How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[Walhaz]

they interpreted ancient history within their own cultural matrix. The same goes double for later attempts to channel ancient Rome for military and social agendas.

This is indeed the most serious problem when considering how "different" the Romans were. Without a lifetime of context in their worldview (and they probably had quite a few competing worldviews, just as we have now, complicating the matter even further), we can't really identify where the differences are. We can point at some differences and similarities, but we can't actually be certain that they really are differences or similarities. They may appear to us to be so, but possibly the similarities are only superficial and exist for reasons totally alien/incomprehensible/invisible to us.

The same would go for a Roman transferred to modern times. No doubt an ancient Roman would identify differences and similarities between his culture and our own, but without the context that informs our cultures/worldviews (and there are a lot of them, again) he would just be guessing, and possibly drawing parallels that do not in fact exist.

Yes, there are over-arching human drives, emotions, and needs that cross all boundaries of culture and time; the problem is that the only ones that can be agreed upon are very abstract (such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and so only with the utmost caution can we infer from these abstracts to anything specific. Even then, we are going way out on a limb. Also, this thread seems to be straying off-topic.....