If you asked this 100 years ago then the answer would probably be yes. Nowadays historians usually avoid making subjective claims like the Romans being "best". The Romans had a complex economy, ruled over a massive swathe of land, conquered their competitors militarily, had laws and order, a concept of citizenship and loyalty to the state, and some basic allowances towards religious tolerance and cultural acceptance- along with a host of other things us westerners like to think we've descended from.

Does this make them better? Only if you think that we are the peak of human achievement and that history was tending towards us with the fall of Rome being a hindrance on that path.

Think about Indians, the Chinese, Muslims. Would they claim that Rome was better? An extreme Muslim may point to the Caliphate under Muhammad as the pinnacle of civilisation, a moderate maybe to the Golden Era when scientific achievements poured out of Muslim lands. The Chinese may say they were, and still are, the best civilisation of all time. Indians may point to the Maratha who asserted Hindu dominance against Islamic rulers who'd long dominated the sub-continent.

What I'm saying is that "better" is subjective, and not part of the science of history. Claiming Rome or Greece was better than other Empires is a very Euro-centric and outdated concept that is a massive disservice to the achievements of everyone else throughout history.

I could go into the history of romantic imaginings of our collective Roman past, but I don't have any sources to hand.

Best is of course, a personal and subjective opinion.

The way I look at it is, best is dependent upon identity and association. Namely who are you, and who do you associate with a particular period of history like Rome?

This question applied across existing or would-be states in Europe were in a nutshell the origin of many a nationalist movement in the 19th century.

If you were a member of a formerly independent German principality that was under the thumb of Napoleon, you could see the history of the demise of the Roman Empire by Germanic barbarians as a free people overthrowing the shackles of the overlord that held them in subjection for so long.

Or if were British, you might view yourselves as part of a world spanning cosmopolitan empire like Rome, trying to stave an anticipated fall into irrelevance or conquest.

Even now, the close associations to Rome as a golden era are tied to the politics of the people associating, like when Rome is marshalled for support in areas like anti-immigration. "Look, barbarians are crossing our borders, just like it did Rome! We must stop them or else we'll end up like them!"

Rome is a political hot potato. The fact that it is considered one of the origins of western civilization makes its rise and fall part of the back and forth tossing of where examples are appropriate for comparison and when they aren't as we worry about whether we'll suffer our own rise and fall.

tl;dr - Is Rome of the best human civilizations? Depends on who you ask. Is our historical narrative just biased that way? Yes. Because Rome is one of our foundations, and one we're both proud of, and anxious of, because of its accomplishments, and its shortcomings. We feel Rome is us. But which Rome will become us? The great, or the fallen?