Why Rome?

[Sahib]

The head of Roman family could kill his wife and sell his daughters into slavery.  That's not exactly strong women's rights.  The rights of women in surrounding cultures is extremely unclear since not a lot of records are left from German tribes or the city of Carthage.

Technically, a remnant of more primordial era. And we know about women's (lack of) rights in say Athens.

[Josquius]

I'd suspect it is probably something to do with population numbers rather than rights or anything like that.
Italy was a bit of a halfway area between the overly 'civilized', and full of cities, Greece and the 'uncivilized' areas with little beyond town level such as France et al. It meant those cities that there were in Italy were able to dominate far bigger areas of countryside and small towns than the Greeks were.

[alfred russel]

I'd suspect it is probably something to do with population numbers rather than rights or anything like that.
Italy was a bit of a halfway area between the overly 'civilized', and full of cities, Greece and the 'uncivilized' areas with little beyond town level such as France et al. It meant those cities that there were in Italy were able to dominate far bigger areas of countryside and small towns than the Greeks were.

Significant portions of modern France that were controlled by Rome before the conquest of Gaul were partially hellenized before the Romans.

Also, the Greeks had some rather extensive empires, to an extent before Alexander but certainly afterwards. These empires included "civilized" areas.

[Eddie Teach]

Technically, a remnant of more primordial era. And we know about women's (lack of) rights in say Athens.

Oh look, Vinraith's back. And naked. 

[garbon]

Technically, a remnant of more primordial era. And we know about women's (lack of) rights in say Athens.

Oh look, Vinraith's back. And naked. 

[Razgovory]

The head of Roman family could kill his wife and sell his daughters into slavery.  That's not exactly strong women's rights.  The rights of women in surrounding cultures is extremely unclear since not a lot of records are left from German tribes or the city of Carthage.

Technically, a remnant of more primordial era. And we know about women's (lack of) rights in say Athens.

Well, Augustus passed some rather regressive laws as well.

[Josephus]

That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.

And they brought peace.

[PRC]

That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.

And they brought peace.

They make a desert and call it peace.

[Josquius]

Significant portions of modern France that were controlled by Rome before the conquest of Gaul were partially hellenized before the Romans.

Also, the Greeks had some rather extensive empires, to an extent before Alexander but certainly afterwards. These empires included "civilized" areas.

The Mediterranean coast of France had the disadvantage of being right next to the rest of Gaul however. Much harder for them to really expand much beyond their city walls due to the tribes to the north.

Greek empires... They had other priorities. Tended to be not particularly Mediterranean focussed. Though why Egypt never in its history got too far beyond Egypt is something I've always wondered about.

[alfred russel]

The Mediterranean coast of France had the disadvantage of being right next to the rest of Gaul however. Much harder for them to really expand much beyond their city walls due to the tribes to the north.

Damn it Tyr, weren't you just arguing that Rome had the advantage of being near uncivilized areas such as in France where they could dominate the countryside? Now you are saying being next to uncivilized Gaul is a disadvantage? 

[grumbler]

The Roman Republic, especially before Sulla, did not have an inclusive citizenship at all. And citizenship was only given to non-Italians in 212 AD. Pre-Marian Republican Legions actually meant a 'Roman' legion and a similar legion of other Italians (who did not enjoy the same rights).

(Many posters here seem to be trying desperately to see the triumph of modern values in an ancient state).

You seem to be trying desperately to compare Rome to modern states when talking about the inclusiveness of citizenship.  Such comparisons generate heat, but no light.
Many non-Italians became citizens before 212 CE; by the time citizenship was being expanded i the Third Century CE, it had became rather meaningless, and the expansion did little to engender strength in the Roman Empire. Roman Allies were not citizens; they had The Latin Rights, generally, which gave them powers of local rule and the right to enter into contracts with Romans, but the disadvantages of the Latin Rights, and the fact that Rome had stopped expanding those rights, was a cause of the Social Wars. After those wars, Roman citizenship was extended to most of Italy.  Even under the Latin Rights, however, those elected to magistracies in their cities received full Roman citizenship.  No contemporary society had such a provision, as far as I know.

For a more detalied of the actual why of the fact that Rome won, check the population density of the Italian peninsula vs. everywhere else in from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD. Also see the development of military discipline and doctrines.

Also check recruitment rosters: by mid 1st century BC, Rome had at its disposal more adult males of military age than the whole population of Gaul.

And these are raw numbers, not inclusive stuff - for that matter, many of the nations that Rome fought would accept solderis from wherever they might come, since their own populations simply were not large enough to face the Romans, irrespective of the level of 'inclusion' (the Romans fought literally every single tribe in Gaul at the same time - the battle at Alesia was the biggest one Europe would see in terms of sheer number of participants until WWI).

Italy did have a higher population than many areas, largely because of the higher social organization (read "cities"), relative lack of plagues, and immigration due to economic opportunity.  It was probably matched by that of pre-conquest Egypt or the contemporary Seleucid Empire, though, so that cannot be the only reason.    The better reason seems to be that Rome was able to harness more of its manpower into the military, because it had an inclusive citizenship that gave its soldiers something to fight for beyond the inspiration of their own commanders and comrades.

[grumbler]

That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.

And they brought peace.

Besides draining swamps and bringing peace, what good have the Romans ever done for us?

[alfred russel]

That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.

And they brought peace.

Besides draining swamps and bringing peace, what good have the Romans ever done for us?

They built roads (though the roads may have been here before the Romans, we will never know for sure).

[Eddie Teach]

The roads go without saying.

[Viking]

That's it. Rome rose because they knew how to drain swamps.

And they brought peace.

They make a desert and call it peace.

combine a swamp and a desert and you get good quality agricultural land, the kind you need to feed a big army.