Emperor Commodus

[Chris79]

i read a book back in the 70s that proposed the idea that the fall of the Roman empire was due to their pots and pans were lined with lead.  think it makes sense considering how the ceasars acted towards the end.


semp

There was a multitude of reasons for the fall of Rome.

[SysError]

... Please do remember, that this work was finished and published during the most tumultuous time in human thought: the Enlightenment. Gibbon's work served as a counter to many philosophes' works such as Voltaire's Spirit of Nations and Treatise on Tolerance.

Interesting point, needs some thought on my part.

(For me it has now been 40+ years since I spent any real time on roman history - and to be up front about it - back then I only suffered through the histories in order to get a better understanding of historical context for Roman architecture/topography.   For me, with the exception of a podcast here and there and the occasional book at Xmas, it has been just another road/path not taken.)


With summer coming up, I would be interested in anything you might have to recommend for my beach reading list.

[Gman]

Damn, I can never remember if racist is capitalized or not.

I didn't say it was my opinion, it was the authors.  I posted that to point out that it's just as ridiculous to compare the current immigration issues with what many authors have said about the fall of Rome, as it is to compare a Caeser such as Commodus, and his actions, with Trump.

I can't remember if "suspended" from the BBS is capitalized either...

[perdue3]

Interesting point, needs some thought on my part.

(For me it has now been 40+ years since I spent any real time on roman history - and to be up front about it - back then I only suffered through the histories in order to get a better understanding of historical context for Roman architecture/topography.   For me, with the exception of a podcast here and there and the occasional book at Xmas, it has been just another road/path not taken.)


With summer coming up, I would be interested in anything you might have to recommend for my beach reading list.

If you have never given Rome serious thought (meaning rigorous academic reading, research, theoretical work), then there is a good starter list I could recommend. If you feel that you are past the elementary stages and want something more intuitive (which requires a complete and thorough understanding of Roman history), I could recommend a different list. To put it simply, there are essentially three types of academic works on Rome: military, politics, general. My recommendation would be to start with a  general history and go from there.

For any new student I would always recommend Mary Beard's SPQR. It is a general history, but it is not a public history. This means it is not meant to reach only the slightly enthused (I think of David McCullough, Bill O'Reilly, and Brian Kilmeade). I never recommend public histories to anyone for they are written for people who know nothing of the topic and are only slightly interested in the topic. Mary Beard's book is comprehensive, but it does not make claims and suggestions that much more involved academic works do. It is perfect for a Roman History 200 level student and even 100 level. She covers the basis that is needed to fully understand the complexities of the Republic and Empire. What she does not cover is the real minute details such as Rome's graffiti problems, vandalism (no pun), political conniving, detailed analysis of battles, detailed makeup of the army, etc. For these things, one need look elsehwere, but if you want a solid general history with no fluff, Mary Beard is a winner.

If your interests only lie in politics, military, or other area of Roman history, I could recommend different works.

[Gman]

I am going to cherry pick your post here Tundra, forgive me. Gibbon, in my opinion, is not a credible source any longer for the decline in particular, anyway. I find his first five volumes to be very comprehensive and an accurate study of the sociopolitical status of Rome throughout its history. However, his ending thesis regarding Vandal invasion is wrong, in my opinion. He attributed it to a loss of morality, which stemmed from their straying from Catholic faith. This was clear and uncut propaganda from Gibbon, an unfortunate inclusion in such a masterful piece of scholarship. His faith obstructed his objective, academic conclusion. Please do remember, that this work was finished and published during the most tumultuous time in human thought: the Enlightenment. Gibbon's work served as a counter to many philosophes' works such as Voltaire's Spirit of Nations and Treatise on Tolerance. There was as much allegorical work as there was historical, which is why we must be cautious when using Gibbon's work in academic settings regarding the fall of Rome as an idea. While I believe that Gibbon's monstrosity of a work is a very important piece of understanding Rome and its historiography, I cannot possibly use his final thesis as fact. We can use it, of course, as a great foundation and as a particular lens or viewpoint. But, I would be apprehensive about siding with him or even using his morality question as a basis of reason when determining the cause of the fall itself.

