complexly simple question for all you guys/gals/killer robots.

why is it that Europe under the Roman Empire never developed a sense of "roman-nish" (not in a nationalistic sense)where as ancient China to today can look back and have a collective "Chinese-nish" point in case the Chinese calls themselves Han which was one of the early dynasties and ever since they have had a collective "this is us" mentality no mater how many empires rise and fall and fracture they still have the idea of China. Europe on the other hand has never been able to reunite under a stable government, each one falling within a life time (think Napoléon or the Nazis.) I have some ideas as to why but I want to hear from all you guys/gals/killer robots first

this is not a nationalism question but a simple query. flag waving patriots will be shot..... with water guns

Well, I'm no historian. There are certain people (You know who you are) out there that can answer this question better than I, but I can give you my impression.

Rome was never much concerned with cultural conquest. If you look at how they conquered the rest of the Empire, they were more concerned with establishing tributaries than bringing the glory of Rome to the barbarians. They permitted the conquered peoples to keep their local religions, governments, and so on, so long as they paid tribute to Rome. Because they never pursued a cultural conquest, the different cultures of Europe remained distinct while still incorporating Roman elements, enough to be similar but still local.

And Europe has never been united under a lasting government. Rome never conquered all of mainland Europe, or the British Isles. They only pushed up into Germania and Britannia towards the relative end of the Empire. One might argue that the Carolingians had as much of an effect, or the Hapsburgs. They controlled nearly as much of Europe in their day.

Rome, when it came to Europe, was focused on dominating the land...not the people.

That, in my opinion, was a large contributing factor as to why the empire splintered apart near the end.

There was the Holy Roman Empire which was for the most part controlled from the Habsburg family

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

Rome ruled by letting the conquered rule themselves with Roman influence and appointed oversight. They had very little interest in crushing the culture, customs, etc. of those they conquered and replacing them with "Roman" culture.

I agree with a lot of what you all are saying but I don't think your giving the romans enough credit. outside of north Africa and Britain what was the western empire still speaks one form of "Latin" or another. even England who after the fall switched to a bastardized high German due to the myriad of Germanic invaders (Saxons, Jutes, Vikings Angles, just to name the big ones) speaks today a Latinized German due to the roman influenced continent. you guys make it sound as if the romans came to a town and said "we rule you now give us your gold" then left. the romans had a huge impact on the everyday life of citizen from the towns to the cloths to the vary gods they prayed to. "you have a god of war too!? he must just be the same guy as ours only with a different name." the romans absorbed other cultures and implemented aspects of said culture into there own they kept what they had until they found something better. the famed gladius was a Spanish sword that they only adopted once they conquered Spain. they were monolithic but did allow other "Latinized" cultures to live within there borders.

Typically, what happens is that when you create a clear social divide, the second class either doubles down on their own culture, or seeks to mimic the higher class. So, yes, the Romans pretty much went there an said "We rule you now, give us money". They occupied them, their merchants filled the markets, the cities, forts, and roads that they built were in the Roman style. In those cities, Temples were built to the Roman gods for the Romans who lived there. However, their approach to the local culture was more or less hands off unless it threatened Roman interests.

What this would have created is a situation where there is a clear dominator, with a distinct culture which would have percolated down to the occupied peoples. Because they had to deal with Romans and because Romans were the dominant culture, the people learned Latin. Because they could rise higher by working within Roman culture, they adopted their gods and integrated. In the most completely integrated regions (Italy, Cisalpine Gaul, Spain, and so on), the culture there became functionally Roman. However, it was a naturalistic development born of practical interest, rather than a culture imposed by the conqueror. Those tend to last longer in outlying regions.

On the other subject:

I would say one of the most important things to consider is that while they were both expansionist, socially stratified, and tradition bound cultures, China and Rome share virtually nothing else in common. I'm trying to think of how to expand on this, but as a rule, you can't really compare distinct cultures with one another. Everything from religion to history to whether the people share a generally individualistic or familial or nationalistic bent can influence how cultures interact.