Um, I know you like Britain because you are British, and that’s cool. We all need to be patriotic. But The Roman Empire was the greatest empire yet seen on this Earth, in a number of ways. No empire conquered larger armies or nations, or ruled over them at a given time than that of the Roman Empire.
And Canada? It became to be an economy, military power, and innovator that is a fraction of that of the US. Independance for the US helped make the US an entrepreneurial powerhouse that has yet to be rivaled. It is likely that none of that would have occured had the Americans not managed to defeat British Empire in the War for Independance.[/quote]
“The British Empire was the world’s first global power and history’s largest Empire; by 1921, it held sway over a population of 500–600 million people — roughly a quarter of the world’s population — and covered about 15.1 million square miles (nearly 37 million square kilometres), roughly 35% of the world’s total land area.”
"Its territories were scattered across every continent and ocean, and it was often accurately described as “the empire on which the sun never sets”.
“Over the course of its history the Roman Empire controlled all of the Hellenized states that bordered the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the Celtic regions of Western Europe.”
“Only really lasted longer” IF you count the Byzanties? Sounds like you are trying to fudge dates. Hint: Byzantium WAS an actual part of the Roman Empire. IF you count the number of "tiny tribes? Hint: Some of the armies Rome defeated exceeded 40,000! (considering the world’s population of the times, there has never been an army so great assembled in one place at one time in “modern” times). Going by land area as a measure of greatness? The Mongols because of land area?
You have confused “largest” with “greatest”. Britain has never approached the greatness of Rome.
As for lasting, influencial endeavors (the measure of greatness of a society), Britain was the innovator of a language. Rome was the innovator of engineering, architecture, art, scholarship, public works (on a massive scale), accounting, the significance of citizenship, legal science, rights under law, military science, philosophy, and preservation and transmission of Christianity - every one of which had a profound, lasting influence on the entire world, Britain included (British law is based upon Roman law, and it’s language is greatly influenced by Latin).
The difference between the contributions of Britain and Rome is incalcuably great.
If you give us a criteria for greatness then maybe we can work out what made Britain and Rome “great”
Until such time I shall jsut say.
Britain has an adjective in its name “great” and through usage Britain is Great Britain. Just as a rifle used in an Assult is an assult rifle, if the country is called “great it must be.”
The mongols were possibly the worlds largest, most powerful, warlike, militarily dominant Empire. You have forgotten the Persian trade empire that stretched as far as Malaya and Southern Hcina as well as Africa. THe Indian subcontinent was given democracy and an organised civil service that still operates in a largely illiterate nation, divided by over 1,500 official dialects, and prior to the arrival of the East India Trading Compnay was infact a group of over 700 local warring principalities.
I think that it was the Greeks (hellenic) rather than the Romans, that innovated - (an interesting term for what are surely the timeless principles of)
“architecture, art, scholarship, philosphy” and personally I find that to be a remarkably subjective field in the way others arent so I cant really defend it, its just strange that it has transpired that way. The transmission of christianity crippled the Roman Empire and led to its demise.
…There is far far too much in one blase post to answer in one response, especially as Im fairly sure you wont read it anyway. Please could we ahve a definition of “great” so that we can resolve this.
Until you do I shall use Great to mean the first five letters of My countries moniker “Great Britain”
Bluff has a point - to compare Empires properly, we need some kind of pre-defined terms to perform the comparison. There is also the matter of who gets credit for what.
As an example, American law is derived from British law, which derives from Roman law. Without the Romans, who knows what British law would be like. But, without the British Empire, what kind of law would the Americans have? This discussion needs figures of merit and weighting factors (ideally factors that add up to 1, but I’m sad like that).
And anyway, apart from Law, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Edit: 2nd of Foot’s post (2 below this) shows I’m wrong about British Law deriving from Roman law. Hopefully the point I was tring to make still stands, even if the example chosen isn’t actually correct.
English law
One of the major European legal systems, Roman law being the other. English law has spread to many other countries, including former English colonies such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
English law has an evolving history dating from the local customs of the Anglo-Saxons, traces of which survived until 1925. After the Norman Conquest there grew up, side by side with the Saxon shire courts, the feudal courts of the barons and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. From the king’s council developed the royal courts, presided over by professional judges, which gradually absorbed the jurisdictions (legal powers) of the baronial and ecclesiastical courts. By 1250 the royal judges had amalgamated the various local customs into the system of common law – that is, law common to the whole country. A second system known as equity developed in the Court of Chancery, in which the Lord Chancellor considered petitions.
In the 17th and 18th centuries common law absorbed the Law Merchant, the international code of mercantile customs. During the 19th century virtually the whole of English law was reformed by legislation; for example, the number of capital offences was greatly reduced.
A unique feature of English law is the doctrine of judicial precedents, whereby the reported decisions of the courts form a binding source of law for future decisions. A judge is bound by decisions of courts of superior jurisdiction but not necessarily by those of inferior courts.
Proudly a British bastard, therfore my language is a mutilation of anything that manged to crawl onto our shores.
My word order isnt Latin its Germanic - but bastardised.
My Verb Endings are French (originally) not Latin - thouroghly bastardised
My alphabet is Arabic as are my numerals.
My nouns are Anglo Saxon and Germanic and crude.
Middle English is practically German in terms of spelling and pronunciation - middle is a technical term IRONMAN as used by Chaucer.
The Romans gave us Hadrians Wall, the FosseWay and a couple of dykes!
I think its hard to compare Empires. They are so different in the way that they were formed. The British and the Romans took years and years to reach their high point and took years and years to fall apart. I like Eddie Izzard’s view of how the British Empire was formed. “Thru the cunning use of flags.” The Rome was built more by conquest. They fell apart much differently as well. After the many defeats and bad politics of the Roman empire it ushered in a historical era known as the Dark ages. This didnt happen with the British Empire…who for the mostpart had a rather peaceful dissolution. There are many other empire thru the ages that rival these. The Persians, Mongols, Macidonians, Eygptians…etc.
One might go so far as to call the US, Japan,China or EU as modern day empires. But these are more economical empires than expanionistic empires of the past.
So your really cant compare any of them and say who was the “greatest”. Because that is such a loose term to use when talking about them. There are no guidelines to what makes a great empire. 100’s of years from now one could look back and say the Nazi’s had a great empire. But that tells nothing of the empire itself. Many talk about empires of the past and fail to mention the atrocities commited under their rule. So anyhow thats my 2 cents on it. Let try and not get to far off topic.
The roman empire may have been great but did they build railways in India that still last today and is their language the most widely spoken (i believe you Americans speak a bastardised version) in the world? I think not therefore Great Britain rules, yah boo sucks to you harry hun etc etc :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
“Only really lasted longer” IF you count the Byzanties? Sounds like you are trying to fudge dates. Hint: Byzantium WAS an actual part of the Roman Empire. IF you count the number of "tiny tribes? Hint: Some of the armies Rome defeated exceeded 40,000! (considering the world’s population of the times, there has never been an army so great assembled in one place at one time in “modern” times). Going by land area as a measure of greatness? The Mongols because of land area?
You have confused “largest” with “greatest”. Britain has never approached the greatness of Rome.
As for lasting, influencial endeavors (the measure of greatness of a society), Britain was the innovator of a language. Rome was the innovator of engineering, architecture, art, scholarship, public works (on a massive scale), accounting, the significance of citizenship, legal science, rights under law, military science, philosophy, and preservation and transmission of Christianity - every one of which had a profound, lasting influence on the entire world, Britain included (British law is based upon Roman law, and it’s language is greatly influenced by Latin).
The difference between the contributions of Britain and Rome is incalcuably great.[/quote]
OK, semantics first.
I used an American dictionary to avoid any possible difference in nuance.
Merriam-Webster online gives the following as the first three definitions of “great”. Main Entry: 1great
Pronunciation: 'grAt, Southern also 'gre(&)t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English grete, from Old English grEat; akin to Old High German grOz large
1 a : notably large in size : HUGE b : of a kind characterized by relative largeness – used in plant and animal names c : ELABORATE, AMPLE <great detail>
2 a : large in number or measure : NUMEROUS <great multitudes> b : PREDOMINANT <the great majority>
3 : remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness <great bloodshed>
Only when we get down to definition 9 do we find ourselves with a definition of : markedly superior in character or quality; especially : NOBLE <great of soul>
Great and large are synonyms.
I used the word advisedly, and it stands.
The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous land empire ever.
The British Empire was larger in area, lying as it did on every continent.
Neither of these points was the purpose of my post, nor was it intended to make a comparison of lasting influence.
I will, nonetheless, attempt to answer your points.
As for your views of the Roman Empire, I would in no way denigrate their achievements.
You do, however, over-egg your pudding somewhat, and you’re being more than a touch ingenuous if you claim that a language was all the British Empire left as a legacy.
Yes, the Romans were remarkable engineers for their day, and unequaled for many thereafter.
So, however, were the British.
You might consider the steam engine, and all it’s offspring, including modern industry (Industrial Revolution), iron steam ships, and the railways that cross India, Canada and Australia, as well as the USA.
