Why is the Roman Empire seen in a better light than more recent Empires?

Different times different sensibilities, however the Romans granted the right to be a Roman fairly widely throughout territories they controlled, to be Roman appears , to a degree, to be more a position of rights (and responsibilities) rather than to be driven on a racial basis (albeit family/lineage played a very important part in Roman life)

However do not confuse above with any though process re democracy in a 21st century context, Rome ran with different rights and obligations to different classes and of course only a limited number of those living within the empire were citizens and those citizens were then each considered as being a member of distinct segments of Roman society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_ancient_Rome

To be Roman was akin to being a member of an exclusive club and the Romans were very clever in encoraging people to aspire to being allowed to join.

Very interesting, that does seem to be better treatment of conquered peoples, though I don't really think time should come into play with modern perspectives, empires were present and accepted both in Roman times and British Empire times, attitudes to imperialism weren't that different were they? So surely we should judge them equally.

Partly because they were not just another empire, they founded Western civilisation. Without the Romans, history would have turned out completely differently. They were centuries ahead of their time: arguably no European city was as technologically advanced as Rome until the Renaissance. Also because unlike the British the Romans were not incredibly racist and chauvinistic and didn't commit any major genocides (not to say they didn't wage some pretty brutal wars). By the standards of the day, Rome was no worse than anyone else. By the standards of the day, the later British empire was starting to look rather like America today: a little dated in its mindset.

But mainly because the British empire is still within living memory.

I agree that Rome revolutionised Europe and brought about huge technological advancements, but the same can be said for the British Empire and the industrial revolution. The technology was centuries ahead of many of the 'barbarian' tribes they conquered, and one could argue that the empire is largely responsible for allowing countries such as India to be catching up western technology so rapidly.

But I would disagree with Rome not being racist. They openly called native tribes barbarians,

razed Carthage to the ground and salting the soil, enslaved many people

Yet we can openly say Rome was ahead of its time and greatly benefited Europe's civilisation and technological advancement, yet suggest the same about the British Empire and one is at risk of being called imperialistic and possibly racist.

India is not catching up to Western technology quickly

They called everyone barbarians, they even called the Greeks barbarians, people who were demonstrably more advanced and more civilised than them. I don't think being extremely nationalistic is grounds for calling them racist, they weren't chauvinistic racialists who thought non-olive skinned Italians were inferior, they just thought that they themselves were exceptionally warlike and virtuous (like every other nation at the time).

Everyone did this at the time, it was just the way wars were conducted.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Britain has not served as the most important agent of advancement since the beginning of the modern period.

So they thought everyone that wasn't Roman were barbarians and inferior, sounds like racism, they persecuted/conquered non-Romans to incorporate them into the Roman Empire.

Oh, so if everyone has slaves its not a problem?

Sorry but that's blatantly untrue. India was the richest country in the world at the height of the Mughal empire, and was no less advanced than anywhere else in the world in the 17th and early 18th centuries (outside of Western europe) until the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. And India is not catching up to Western technology quickly, countries like Japan and China (which were never ruled by European imperial powers) are doing much better, largely because they weren't British and so weren't plunged into a power vacuum after the British left like the Middle East, Africa and India (obviously countries like Australia, Canada and Singapore are doing better because Britain built them from scratch rather than invading and disrupting native power structures).

What's the point in having a space program when you're also the only place comparable to central Africa in poverty and premature death rates?

Comparisons between the Roman Empire and more recent empires such as the British Empire are numerous, both used military force to conquer less technologically advanced peoples, and expanded far beyond their own lands. Yet people are more willing to marvel at how advanced Rome was and are happy to use the word Barbarian to describe the native Gallic and Celtic tribes that were destroyed. However the British Empire, equally guilty of wiping out native tribes and cultures, seems to be viewed much worse, and the technological advancements they brought poor compensation for the damage they did. Where is the difference?

P.S I'm not saying that we should view the British Empire in a positive light, but just inquiring as to why the Roman Empire seems to receive special treatment.

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. Space programmes have in the past yielded technology that has been applied in wholly different fields. NASA alone can be held responsible for dozens of spin-off technologies. Most of the benefits tend to be in aeronautics and other fields of engineering, but also in public health, recreation/consumer goods and medicine.

If things like that wouldn't help developing nations, what will?

But then I suppose this was all for nothing because what is the point of a space programme when you're the only place with racial policies comparable to South Africa? That statement is as valid as yours.

Comparisons between the Roman Empire and more recent empires such as the British Empire are numerous, both used military force to conquer less technologically advanced peoples, and expanded far beyond their own lands. Yet people are more willing to marvel at how advanced Rome was and are happy to use the word Barbarian to describe the native Gallic and Celtic tribes that were destroyed. However the British Empire, equally guilty of wiping out native tribes and cultures, seems to be viewed much worse, and the technological advancements they brought poor compensation for the damage they did. Where is the difference?

P.S I'm not saying that we should view the British Empire in a positive light, but just inquiring as to why the Roman Empire seems to receive special treatment.

you know, subject people used to be proud of being part of the British empire, just like Roman subjects were proud Romans.

It's only since the rise of Marxist historical narrative that has instilled a sense of grievance and hate towards the empire.

The empire brought unprecedented peace to large swathes of the world. India for example was a war torn land which had been invaded for 800 years by various Islamic factions. British empire imposed stability and Indians growing success is large part down to British legacy. British empire also brought prosperity to large parts of Asia. Hong Kong for example is one of the worlds richest state but was just a small port before British.

Was it perfect? No. But compared to the barbarity and chaos that is unfolding around the world, British empire was a beacon of peace and prosperity.

Remember the point of successful empire is always about trade. Trade needs stability. Trade brings wealth.

People forget empires are about stability. Most people in the world dont have stability, and so they welcome empires, it's only because empire was so successful, that people eventually forgot the barbarity of the unstable times. And so thought empire was not needed.

Empire is needed now. Look at the chaos in Middle East and Africa. This is what is was like before empire.

Historians have always overrated Rome, don't know why. The only special thing it did was nearly last 2000 years. Otherwise it's a fairly average empire, that was devoid of culture (Ancient Roman culture is just a bastardised, stolen version of ancient Greek culture).

Well you are quite right. The Romans could be complete *******s when the mood took them. They crucified Our Lord which was a bad move.
The British Empire brought Christian civilisation to untold millions of savages. You only have to see the complete mess which countries have made of themselves after they rejected the wholesome shelter of our Glorious Empire. None of this ISIS *******s would have been allowed. smh.