Archaeologica.org

The Romans were expansionistic, militaristic fascists

Who achieved a level of civilization which Europe did not regain until the 19th century.

You're mistaking technology for civilization.

What little culture Rome had, it adopted, wholesale, or syncretised.

If by "civilization" you mean its values, surely you jest.

The "Barbarians" of Northern Europe were far more civilised than any Roman ever was.

Your ass would have perished in the arena. Probably during the lunchtime execution period.

civilization, civilisation [ˌsɪvɪlaɪˈzeɪʃən]
n
1. (Sociology) a human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization; an advanced state in social development

Pairing Boy George and Bach in the same category (Music) doesn't flush.

Ditto Rome as a "civilisation" because the phrase "Roman civilisation" can be used with a straight face the way "artist" is of the flavor-of-the-week band/singer.

However moot, the issue of quality is inseparable from the concept, IMO.

Read the definition above.

As much as I dislike Boy George I suppose it is "music"....after a sort.

Minimalist wrote:

The Romans were expansionistic, militaristic fascists

Who achieved a level of civilization which Europe did not regain until the 19th century.

Even classicists wouldn't ignore the Renaissance and Enlightenment , both a wee bit earlier than the 19 th C.

George

And what were the levels of trade and commerce in the Renaissance? How great was the road system? Did people have running water and sewage systems or were they still dumping their garbage in the middle of the streets?

By the end of the first century AD a traveler could begin in Aswan, Egypt and travel to the North Sea on paved, patrolled, roads, with inns at easy stages, using a common currency.

One cannot do that today.

Minimalist wrote:By the end of the first century AD a traveler could begin in Aswan, Egypt and travel to the North Sea on paved, patrolled, roads

Really? Imo even Jeremy Clarkson couldn't have driven that route in a modern car on those 'paved' roads. Even with a Landcruiser.
With a tank, yes!
And that was what Roman roads were designed and built for, weren't they? To facilitate rapid army movement across the empire. They weren't particularly safe for civilian travelers in small parties, let alone singly. That was an open invitation to robbery. Or worse.

with inns at easy stages, using a common currency.

One cannot do that today.

One can. In America. With the greenback and with McDonald's, Wendy's, and Pizza Hut every 20 miles, on the interstate system, literally blanketing the continental USA. Or in the EU (but with the €uro and Autobahnen of course; the rest is about the same, with the same brands...).

the Renaissance

500 people. Tops.

and Enlightenment

Long story.

Really? Imo even Jeremy Clarkson couldn't have driven that route in a modern car on those 'paved' roads.

2,000 years after they were built they were still recognizable as "roads." I wonder what will be left of our modern highways in 4100 AD?

One can. In America.

I was talking about the area controlled by the Romans. A few amphorae may have made it across - accidentally - but the Romans did not get here. How much better off would America have been if they had?

Minimalist wrote:

Really? Imo even Jeremy Clarkson couldn't have driven that route in a modern car on those 'paved' roads.

2,000 years after they were built they were still recognizable as "roads." I wonder what will be left of our modern highways in 4100 AD?

Wondering is speculation.

One can. In America.

I was talking about the area controlled by the Romans.

I'm not so sure about the Aswan to Memphis part, but from there on one can drive leisurely and comfortably in any Joe Blow car to Hammerfest in northern Norway without stopping (if you take a leak out the window). That's 2,000 kilometers more northerly than one could in Roman times. Well north of the polar circle.
Oh yeah, and there is a McDonald's in Hammerfest too...

A few amphorae may have made it across - accidentally - but the Romans did not get here.

Indeed. But it will turn out the Phoenicians/Carthaginians did.

How much better off would America have been if they had?

It might have been the continuation of Atlantis after that was engulfed.

Minimalist wrote:And what were the levels of trade and commerce in the Renaissance? How great was the road system? Did people have running water and sewage systems or were they still dumping their garbage in the middle of the streets?

By the end of the first century AD a traveler could begin in Aswan, Egypt and travel to the North Sea on paved, patrolled, roads, with inns at easy stages, using a common currency.

One cannot do that today.

civilization, civilisation [ˌsɪvɪlaɪˈzeɪʃən]
n
1. (Sociology) a human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization; an advanced state in social development

All that applies to periods much earlier than the renaissance or enlightenment for that matter ,they just happened to have an artistic and philosophical icing . Roads are hardly the "stuff" of any part of the above definition . Sewage systems were in use long before the Romans .


George

Minimalist wrote:And what were the levels of trade and commerce in the Renaissance?

Faaar greater than the world had ever seen before that period (including Roman and even Carthaginian times): BEIC, DEIC, BWIC, DWIC, Spanish colonialism and trade, Portugese colonialism and trade, British-American colonisation and trade, the Hanseatic League, etc. etc.

Minimalist wrote:How great was the road system?

A lot greater than in Roman times: in the Renaissance they had global sea routes, which the Romans never had (but the Phoenicians/Carthaginians did!). In the Renaissance Europe had a hundred times more paved roads - local, regional, and trans-continental - than in Roman times.

Minimalist wrote:Did people have running water and sewage systems

No, and neither did the common Roman citizen. Only the Roman super elite (it was a deeply fascist society, remember) – 0,1% of the population – had, and could afford, running water and sewage systems.

Minimalist wrote:or were they still dumping their garbage in the middle of the streets?

Indeed, like 99,9% of Roman citizens did before them.
It is good to remember that in fact extremely few Roman citizens lived in Rome proper. 99% of Roman citizens lived distributed across the Roman empire, from Syria to Spain, and in the European hinterland.

BTW, were there extensive water and sewage systems in Byzantine Constantinople? Which is supposed to have been the continuation of the Roman civilisation up until the Renaissance. So, if anything, there ought to have been more and greater water and sewage systems in Constantinople than there were in Rome. It was a thousand years later, after all.
However, afaik Constantinople never had such systems other than maybe in very few individual homes of the elite. But never city-wide. For all Constantinoplians. Exactly like it was in Rome. Let alone empire-wide. Just like in Roman times.

So much for progress...

Here is an interesting, related page:



.
.