Try and persuade me into becoming a Romeboo. I've always been something of an iconoclast when it comes to Romans. The brutality of their regimes, their thievery and plagiarism of other cultures, the way their great empire never conquered anyone technologically superior to them.
However, I'm open to listen to other people's viewpoints, so answer me these:
What made Rome better than Greece (which was best ancient civ IMO)?
Who were their greatest leaders and why?
What made their empire so great, and more so the British, Persian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Macedonian and Napoleonic empires?
What were their greatest military victories?
What did they have that the other ancient civs like Greece, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Carthage and Babylon not have?
Why do you think I should become a Romeboo, /his/?
>>904842
>What made Rome better than Greece (which was best ancient civ IMO)?
It was better because they took and expanded the ideas and culture that the Greeks made all across Europe. There's a reason why Greece is called the bedrock of Western Civilization because that's where it all started, but not spread which it did thanks to the Romans.
The Romans also contributed a lot on their own with language (romance) architecture (roads, concrete) and military. The last point is especially importany as this was where Rome suceeded where Greece failed; keeping military domination. Rome had an actual long lasting empire with consistently great generals. I make this comparison since both Rome and Greece were military societies.
>Who were their greatest leaders and why?
There are many contenders but I would wager Augustus. He started the Pax Romana, an period of peace that the Romans would never see again while, of course, basically creating the empire. Others include Trajan who extended the empire's borders to their max.
>What made their empire so great, and more so the British, Persian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Macedonian and Napoleonic empires?
Impact, always. The legacy of the Romans are still sigjificantly felt today and while some of the empires you listed (like the British and Napoleon) had substantial impact in the world, the Romans were simply greater. Meanwhile some of the ones you listed had little impact or none at all barring the Persians. entities in Europe and outside of it dreamed to be Roman like and claimed to be Roman themselves. Caesar is literally a by word for leader.
>What were their greatest military victories?
Samnite Wars, Punic Wars, Gallic Wars.
>What did they have that the other ancient civs like Greece, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Carthage and Babylon not have?
Roman spirit. Sounds cheesy but it's true. It's how they won the punic wars and perserved so long (6th to 13th century ERE)
You don't become a Romaboo. We are all Roman.
quality olive oil
>>904842
>What made their empire so great, and more so the British, Persian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Macedonian and Napoleonic empires?
They were the first empire ever to have a full standing army
This feat wasn't acchieved again until the 15th century by Ottomans
>>904930
Very good post. The only thing I would add is that it's hard to summarize everything like OP asks for because of how long it lasted. Like "greatest military victories", there are so many of them. Same for generals. I agree that the ones you listed stand out (though the ERE had some amazing ones as well), but it almost feels insulting to have to leave so many out. Caesar himself seems like he was an exceptional guy, even taking all the propaganda into account.
I would also say that getting to know Rome is getting to know western civilization, what it's all built on. There are a great many parallels to the modern US for example, and by studying the empire, we can attempt to siphon some wisdom about what to do and what not to do. There's a lot that's still relevant today there.
>>904842
>the way their great empire never conquered anyone technologically superior to them.
Each state that they've conquered was technologically superior to them in some regard. In fact, the deciding Roman strength was taking their enemies' inventions and using them against them.
So they took their infantry tactics from one or another Italic people (the Samnites? I forget), their helmets from the Gauls, their swords from the peoples of Spain, their siegecraft from the Greeks and naval tech from the Carthaginians.
>>904941
>What are the Tagmata?
>>905193
That's still the roman empire, buddy.
>>905212
Of course, but the way it's phrased above implies there was a time gap when the Ottomans just did what the ERE/Byzantines did when forming the Janissaries.
>>904842
>the way their great empire never conquered anyone technologically superior to them
>who are the Carthaginians and Diadochi
>>905183
This is an important point because i think that in most people's imagination it's like that the technologically/culturally more advanced romans arrive and then they impose their advances to un-cultured barbarians
>>904842
The Romans contributed more than the Greeks to practical governance. Their engineering prowess (roads, concrete, bridges, aqueducts, sewers) helped them unify and maintain a large empire. I don't know as much about the empire, but their government structure was highly flexible. Their military at its height had great discipline, logistical and engineering skills. Above all, Roman law (which is essential to running an administration and orderly society) was highly sophisticated and way more advanced than the law of the Greek city-states.
