The Romans: heroic spreaders of Civilization or brutal conquerors?

Question

Wherever they went, they built aqueducts, roads, towns, cities, and bridges. They introduced law and order, and trade flourished in every corner of territory that they controlled. They internationalized the Mediterranean - Arab, African, and European legionairres fought side by side as brothers.

However, in order for the Romans to succeed in that, they had to brutally conquer territory, slaughtering entire villages, enslaving towns, forcing the populations to speak Latin and act Roman. Hundreds of thousands died defending their homelands from the Roman Empire.

So were the Romans a force of good in ancient society, or did the high body count and loss of tribal European culture make them more bad than good?

Edit: Steve_Geo1 brought it to my attention that some of the negative effects I listed (forcing the language and culture on people by the Romans, etc.) were false.

Answer 1

Whoa! The Romans never forced anyone to learn Latin. Rather, after 146 BC, when they marched into Greece to restore order that was threatening Italy, they learned Greek. Cato the Censor complained that he couldn't talk to anyone in Rome anymore, because they all spoke Greek. As late as 510 AD, Boethius felt that he should translate Aristotle and Plato into Latin, because Romans began not to learn Greek anymore.

The Romans never made any one "act Roman." The Egyptian gods Osiris and Isis and others were worshipped at Rome The assassination of Caesar and defeat of Cleopatra did not change that. Romans were initiated into the Greek Eleusinian mysteries. (Read "The Golden A s s" of Apuleius). Mithraism was a great religion in Rome. Initiates sat in a pit while a bull was slaughtered over them, and they were bathed in the blood. Eventually (312 AD), Constantine let it be known that Christians were favored above others for offices in the government.

Rome was led to one war after another. After fighting its own Italian allied cities (the Social Wars), because those cities wanted rights of Roman citizens, Rome fought Carthage in a war of survival and won the north coast of Africa. It's hard to conquer gently. Attalus III, King of Pergamum (in Turkey) left his kingdom in his will to the Roman Senate. Loss of tribal what?

Rome was a force for good in ancient society. Consider also how few Romans there were. At the time of Octavius Caesar Augustus, the population of Rome was 500,000. Consider also what followed. Rome never fell. The Roman administration, society, and economy in western Europe passed away. There followed 1000 years of the middle ages. The Eastern Roman Empire survived as the Byzantine Empire, sniffed at the Crusaders, and was itself only conquered by the Turks in 1453.

Answer 2

I can't add much to the wonderful description Steve gave, so just a few added tidbits.
Contrary to most if not all conquerers in ancient times, the Romans actually offered citizenship to nations conqured, and assimilated them into the Roman Society.
The Doctor, Galen, is revered in Medical Circles even today with the surgical instruments he invented and medical care provided. Part of the strength of the Military was there ability to set up field hospitals to take care of the wounded.
Which carried over into society. Truly medical care provided the Ancient Romans was unmatched I believe until the early 1900's, 2000 years later.
Much of the "Coluseum" violence is Hollywood.
Rome had split into 2 Empires as Steve said. With most of the Wealthy going East, and one of the reasons was the Heavy Taxation in the West, as the West had gotten very lazy, many chose not to work and felt entitled.
Wow, sounds a bit familiar. With Julius Gius Ceasar, Rome efectively gave up being a Republic and ruled solely by the Emperor (Central Gov.)
I am currently working on a book, comparing ancient Greece and Rome, to present day and America and some of the parallels I see. Interesting stuff. Glad to see others share my passion for this subject....

Answer 3

I say they were a force of good. Without the Romans, modern systems of law and military organization would not be possible. Without the Romans our concepts of engineering might perhaps be very different, if you weren't greek, and if you study religious history, without the Roman, we probably would not have Chrisitianity, at least not as we know it today. Rome's accomplishments and glory outweigh the sacrifices that had to be made in my mind.

Answer 4

I say good because if you look to more civilizations there were many other ancient cultures who did and had what the Romans had but did it in a more brutal and vicious way .

Answer 5

They were both.

Societies are not one thing or another. They are a sum of good and bad aspects just like people.

The Romans did some very good things and some very bad things, both of which were beneficial in moving society along.

Answer 6

inspite of the actual shown actuality that information shows Britons earlier the Roman invasions were very 'civilised' because they have chanced on information of complicated hut structures, sturdy degrees of technologies of the time, the romans are credited for deliver 'Civilisation' to britain. Alot of present day day issues got here from the romans, windmills, aqeducts, public baths, founding cities together with london which grew to develop into the international paying for and promoting capital. this is not any longer that i do not trust you although the Romans formed no longer basically britain yet present day day heritage of europe, together with turkey. with out the romans its probably Britain would by no ability of had the biggest empire and prospered all those years.

Answer 7

That is an example of historical relativism: to Rome they were spreading their 'Pax Romana' - the peace of Rome. To the countries they did this too, they were simply invaders, conquerors, and interlopers.

Answer 8

Is there a difference?