Exist for 1000 years

>exist for 1000 years
>produce no notable technological or scientific advancements
>produce no notable works of literature
>your architecture is greek fanfic
>get destroyed by a bunch of jews and starving barbarian tribes
Am I getting it right? Was Roman empire just a huge meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Roman_scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_trade_relations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_relations
sci-hub.cc/10.3109/08941939.2010.515289
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_literature
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Are you fucking kidding me?

i've always said that, their scientific progress is close to zero, and very limited technological progress, yet romanboo get mad

Just compare what was before rome (egypt, carthage, greece, mesopotamia, persia etc).

Rome was the dark age.

What the fuck is this thread

Come to think of it, how many civilizations have really produced notable technological/scientific development? It seems as though only a minority do.

Heck, even in terms of culture, most civilizations seem to just plagiarize a whole lot of culture from different ones.

At the end of the day, perhaps many of them are just less extreme versions of the Mongols (100% military power and absolutely nothing else of value).

>Just compare what was before rome (egypt, carthage, greece, mesopotamia, persia, nude berber nigger tribes chimping out in their desert mudhuts etc).
wow very true, really makes you think

>>produce no notable technological or scientific advancements
>>produce no notable works of literature
lol

> produce no notable works of literature
Ovid and Vergil?

Shitalian greekboo Romans cannot even compare to GOAT Greece τbh

the moon landing ;)

Wait, they existed for this many years than we do?
Damn, we rock.

>Jewish nigger got removed by strong Algerian bull in a war named after him
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War

kek

K E K

Their civil engineering and law were amazing.

Not their fault you donot know Ovid, Vergil or Catull.

wtf delet this now

roman law was awefull... Slavery allowed, divorce not allowed, castration allowed, being single not allowed, gamble not allowed etc..

did you even read it?

yet the whole western law is based on it, so mayby not so awfull after all

dude a plebian couldn't marry a patrician (lex Canuleia)... how is that a good law.. It was basically plutocracy.

>It was basically plutocracy
>implying
lmao @ u

>produce no notable works of literature
are you retarded?

well it's the rich/landowners who had the most power, and were extrely corrupt, unlike democracy in Athens.

It's not even the worst
they legally killed mal-formed childrens (eugenism)
>cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto

You could sell your childrens
>si pater filium ter venum duit, filius a patre liber esto

I fail to see the problem?

It must';ve had good fundations if they are sitll used by us. I never said we took it as a whole.For example fact that you must proove some1 his guilt rather than he has to proove you his innocence is take from Roman law. Pretty decent solution..

>they legally killed mal-formed children
>you could sell your children

so?

*2000 years
People always fall for the byzantine meme

too much stupidity on this board to bear,i'm out

>produce no notable technological or scientific advancements
>your architecture is greek fanfic
Horrible bait. 0/5 you didn't even try.

>no notable works of literature

What did he mean by this?

meh, in the great lines / craddle maybe, but even the justinian law was far from modern western laws (mutilation allowed, divorce forbbiden, can't re-mary, can't fuck outside of marriage etc.)

edge m8, even back then it was saw as quit horrible - but necessary.

>quit horrible - but necessary

same still goes

>divorce not allowed
Lie. It was allowed.
>being single was not allowed
Another ridiculous lie
>gamble not allowed
Not true either.

I thought they made good aquaducts...

331 ad law against divorce.
9 ad, Lex Papia Poppaea, against being single.
204 ad, Lex Alearia, against gamble

I find hardly suprising or even more hardly any issue. Circumstances changed "a bit" over these centuries. I bet they had something like our "human rights" too, it's just that probably very few % of them all were considered humans.

You're mistaking the law with what it is right. Their system was brilliant and effective, whether its institutions were morally good or bad it is not the point. The law does not equal justice. Something known since Aristotle. Read a fucking book.

>what is Corpus Iuris Civilis

>You're mistaking the law with what it is right. Their system was brilliant and effective, whether its institutions were morally good or bad it is not the point. The law does not equal justice. Something known since Aristotle.

top tier post

>whether its institutions were morally good or bad it is not the point.
What kind of degenerate way of thinking is that?

yeah it's byzantine justian law,

by saying their law was awesome, the german probably meant the laws in theirselfs, so their content, no the overall system.
you're playing on a semantic subtlety.

but he is right, it's pretty silly to despise the whole Roman Empire and it's contribution for the human race's developement, because they didn't act according to our modern moral standards.

>expecting ancient romans to be on the tolerance levels ofodenr day lefties

W E W

I studied Roman law and everything you said here is pure bullshit.

