A little further in:
It is my opinion that the alleged Roman achievements are largely a myth; and I feel it is time for this myth to be debunked a little. What the Romans excelled in was bullying, bludgeoning, butchering and blood baths. Like the Soviet Empire, the Roman Empire enslaved peoples whose cultural level was far above their own. They not only ruthlessly vandalized their countries, but they also looted them, stealing their art treasures, abducting their scientists and copying their technical know-how, which the Romans' barren society was rarely able to improve on. No wonder, then, that Rome was filled with great works of art. But the light of culture which Rome is supposed to have emanated was a borrowed light: borrowed from the Greeks and the other peoples that the Roman militarists had enslaved.
I wouldn’t put rule that out, at all. But from a archeology perspective, when you stumble on to ruins in Rome, it is natural to think that they were the achievers. It’s only when you can start accurately dating and sequencing stuff that the perspective me start to change.
One problem with the article though:
“The Roman contribution to mathematics was little more than nothing at all.”
If that were the case, I’d expect the public schools to pounce on that and use it as their curriculum. Since they’re not doing so, there may have been some merit to their mathematical skills.
Rome’s empire preceded the fall of the fascist oligarchy which is passed off as the Roman Republic. The problem I have with the transition to a fulltime emperor is anachronistic — in the arts and media, it’s always portrayed as a single dimensional good vs evil struggle. And around here, the advocates of that view are nearly always advocates of (shall we say) another, more recent, corrupt oligarchy.
BTW, that page appears to be a neonazi website (speaking of more recent, corrupt oligarchy).