Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SysError on February 05, 2020, 06:05:44 PM
-
Today, for some reason, I cannot help but think about the Emperor Commodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
There were other emperors after him, but many see him as the last and the start of the death of Rome.
-
I just sat on the Throne of Commodus, left a deposit! :D
-
Netflix has a docu series on Roman Emperors. Commodus is the focus on season 3 I believe. Much more informative then Gladiator.
-
Today, for some reason, I cannot help but think about the Emperor Commodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
There were other emperors after him, but many see him as the last and the start of the death of Rome.
Too deep for most I suspect SysError.
-
Too deep for most I suspect SysError.
Or too shallow. Analogies abound from both perspectives.
- oldman
-
I find Craptology interesting. In fact I have a BS in Craptology.
-
Today, for some reason, I cannot help but think about the Emperor Commodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
There were other emperors after him, but many see him as the last and the start of the death of Rome.
I agree Sys. Commodus was a megalomaniac with very little, if any, empathy for his people. He also really struggled with temper and had no sense of compromise. Lucky for Rome, this man was never placed in charge of massive military operations. Toward the end of his reign, he really began to lose it having named all of the months after himself. Sadly for Rome, his death marked the beginning of the Year of the Five Emperors, which was no less chaotic than any other year of Comodus's reign.
-
It's been said that among the Roman traditions. Having a long nose, an individual would be seen as having great intellect and power.
Us 21st Century people filled with great historical information, all we need are 3 things.
1) Set an appointment with a plastic surgeon and schedule extending the nose and increasing the width. (easiest to do, just need cash)
2) Have a portable googol translator to street Latin. (possible but need a way for future battery charging)
3) Time displacement device ex.. DeLorean with flux capacitor, blue telephone booth, portal (hardest thing to acquire)
Once all 3 things have been accomplished, showing up thousands of years ago armed with the flame stick to ignite charcoal grilling, heavy duty flashlight, shotg.. boom stick, and last but not least a portable Walkman with headphones. You would definetily claim the Emperor's throne.
-
Street Latin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAfKFKBlZbM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAfKFKBlZbM)
-
I have studied some Roman history, but Commodus and the later Emperors never interested me.. By that time the empire was already a walking corpse, propelled by it's own inertia..
A catalogue of Corruption and Depravity, existing on the Glory of their Ancestors..
I always found the Republic, far more interesting.. First and second Punic wars, Hannibal vs Scipio, Cannae, and Zama.. The Roman civil wars, Caesar's conquests and assassination, the triumvirate, Actium..
-
I have studied some Roman history, but Commodus and the later Emperors never interested me.. By that time the empire was already a walking corpse, propelled by it's own inertia..
A catalogue of Corruption and Depravity, existing on the Glory of their Ancestors..
I always found the Republic, far more interesting.. First and second Punic wars, Hannibal vs Scipio, Cannae, and Zama.. The Roman civil wars, Caesar's conquests and assassination, the triumvirate, Actium..
I feel the same way about Ancient Egypt... for myself, Egypt was not the same after it was conquered by
Alexander :salute
-
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
-
Many authors such as Goldsworthy, Gibben, Heather, and a long list of others, claim that two of the major factors leading to the fall of the Western Roman empire were too many foreigners/slaves allowed into the workforce, as well as the legions. If we're going to talk about "deep" subjects, and make comparisons about Rome and today's issues.
-
Many authors such as Goldsworthy, Gibben, Heather, and a long list of others, claim that two of the major factors leading to the fall of the Western Roman empire were too many foreigners/slaves allowed into the workforce, as well as the legions. If we're going to talk about "deep" subjects, and make comparisons about Rome and today's issues.
Damn, I can never remember if racist is capitalized or not. :bhead
-
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 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.
-
... 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.
-
Damn, I can never remember if racist is capitalized or not. :bhead
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The simplest reason why the Roman Empire fell. Starbucks wasn't there to keep the caffeine levels up.
-
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/
(https://mules-of-marius.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/leg1.gif)
(https://mules-of-marius.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/leg5.gif)
(https://mules-of-marius.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/leg4.gif)
(https://mules-of-marius.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/coh1.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
-
What about the unaffiliated lot? Anyone going to throw stones at them?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Netflix has a docu series on Roman Emperors. Commodus is the focus on season 3 I believe. Much more informative then Gladiator.
Good suggestion - I had started to watch a while ago and just stopped for some reason.
-
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.
I would say that as a kid I used be right on top of the topic, but sadly I just never did much with it.
Your suggestion to pick up Beard's book, at this point in my life, is probably a good one. A few years ago I downloaded Mike Duncan's History of Rome podcasts and I was surprised by how much I had forgotten. And since I have come to learn that I don't seem to retain anything from podcasts, it is probably a good idea to read a good survey book.
The reason I was interested by your comment on Gibbon is that even as a kid I never really saw that Rome had ever fallen - but how much currency does a kid have?
Anyway, about maybe 10 years ago or so, I came across passing references to the idea that Rome perhaps hadn't "fallen" but rather had transformed itself in the church. So obviously, any reframing of Gibbon is of some interest to me.
-
I would say that as a kid I used be right on top of the topic, but sadly I just never did much with it.
Your suggestion to pick up Beard's book, at this point in my life, is probably a good one. A few years ago I downloaded Mike Duncan's History of Rome podcasts and I was surprised by how much I had forgotten. And since I have come to learn that I don't seem to retain anything from podcasts, it is probably a good idea to read a good survey book.
The reason I was interested by your comment on Gibbon is that even as a kid I never really saw that Rome had ever fallen - but how much currency does a kid have?
Anyway, about maybe 10 years ago or so, I came across passing references to the idea that Rome perhaps hadn't "fallen" but rather had transformed itself in the church. So obviously, any reframing of Gibbon is of some interest to me.
Duncan's The Storm Before the Storm was surprisingly good. I expected it to be "History Lite" but it was well done. Beard's SPQR is fantastic as it will remind you of what you have forgotten and certainly teach you things you did not know. It provides a wonderful foundation for Rome's history as an entity. From there, you can branch off into many different works on many different topics. I am quite interested in tactics, so I have spent a lot of time reading about that part of Rome's history.
So Gibbon is a staple in Roman historiography. It is usually the first one, two, or three books an ancient history major reads about Rome. It was really the first comprehensive history of the entire history of Rome. This is what makes so incredibly important. However, as a scholar, one must be weary of using his thesis as fact. That is because he wrote it with a specific purpose, to counter the Enlightenment's thinkers on the matter of faith. He essentially blames the fall of Rome on their loss of morality and faith. In many ways, he is predicting, like John the Revelator, what will ultimately happen to Europe (specifically London and Paris). This is why I claimed it to be allegorical. It comes off as a historical claim, but it is in fact a treatise on keeping faith. This is similar to most of Procopius's work during the reign of Justinian (we can save this for a later time perhaps).
I am not sure that I would agree with Roman Catholicism and Christianity taking the place of the Roman Empire. I can say that up until the Great Schism (and perhaps until the Fourth Crusade), that was likely the idea in the eyes of the clergy. I have written about Christendom (idea of a Christian empire) in the past and have theorized that the Crusades were a part of that idea as were Spain's explorations. Here is a paragraph from that essay:
"The Crusades represent yet another major turning point in European history, especially when the idea of Europe is considered. The Crusades was a calling to all of Christendom to unite and fight under the flag of faith to defeat the Muslims who occupied the Holy Land. This was an important goal for several reasons. One of those reasons being the thought that the Roman Catholic Church was the continuation of the Roman Empire (footnote here: Housley, "Crusades and Islam"). The Roman Empire, famously, once occupied this territory and as it was this empire that spread Christianity throughout Europe. Another reason was much more fundamental, as Jerusalem represented the place of death of Jesus Christ . His blood was shed on the very ground just outside of the city. To think that the Muslim infidels now ruled this land was tormenting to the pope and ecclesiastics. Yet another possible purpose of the First Crusade was an attempt at pushing the issue of secularists, who were in debate with ecclesiastics, to the side by uniting in conflict against Islam. When Pope Urban II called for the ‘Holy War’ against the Islamic caliphates, many kingdoms obliged and set sail to the Levant and Anatolia. Although the soldiers, barons, dukes, and kings who fought in the First Crusade (1095-1099) were of different backgrounds, cultures, languages, etc., they united under the church and under the faith. "
This comes from an essay regarding the idea of Europe. That idea was born of Catholicism. While an entity such as the Roman Empire did not reign in Europe, a very real entity did in the Medieval World: the Catholic Church. Emperors and Kings kissed the ring of the Pope and constantly vied for Papal favor against one another. Completely disregarding a "fall" of Rome is incorrect and bad scholarship, I feel. There was a clear fall of Rome and although you may argue it only lasted a couple of hundred years or so, there definitely was a fall. The result was a cultured Germanic people that spread that culture throughout Europe. Once they, too, were transformed into Christians, Europe never looked the same.
