[thadt]

Weird right? My wife studied Nazi Germany, and doesn't really like the Nazis either.

History is messy - we can and should learn from those that came before, both the good and bad. One can both admire the things the Romans accomplished while simultaneously despising the way they went about accomplishing them. It isn't a contradiction.

[gadders]

I think it depends why you're interested in the Romans. As a layman, I like the military history, the politics, etc. I'm less interested in the sociology - especially when retro-fitting a 2025 world view on it.

And you can despise the Romans for the way they went about things, but it's not like the other societies they went to war with were any better, and in a lot of cases were worse (EG Carthaginian baby sacrifice).

[thadt]

Well, it's fascinating right? Can we cleanly separate out military, politics and sociology? A whole lot of military capability comes down to not just technology and tactics, but the entire culture and makeup of the people. When we think of famous examples such as the Spartans at Thermopylae, the whole Spartan culture is important to understanding the how and why.

Context is really important. As you correctly note, many of the people the Romans were conquering could be even more ruthless as well (by 2025 standards). My point was more that historians wear a lot of different hats, depending on what they're doing. When you're wearing your 'investigator hat' learning how and why things worked, your thoughts might be different than when you're wearing your 'builder hat' and thinking about the society you might want to live in today (and tomorrow). It isn't a contradiction to weigh the tradeoffs that various people in history have made when designing their culture (and politics, and military capabilities).