The reason why the Romans are so looked upon is because they developed swiftly, knew how to organize everything from city planing to military ranks, perfected the arts of architecture, advanced medicine and knew how to organize society and keep order.

>Pic related
Roman medical tools used for surgeries

I don't think we can "quantify" contribution but in scientific field I'm certain that the legacy is quit low by ancient standars, specially considering the size and the population of the empire.

I can't really quote from memory many roman scientists..

Even with google I found 3-4 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Roman_scientists

Perfected the stadium and reached the pinnacle of bloodsport

the law I quoted exists, not bsing m8
those tools existed in india a long time before rome, they didn't invented them.
don't know any roman abulcasis either

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

And it doesn't even count Byzantium.

The content of their system of law was a mere reflect of their society and functioning. Judging them based on our modern perception of morality seems pointless to me.

>They didn't invent them
Of course they did, the Romans had no trade or contact with India and everything they had was locally made.

>Bringing some sandnigger 600 years after the Empire fell

Minoans had aqueduct before rome like 2k years before the empire, same for thermes.
abacus is from babylonia, concrete -> egypt. Catapult is persian etc.

Not saying that rome wasn't advanced, but it didn't invented much; it fixed some stuffs tho.

I didn't judged them in the first place, I was replying to just think rome is idealized.

>be Russian subhuman
>have a population of 144 million
>produce very little significant figures compared to Western Europe

lmaoing @ your life

>the Romans had no trade or contact with India
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_trade_relations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_relations

?

They even had laws about trade with india. They traded with china too.

Learn to read sandnigger.

>Aqueduct, true arch
>true arch

Meaning it was a different and more advanced type of aqueduct.

steam powered objects were invented around the greek time and yet James Watt is considered to be a great inventor because he managed to make the steam engine useful

sure there were some civilizations that had aquaducts before them but none of them managed to build them on the scale the romans did, which is EXTREMELY relevant given the further you can divert potable water successfully, the more useful it is.

inventing something doesn't mean what you've invented is actually useful to anyone, I'd say for society as a whole the man who makes something practical and usable by a large population is more important than the man who invents it

>Established during the reign of Augustus
Nigga Rome was at the height of its power at the times and already achieved most of its glory and knowledge

>In the top 10 of human accomplishments
>Subhuman

???

>Possibly the oldest existing arch bridge is the Mycenaean Arkadiko bridge in Greece from about 1300 BC. The stone corbel arch bridge is still used by the local populace.[1] The well-preserved Hellenistic Eleutherna Bridge has a triangular corbel arch.[2] The 4th century BC Rhodes Footbridge rests on an early voussoir arch.[3]

Although true arches were already known by the Etruscans and ancient Greeks, the Romans were - as with the vault and the dome - the first to fully realize the potential of arches for bridge construction.[4]

I agree on your point but the water system in ancient middle east was very effective too, thinking of Babylonia.
otherwise yeah, populzaring a technlogy is important.

Can we just agree that the Germanic tribes are seriously underrated?
>da germanic be barburians in loincloth we wuz da real kings! t. alberto

If you want to bait Italy just say they have shit pizza

formulating a theory and actually using it are two entirely different accomplishments
after all you could say the greeks "knew about atoms" but nobody in their right mind considers them relevant to atomic theory

Egypt had surgery tools too, the oldest ones actually, it probably mean all the mediteranean world get them from them.

It's not a bait it's true

The Roman empire was advanced as fuck in ways people dont realize. No combination of countries in Europe up until the industrial revolution even matched what the romans did in terms of mining, farming, construction, engineering etc.

They built strong infrastructure that lasted till now and they kept amazing records. When the romans collapsed all the kingdoms after tried to replicate them but they just couldn't, they merely lived in these areas that the romans built up. Many kingdoms in europe could barely field an army of 20k-30k people, the romans lost some 100k soldiers in a single battle alone and they had a standing army of anywhere from 500k-600k.

the first surgery tool was a sharp rock Urgh used to extract a thorn from Agur's arse

>144 million people
>almost the same number of figures as Netherlands which has only 17 million

They have a pretty low number per capita, Chaim. That's my point.

Let's not forget that "Soviet technology" was stolen from the Germans as well and after the Soivet Union fell Russians have been irrelevant in all fields ever since.

actually several massive advances in literally all the areas you mentioned happened during the medieval era
romans would have been literally incapable of building a year 1000's era major church

That's one german imperialist wet dream of a map if I've ever seen one.

Should have added "metal tools" indeed.

