Why Rome?

[Tonitrus]

Ok, so other than roads, peace, citizenship, population density, urbanization, aqueducts, law, discipline and an ability to quickly adapt new technology what did the Romans really have going for them?

War dogs.

Flaming Pigs

One of those ideas that sounds good until you think about it for a second.

Certainly not the one that has the end result of bacon. 

[jimmy olsen]

An unusually lucid post by Siege.

[grumbler]

In other words, one-man rule always loses against the shared power of a ruling elite.
I don't mean it loses just as direct confrontation, but rather as a performance comparison.
The roman republic, had it corrected its intrinsic weaknesses and maintained its core republican values, it would have far outlasted the roman empire.

History argues that you are wrong.  The Roman Empire lasted until 1453.  I don't think it is plausible to project the Roman Republic lasting that long.  The Republic of Venice was the longest-lasting oligarchy that springs to mind, and it lasted almost a thousand years, but it was an oligarchy of a single city, and so not much of a real comparison.

I would agree with you that the republican form of government served Rome the city better than did the imperial form, but I don't think  the system translated well to an empire, because the benefits for each governor to loot his own province was too great, and that would have led to endless rebellions and independence movements.  Republican Rome couldn't have maintained the armies necessary for the quelling of these constant rebellions, because the republic was based on much more limited military service per man and more men serving their time.  The logistics of the period just didn't support the constant shuffling of new legions to replace disbanding ones after each campaign season, when the scope of the movement was the empire and not Italy.

[Siege]

In other words, one-man rule always loses against the shared power of a ruling elite.
I don't mean it loses just as direct confrontation, but rather as a performance comparison.
The roman republic, had it corrected its intrinsic weaknesses and maintained its core republican values, it would have far outlasted the roman empire.

History argues that you are wrong.  The Roman Empire lasted until 1453.  I don't think it is plausible to project the Roman Republic lasting that long.  The Republic of Venice was the longest-lasting oligarchy that springs to mind, and it lasted almost a thousand years, but it was an oligarchy of a single city, and so not much of a real comparison.

I would agree with you that the republican form of government served Rome the city better than did the imperial form, but I don't think  the system translated well to an empire, because the benefits for each governor to loot his own province was too great, and that would have led to endless rebellions and independence movements.  Republican Rome couldn't have maintained the armies necessary for the quelling of these constant rebellions, because the republic was based on much more limited military service per man and more men serving their time.  The logistics of the period just didn't support the constant shuffling of new legions to replace disbanding ones after each campaign season, when the scope of the movement was the empire and not Italy.

The marian reforms where well within the republican period.
It is the republic who expanded into the most powerful state in the med, and it was the republic who created the provincial system.
Yes, the government of the provinces was initially just a reward to successful senatorial service, but this could have been fixed as the needs of the republic changed from expansion to consolidation.

The republican system created a wider base from which to draw talented people for govenrmtne and military leadership.
No imperial system back then had such a large pool of intellectual power.

[viper37]

Uh weren't the Romans total homophobes and prudes?

Malthus talked about it a lot, and it seems, from what we know, that a noble man fucking a younger boy was ok, but the opposite was degrading.  Fucking slaves was ok, but fucking a free young roman was inapropriate to say the least.

As for women's right, I don't think roman women had more rights than other women in the area.  There were worst places, but there were probably better places too.  I think Celtic women generally enjoyed more freedom than Roman women, and you could see woman warriors in barbarian tribes, something impossible in roman society.

[garbon]

I think Celtic women generally enjoyed more freedom than Roman women, and you could see woman warriors in barbarian tribes, something impossible in roman society.

I find it hard to count the freedom to die in battle as a sign of freedom. Sort of like how I wasn't bother so much by don't ask, don't tell while gay sex/marriage/adoption was illegal. You don't want to give me all my rights, then don't expect me to want to die for yours.

[viper37]

I find it hard to count the freedom to die in battle as a sign of freedom. Sort of like how I wasn't bother so much by don't ask, don't tell while gay sex/marriage/adoption was illegal. You don't want to give me all my rights, then don't expect me to want to die for yours.

Given that a soldier brought his own equipment to the field, if a woman was a soldier, it most likely meant that she had a nobility title in her tribe and/or some accumulated wealth.  Gaulic tribes did not have professional armies, afaik.

Voting rights would be mostly irrelevant, I don't think they had any kind of democracy like Rome or the Greek cities.  Maybe they elected their tribe's leader, not really sure, but I don't think they voted each laws&regulations.

[garbon]

I find it hard to count the freedom to die in battle as a sign of freedom. Sort of like how I wasn't bother so much by don't ask, don't tell while gay sex/marriage/adoption was illegal. You don't want to give me all my rights, then don't expect me to want to die for yours.

Given that a soldier brought his own equipment to the field, if a woman was a soldier, it most likely meant that she had a nobility title in her tribe and/or some accumulated wealth.  Gaulic tribes did not have professional armies, afaik.

Voting rights would be mostly irrelevant, I don't think they had any kind of democracy like Rome or the Greek cities.  Maybe they elected their tribe's leader, not really sure, but I don't think they voted each laws&regulations.

I was just being a jerk.