I don't disagree, I just threw him in my little list, as his viewpoint on one singular subject fit my point I was making, regarding comparing the fall of Rome to Trump and current issues/events.

I would contend that the opposite is true in terms of Gibbon's theme regarding early Christianity, and the Roman state's failure due to straying from early Catholic beliefs.  IMO there is a far stronger argument to be made that straying from earlier (back as far as the mid Republic period) Roman values, ideas, and religion, was responsible - at least partially - for the collapse.

So I don't disagree.  What I do disagree with is those who cherry pick incidents regarding Trump, and make comparisons to the worst leaders Rome had, as though they've said something noteworthy.   I could do the same, with pages of examples of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, all the way back to Washington.

edit - +1 for SPQR by Beard, it is one of my favorites as well, I give copies as gifts all the time to friends and relatives who enjoy history.  For more specific Roman military history, Goldsworthy, Hughes, Kulikowski, and Ruebel all have written numerous excellent books on the subject. If anyone wants to borrow any of the epubs/etc from me, or even see my list of books on the subject I can loan out, PM me.

[perdue3]

I don't disagree, I just threw him in my little list, as his viewpoint on one singular subject fit my point I was making, regarding comparing the fall of Rome to Trump and current issues/events.

I would contend that the opposite is true in terms of Gibbon's theme regarding early Christianity, and the Roman state's failure due to straying from early Catholic beliefs.  IMO there is a far stronger argument to be made that straying from earlier (back as far as the mid Republic period) Roman values, ideas, and religion, was responsible - at least partially - for the collapse.

So I don't disagree.  What I do disagree with is those who cherry pick incidents regarding Trump, and make comparisons to the worst leaders Rome had, as though they've said something noteworthy.   I could do the same, with pages of examples of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, all the way back to Washington.

As you may note, I have not mentioned my country's current political state, only that of Rome's. Adopting Christianity created its own problems, no doubt. The beginning of the end, for me, was Commodus. Adopting Christianity was a bandage for the already horrific state the society of Rome was in. Rome's people were divided and a gap formed between Roman and foreigner. There were many reasons for this, obviously.

Adding Gibbon to the list was the right thing to do. I simply wanted to add my opinion, and that of many historians, of Gibbon's conclusions as they were as allegorical as they were historical. It certainly has made for an interesting discussion which I hope continues.

[Gman]

As you may note, I have not mentioned my country's current political state, only that of Rome's. Adopting Christianity created its own problems, no doubt. The beginning of the end, for me, was Commodus. Adopting Christianity was a bandage for the already horrific state the society of Rome was in. Rome's people were divided and a gap formed between Roman and foreigner. There were many reasons for this, obviously.

Adding Gibbon to the list was the right thing to do. I simply wanted to add my opinion, and that of many historians, of Gibbon's conclusions as they were as allegorical as they were historical. It certainly has made for an interesting discussion which I hope continues.

I wasn't referring to your posts at all, just the OP, sorry I should have made that clear.  (I understand the confusion as I stole your cherry pick bit).

I agree, Roman history is fascinating, again, I have dozens if not over 100 books I've collected in electronic format on the subject of Rome. 

[perdue3]

edit - +1 for SPQR by Beard, it is one of my favorites as well, I give copies as gifts all the time to friends and relatives who enjoy history.  For more specific Roman military history, Goldsworthy, Hughes, Kulikowski, and Ruebel all have written numerous excellent books on the subject. If anyone wants to borrow any of the epubs/etc from me, or even see my list of books on the subject I can loan out, PM me.

Goldsworthy's book is not very broad, but if one were specifically interested in the downfall of the empire, it certainly is recommended. Hughes's book, I have not read. I have seen it around at it seems like an interesting history of the city itself as it spans all the way to World War II. Rome's Gothic Wars is excellent and very well written. His older book is good too, Triumph of Empire. I have only read a chapter or two of it, but Kulikowsky is definitely worth reading if you want military. Richard Gabriel's Hannibal is amazing, too. Although it has a focus on Hannibal, obviously, there is quite a bit of Rome in there after Cannae. It is imperative to understand both sides of any war, which is why I would recommend Heather's two books on the Goths if one was to read Kulikowsky's Rome's Gothic Wars.

[AKKuya]

The simplest reason why the Roman Empire fell.  Starbucks wasn't there to keep the caffeine levels up.

[Gman]

Goldsworthy's book is not very broad, but if one were specifically interested in the downfall of the empire, it certainly is recommended. Hughes's book, I have not read. I have seen it around at it seems like an interesting history of the city itself as it spans all the way to World War II. Rome's Gothic Wars is excellent and very well written. His older book is good too, Triumph of Empire. I have only read a chapter or two of it, but Kulikowsky is definitely worth reading if you want military. Richard Gabriel's Hannibal is amazing, too. Although it has a focus on Hannibal, obviously, there is quite a bit of Rome in there after Cannae. It is imperative to understand both sides of any war, which is why I would recommend Heather's two books on the Goths if one was to read Kulikowsky's Rome's Gothic Wars.

Goldswothy's one book that is specific to the fall of Rome,  "The Fall of the West: The Death of the Roman Superpower", is as you said, but he's written about a dozen other non fiction books, most specific to Roman warfare.  "The Roman Army at War", "The Punic Wars", "Caesar's Civil War (my favorite of his)", "The Complete Roman Army (2nd favorite)", "Pax Romana", a book about Cannae as well, and about a 1/2 dozen others - all are excellent, with regards to the Roman military machine, and the various wars and battles which are popular.

I'll read Gabriel's "Hannibal" asap, an acquaintance of mine is working on a graphic novel about Hannibal and the Battle of Zama.

Getting even more o/t, but if anyone wants to see a great visual of what a Roman legion looked like formed up, "Mules of Marius" painted an entire legion/diorama, and put up a bunch of pictures here.   Really puts perspective into how powerful a single legion was at that time (or even today) - this is without the massive amount of attached units as well, just the standing legion/cohorts.  The reality was likely a much larger formation.  Hard to imagine dozens of legions formed up in battle lines... what an incredible sight to behold, it must have been.

https://mules-of-marius.com/portfolio-item/legion-diorama/

[Busher]

I didn't say it was my opinion, it was the authors.  I posted that to point out that it's just as ridiculous to compare the current immigration issues with what many authors have said about the fall of Rome, as it is to compare a Caeser such as Commodus, and his actions, with Trump.

I can't remember if "suspended" from the BBS is capitalized either...

That would fit. God knows we don't want any left wing liberals here.

[Gman]

That would fit. God knows we don't want any left wing liberals here.

How very typical.  You point out how the OP is "too deep" for most of the Walmart shoppers here.  Then when I point out an equally stupid comparison regarding current affairs and Rome,  from the other perspective, you instantly cry "Thas raccissss!!!!".  Post in support of one side, than whine about the other.  God knows we don't want any right wing conservatives here.

[perdue3]

What about the unaffiliated lot? Anyone going to throw stones at them?

[Busher]

How very typical.  You point out how the OP is "too deep" for most of the Walmart shoppers here.  Then when I point out an equally stupid comparison regarding current affairs and Rome,  from the other perspective, you instantly cry "Thas raccissss!!!!".  Post in support of one side, than whine about the other.  God knows we don't want any right wing conservatives here.

You're correct. The current situation has me incensed with "those people" at one another's throats. And now I have sunk to that level myself.
Maybe we could agree that it might be time to randomly select 535+2 people from the phone book and tell them to work together for the common good.

[rabbidrabbit]

You're correct. The current situation has me incensed with "those people" at one another's throats. And now I have sunk to that level myself.
Maybe we could agree that it might be time to randomly select 535+2 people from the phone book and tell them to work together for the common good.

What's your malfunction?