Rome is overrated (except in military)

Oct 2012
812
Roman laws were good, but they didn't apply to everyone.
That's not what made "good law". At least not what the western elite understood as "good law" for the past 800 years or so.

Law was meant to support private property, allow for safe transactions and to resolve matters of ownership and business without force. And in that Roman Law was exceptional. And uniquely competent.
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
In theory they did in the republican period, minus sacrosanct officials who were generally expected to follow the law regardless, and once the empire got going they weren't entirely supposed to; a simultaneous benefit and drawback of the emperors was that they had the power to override the law, though they were only supposed to in an emergency. Regardless, Roman law forms the basis for most legal systems in use today, even influencing Chinese law through civil law. It's impossible to say that it wasn't or isn't influential.



What? The structure and checks and balances of the Roman republic had a massive influence on the structure of modern republics, which went so far as to copy certain institutions entirely (the senate, Consuls, etc.) Even constitutional monarchies copied the Roman republic; Canada has a senate for example, though it's a bit useless.
See post 152.
 
Jan 2016
1,146
Victoria, Canada
See post 152.
On Law:

Certain Roman officials could not be sued while in office, but that doesn't mean that they could get away with breaking the law while in office, and they could only hold that office for a short period. This is also completely unrelated to the impact that Roman law had on history, which is monumental regardless of which high officials were temporarily above it.

On Imperium/Potestas and the Roman legacy:

You're greatly exaggerating the power of individuals in the Roman republic. Officials with imperium/potestas could use the powers listed to achieve their goals within their mandate, and even these could be vetoed by other officials. The great legacy of the Roman republic was how no one person ever had the first and last word on anything, with a partial exception for the realm of their imperium; if one office holder did something, there was, without fail, another who could undo it. This system of checks and balances massively influenced the structure of modern democratic government.
 
Oct 2017
11
UK
Went from Tribe to Kingdom to City State to Republic to Empire... then became a Holy Empire, a Catholic Church, a Gypsy country and a Sultanate just for the lols...

Jking aside they had the most influence of any civilization.
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
On Law:

Certain Roman officials could not be sued while in office, but that doesn't mean that they could get away with breaking the law while in office, and they could only hold that office for a short period. This is also completely unrelated to the impact that Roman law had on history, which is monumental regardless of which high officials were temporarily above it.
Let me correct you on a few things. Proconsular command can be extended. So their imperium can be extended. Therefore, in theory, and often in practise, office holders are above the law.

Again, I am not saying this is a bad or worse or whatever, however, when someone says that Romans were govern by law and China isn't because of 'whatever' I must correct that faulty argument.

If anyone is claiming that no one is above the law from Rome, they are wrong.

On Imperium/Potestas and the Roman legacy:

You're greatly exaggerating the power of individuals in the Roman republic. Officials with imperium/potestas could use the powers listed to achieve their goals within their mandate, and even these could be vetoed by other officials. The great legacy of the Roman republic was how no one person ever had the first and last word on anything, with a partial exception for the realm of their imperium; if one office holder did something, there was, without fail, another who could undo it.

I am sorry, I didn't write that, the person that wrote it is a professor of Classics from the U.Flordia.


This system of checks and balances massively influenced the structure of modern democratic government.
Let me remind you again that this was NOT about check and balances, nor was this EVER referred to in my post. I was refuting the separation of power.

As I have CLEARLY demonstrated that imperium holds legislature powers (through issues of decree) and judicial powers (through appointment of judges) and policing power (through seizing of goods and property and jail and flog and exile) and military power (through military command).

You are going to have to come up with a better argument just because you say so.

And having someone OVERTURNING your imperium IS NOT CHECK AND BALANCES.

They simply have a higher power than you. If your boss overturning you is a 'separation of power' or 'check and balances' then you can see how these words loses meaning real fast.
 

Lawnmowerman

Ad Honorem
Mar 2010
9,842
I am shocked that this thread is 17 pages long and no one has posted this yet.

Fellow Historumites you should be ashamed of yourselves.


 

cachibatches

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,359
Built upon existing structures.

And do you know how the Great Wall of China is still the Great Wall of China while the Romans and Greek buildings are ruins? Because no one maintained them.
To imply ruins have more 'whatever' than existing structure is silly unless that 'whatever' is 'my ruins is more priceless because no one can make them anymore.'




Says someone who have clearly 0 knowledge of the tomb of the QSHD.

This shouldn't be about China vs Rome. You shouldn't be taking swipe at China to make Rome look better, and other people should not take swipe at Rome to make China look better.

And to reiterate, I am challenging your lack of knowledge rather than the actual greatness of Roman architecture.



Because China survived.

You can't say, China survived, thus very little ruins because EVERYTHING GOT MAINTAINED, thus Rome is better.

This has to be the dumbest argument.


Are you comparing Caesar's wartime fortification to the actual Chinese buildings that you have ZERO knowledge of?

Why? Why do you do this to yourself.



No. I know in my heart that you are wrong.



LOL, the last 500 years belonged to the west? Who taught you history? Ask for a refund.



Did you read your own comments?
The last 500 years: the internal combustion engine, manned flight, space flight, quantum physics, general relativity, the atomic bomb etc-- all western.

The great wall is modern. The ancient "structures" you are talking about were mostly made of earth and unimpressive. They don't compare to the Pantheon, the Pont Du Gard, the Colosseo. You know this is the truth.

It isn't that Roman structures "got maintained," it is that they did not erode or burn down because they were made of stone and concrete.

Look, you are entitled to have your version of reality, everyone is. But don't tell me that the mud walls or mounds of China equal, or the wooden structures are equal to: