How has Rome influenced Western Culture?
89922
In a way that everyone in the West wants to become like the Roman gods and follow their footsteps in exploiting precious resources and add all the treasures of the world to their own glory. Here is a link to Roman Engineering an Empire:\nhttp://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74475&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=
751593
The Romans incorporated many of the Gods and Goddesses of the people they conquered.  It was an ingenious way to control the masses.
932410
You can probably find online that part of the Roman Empire's fall was due to the fact that it over extended itself. Others say it was Barbarian rule. However, there's a unique answer that you could give that might give you some credit for being out-side the box:\nConside Agriculture and its economy.\n\n1. Slavery\nSlaves were the backbone of the Roman republic, and Rome had increasing difficulty trying to accomodate them. THey lived in really bad conditions, and they weren't the major concentration of the Roman Repub. So what would they do? revolt. stop working. etc etc.\n2. Free Distribution of corn\nThe majority of people were supported by corn, which was given more as a right than as a privilege. It was in essence a welfare state. Parents didn't have to make any effort to feed their children, so why work? This led to decay.\n3. Soil Deterioration\nRome had a cheap food policy. And they forced farmers to pay taxes that they couldn't afford. Farmers were gang up together and plant a lot of stuff in one area to beat teh tax loopholes. But this deteriorated the soil quality. NOrth africa was once a grainary storage system for Rome, but after the Carthrage sack, it didn't work out. Land shortage was a big problem for rome, that's why they kept expanding. They stripped their forests of lumber, so they had poor weapons when it came to the Punic Wars.\n\n\nThese are just some rarely considered ideas.
208973
Some curriculums teach that Africa was the\nprimary influence in the knowledge that we\nhave today.  Certainly Egypt had an impact\non civilization, but the Greeks developed an\namazing society, some of which was lost in\nthe rise of the Roman empire and later during\nthe dark ages.  The Renaissance or rediscovering\ncentered around the Greek civilizatin instead of\nEgypt.  Much of Africa has always consisted mostly of\nscattered peoples with little widespread influence.
553217
Yes and no.  Even before the Romans occupied parts of Scotland, there was trade and people did migrate so certain terms and structures (particularly regarding commerce and trading) were influenced by Latin.\n\nDuring the Roman occupation, this influence became greater.\n\nIn general, almost all languages have evolved to take parts from others.  We use the term "Bon-appetitte" as if it were our own.  You can walk up to a stranger in Beging and ask, make typing gestures with your hand and say "PC?" and they will point you to a computer store or a library.  Amazing.\n\nWell, "Chow & adiós" !
450652
In the past, this was not an issue. the loser was slaughtered wholesale. Rome was one of the first (or most successful) at assimilating conquered peoples. Successful assimilation means you must force, or entice, the conquered peoples to adopt your language, culture and customs. what naturally happens then is a blend of the two - which is also one reason that Rome fell (among many). Because if you are too successful as a conqueror, then you lose critical mass for your own culture.  \n\nYou could draw a parallel with America since they are (or have been in the past) so successful that they draw peoples from different cultures at such a rate that the 'original culture' is overwhelmed with external cultures [like cuban, mexican, other South American cultures, Canadian, and finally Asian influx (including India) via H1B visas and other legitimate immigration].\nForget about crimes and criminality - that is a temporary conflict between two cultures. Think longer term - like 100 yrs being equivalent to one year. Then you will see your own answer to your question. \n\nStudy the past or be condemned to repeat it. In particular, start with Persia, Egypt and progress through the Germanic tribes and the Normans.  You will get a fantastic view into man's inhumanity and the temporal nature of what is considered criminal and grotesque in a given culture.  You may also come to a realization that every species has its time at the top and then some other species will correct the last 'correction'.  We won't be the last.
317217
The Greek alphabet influenced the Roman or Latin one and it in turn influenced the Western alphabet.  There is no English alphabet, technically
517028
How About a Project on Roman History.. I can help you with it. :)\n\nHenry (nukeishere@yahoo.com)
117264
It isn't.  The Jewish bible and its precepts were far more influential in the development of Western civilization.  Just look at all the universities with Hebrew lettering in their official seals.
302180
I see many similarities between Ancient Rome and America today. Both expanded their holdings using War, and then assimilated the populations into their own, whether they want to be or not. Both rule absolutely depend-less on how their peoples feel, and America shall go down in the hands of "Barbarians" just as Rome did. Everything that is big becomes small. that is Nature.
1127460
crystalb is right.  It depends on the culture of where you are.  Observe people in the area where you are living and do "as the Romans do".
