[dntbnmpls]

> The area they ruled (from England to Syria and Egypt) had never been under a unified rule before the Romans.

To be fair, you can say that about almost every empire - mongol, greek, british, ottoman, persian, babylonian, etc. I doubt the mongol empire stretching from vietnam to korea and moscow to baghdad will ever be unified under a single empire.

> If you consider how many different countries and cultures occupy that space today

To be fair, most of the countries and cultures that occupy that space today weren't ruled by the romans. Rome never ruled england as england came into existence after the anglo-saxons conquered roman britannia. As for syria and egypt, the romans never ruled the arabs who dominate the region.

> it really puts the magnitude of their empire into perspective.

Rather than the magnitude, I think the legacy of the roman empire is what separates it from others.

The roman empire wasn't particularly that large.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires