I think to say one "likes or dislikes" the Romans seems to be missing the point. Empires tend to be quiet brutal, a point that is easily lost when even reading through the best-written history textbooks which represent empires as merely lines spreading across a map, as if all of those different peoples just joined a big club! The Roman Empire is the other part of this problem - remember a lot of Roman writers hated the Roman "Empire," and compared it negatively to the more "moral" days of the Roman Republic. What is really despised in an empire is the ruling classes, and in this case the patricians and those who ruled as "emperors," though not always using such a title. When the Roman army, sent by Roman rulers, invaded, it was an ugly scene.
Of course, this goes for all empires, and in comparison, the Roman Empire tended to be less brutal than most (the Persians were similar in their attitude to the Romans), but the brutal empires were legion before and after Rome: the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonians, the Athenians and Spartans, the Mongols (the film "Mongol" is rather generous towards Temujin), and the Qin, just to name a few. In modern times, most any European power (but especially King Leopold's fiefdom in Congo) was particularly brutal in the African continent.
Empires are great only for the elites in the ethnic group in power. I dare say the ancestors of many Italians were, at best, mixed in their reactions to the empire.
reply
share