What Did The Romans Ever Do For Us?

[WotWotius]

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?

 

Yes, it is a fair enough point to say Livy's early histories are by no means gospel, but this is not a premise for dismissing the delegation as a complete falsehood. During this early period of her history Rome had had contact with the Greek world: it has been argued that during the time of Coriolanus - i.e. before the Twelve Tables - the Greek tyrant Hiero (I forget which one) sent grain to relieve a famine-stricken Rome.

 

I am not suggesting that the emissaries sent to Athens were hanging on the Archons' every word; I am merely believe that diplomatic relations with the Athenians - which may or may not have influenced the decisions of the decumvirs - is not completely out of the question.

 

Edit: grammar.

Edited April 12, 2008 by WotWotius

[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?

Yes, it is a fair enough point to say Livy's early histories are by no means gospel, but this is not a premise for delegation as a complete falsehood. During this early period of her history Rome had had contact with the Greek world: it has been argued that during the time of Coriolanus - i.e. before the Twelve Tables - the Greek tyrant Hiero (I forget which one) sent grain to relieve a famine-stricken Rome.

 

True enough--even if the special delegation were an old wives' tale, the Greeks might have influenced the Twelve Tables somehow. But do we really want to take credit from the Romans for the profound effect of Roman law on Western civilization because "the Greeks might have influenced the Twelve Tables somehow"? To me, that special pleading for the Greeks seems unfair to the Romans.

[P.Clodius]

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?

Yes, it is a fair enough point to say Livy's early histories are by no means gospel, but this is not a premise for delegation as a complete falsehood. During this early period of her history Rome had had contact with the Greek world: it has been argued that during the time of Coriolanus - i.e. before the Twelve Tables - the Greek tyrant Hiero (I forget which one) sent grain to relieve a famine-stricken Rome.

 

True enough--even if the special delegation were an old wives' tale, the Greeks might have influenced the Twelve Tables somehow. But do we really want to take credit from the Romans for the profound effect of Roman law on Western civilization because "the Greeks might have influenced the Twelve Tables somehow"? To me, that special pleading for the Greeks seems unfair to the Romans.

I thought they did indeed send a delegation to Athens, but the delegation came back with a negative view of Athenian democracy. Regardless, I'm with MPC, give credit where it is due.

[WotWotius]

Regardless, I'm with MPC, give credit where it is due.

 

I am likewise. I was merely highlighting that, while possessing obviously shortcomings, the early histories of Rome have some degree of fact ingrained in them, and probably need not be be scrutinised quite so severely.

[G-Manicus]

What Did The Romans Ever Do For Us?

Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?

[P.Clodius]

What Did The Romans Ever Do For Us?

Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?

Never heard of Videocus Manipulatus, the inventor of Photoshop?

[Minerva]

As a result of being conquered by rome many diverse European countries came to share common aspects in fields such as law, culture and government not to mention the several languagescommonly called Romance languages that evolved through Latin. As many modern nations either came under her sway or were created from her overtrow Rome became a great connecting link.

[Leguleius]

This thread has brought out a distinction which the original question didn't specifically address: whether the Romans deserve credit for 'merely' transmitting others' ideas, or whether it necessary for them to have made an original contribution themselves in order to be historically significant.

 

My own view is that what makes the Romans significant is precisely the fact that they did act as a conduit for the spread of common ideas over a huge new area. The fact that they borrowed most of them from their neighbours is neither here nor there IMO.

 

A further distinction that can be made is to consider the extent to which ideas outlasted Roman rule, in contrast to those which were only transient. These are the influences which helped shape modern 'western' civilization. (E.g. hypercausts and gladiators died out, but classical concepts like the rule of law and personal freedom lived on).

 

Finally, there is, I think, also 'the idea of Rome' itself which our civilization has been imbued with and which has inspired historical phenomena as diverse as the medieval papacy, the renaissance and the British Empire.

 

Interesting stuff. I'll have a think about how Romanisation affected daily life in Britain and try and post some more shortly - since that was the original thrust of the question and is a subject I've been intrigued by for some time. Bed now.

 

[Just got back from Glastonbury and sleep patterns still a bit skewed.]