Roman architecture, while monumental in scale on occasion, was aesthetically inferior to Greek, on which it was largely based.
Scholarship and Philosophy?
Aristotle, Socrates, Aeschylus, Homer, Diogenes, Plato, Euclid, Archimedes…all Greek. Even the word philosophy is Greek, from phileîn, “to love,” and sophía, “wisdom”.
When the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius came to write his “Meditations”, he wrote it in Greek, not Latin.
Public works on a massive scale?
Yes, we did that too: Universities, hospitals, schools, sewage systems, roads, bridges, railways, cities.
Accounting was probably invented by the Sumerians some 5000 years ago in what is modern Iraq.
Cuneiform, one ofthe oldest, if not the oldest form of writing may even have been developed specifically to write accounts of labour and agricultural produce.
English Law (there is no such thing as British Law) is not based on Roman Law, although it has been influenced by it where common law did not present an answer to a given situation.
This, despite the study of Roman Law being made illegal in the 13th Century, by Papal Decree.
As to legacy, when the Roman Empire collapsed, it left a 400 year void of chaos and war; the Dark Ages.
When the British Empire was dismantled, it left behind a legacy of democracies, including the world’s largest democracy, all based on the British model.
It also left a legacy of its culture and institutions, including its legal system (also used in the USA).
Since we are still less than a century away from the end of that Empire, only time will tell which had the most lasting impact on the world, but for now, I know which legacy I prefer.
Was it only me or did anyone else find themselves on the downs watching Spitfires barrel roll above themselves, as Tommy Smith knocked another 6 over the boundary with the soft click of leather on willow…
I stand by the fact Great Britain is the best, until some other country comes up with a better adjective tacked onto the front of their name. Nt counting “New” Zealand.
All depends on how you class the overseas territories, particularly in the Carribean. Personally, I regard them as a continuing part of the empire, and as such the British Empire still exists.
As for the Roman/Byzantine empires, that’s a bit of a dodgy one hence my qualifier of “if”. The Byzantines did indeed think of themselves as Roman, but IIRC there was another state calling itself Roman based in Rome for much of the same time, and their culture and practices were very morphed from the original. Generally, the Byzantines are taken to be a seperate empire, but it is arguable - hence the qualifier.
To my mind the really good and unusual thing about the British empire is that it handed it’s position as Hegemon over to the US without a fight and indeed cooperated with the US in this process. That is AFAIK unique in the history of empires, and a very good thing indeed for the world.
Finally, the comment about language being the only legacy of the British empire is clearly false, as has already been dealt with repeatedly here.
Semantics? For crying out loud. We are discussing facts, not fantasy.Semantics are worthless in discussing facts. You Brit types try to pull a lot of that in here, whenever anything non-British turns up. :roll: You’d argue that rocks in Florida are British if they looked like the ones in Dover.You are about to shoot yourself in the foot.
The common use definition of the word “greatest” is what you’re playing with now, but since you can’t change that, your semantics are negated.
No, but that is what you are about to do, as you Brit types always do in your attempt to make all things magically British. Cock the trigger now.
So were the British? So, because great engineering has been seen in many other nations in modern history, the Romans did not create the foundations for many of the engineering principles that gave birth to them? Ahhh! More “all things are British” eh? You are trying to pull a rabbit from a hat. Come back to Earth. Don’t pull the trigger quite yet.
Invented by Hero of Alexandria in the 1st century AD.
BANG! Did it hurt? Cock it again.
More “all things are British” again eh? Your twisted logic would make the English language not English at all. I guess the US dwarfs Britain then, because it’s innovations AND ALL OF THIER OFFSPRING (like the microwave oven in your kitchen) make America the greatest? You are leaving the Solar Sytstem. Come back.
BANG! That had to hurt Cock it again though.
Trying to disqualify the advancements of the Romans by using aesthetics as the greater MEASURE OF ENGINEERING than the mechanical, geometric, and mathematical eh? Puleeeeez! Come back to Earth. Pick a cathederal in Britain, now look at the arch. See that? It’s one of the Roman contributions. click
You did not mention the most important one: Thales of Miletus, the father of philosophy. BTW, I studied philosophy in college myself. I guess you did not.
University of Mississippi, Undergradute Course Catalog
“308. SURVEY OF ROMAN LITERATURE. Reading in English translation of important works in the literature of Rome; Roman contributions to the development of European and English literature. (3).”
Bang! Cock it once more.
Since you didn’t study philosphy in college, I’ll give you a tip, since I did: Greek philosphy laid the foundations for philosophy. That is the Greek (albeit important) contribution. It was the Romans who made the contribution to the world of developing philosophy and revealed it’s significance to religion, litterature, government, citizenship, ethics, military, science, aesthetics, sexuality, art, etc.
