H.G. Wells- The Outline of History- Critique of the High Roman Empire

In this passage, H.G. Wells challenges the supremacy of Rome in contemporary accounts of world history. While he does point out that there is a wider context of world history beyond the bounds of Rome and he provides some valid critiques of Rome, this account is largely an overcorrection. I agree with some of Wells' criticisms of Rome and disagree with others. That being said, I am not a believer in moral causation and I found large stretches of this section to be rather tiresome.

[gertmoelders]

When Wells said the Byzantine Empire was not a continuation of the Roman Empire but the Seleucids were a continuation of the Persian Empire I fucking lost it lmao

[CJC]

I always find these historians pontificate against the Romans solely to be contrarians... yes, the Roman Empire had some serious flaws, 1000 years of peace for the Chinese is a bit of an overstatement considering the barbarity of rebellions such as An Lushan’s and even Qin Shi Huangdi’s accession to power.

Different strokes I guess.

[words]

Hes completely right about how people fetishize Rome to an insane degree, but he goes so far in shitting on Rome that it's almost silly at times.

[kaloarepo]

And how about Edward Gibbon in his famous "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" declaring that mankind was at its most happy and prosperous in the reigns of the 5 good emperors and declined with spread of Christianity?

[Gorboduc]

"Its monarch had a Roman title, no doubt, but so for that matter did the late Tsar of Bulgaria." - Byzantiboos seething so hard rn.

[koboldgeorge]

One of the more subtle and imo valid points that he makes is that if the citizens of the empire were happy with and invested in the imperial government we might expect them to have revolted when the germans started taking over chunks of land. An interesting and I think under-rated point

[tacocruiser]

If H.G. Wells thinks Rome was overrated, then I assume Hilaire Belloc would say Rome was the greatest thing ever?

[AntonioBrandao]

Lol Cyrus conquered mostly desert, without any real opposition. Rome had to deal with Germans, Gauls, Parthians,

[roycejames]

Sure other empires had similar territorial gains and supremacy but Rome is the bedrock of modern society.

[luciano]

People who diminish the accomplishments and influence of Rome are the ones who should reevaluate their takes.
The problem is that some people judge Rome by the usual stereotypes of cruelty and tyranny, when in reality this was the exception, not the norm.

[SaCamRan]

I mean Roman history is hyped because it has a lasting effect and inspired other civilizations/emulated them. It’s an idea. But I get it Egypt needs love too and the Sumerians and Mayans.

[ragael]

oook i already dislike the guy. saying that the Byzantine Empire "was no genuine continuation of it, it was a damaged resumption of the hellenic empire of Alexander." no wonder a lot of ppl still think the Roman Empire ended in 476, and that the Byzantine Empire was a greek empire with barely any affiliation to the romans. makes me wanna smash smth :))

[deeptime]

You have to realize that works in history at that time was often compartmentalized by professional historians and Wells was looking for broad unifying themes to create a history of humanity. This book, unexpectedly, became a best seller and had enormous influence. Additionally, Wells was a product of the fin-de-siecle that was fixated by the thought of decadence. This period was in the shadow of Gibbons, Oscar Wilde, and the Decadent writers, of which HG Wells, in his science fiction phase, is considered to be part of. If you visit my website I have three lectures on HG Wells in terms of his fiction and its relationship with existentialism but also the theme of decadence and barbarism which Rome represented.

[goyonman]

being contrarian doesn't make you smarter

[mrlakkie]

i agree that other empires were great and important too. but why dont ancestors of persia and china do that while we focus on the empires that layed the foundation of our societies. to me rome will always be the greatest empire to have ever existed in aesthetics, law, economy, engineering, armies, warfare etc. etc.

[RangaTurk]

The region referenced as Sarmatia and its push west overrunning the continental Celtic tribes like Saxon and Boii is what one can call underrated historical discourse. Also the Polen civilization originating around Lodz starting in the tenth century onwards becomes a serious rival in terms of land area acquisition although within the confines of a separate timeline. 18:50 27BC - 180AD Wasted opportunity? Not helped by Pompeii and Herculaneum. A bit of a distraction if you ask me.

[sorakey]

@ThersitestheHistorian Any chance you and Shawn could do a thorough Isidewith 2020 dot com issues survey talk-through instead? Highly topical, talking about the history of certain issues, this election has severely lacked any big issue talks, etc etc

[kauffner]

Wells certainly likes the Republic, but has nothing good to say about the Empire. Both of them lasted for a very long time. Any generalization you make about either one will be both true and false depending on what period you focus on. Large landowners began to dominate Italian agriculture during the Punic Wars, so that's not the fault of the empire. Law and order broke down toward the end of the republic. Augustus created the Urban Cohort to police the city. The empire saw a Golden Age of literature under Augustus, which was followed by a Silver Age (AD 18-133). Roman civilization was at its height around AD 150. That's is to say, Rome continued to rise during the first two centuries of imperial rule. Decline set in when the plague arrived under Antonius Pius the late second century.

The Romans put forts on the Rhine and Danube and supplied them by boat. So the boundaries they selected made geographic sense. Marcus Aurelius wanted Dacia (Romania) because of its gold mines. There is no similar logic for conquering Germany. The Germans invaded the empire to escape the advance of the Huns. The Hunnish empire didn't last long. Otherwise, the Persians were the empire's most dangerous enemy.

[Μπρο]

The dude is wrong in so many ways. Romans were not uncurious they innovated in so many ways from architecture to warfare (the fact that he claimed Roman tactics were the same from Cannae to the fall of the empire is hilariously wrong). They didn't leave learning only to slaves, as being learned contributed to a man's Gravitas. The whole exploration point is also invalid, sure Greeks went to India first but the Romans were the ones who as he described sent to India over 100 ships per year, also I do remember reading about Romans going into the Sahara to trade which is something Greeks never did.

[DarkfirevOperator]

I know it's a damn thing to ask, but would you ever be interested in discussing genetics?