>>905300
>government structure
government structure under the republic was highly flexible and capable of adapting under pressure.*
>>905294
>the technologically/culturally more advanced romans arrive and then they impose their advances to un-cultured barbarians
To be fair, that happened a lot. Barbarians can't conquer themselves after all. Mostly after conquering the more advanced peoples like Greeks and Carthaginians, though.
>>905193
Those are still police-tier border guards at best, with very unstable history.
play less total war.
>>905540
>Then they captured and reverse engineered their ships.
Romans largely relied on allies for their naval prowess during the Punic wars.
>>904934
+1
>Post your face when Roman jurisprudence and Engineering inovation is STILL relevent today.
>mfw Carthago Delenda Est
Greek philosophy and the adoption of Christianity which is the bedrock of western civilization owes everything to rome for taking and spreading those ideals far and wide. So pervasive were these ideals that they would lead to subsequent revolutions in intellectual and cultural though for Europe.
That said, I think many many people have an overly idealized image of the Roman state. The achievements of Rome occurred because of their brutal conquests and enslavement of enemy lands and peoples. Many great cities with unique histories were ruined to pave the streets of Rome. Part of the reason for their stagnation and eventual fall was because this injection of conquest booty was just not possible anymore either due to barbarians or the vast distances to their nearest rivals. While Rome was good at pacifying regions, they were notoriously corrupt and inefficient administrators.
Now that is not to say any other culture might have been better but they never did lay the foundation for a sustainable economy without fresh injections of slaves and loot.
>>904930
>It was better because they took and expanded the ideas and culture that the Greeks made all across Europe. There's a reason why Greece is called the bedrock of Western Civilization because that's where it all started, but not spread which it did thanks to the Romans.
what makes the hellenic and greek peoples more "western" than the Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic peoples they conquered?
>>904930
>You don't become a Romaboo. We are all Roman.
but you speak a Germanic language, you're likely an Anglo
>>905654
>>905710
>Germans didn't want desperately to be Roman
>>905708
Not the same guy but if this is an argument for why greek philosophy is the western bed rock and not the celts or germans?
Because they could actually read and write and pass down their traditions.
Despite being so wide spread in Europe and even the near east, the celts have a much more overshadowed history because they never had any noteworthy philosophers or writers to propogate celtic thought.
>>905716
id say the Goths, some Franks, Normans, and Lombards did but not the Anglo-Saxons, other Franks, and most all other Germans did not.
even if they did, that doesn't make them Romans. That would make them idiot Germans.
>>905708
>what makes the hellenic and greek peoples more "western"
>they conquered
>>905718
im just a noob to this realm of discussion in particular, but how now does philosophy effect western civilization? i would have thought that simple culture and strength would do that.
>>905724
so we can agree that Germans and Slavs are top tier westerners today, but not yesterera?
>>905726
Not everyone is a plebeian.
>>905730
>Slavs
>Westerners
>>905730
German are western since being the HRE because it was directly influenced by the Romans and by association, the Greeks.
Slavs too since their culture is a fuse of indigenous Slavic culture and Byzantine which is Greek of course.
>>905726
If you mean basic culture like what food they ate and clothes they wore, as well as the sheer strength of their armies. Yes those do have an impact on western civilization as well. But these are more like the window dressing while philosophy is the core foundation of the building.
One example is from Socrates and his Socratic Method. Basically he said to figure tough shit out you have to break it apart into little questions and deduce a solution from a variety of answers.
That is the foundation for the modern scientific method and how we approach basically almost any problem in the world.
They were an empire but they defined what it meant to be a nation. They had an insurmountable national identity that transcended geography, to the point of Greeks living in Anatolia called themselves Roman.
They were founded on the idea of overthrowing tyrants and moderation. Even the election of dictators was a means of checking the plutocratic tyranny of the senate.
They showed the Western world the benefits of infrastructure such as roads and clean water.
They inspired European peoples to form kingdoms and nation states and ultimately shaped the modern world through those European nations.
The light of Rome is the source of the global civilization that today burns so brightly.
>>905730
they have done nothing but drag western europe down
>>905770
>
>>905736
turks, are they westerner?
Former Roman and byzantine with mediterranien culture?
It takes some tenacity to win wars where you lose every battle
>>905868
>>905718
>Because they could actually read and write and pass down their traditions.
The Gauls actually borrowed Greek script from Massilia to write down their own language. Most of these text probably got destroyed by Caesar's conquest though, to be fair, their druids refused to write down their traditions and still passed them down orally. I don't think they had great philosophers exactly either, though supposedly some subscribed to beliefs similar to stoic philosophy.
