Roman Greatness

[Guest Rosa]

Hi, I am writing a paper arguing "Was Rome the greatest empire to ever exist" I know a bit about Roman history but am no historian by any means. I was going to use duration of empire which from what I've been reading on the website was from 753 BCE to 476 CE. Also I was planning on using the size of the empire. If anyone else has anything I should add feel free to let me know. Thanks

[Lost_Warrior]

There are myriad articles on the main site that should help you out

 

You should probably talk about their influence on the world, their architcture, political system, and of course their amy! Size of empire doesn't say as much as those things.

 

BTW are you Rosamund? If so I'm Dania

[Primus Pilus]

You'll have a few issues to contend with from that perspective.

 

Rome didn't really become an Empire (in the sense of territory not government) until its defeat of Carthage in the Second Punic War (c. 202 BC) when it acquired either direct control or controlling interests of Hispania and North Africa, and confirmed its domination of the Italian province, Narbonensis, Sardinia, Corsica and Sicilia. From another perspective, many view the beginning of the "Roman Empire" as when the Republic was finally destroyed in the late first century BC and early first century AD. Additionally, others argue that the Roman empire continued to live on for another millenia in the east under the guise of the Byzantines (which is a more modern historian classification as the Byzantines themselves still considered themselves to be related to the predecessing western empire.)

 

While the size and longevity of the empire is clearly impressive (especially when viewed as a percentage of the potential population and habitable areas of Europe at the time), I think LW is on track in pointing out that these things are the result of the greatness of Roman culture, military, etc. and not the end all determining factor of Roman greatness.

 

At any rate, you definately should include such arguments as size of the empire (keeping in mind its fluctuation over various periods of time as it was only a single city state at the Rise of the Republic in the 6th century BC and was at its greatest extant for only a short period in the early part of the 2nd century AD) but focus instead on other factors for a far more compelling paper.

 

Some other ideas to consider:

* The dominance of the legion

* The influence of Roman (Latin) language

* Romanization and absorption of foreign people and cultures

* Roman Roads (for military use but also in allowing the rapid spread of culture and influence)

* Aqueducts and running water

 

Just some random thoughts...

[WotWotius]

You could also mention how Rome's influence on the Christian world shaped their future.

[Lex]

Don't forget their legal system!

This has had a massive impact on the Western world and is even partially used by some Asian countries. As someone who has studied Roman Law, I can tell you that entire portions of it are still completely intact in Private Law; especially in Property Law and Law of Persons. Much of the law hasn't changed at all and is often a verbatim copy of the texts of the Roman jurists and the various Codes used by the government. This obviously depends on country to country, though it is less so for the Anglo-Saxon countries because of their strong influence from English Common Law.

 

Also, don't forget their bureaucracy, which was highly developed, stable and efficient in comparison to those of other states. The Roman state was a centralised one that efficiently controlled its territories and also had an efficient and developed tax system (though by 'efficient' I'm not necessarily referring to the effectiveness of their tax policies). The government had detailed information about their people's private property and would take detailed censuses every few years to determine the wealth of its citizens. The government therefore had intimate knowledge of its citizen's property and the conduct of their business'. It would not have been easy to escape the attention of the government.

 

The thing is, even though the leadership might have been unstable at times, the state still continued to function relatively normally, no matter the coups or the usurpers taking control of territory. Political instability never led to the sate collapsing as was often the case for other empires.

 

Most people tend to focus on the army but I think it

Edited July 25, 2006 by Lex

[Julia C]

An essential element would be to emphasize the influence the Roman Empire had on all her provinces. That's crucial, because many empires are known for conquest. Many are known for all-powerful military forces. Great Britain and the Mongols had larger empires and the USA has a greater degree of military superiority over its rivals than the Romans did.

 

What's so special about the Romans is their pervasive influence. The idea that the almost everyone regarded the sack of Roma as the end of the world is a compelling one! When France fell in 1940, no one thought that. If London or Washington were to be attacked, no one would think that either.

 

Everyone else here as brought up great suggestions for the meat of your paper. Draw those together with the unifying theme that Roma represented something greater than just power and territory. That's the ticket.

[Guest Rosa]

Thank you all for the help, I did narrow the topic down a little to "Was Rome the greatest Ancient empire to exist." So the main empires existing around that time was the Seleucid Empire, Macedonia, Maurya Empire, Han Dynasty, and of course Rome. IF you can think of any others I missed or find anything else you wish to add feel free to leave a post or IM me. THANKS AGAIN

[Leguleius]

Thank you all for the help, I did narrow the topic down a little to "Was Rome the greatest Ancient empire to exist." So the main empires existing around that time was the Seleucid Empire, Macedonia, Maurya Empire, Han Dynasty, and of course Rome. IF you can think of any others I missed or find anything else you wish to add feel free to leave a post or IM me. THANKS AGAIN

 

I'm not sure whoever set the question was being very kind! Not only is 'greatness' a very open-ended concept, but, as you have identified, to do the question justice some sort of comparative approach is needed.

 

Have you got a word limit?!

 

My personal inclination would be to concentrate on the salient features of the Roman Empire and it's lasting significance and only refer in passing to other empires. That's assuming it's a Roman History course you're taking rather than an Ancient Civilisation course

[Favonius Cornelius]

With good reasons, many people think of an oppressive and authoritative government with respect to the Roman Empire.

 

This is not entirely the case however. In fact, the Roman ability to form alliances and bonds of equality with conquered or neighboring peoples is the fundamental thing which allowed Rome to survive past the Second Punic War. Without that loyalty born of sound and progressive diplomacy, Rome would have burned long ago. You can see more of this sort of Democratic/Republician worldview, this amicii et socii, even in the principate and many of it's acts. I can think of no nation in any part of the world in ancient times that can claim a similar feat, and I think this aspect often overlooked in favor for more obvious stamping legions and conquered territories.

 

Really their accomplishment reminds me of the formation of the United States. Perhaps in a strange way, what made the Empire great was the Republic before it.

Edited August 3, 2006 by Favonius Cornelius

[WotWotius]

With good reasons, many people think of an oppressive and authoritative government with respect to the Roman Empire.

 

This is not entirely the case however. In fact, the Roman ability to form alliances and bonds of equality with conquered or neighboring peoples is the fundamental thing which allowed Rome to survive past the Second Punic War. Without that loyalty born of sound and progressive diplomacy, Rome would have burned long ago. You can see more of this sort of Democratic/Republician worldview, this amicii et socii, even in the principate and many of it's acts. I can think of no nation in any part of the world in ancient times that can claim a similar feat, and I think this aspect often overlooked in favor for more obvious stamping legions and conquered territories.

 

Really their accomplishment reminds me of the formation of the United States. Perhaps in a strange way, what made the Empire great was the Republic before it.

 

The Romans additionally granted their subjected peoples a surprising amount of autonomy. This policy was manifested in the construction of civitas or civic centres: semi-Romanised towns where provincials could run their local affairs if their loyalty was to Rome first. In these places various local traditions were still upheld, and religious tolerance was granted, so long as it was compatible with Roman gravitas. Eventually after about one or two generations the newly built civitas could contain all the perks of a Roman lifestyle, and develop into a bustling trading centre.

 

My point being that under various circumstances, subjected peoples could do very well under the wing of Rome. However, having said this subjects of Rome often drew the short straw upon the initial conquest of their lands; some peoples had to endure years of Rome oppressive, grasping nature before any sort of 'great civilization' emerged (Roman Britain and Northern Gaul are probably the best examples of this happening).