342171
Sexual customs have varied greatly over time and from one region to another. These, as well as the orientation of particular pre-contemporary figures continue to be studied. Modern Western gay culture, largely a product of 19th century psychology as well as the years of post-Stonewall Gay Liberation, is a relatively recent manifestation of same-sex desire. It is generally not applicable as a standard when investigating same-gender sex and historical opinions and beliefs held by other people.\n\nIt is generally accepted that the lives of historical figures such as Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello and Christopher Marlowe included or were centred upon love and sexual relationships with people of their own gender. Terms such as gay or bisexual have been applied to them, but many regard this as risking the anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of sexuality foreign to their times.[citation needed] Variations from modern standards of beauty, social roles, sexual positions, and age disparities are of such magnitude so as to render meaningless any projection of modern roles onto historical personages. This does not mean, however, that people in the past experienced the physical phenomenon of homosexual attraction any differently than people experience it today.\n\nWhile some premodern societies did not employ categories fully comparable to the modern homosexual or heterosexual dichotomy, this does not demonstrate that the polarity is not applicable to those societies. A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality. John Boswell has criticised this argument by citing ancient Greek writings by Plato, which he says indicate knowledge of exclusive homosexuality.[citation needed]Michel Foucault and historians following his line of thought have argued that the homosexual is a modern invention, a social construct of the last 100 years.[citation needed] While true of homosexuality as a scientific or psychological category, there are examples from earlier ages of those viewing their sexuality as a part of a human identity and not merely a sexual act. [citation needed] One cited example is the 16th century Italian artist Giovanni Antonio Bazzi who adopted the nickname "Sodoma", which is viewed by Louis Crompton as something analogous to the modern gay identity.\n\n\nThe earliest western documents (in the form of literary works, art objects, as well as mythographic materials) concerning same-sex relationships are derived from Ancient Greece. They depict a world in which relationships with women and relationships with youths were the essential foundation of a normal man's love life. Same-sex relationships were a social institution variously constructed over time and from one city to another. (See Pederasty) The practice, a system of relationships between an adult male and an adolescent coming of age, was often valued for its pedagogic benefits and as a means of population control, and occasionally blamed for causing disorder. Plato praised its benefits in his early writings, but in his late works proposed its prohibition, laying out a strategy which uncannily predicts the path by which same-sex love was eventually driven underground. (See Philosophy of Greek pederasty)\n\nThe Roman emperor Theodosius decreed a law, on August 6th, 390, condemning passive homosexuals to be burned at the stake. Justinian, towards the end of his reign, expanded the proscription to the active partner as well (in 558) warning that such conduct can lead to the destruction of cities through the "wrath of God." Notwithstanding these regulations, taxes on homosexual boy brothels continued to be collected until the end of the reign of Anastasius I in 518.\n\nDuring the Renaissance, cities in northern Italy, Florence and Venice in particular, were renowned for
694249
It depends, what kind of influences?
254427
Time to crack open the history books there...\n\nWhen the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion, they made it illegal to participate in any other religion (to control the population...that message of "render unto Ceaser..."). When new areas were conquered, the leaders, both secular and religious, were eliminated by conversion...accepting Christianity and the dominion of the Roman Empire, or dying. In order to control the conquered people, the old faiths were made illegal. \n\nNow, add in mysogeny. Males sought to control and enslave women. A woman who knew herbology and had a healing hand was a threat to male doctors' practice, or who was 'wise' was a threat to the role of the priests as givers of moral rules and advice, etc. Many of the old faiths were matriarchal, as well, and the knowledge of wise decisions, of herbology/medicine, etc. were passed woman-to-woman.\n\nWicca stems from European nature worship prior to the controls placed there by patriarchal Christianity introduced during martial conquests by the Romans (and their splinter kingdoms after the fall of the empire).\n\nAdd in the mistranslation of "do not suffer a poisoner to live" (in the Hebrew) with "do not suffer a witch to live" (that tie-in to herbology, again)...\n\nSo, modern Wiccans tap deep-rooted generational fears by Christians raised in the ancient prejudice against the "old ways." Part of it is the unfortunate choice of self-naming modern celebrants of ancient pre-Christian pantheons/nature awareness to call themselves witches.\n\nGood luck on your report!
554369
Well, I am fond of the Greeks for their literature and art.  The Romans, however, took the Greek basis and expanded the ideas.  Their art tends to contain deeper messages which some people appreciate.  I like the older Greek stuff, though...and especially the Archaic poets.  Have you read any Sappho?\n\nSo...Greek :)
19407
We'll you'll find it all in Wikipedia.\n\n«Although surviving Latin literature consists almost entirely of Classical Latin, an artificial and highly stylized and polished literary language from the 1st century BC, the actual spoken language of the Roman Empire was Vulgar Latin, which significantly differed from Classical Latin in grammar, vocabulary, and eventually pronunciation. Also, although Latin remained the main written language of the Roman Empire, Greek came to be the language spoken by the well-educated elite, as most of the literature studied by Romans was written in Greek. In the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which became the Byzantine Empire, Greek eventually supplanted Latin as both the written and spoken language.»
5402
The European nations didn’t just go to Africa to conquer it.  The nations of North Africa and Europe knew each other with explorers and conquers going both ways and all of this going back pre-Roman.  Central and Southern Africa was largely unknown.  What was know was seen as primarily wild and without unifying nations.  \n\nAs raw resources came into the awareness of various country, expansion began into these wild territories.  Through the years this continued and grew.  As the cultures involved came into increasing contact, abrasive relationships grew which as often as not led to hostilities.\n\nWhile today we can look back from what we consider a higher moral ground, that certainly was not the controlling policies of the day.