For example, they developed complex architecture and beautiful building techniques like the Greeks, but they took this one step further. They also developed complex engineering techniques, such as their systems of aqueducts which brought water to their cities, and systems which brought water to their villages and public baths.

             That of course is not to say that Rome and its culture were perfect. That is simply not the case with any complex civilization, as our own modern civilization clearly indicates. While the Roman system of government during the city-state was reasonable and semi-democratic, it ended by 600 B.C. Even during times of good government, there was still a great distinction between the classes, and eventual exclusion of the plebian class. When the Roman republic replaced the earlier government, it was a model in government and separation of powers (Matthews & Platt 114), and it evolved through several stages, but it was still dominated by strong families and politicians, and it eventually disintegrated into an autocracy. The government had become corrupt, imperialistic, and largely ceremonial and ineffectual, no longer fully representing the entire population and their needs and wants. When the autocracy was formed, the rulers relied on military power to hold on to their rule. Society improved, and so did trade, but just about every aspect of culture changed when Rome changed from a republic to an empire, even the arts and architecture. Many things advanced, in parallel with Greek culture, but other aspects diminished, which eventually led to unrest, unhappiness, and eventual collapse. During the empire, culture, the arts, and philosophy all reached a "golden age." It almost seems as if Rome reached a pinnacle and could go no further, and so, there was no where to go but down. Historian Jenkyns notes that one reason the empire finally fell was the influence of other customs and societies as other cultures infiltrated Roman civilization.