Why Do Most Western Countries Glorify Rome?

[Exarch]

and strive to compare themselves to imperial rome and even emulate them, when in all likelyhood, they would never approve of traditional roman practices and roman values;
for instance:

1) sodomy; in imperial rome, it was ok to partake of buttsecks so long as you weren't the one on the receiving end.

2) slavery; in the example of america, the concept of 'freedom' is touted as the noblest of american values and yet imperial and republican rome was was as slave-loving as they were buggery-loving.

3) wars for conquest and expansion; imperial and republican rome was all about expanding rome's borders for 'the glory of rome', and yet these days democratic leaders have to hide behind excuses in order to invade other countries, whether it be for xyz when it was in fact for abc etc etc.

4) bestiality; need i say more? ahem nero, ahem roman 'practices'

just to name a few...

btw, if ppl believe this belongs in the vv, by all means transport it there

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Rome wasn't just about rich people having scandalous orgies. That happens everywhere. Duh.

[Iustinianus]

Probably because of the enormous influence Rome had on Western civilization. It was the apex of European civilization for millennia, and after it fell, everyone was still trying to bring back its power. It did give these countries their language, religion, customs, etc.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

1. Why does that matter?
2. Should they have been a 2000 years ahead of their time? They were about as liberal as nations got back then.
3. Rome was a militant state because it was perpetually surrounded by threats.
4. There are ethical issues regarding consent, but far worse things are done to animals even today.

[Ancient Aliens]

Because at its zenith Rome was the superpower; its success is unrivalled so its methods are emulated. Much like how the Eastern World (and similarly its legal and moral code) emulates the Han Dynasty.

[Krixux]

Because at its zenith Rome was the superpower; its success is unrivalled so its methods are emulated. Much like how the Eastern World (and similarly its legal and moral code) emulates the Han Dynasty.

short but rich answer !!!

@
Pontifex Maximus
ur answer rocks m8


　
To the threat itself, the present inhabitants of the region where my family is located, is coming (a national-cultural legend, tradition etc) from IV Flavia Felix Legion
So “Why Do Most Western Countries Glorify Rome...” ?
Good or bad, who cares ?! its family...!

[DisgruntledGoat]

1. Why does that matter?
2. Should they have been a 2000 years ahead of their time? They were about as liberal as nations got back then.
3. Rome was a militant state because it was perpetually surrounded by threats.
4. There are ethical issues regarding consent, but far worse things are done to animals even today.

Rome was a militant state to bankroll the state. Each war of aggression, however justified, was merely a way to put money into the treasuries.

[motiv-8]

Rome was a militant state to bankroll the state. Each war of aggression, however justified, was merely a way to put money into the treasuries.

Or that of its aristocracy, indeed.

[Ancient Aliens]

Or that of its aristocracy, indeed.

Sort of like modern day nations.

[the_mango55]

Powerful, influential, technologically advanced, etc.

[Morkonan]

and strive to compare themselves to imperial rome and even emulate them, when in all likelyhood, they would never approve of traditional roman practices and roman values;
for instance:

1) sodomy; in imperial rome, it was ok to partake of buttsecks so long as you weren't the one on the receiving end.

2) slavery; in the example of america, the concept of 'freedom' is touted as the noblest of american values and yet imperial and republican rome was was as slave-loving as they were buggery-loving.

3) wars for conquest and expansion; imperial and republican rome was all about expanding rome's borders for 'the glory of rome', and yet these days democratic leaders have to hide behind excuses in order to invade other countries, whether it be for xyz when it was in fact for abc etc etc.

4) bestiality; need i say more? ahem nero, ahem roman 'practices'

just to name a few...

btw, if ppl believe this belongs in the vv, by all means transport it there

Few of those things are exclusive to Rome or are very material to a credible view of Roman culture. Most of those things are simply not understood by many people who choose to point them out. Go read Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations" or Livy's history of Rome, writings by Romans in their day that reflect their values and their views of their own culture, if you want to understand how Romans actually viewed themselves and all the little titillating details modern people so often misunderstand.

Rome... The father of Western Law. Rome is what most Western cultures owe their forms to. The influence of Rome over the development of Europe, the cradle of Western Civilization, is undeniable.

Why should one wonder that Western culture acknowledges Romes influence and idealizes Roman culture?

[Pontifex Maximus]

1) sodomy; in imperial rome, it was ok to partake of buttsecks so long as you weren't the one on the receiving end.

That isn't taboo now. If anything the Romans had a very advanced perception of homosexual intercourse. Which is better, to tolerate it or mutilate people who choose to do it?

2) slavery; in the example of america, the concept of 'freedom' is touted as the noblest of american values and yet imperial and republican rome was was as slave-loving as they were buggery-loving.

Most western societies depended upon the slave trade and slave labor up until the nineteenth century. Additionally, comparatively most Roman slaves had an easier existence than their successors in later centuries, barring those that landed awful jobs like salt mining or rowing. There also wasn't the racial ideas of inferiority as appeared in later times. Slaves were conquered peoples, those who could not pay debt, or the vulnerable in society who had to attach themselves to a master in order to survive. Even then one did not necessarily remain a slave forever. The Romans had to pass a law in the first century BCE in order to limit the amount of slaves a master could free upon his dying, as it was often customary to bequeath freedom to loyal slaves in a will. I recommend you read the theory regarding the rise of the machine leading to the decline of the slave. Machines are simply the new slaves, as mechanic productivity has outpaced forced manual labor.

3) wars for conquest and expansion; imperial and republican rome was all about expanding rome's borders for 'the glory of rome', and yet these days democratic leaders have to hide behind excuses in order to invade other countries, whether it be for xyz when it was in fact for abc etc etc.

Wrong on a fundamental level. The Roman Republic fought defensive wars and often let 'conquered' peoples retain sovereignty. They often waged wars on behalf of tyrannized peoples at the behest of foreigners. Later Imperial wars were fought to bring Roman civilization to the barbarians and to defend what they had already obtained.

Assuming you are correct though, how would Rome's alleged actions be any different than any war fought in the last century?

4) bestiality; need i say more? ahem nero, ahem roman 'practices'

Classical source? We'll take this on a case by case basis.


Now let's look at some actual Roman values:

Pietas: Duty to the family, state, and the gods. This is seen constantly in western culture, it is engrained in christian values, law, and tradition.

Dignitas: The influence an individual has in society. We see this every day, the election of Obama was a good example, but just one instance of someone's political qualities enabling him to reach high office. Where we might praise individuals who we deem to have good dignitas, those who are credible, similarly we deride those that do not, such as Glen Beck.

Potestas: The derivative of government power and authority. This concept outlines rudimentary powers of government, government officials, and the effects of their actions both positive and negative.

Virtus: Classical male traits; bravery, strength, courage, fortitude, sexual prowess; all values that are highly valued in western tradition.

There are more, but I don't want to inundate you with a wall of text you won't read. I suggest you read some more original Roman texts to get a better understanding of Roman values, ideas, and practices. Relying on things like history channel documentaries are very substandard methods of studying Rome. Productions like that exaggerate in order to keep an audience entertained. After all, their goal is to make sure you don't change the channel during commercials, not to actually educate you.

[(s)AINT]

Roman Law and Roman Government

[Vizsla]

It is not fair to judge people from history by today’s standards.
Back then everyone was horrible and Rome did a lot of good.
So glorifying Rome is justified, in context.

But if you watch films from the 1950s and ‘60s about Rome – Rome is always the bad guy and the Christians are the good. I had a weirdly fundamentalist Christian education and I was taught that Rome was pretty evil.

So things have changed quite recently. ‘The west’ today sees itself as the pinnacle of civilization. Its values are the values that all others are supposed to aspire to. The Western ancient world is seen as the foundation of that pinnacle. A few decades ago Christianity was seen as the base of the pyramid. It is no longer the glue that holds the west together, neither is geography. So Rome is one alternative.

Or perhaps we glorify Rome now (with its flaws), in films like Gladiator, because we are insecure about our place in the world. We are seeking to justify our status in the world exactly because we worry it is slipping away.

Roman Law and Roman Government

This applies to most of continental Europe but not to the English speaking world, whose laws are Germanic in origin.

[bushbush]

I think it is because it is really one of the few times in Western history where an unified empire emerged. Since that, it has been disunity and conflicts between countries in Europe. I think people look fondly back at the idea of a dominant and unified superpower at one point in the history of their civilization.

Roman Law

A note on that, Roman law's impact is actually quite overrated. If you actually read some Roman laws, you might find it is quite backward comparing to what has developed either in the common law system or the civil law system since 19th century. The ancient roman law wasn't too far from the "eye for an eye" era and even the Justinian code was a disorganized mess albeit with some brilliantly practical ideas. Romans for better or worse hated general principles, which actually became the driving force of modern legal development. That's where Roman laws' impact has been the least and modern european thoughts are the strongest.

[NotYetRegistered]

Because the Romans were one of the most succesful civilizations in Europe.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I challenge you all to find a better nation for it's time, with the exception of modern Western nations, in terms of both liberty and strength.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

We don't, we still haven't forgotten them for the second temple!

[Col. Tartleton]

We don't, we still haven't forgotten them for the second temple!

I think you're underestimating the Roman anger, according to Josephus they literally leveled the city to the point visitors years later had trouble believing there had ever been a city there. Temple was collateral damage.

Hadrian was going to rebuild Jerusalem and when he got there he decided he'd be better off building it in honor of his own faith (ie. the exact same thing... minus the anti-gentilic Jewish racism) So he built a Temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the Temple Mount and named the city Aelia Capitolina.

The Jews got pissed off, declared some random warlord Rabbi the Messiah, and then got their asses kicked again. The fact the Jews weren't happy enraged Hadrian and he attempted to remove them from history because they had continually acted like sore losers. So he renamed Judea the Palestine...

The Modern Nation is Israel is basically a big dump on Hadrian's face.

[motiv-8]

Exarch, your OP relies on the If by whiskey fallacy. You can't honestly list off only negatives about x and then ask why somebody supports x because all it has are negatives. It's not a sound discussion platform.