Egypt was so great
sci-hub.cc/10.3109/08941939.2010.515289

I'm taking advantage of this thread since Sup Forums it's absolute horseshit. I am looking for films or shows based on Rome. So far I've seen Rome from HBO and Spartacus (TV show), any suggenstion?

>Slavery allowed, divorce not allowed, castration allowed, being single not allowed, gamble not allowed etc..
>roman law was awefull

uhhhh

>He doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that an empire which existed for a thousand years had multiple very distinct cultural phases with different laws and traditions

And btw:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

No civilization before or after (until the industrial revolution ofc) has been even close to them when it comes to infrastructure.

Yeah, no. Hagia Sophia was something the Turks could not surpass for almost a thousand years. Inb4 not Romans.

There were some great accomplishments but you have to understand just how long ago the romans existed, it was 2000 years ago. 2000 fucking years ago you had a republic government that was very very modern with representation from the people both lower and upper class. You had meticulous records and accounts from both the elite and the lowly. You had a society that was so similar to ours you even had marketing for famous athletes, large restaurants and fast foods, freedom of travel through most of europe safely. You had absolutely massive projects that led to wide spread farming and mining advancements that built up massive stockpiles that the rest of europe wouldn't see for hundreds of years after the collapse of the romans. You had projects like the aqueducts that still fucking work now and you even had bath houses that people still use. The level of change at a political and administrative level was unprecedented and very advanced and modern

Maybe you should consider other factors like population density, country size, neighboring countries, trade and more? Comparing the Netherlands to Russia is like comparing two completely different things.

I, Claudius

no, you saw the only two decent ones in english langage.

if you want ancient civ movies, there's troy (2004) and immortas (2011), the one about titans (2012).
There's the one on ancient egypt that came up few weeks ago too.

why Gernans out of all men need such stuff. But I agree, they obviously try to melt into the whole story.

if you're getting down to the specifics like "metal tools" you might as well go down the specifics of "surgery tools useful for a particular procedure" at which point the romans did invent several tools and in fact types of surgery

yes, they had a nice medecine indeed. Not a theorical one, but a a pragmatic one.

Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's like the semit who killed rome said :^)

>hurr German biased
>Germans are shown as being irrelevant before the Age of Enlightenment

Sure thing :^)

It's pointless talking to him, all of his arguments are "b-but muh brown people had stuff too!"

alright show me the roman building with the same amount of wall to window ratio of a gothic church while still being capable of supporting a roof

I'll wait

this thread is great

>ad hominem
>insults
>race baits

are you underage or what m8.

I don't think roman had a different skin color than me btw.

Please show me a bridge or sewer system built by a medieval kingdom that is still used today and will be in use for the next 1000 years

>Hagia Sophia was something the Turks could not surpass for almost a thousand years

If you mean anatolian turks, Sultan Ahmed Mosque was indeed built 1k year after, but turkic people like seljukid etc had nice architecture.

The monkeys are beign salty today.

> I don't think roman had a different skin color than me btw.

>waaaah, only the architecture style that I like counts
There's plenty of windows in Aya Sofia.

not relevant to the current discussion
and roman infrastructure today has no valuable impact on our infrastructure, they're novelties and tourist attractions, but a roman bridge is not particularly useful to the modern world in any way given it is completely incapable of supporting modern vehicles

But people still use the roman infrastructure to access water, walk between towns and for leisure now

Considering that a great part of the roman population lived in north africa and middle east.. Romanity was a cultural thing, not racial. The emperor who gave citizenship to all free mens was northafrican/syrian mix after all.

anyway those race-trolls are cancerous and irrelevant.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of my post
it wasn't to say one architectural style was superior over the other, merely saying that the medieval era did indeed advance construction and engineering to the point they were fully capable of creating constructions the romans simply did not have the level of knowledge for

the window to wall ratio is not used in an aesthetic sense but rather as a direct example of an engineering feat as the romans were not capable of constructing walls in such a way they had large openings without severely compromising their structural integrity

fun fact, there's some roman bridge still used here, and roman bath too. :V
meanwhile chinese one fall after few years, not even joking!

>and roman infrastructure today has no valuable impact on our infrastructure
Is this bait?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_literature

And Jesus was there

The Son of God bore witness to this progenitor civilization that would mold the rest of the nations

Roman Concrete was pretty hardcore, blows me away when I see some of the shit they built

roman infrastructure is incapable of supporting the levels of stress required in a post-industrial society
they're useful for recreational purposes sure but not as vital parts of the infrastructure

Did you heard about Guédelon Castle? It's a modern castle build with medieval technics, pretty fun to watch

But people literally still rely on them for access to water and sewage. The bath houses are still used like a local pool

What mixture did they use?