well as the Roman spirit of republicanism) that inspired the American constitution.

 

We Yanks appear to have received the best of Rome's legacy.

 

EDIT: In terms of technology, we also owe the Romans the coin-operated vending machine.

 

Interesting! Can you dig up for us some illustrations of early Roman vending machines?

 

-- Nephele

[WotWotius]

Sewers and Aqueducts. The Etruscans taught the Romans how to make sewers (and roads). There were aqueducts in other parts of the world as well as Rome - e.g. fifth century Athens - (anyway aqueducts never caught on in Britain for some reason).

 

Aqueducts were built to supply urban areas and since Britain was on the fringe of empire the need to develop urban areas wasn't as keenly felt as say Italy, and in any case, Britain was well watered so the cost of such infrastructure was deemed too expensive.

 

I do believe there is evidence for a wooden aqueduct near Dorchester:

 

www.roseivy.demon.co.uk/aqua

 

Also, the odd lead pipe is frequently unearthed during excavations of urban site in Roman Britain, including one bearing the name of Agricola himself - this being one of few sources on his governorship outside of Tacitus.

 

So you see the aqueduct did catch on in Roman Britain, but, as with everything else 'Roman' in the province, they were a slightly more humdrum affair.

[caldrail]

Particularly Roman innovations seem to have been gladiatorial shows

Thats an advance?

 

Caldrail, you omitted "fast-drying cement" from Maty's last sentence -- which was not only a genuine Roman innovation but also an advance.

 

Not omitted at all. I agree, cement was a considerable civil engineering advance. However, gladiatorial shows were held in all sort of venues, not just purpose amphitheatres. Any public space (or that matter, private ones too) were used. The first recorded contest was staged in a cattle market. In any case, amphithatres weren't just made of concrete. Temporary wooden venues weren't unusual and we might remember the Fidenae Disaster of AD27. However, if concrete had been used by the brits since roman times I would have said that was What The Romans Did For Us. But it wasn't. Once they went home we forgot all about concrete and used their stonework and impromptu quarries.

 

Not all innovations are necessarily advances and, while we don't have gladiatorial games today (at least, not practiced quite the same way as the Romans did), I appreciated Maty's irony in including gladiatorial games (a genuine Roman innovation) in his list.

It is true the romans took public entertainment to new heights (and depths) but that could happen for any form of entertainment, and reflected the roman obsession with organisation. Gladiatorial combat of course also reflected their mindset, living in a male dominated violent world with a greek martial inheritance. Our inheritance emerges from the barbarians who moved in on roman turf, and whilst they established a society based on fighting (as Terry Jones puts it) the increasing sophistication, agricultural success, mercantile success, and romanticised tradition in peacetime watered down these aggressive traits a lot. As much as they originally wanted roman wealth and power for themselves, they hadn't a clue how to be roman and to be honest I think the late romans - and this includes the byzantines - were losing the technological skills they had once learned.

[Nephele]

Not omitted at all. I agree, cement was a considerable civil engineering advance. However, gladiatorial shows were held in all sort of venues, not just purpose amphitheatres. Any public space (or that matter, private ones too) were used. The first recorded contest was staged in a cattle market. In any case, amphithatres weren't just made of concrete. [snipped]

 

Caldrail, I don't think the fact that the Romans held their gladiatorial combats in public (and private) spaces and wooden amphitheatres, or that "amphitheatres weren't just made of concrete," is news to anyone here. Did you presume that Maty's statement: "Particularly Roman innovations seem to have been gladiatorial shows, and fast-drying cement" implied that he was claiming that the Roman amphitheatres were made solely of concrete? I didn't get that impression at all, and fail to see how such a leap might have been made. But perhaps I'm mistaken. In any case, if Maty is inclined to respond, I'm sure he'll set the record straight.

 

-- Nephele

[Northern Neil]

Christianity?

[Primus Pilus]

Christianity?

