Long Term Effects Of Empire - Revisted

[Spurius]

A little while back, in the discussion of effects of the Roman Empire, a question was posed about any modern effects possibly being seen. Well, I've been away and busy for a bit, but it niggled in the back of my mind. So here is a small statistical sample I called up to see if any empirical data could be found for that question.

 

Here is the data and averages, numbers come from the CIA Factbook and I randomly generated the countries involved based on maps of the Empire 1st through 6th century CE.

 

The regions break down as follows:

1=Core Areas of the Empire, 2= Long Term Provinces, 3= Border Areas partially conquered, 4= Adjacent Areas never conquered.

 

The figures are displayed in this order:

 

Country

[dnewhous]

The U.K. ought to be on there and Germany ought not to be on there. The Roman holdings corresponded to Austria and Hungary, not Germany.

 

I'd like to see someone trace which noble families of Europe can trace their heredity back to the Roman patricians. Anyone in the UK House of Lords?

[Spurius]

The U.K. ought to be on there and Germany ought not to be on there.  The Roman holdings corresponded to Austria and Hungary, not Germany.

 

I'd like to see someone trace which noble families of Europe can trace their heredity back to the Roman patricians.  Anyone in the UK House of Lords?

 

By 120 CE Roman holdings included what would be the most of the area of Bavaria today. That is why Germany is listed in the partially conquered region list, not one of the long terms.

 

The list is not complete, and the random method used did not choose the UK. In the future I hope to add all the countries to the listings.

 

Did anything strike you about the differences in economies within Europe itself and the possibility of long term trends set in motion by the Empire's economy?

 

Now as to UK nobility, interesting question. I'll have to look at it. Thanks.

[Primus Pilus]

I think the relationship between Roman provinces and modern economic standing have little to do with one another. Germany, in an overall sense had less cultural influence from Rome than any other and yet it is far away the strongest economic country of Europe. The middle ages tore away any sense of Roman impact on these places (from a purely economic standpoint, culturally the effects are quite evident throughout the west).

 

Certainly trade routes and even the location of certain resources may have been known due to Roman exploitation, but trade routes generally take the easiest route possible. I would agree, however, in comparing the continent of Africa (in areas where there was little Roman, or later arab contact) the countries developed at a far slower rate. The infrastructure left by Rome in Europe certainly played a part in the west's continued advancement, but not necessarily on a single individual country more than any other. In my opinion of course.

[Ursus]

I rather agree with primuspilus I don't really see an economic connection between the Roman Empire and its successor states.

 

The greatest legacy is of course cultural.

 

Professor Eugene Weber pointed out that the dividing line between Catholic Europe and Protestant Europe is roughly the same line between the Roman Empire and the unconquered Germanic territories, respectively. And of course the Orthodox countries lay in the shadow of Byzantium. So there are visible long term effects of imperial rule.