BANG! You must be in serious pain by now.
Hell, the US build a railroad that spanned the entire width of the North American continent over 100 years ago too. The US has also built many times more miles of roads than any empire in history, Britain included. Does that make the US greater than Rome in contributing the principles of public works? Ofcourse not. Come back to Earth.
Bang! Damn dude. It’s looking real bad that foot of yours.
The Romans managed records and accounts on a huge scale and established the importance of such practices, even using libraries for their records and legal “books”. They did not do that in Sumeria, or Egypt either.
Who said English law was based on Roman law? Although, some of the precepts of English law did in fact come from Roman law. However, Roman Law, which you are trying to negate ( :roll: ) was one of Rome’s great contributions to the world:
Encyclopædia Britannica
“As a legal system, Roman law has affected the development of law in most of Western civilization as well as in parts of the East. It forms the basis for the law codes of most countries.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9108633
Peter Stein, University of Cambridge
“Roman Law in European History is unparalleled in lucidity and authority, and should prove of enormous utility for teachers and students (at all levels) of legal history, comparative law and European Studies.”
Harvard University
“They are an introductory textbook of Roman law. In 534 the Commission published the Codex Justiniani, a compilation of material from imperial decisions and enactments. These three works, along with the Novellae, a collection of laws promulgated after the Codex, constitute the Corpus juris civilis, the source of law and judicial reasoning for much of Europe from the 12th century onwards.” http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~history/resources/primary/special/law/strengths.html
Professor Susanna Fischer, The Catholic University of America
“John Henry Merryman has stated: “Roman law is often said to be the greatest contribution that Rome has made to Western civilization.” The Romans (through jurisconsults) were the first to look at law as a kind of science for ordering the world, including people and property and their relationships. Heritage of Roman law lives on today in many modern legal systems of the world.”
Bang! You’d better switch feet now.
It left a number of developments and principles that formed the basis for much of the world. Britain did not do that.
BANG! BANG! Two rounds for blathering such flubber to try to negate the above fact.
Ofcourse we do! Like most Brits, you think everything significant in the world came from England. But we have seen right here, that Rome established principles that have created a legacy that makes it the greatest empire in history. You have made a futile attempt to turn the Roman contributions to the world into British ones. And you have shot yourself in the foot repeatedly.
I think I might adopt the use of gun noises to illustrate what I feel to be vital points in any messages that I might post. It seems to add a certain intellectual gravitas to what would otherwise be contradiction in place of argument.
Would you care to mention how many engineering principles the Romans actually invented? Even the most fundamental principle associated with them (the arch) was in fact an Etruscan or Greek invention (depending on who you ask, but it predated the Romans).
About the only real engineering innovation I can think of is surveying, and even that may have predated the Romans. They were superb engineers, but it would be a mistake to think that they actually invented very much - their genius lay in the way in which they could massively extend and improve existing inventions.
Invented by Hero of Alexandria in the 1st century AD.[/quote]
Not really - Hero’s steam engine was really a rocket engine using steam as the working fluid. It could not practically be used to do any useful work.
Newcomen and Savery’s engines were practical and could be made to do useful work, while Watt’s invention of the external condenser finally made steam power reasonably efficient. Finally, Parsons’ invention of the steam turbine made large-scale power generation (for ships or power stations) a practical proposition - triple expansion machinery has it’s limits.
Note that all these people were British…
Uhhh… the microwave oven depends on the Cavity Magnetron valve for it’s operation, which was invented in the UK by Randall and Boot…
You did not mention the most important one: Thales of Miletus, the father of philosophy. BTW, I studied philosophy in college myself. I guess you did not. [/quote]
Well, I studied engineering and you have the temerity to correct me when I make engineering comments (c.f. your claim that air is denser than nickel), so I suppose I may as well take this opportunity to suggest that nothing I can find on Thales indicates he was anything like in the same league as someone like Socrates. Besides (and more importantly) he wasn’t a Roman either.
:lol: No, it left a number of developments and principles that formed the basis for much of the world. Britain did not do that.[/quote]
Like what? Besides, I would hardly call the steam engine, electricity and democracy of no benefit to the world, as you are doing.
The Rome was built more by conquest. They fell apart much differently as well. After the many defeats and bad politics of the Roman empire it ushered in a historical era known as the Dark ages. This didnt happen with the British Empire…who for the mostpart had a rather peaceful dissolution. There are many other empire thru the ages that rival these. The Persians, Mongols, Macidonians, Eygptians…etc.
:lol: