Your opinions of Rome...

[Barreldriver]

How many modern western European nations come out of the territories once controlled by the old Roman empire? How many modern western European peoples are themselves descendants of Romans and Romanized subjects?

Hard to say until more DNA testing is done.

[Psychonaut]

Sometimes I think a "new Rome" would be good for us, preservation of our people, cultures, and security by numbers.

Well, we did have a second Rome...the Holy Roman Empire of the Franks. A third was attempted back in the 30s, but that didn't pan out so well.

[Barreldriver]

Well, we did have a second Rome...the Holy Roman Empire of the Franks. A third was attempted back in the 30s, but that didn't pan out so well.

True, but failures in the long run. Should we attempt a fourth?

[Psychonaut]

True, but failures in the long run. Should we attempt a fourth?

Failure? Failure!?

The Holy Roman Empire lasted, in one form of another, from Charlemagne's coronation in 768 until Napoleon brought it to an end in 1806. That's over a thousand years of continuity, the legacy of which is the birth of both France and Germany.

[Barreldriver]

Failure? Failure!?

The Holy Roman Empire lasted, in one form of another, from Charlemagne's coronation in 768 until Napoleon brought it to an end in 1806. That's over a thousand years of continuity, the legacy of which is the birth of both France and Germany.

Does it survive to this day? Then it is a failure, at least in the long term. 1000 years not good enough. We need something that will last for ages to come!

Seriously though, Frankish Rome in my opinion was different from the first Roman Empire, the first conquered and absorbed, the second completely obliterated folkish traditions for the sake of Christianity.

[Tony]

My thoughts on Rome, to sum it up in the first sentence, negative and impressive, contradictory opinions are always present when it comes to Rome, if Ancient Greece is considered a cradle of European civilization, Rome can be considered as a cradle - of filth - in European civilization. I can't help it but to think about Roman social perversion and immoral nature first when it comes to this thread and about everything else later, and by that I certainly do not mean on sexual perversion although when it comes to that Romans were kind of sick too, homosexuality, incests and orgies in front of everything.

Some scholar says Rome got degenerated when came into contact with Greeks and their culture , before that Romans were pretty naive , simple and virile , just spent their time in working or/and going to war , period.
There were even times when theater was seen a morally indecent thus forbidden (just like the Puritans during the Cromwell's years) and a lot of intellectuals used to condemn the process of "hellenization".

[Psychonaut]

Does it survive to this day? Then it is a failure, at least in the long term. 1000 years not good enough. We need something that will last for ages to come!

We might just have to disagree here. I follow Spengler's lead in that cultures are organisms that follow life cycles. They are born, they live, they decline and finally die. When the Apollonian soul (the Grecco-Romans) was exhausted, the world witnessed the birth of Faustian (Western) man. We, however, are now in decline (according to Spengler) and, like all organisms, are doomed to die. I'd highly recommend giving his opus, The Decline of the West, a read.

Some scholar says Rome got degenerated when came into contact with Greeks and their culture

I've heard that as well. Personally, I'm quite partial to Gibbon's idea that Rome's decline was accelerated, if not outright caused, by Christianity.

[Barreldriver]

We might just have to disagree here. I follow Spengler's lead in that cultures are organisms that follow life cycles. They are born, they live, they decline and finally die. When the Apollonian soul (the Grecco-Romans) was exhausted, the world witnessed the birth of Faustian (Western) man. We, however, are now in decline (according to Spengler) and, like all organisms, are doomed to die. I'd highly recommend giving his opus, The Decline of the West, a read.

I'll give it a go go.

[Cato]

Far too many people get their idea of what Rome was like from Hollywood: orgies, trips to the vomitorium, pacifistic Christians being tossed to the lions by the pagans, gladiators always fighting to the death, evil emperors, corruption, brtual, crude, etc.

To address the contention that the Romans were brutual, even by the standards of the ancient world... The Assyrians used crucifixion and impalement, for example, and Qin's brutality united China despite hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of deaths during China's pre-imperial, feudal era. One antecdote from pre-imperial China has Qin defeating a rival kingdom, Zhao, in a massive battle and then executing all of the prisoners-of-war, all 400,000 of them- by being buried alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changping).

Just about EVERY army in the ancient world waged total war. Rome, like Assyria, was just more efficient and organized at it.

[Flanders]

I only read the opening post so if what I'm saying is kind of a repetition of points already made I apologize for that.

We have to view Rome in a completely different context than today's. The national states date from the modern age. In the times of Rome there were mostly very small local entities, tribes if you want, there was no nation, no state. Of course most of these tribes knew some sort of union with their genetic brothers from surrounding tribes. Any form of 'politics' in these days that can be seen as some sort of 'nationalist' action, meaning people fighting for the rule over themselves, went hand in hand with 'imperialist' action. It was not about the 'right of self-determination', it was about ruling over other peoples as well.

Anyways, Rome initially wasn't an imperial force. Roman imperialism knew a couple a stages. The first one, definitely until the second Punic war it a form of imperialism purely to defend itself. Rome had no standing army, they assembled one when they needed one. Most of their expansions in these days were the neighbouring entities they got in conflict with. After the first Punic war they got control over Sicilia for example, the first Roman province. They really hesitated to colonize the island. Carthage however was their rival and enemy in these days but Rome fought most its wars with the single goal of defending the own interests and not the expansion of their 'empire'.

Where exactly they changed from defensive imperialism into the most agressive form of imperialism is rather unclear. There are two events that are named as most probable breaking points. The first being the third Punic war where they destroyed the city of Carthage. The problem here however is that the Romans still got the bitter taste of the second Punic war where Hannibal nearly destroyed the Roman empire forever. Walking through Italy destroying all Roman forces on his way and turning Rome's allies against it. The other event being the destruction of Corinth, the conquest of Greece and the brutal destruction of cities who offered resistance can clearly be seen as imperialism in its purest form.

But we shouldn't forget that the Romans brought us an enormous cultural heritage. Their military was supreme, the size of their armies wasn't matched in Europe until the 1600s. Furthermore Rome even had standing armies, a concept that would disappear from Europe for over a thousand years. The strenght of their armies was the way they were used, the legions fought as disciplined units. However Roman weaponry wasn't always that brilliant. Their sword, the gladius, was a broad bronze weapon that was so short because bronze isn't the best material to make swords from. Many so-called barbarian tribes had better swords for example. The Germans for example were superior smiths these days.