>>905736
nut they were in western europe with their own cultures. how are they less western than the anatolian faggots.
>tfw all my great grandparents were Italian immigrants
>half from Sicily, but others from Albano Laziale, and Potenza
my brother likes mafia history, and I like the Roman republic/empire. I've been trying to get him into it, but I can't break through. he will never understand >>905683
>>906963
If your brother likes thuggery then explain to him how Romans were the biggest thugs in human history.
>>905722
>Normans
U wot m8
>>905754
>National identity
No
>Standing up to tyrants
>Moderation
Tell that to Sulla, Cesar and Augustus, Nero, etc.
>Infrastructure
Debatable. Roman architecture fell in ruin, the Germans unable or unwilling to use them
>Inspired kingdoms
Feodorati (?) maybe has a link with kingdoms
>Nation States
No
>>904842
Anyone want pics on annotated bibliography on "Roman History: Early to Republic"?
pic related
>>907093
start dumping
Law and Statesmanship?
>>907117
k
>>907145
>>907150
>>907152
>>907156
>>907159
>>904930
>It was better because they took and expanded the ideas and culture that the Greeks made all across Europe
Not Alexander?
>>907160
>>907168
>>907169
>>907173
>>904842
>What made Rome better than Greece (which was best ancient civ IMO)?
Greece made Rome better than Greece. The Romans were not afraid to scavenge Greek intellectuals and religion simply because they were foreign. This practice combined with the Roman talent for administration also helped to assimilate civilizations into the Roman civilization despite their great diversity/barbarism. Unfortunately, Greek chauvinism, while equalled by the Roman counterpart, did not possess the same vigourous and foundational elevation of former slave/foreigners into the highest levels of government if only in myth. You could see upward mobility and personal betterment happening in Rome even as a second class citizen/slave. Insofar as this practice occurred, Rome prospered. However, by the time of Julius Caesar, the strain of too many second classers and too much concentration of wealth among the old guard who paid their dues created an uncontainable tension in society that only revolution could solve.
>Who were their greatest leaders and why?
Julius Caesar, a noble on the outs and deeply in debt, oberved the tensions in society and pushed in the right places to catapult his fortunes upward; voting rights for itallians, plebian tensions, concentrations of wealth among the patricians, etc. While one may call this petty politicking, this empowerment of personal ascension and betterment was largely unique in the world up to this point. Augustus likewise reformed the problems resulting from the Roman model giving many more decades if not centuries of life to an otherwise doomed civilization through an personal understanding of and personal investment in the system's woes. Marcus Aurelius' reforms definitely helped to repair the abuses inherent in the empire structure as his philosophy centres on his attempts to deny the self's interest in the name of preserving the civilization's (and thus the self's) interest.
>>907050
>learn french
>adopt Catholicism
they went the way of the Franks
>>907205
>What made their empire so great, and more so the British, Persian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Macedonian and Napoleonic empires?
The Roman system allowed for personal advancement through personal agency with a wider range in truly realizable change. It did this in a way that exploited the individual for the benefit of the state creating an unanswerable logistical superiority that allowed for greater social and military mismanagement before collapse was even a possibility. This coalesced into a multiculturalism despite the preference shown the Roman citizens. Unfortunately, this was also its greatest weakness and the ultimate source of its collapse.
>What were their greatest military victories?
The Fabian strategy that defeated Hannibal was not a single engagement but rather a demonstration that strategic thinking can trump tactical genius. By refusing to engage a foe that is far from home, the psychology of this men would eventually lose it's fervour. Combined with failing supplies, logistical reality defeated Hannibal more than any military defeat. Sadly, the Roman's pride could not allow them to own the victory over the great general and it was decried as cowardice; it was also quintessentially Roman. Combined with reverse engineering the Carthaginian ships, the navally incompetent Romans rapidly became capable of bringing their might to bare on those that were by rights their betters and defeat them.
>What did they have that the other ancient civs like Greece, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Carthage and Babylon not have?
See above.
>Why do you think I should become a Romeboo, /his/?
If you value logistics, social mobility, multiculturalism that doesn't lose national heritage, Rome is your culture. Personally, I see them as a continuation of the Greek culture with a straight line from Macedonian civilizations straight through to Byzantium.
>>904941
>They were the first empire ever to have a full standing army
Maybe in the West.
In the East however the New Kingdom Egyptians and the neo-Assyrians kept standing armies because of their individual political ideals and situations.