Edited July 1, 2008 by Leguleius

[caldrail]

As a result of being conquered by rome many diverse European countries came to share common aspects in fields such as law, culture and government not to mention the several languagescommonly called Romance languages that evolved through Latin. As many modern nations either came under her sway or were created from her overtrow Rome became a great connecting link.

 

Yes they did. They also squabbled amongst themselves thereafter. Be careful with this roman link thing, because its a lot more tenuous that you suggest. The vast majority of people know romans only as sword and sandal epics of the 50's and 60's, or perhaps some half remembered school lesson. More relevant is that many europeans are descendants of the people who lived in roman times under their sway. Folk memory persists for a long time in the form of attitudes and myth, but I'm not sure how much of that is still relevant in our own age. Whilst there may be commonalities there are tribal/national affiliations that are much stronger in our psyche. What is relevant is human behaviour, and being of the same 'family tree' we do tend to behave in similar ways to them. True, their rules were different to ours, but its the same game, right? Those same instincts of power and glory that the romans were known for are still buried deep inside us, and must be considered a primary motive for the creation of the european superstate in our time. That, I think, is a much stronger link than anything the romans left us.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Clearly most of the statements made on the previous 39 posts of this long thread are accurate and based on well-established facts about Rome and Romania (the Roman state in all its varieties).

 

Maty

Edited July 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ludovicus]

Over a very long period the Romans were prime examples of how to do things very well and very badly. The world has been forever changed since.

[caldrail]

Over a very long period the Romans were prime examples of how to do things very well and very badly. The world has been forever changed since.

World forever changed? Well, in a way perhaps. Its often quoted that without the Varian Disaster of AD9 the franco-german schism would not have happened in europe hence WWI and WW2 would not have occured. This is of course nonsense. There would have been wars with different circumstances, and since the roman empire could have substantially influenced Russia, an ideological struggle in the 20th century was inevitable, not forgetting Japanes imperialist (and industrial) expansion was going to force war in the pacific anyway. It must be said, the romans left us an interesting inheritance, but in previous ages people looked back at the roman age in wonder because they could not equal it. Now we can surpass it some ways there's an undercurrent of wanting to emulate the roman way. Is that because we regard their culture as superior? No. Its because human beings prefer to be part of a strong tribe - its a survival instinct - and the roman world was an example of strength, at least in popular legend.

Edited July 2, 2008 by caldrail

[Ursus]

My own view is that what makes the Romans significant is precisely the fact that they did act as a conduit for the spread of common ideas over a huge new area. The fact that they borrowed most of them from their neighbours is neither here nor there IMO.

 

 

In other words they provided the political, legal and physical infrastructure by which the Mediterranean and its hinterlands were furnished with a common meta-culture, bringing both subjectively good and bad elements, and laying the groundwork for the very idea of a universal empire that would inspire future generations?

 

Yeah, I'll go with that.

[Ludovicus]

My own view is that what makes the Romans significant is precisely the fact that they did act as a conduit for the spread of common ideas over a huge new area. The fact that they borrowed most of them from their neighbours is neither here nor there IMO.

 

 

In other words they provided the political, legal and physical infrastructure by which the Mediterranean and its hinterlands were furnished with a common meta-culture, bringing both subjectively good and bad elements, and laying the groundwork for the very idea of a universal empire that would inspire future generations?

 

Yeah, I'll go with that.

 

I'd only add "economic" to the list of infrastructures. Wherever the Romans went in the West, they founded cities and an urban economies linked to the greater Mediterranean.

[Ursus]

My own view is that what makes the Romans significant is precisely the fact that they did act as a conduit for the spread of common ideas over a huge new area. The fact that they borrowed most of them from their neighbours is neither here nor there IMO.

 

 

In other words they provided the political, legal and physical infrastructure by which the Mediterranean and its hinterlands were furnished with a common meta-culture, bringing both subjectively good and bad elements, and laying the groundwork for the very idea of a universal empire that would inspire future generations?

 

Yeah, I'll go with that.

 

I'd only add "economic" to the list of infrastructures. Wherever the Romans went in the West, they founded cities and an urban economies linked to the greater Mediterranean.

 

 

Good point. Heck, the forts/settlements they founded became the great cities of Medieval Europe, a contribution in their own right.