 

Like most things, it's something the Romans expanded upon and spread all over rather than invented on their own. I suppose one might say that the true Roman innovation displayed by the spread of that religion and earlier Hellenism is the idea of a wholly connected nation where, despite regional cultural differences, there was still an overall cultural oneness.

[Maty]

I think that's the point. The Romans propagated a number of ideas (which they picked up from the rest of the Mediterranean nations in the process of violently assimilating them) when they got around to violently assimilating those nations where those ideas had not yet spread. I can't offhand think of any states that joined the Roman empire voluntarily, which says something for the perceived benefits of Roman rule. The fact is however, that those ideas were out there, and with or without Rome, they would have made their way around Europe anyway. What Rome did was become the vehicle for the transmission of those ideas to north-western Europe. Whether that transmission would have happened anyway, and how fast, is a matter for speculation.

 

I agree with PP that there is another thing that we can say the Romans did for us - it gave Europe a sense of common heritage and identity which has remained ever since, despite some trying times. But again, would that have happened anyway?

Edited April 10, 2008 by Maty

[Ursus]

I agree with PP that there is another thing that we can say the Romans did for us - it gave Europe a sense of common heritage and identity which has remained ever since, despite some trying times. But again, would that have happened anyway?

 

 

I severely doubt it. Look at the failure of the Greek city-states to unite politically, not to mention the internal divisions in the various "barbarian" civilizations such as the Celts. The Carthaginians might have established economic hegemony over the Mediterannean, but I doubt this would have lead to a unifed culture per se.

 

 

As as aside, what of Roman law? Rome adopted many things from its neighbors, but Roman law and the Justinian code forms the basis for the legal codes of many modern European states.

[caldrail]

I agree with PP that there is another thing that we can say the Romans did for us - it gave Europe a sense of common heritage and identity which has remained ever since, despite some trying times. But again, would that have happened anyway?

Thats an interesting point, because some people believe the latinisation of the mediterranean caused a cultural schism that has had ramifications to this very day, particularly in the latin vs germanic sense. It is true that Rome gave a sense of common identity to those areas it had controlled, certainly not to those it didn't. Also, like any powerful centralised state, it imposed order across its territory (well... usually anyway...) and as events in modern europe have shown, once that authority is gone old and new rivalries emerge even to the point of violence, like squabbling siblings. When I hear of efforts to bring Europe together under one government I shake my head. It worked for the romans because they had their culture packaged and ready for delivery, all you had to do was sign up and pay their taxes and all the benefits of roman society were yours. Thats all well and good, but the romans had something to offer, something that was arguably better than a mud hut in a temperate rainforest hunting squirrels for survival. But what does a modern united europe offer? Everything we've already got. This political will to recreate a new roman empire is sooner or later going to end in tears. To start with, a few politicians will get their name in the history books (one wonders if that isn't the entire point of it) and some generations down the line, nationalism (or ethnic tribalism) will re-emerge and another cycle of violence will result. We've learned how to co-exist peacefully with each other so why ruin it by sweeping all those established relationships aside? Rome could do so because ultimately it had a military prepared to put down revolutions mercilessly. Romes failure of course is that the military was often the revolutionary, and once that military was no longer able to dominate, Rome fell by the wayside. Who remembers the byzantines in the same light? Isn't our fondness for the roman world a desire to relive past glories, real or imagined?

[Maty]

re Roman law - Whilst not wanting to denigrate the massive edifice of Roman law, let us not forget that the foundation of Roman law was the XII tables of the first decemvirate. To research these laws a special delegation was sent to Greece ... so even this (in any case, stunning) achievement is not entirely Roman.

 

(Sitting in a mud hut and hunting squirrels, forsooth. I'm sure my forebears hunted the noble elk, and possibly also hunted for bears.)

[M. Porcius Cato]

re Roman law - Whilst not wanting to denigrate the massive edifice of Roman law, let us not forget that the foundation of Roman law was the XII tables of the first decemvirate. To research these laws a special delegation was sent to Greece ... so even this (in any case, stunning) achievement is not entirely Roman.

 

Isn't this special delegation viewed by many historians as an old wives' tale?