Comment by mxfh

>Did they improve sanitation, irrigation, medicine etc.?

They built a network of aqueducts that was the largest in the world for a thousand years. The plumbing and sewage systems they installed in their cities were so effective that some are not just intact, but in use, right now. There are plenty of negative points you can raise about the Roman Empire, but water systems aren't one of them.

The "what have the Romans done for us" sketch is partly about Rome, but largely a disguised defense of the British Empire.

> Was Roman wine better than pre-Roman wine in that region?

If I were to guess, I would say that Roman wine was made from grapes, Levantine wine was made from dates, the vast majority of wine in the Levant continued to be made from dates during Roman rule, and imported Roman wine probably cost a lot more than local wine did, making it "better" by definition.

In a pre-industrial agricultural society, slavery or something similar (serfdom etc.) tends to be widespread, as human and animal muscles are the only reliable and ubiquitous source of energy. Humanity only really started getting rid of unfree backbreaking work by adopting steam engines. 300-400 years ago, most of us forists here would be unfree people working the fields in unfavorable conditions, with maybe 5 per cent being burghers and 1 per cent nobility.

> Was Roman wine better than pre-Roman wine in that region?

Not necessarily better, but they made much more of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome_and_wine:

“Ancient Rome played a pivotal role in the history of wine. The earliest influences on the viticulture of the Italian Peninsula can be traced to ancient Greeks and the Etruscans. The rise of the Roman Empire saw both technological advances in and burgeoning awareness of winemaking, which spread to all parts of the empire. Rome's influence has had a profound effect on the histories of today's major winemaking regions in France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

The Roman belief that wine was a daily necessity made the drink "democratic" and ubiquitous; in various qualities, it was available to slaves, peasants and aristocrats, men and women alike. To ensure the steady supply of wine to Roman soldiers and colonists, viticulture and wine production spread to every part of the empire. The economic opportunities presented by trading in wine drew merchants to do business with tribes native to Gaul and Germania, bringing Roman influences to these regions even before the arrival of the Roman military. Evidence of this trade and the far-reaching ancient wine economy is most often found through amphorae – ceramic jars used to store and transport wine and other commodities.

[…]

Among the lasting legacies of the ancient Roman empire were the viticultural foundations laid by the Romans in lands that would become world-renowned wine regions. Through trade, military campaigns and settlements, Romans brought with them a taste for wine and the impetus to plant vines. Trade was the first and farthest-reaching arm of their influence, and Roman wine merchants were eager to trade with enemy and ally alike—from the Carthaginians and peoples of southern Spain to the Celtic tribes in Gaul and Germanic tribes of the Rhine and Danube.

During the Gallic Wars, when Julius Caesar brought his troops to Cabyllona in 59 BC, he found two Roman wine merchants already established in business trading with the local tribes. In places like Bordeaux, Mainz, Trier and Colchester where Roman garrisons were established, vineyards were planted to supply local need and limit the cost of long-distance trading. Roman settlements were founded and populated by retired soldiers with knowledge of Roman viticulture from their families and life before the military; vineyards were planted in their new homelands. While it is possible that the Romans imported grapevines from Italy and Greece, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that they cultivated native vines that may be the ancestors of the grapes grown in those provinces today”

…I think it kinda goes without saying that , perhaps with a very few notable exceptions, satirical television shows are not necessarily renown for their historical, scientific, or anecdotal accuracy.

That being said, in my own experience at least, such pseudo-historical references in comedy in particular have spurred me on to independent investigation as to what they were on about, exactly.

I’d say that the slapdash integrity is a feature, rather than a bug, since it is implicit in the format that a certain fraction of the assertions made will be bullocks cheese. This spurs curiosity and is also an excellent comedic mechanism.

It would be interesting, however, to have a backdrop of steadfast historical “accuracy “ in an otherwise pseudo-slapstick context a-la Monty pythons flying circus. That was kinda part of the gig, but it might be even funnier if they obviously took that aspect with unflinching seriousness.

As for the Roman Empire, I’d dare say that in slavery they were contemporary with most societies of their day, and I think to imply that their use of slavery somehow diminishes their contribution to global cultural heritage is not only disingenuous, but also smacks of some kind of pointless reflexive regurgitation of a partisan talking point or conformance/virtue signaling. It kinda undermines your point.

Ultimately, there are probably very few, if any, living humans that cannot trace their cultural heritage to slavery, slave ownership, perpetrators horrific atrocities, genocide, human rights violations, war crimes, and violent crimes against women, children, and humanity in general. What matters is what -you- chose to do. Be known for the fruit of your tree, and not as the product of the hill from which you sprout.