The Roman Empire as a synthesis

[Connacht]

I wanted to start with this interesting quote (from the Italian journalist Indro Montanelli) about the role of Rome as a synthesis of civilizations:

If we see things from above and give them a reason, we could say that Rome was born with a mission, that she accomplished it and with it ended.
That mission was to recollect the civilizations that came before her, the Greek one, the Eastern one, the Egyptian, Carthaginian, Celtic ones, to merge them and spread them in Europe and in the Mediterranean Basin.
Rome didn't invent so much in philosophy, art or science, but gave them roads for their circulation, armies for defending them, a formidable and complex system of law to guarantee their developement in order, and a language for making them universal.
Rome didn't invent even political forms: monarchy and republic, aristocracy and democracy, liberalism and dispotism, were already tested before. But she made them models, and in every one of them was brilliant for practical and organizative genius.

Abdicating with Constantine, Rome left her administrative structure to Constantinople, who survived for other 1000 years. And even the Christianity, in order to triumph in the world, had to became Roman. Saint Peter well understood that only by travelling in the Via Appia, Cassia, Aurelia and all the other highways built by Roman engineers, not the labile paths travelling the desert, the disciples of Jesus would have spred in the Earth.
His successors would have been called Pontefices Maximi just like those who managed religious questions in the pagan Urbs. And against the austerity of the Jewish rule, they introduced in the new liturgy many elements of the pagan one: the pomp and spectacularity of some ceremonies, Latin language, even a little vein of polytheism in the veneration of saints.
So, no more as the political centre of an empire, but as the mastermind of Christianity, Rome became again Caput Mundi, and remained so until the Protestant reformation.

And thus start a discussion about what was the practical legacy of Rome in her recollecting and mixing various different cultures and civilizations, before forging a new collective ideal which then became the basis for the modern European nations.

[Vlixes]

According to Theodor Mommsen one of the strengts and particular being of the Romans was the sub-ordination of the individual to the family, community and the state, in as much these meant a superior ideal. On the other side, the Greeks felt too much their individuality and accordingly the state, the community or even the family was sub-ordinate to the individual. Mommsen gives a nice example: the insignificance for the Romans of the individual names and the significance of individual names for the Greeks.
So, is perhaps that sense of supraindividuality the one who allowed the Romans to adapt all good things about other cultures, and thus became the most powerful in the ancient world.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Have to say, I disagree; with the basic premise that Rome's legacy was a good thing. Patrician Rome won, that's the bottom line. Mommsen said many things about the Romans (from the perspective of a German Imperialist) which don't really match up with reality. Are there really any examples of Roman leaders who willingly put aside their own dignity, authority, power or wealth for the betterment of the state? Don't be daft. the whole political structure was based upon competition and exceeding their ancestor's glory.

Whatever the origins of the Christian church its value to Europe (to Europe's burgeoning post-Roman elite) was as the enabler of inherited royal authority.

I think George Bernard Shaw put it best in his prologue to Caesar and Cleopatra

" Then the old Rome, like the beggar on horseback, presumed on the favor of the gods, and said, "Lo! there is neither riches nor greatness in our littleness: the road to riches and greatness is through robbery of the poor and slaughter of the weak." So they robbed their own poor until they became great masters of that art, and knew by what laws it could be made to appear seemly and honest. And when they had squeezed their own poor dry, they robbed the poor of other lands, and added those lands to Rome until there came a new Rome, rich and huge. And I, Ra, laughed; for the minds of the Romans remained the same size whilst their dominion spread over the earth."

The banking system, swollen bureaucracies, inheritable privilege, military adventurism and Imperial apologists, slavery. None of them invented by, but all of them perfected by Rome.

[fallen851]

That is a very interesting perspective Gracchus. While I am inclined to agree with you, I wonder if those things you refer to in your last line are flaws not just of Rome, but of mankind itself.

If so, then it is a lot easier to overlook them and focus on the things Rome did that other civilizations weren't doing. As you said, the Romans didn't invent those things, and they were certainly happening in other places. But the Romans did a great many things to advance mankind that other civilizations did not do. Perhaps that is reason alone to celebrate the Romans.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Those are the legacies that Rome left to Europe, imo, either through the remnants of Roman administration or through the auspices of the Roman church. If there are other, better things then I'm interested to know what they were.

[Picenian]

well first of all thanks to Connacht for quoting one of my favorite books ever, read it like 6 times between childhood and nowadays!

Then, I personally agree with Montanelli's analysis, but only on an ideal point of view. And I think that is also what he had in mind. I think one can agree with those words only if he can think about the ideal Rome that was much different from the actual Rome (exactly like ideal democracy and actual democracy of our times). Montanelli is talkin about the system of values and ideals that forged the Empire, and was most represented by Rome's efforts during the first two Punic Wars and, in general, before Romans became too rich to care about the mos maiorum ;)

But honestly I don't think that Christianity was the prosecution of the Empire. Christianity USED the structure created by the Empire to propagate its morals and ideals that were quite opposite to those on which Rome was founded ("all men are created equal" versus "some men are better by birth"). Personally I think this apparently benign vision led to the mass slavery known as "feudalism". The average Roman citizen may not have been richer than the feudal farmer, but surely he was more free and probably more cultured. Plus, let's remember that Christians in their early days operated a HUGE "selection" of pagan culture (ie, the burning of Alexandria's library...) so I don't think the Church continued what Rome had begun, I just think they exploited it and had to come at some kind of deal with pagan culture (The cult of the saints is the most brilliant example). What I mean is: if Christianity was taught to illiterate savages in a remote corner of the world, it would have been much more brutal and oppressive but also less succesfull. But to me, at least on a cultural and social basis, it was just a massive pejoration of the previous state of things.