-
There was a multitude of reasons for the fall of Rome.
I really don't mean this as a troll or my attacking of Christians BUT I believe that a major contributing factor to the decline and actual
fall of the Roman Empire began when the Roman legions began to fill with soldiers other than actual Romans AND when Constantine "legalized" Christianity and thus caused Roma to become "relatively" more
compassionate
The strength of the pre-Christian Rome was derived, I my opinion, from their lack of compassion and their willingness to destroy all
in the way... an example is the Punic War with Carthage
:salute
-
The beginning of the end, for me, was Commodus.
I know it's a very popular opinion, but I do wonder if Commodus was just a symptom, an indicator of where things may move towards, more than an actual force of negative change himself.
Severus' accomplishments post Commodus make this more evident IMO. After the year of the five emperors, the year after Commodus, Severus seized power from 193 until his death from disease in 211. Nearly 20 years after Commodus, he left the Roman Empire in much better shape, arguably better shape than it had been in for decades. Shored up the Western Provinces, invaded and defeated the Parthians in the East, sacking their cap city. He pushed out and gained more Roman control in Arabia, Africa, and Britain. He strengthened the Roman military as well, adding more legions, and greatly increasing pay, in addition to a very large one time bonus given to every soldier. He also was the first to permanently station troops/legions inside of Italy. And to Ramesis point, wasn't exactly "kind" to the Christians either. (Watch out on your first Point Ramesis, lest you be also labelled "racissss").
All of this was done many years after Commodus. Commodus may have been the beginning of the end, but it took 5 or 6 further emperors, and another 2 decades for that beginning, and IMO until the third century crisis yet another 20+ years later, to truly start.
-
Sure. But, if you were asked to draw a line where you feel the end of Rome began and where the decline started, that line would be Commodus for me.
-
Have any of you read “Storm Before the Storm” by M Duncan? It’s one of the titles on Roman History available at my local library...
I’ve enjoyed following this thread. A while ago I read a book on the fall of Rome but can’t for the life of me remember the title or who wrote it. All I remember is he currently teaches at the university level, in the U.S.
EDIT: I think the book I read was “Mortal Republic” by Edward Watts - he teaches at UC San Diego..
-
Sure. But, if you were asked to draw a line where you feel the end of Rome began and where the decline started, that line would be Commodus for me.
After the slave revolt started by Spartacus, that's when Rome became vulnerable.
-
I think it's fairly safe to say that the Roman leadership transformed itself into the Roman Catholic empire as they saw the strategic opportunity to unite the religious organizations under one dogmatic canon. Quite brilliant if you ask me - there is more power under religion than under political rule. Caesars became less powerful than "I Sommi Pontefici Romani" (The Supreme Pontiffs of Rome). The question is, who was the first Pope that had more power than Caesar? And which Caesar was it to bring in the main pagan religions under one Christian god?
That is also fascinating history of the Roman empire.
-
Have any of you read “Storm Before the Storm” by M Duncan? It’s one of the titles on Roman History available at my local library...
I’ve enjoyed following this thread. A while ago I read a book on the fall of Rome but can’t for the life of me remember the title or who wrote it. All I remember is he currently teaches at the university level, in the U.S.
EDIT: I think the book I read was “Mortal Republic” by Edward Watts - he teaches at UC San Diego..
Yes, I mentioned in a post earlier.
Duncan's The Storm Before the Storm was surprisingly good. I expected it to be "History Lite" but it was well done. Beard's SPQR is fantastic as it will remind you of what you have forgotten and certainly teach you things you did not know. It provides a wonderful foundation for Rome's history as an entity. From there, you can branch off into many different works on many different topics. I am quite interested in tactics, so I have spent a lot of time reading about that part of Rome's history.
This was in response to SysError's mentioning of Duncan's podcast.
-
Thanks, Perdue3. No idea how I missed that.