Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's pretty thin, jtur. As easily as one can argue that instant communications will lead to an instant collapse, one may argue that the same communications bond Americans to one another in a manner not possible in the Roman Empire. Apart from being dominated by Rome, the elements of the empirte had little in common with one another and there was no sense of fraternity between an Egyptian and a Celt. When the Japanese attacked Hawaii, the folks in New York were fighting mad and viewed the attack as one on them as well. Within the Roman Empire, if some Moesians were invaded by a fre lance eastern tribe, no one gave a crap about it in Mauretania or Corsica, it was Rome's problem.
True. But there are similarities about the moral and values disintegration in this country.
The similarities are extensive:
- Both began by the aggressive annexation of nearby lands
- Both were sole superpowers in the world
- Both believed the Eagle symbolized their ideals
- Both were known for decadence and over indulgence
Get real, Rome did not have trial lawyers, the ACLU type organizations, no quotas, no PC and no restraints of any kind. When Rome set out to conquer, they killed everyone, end of problem. To compare us with Rome is ridiculous.
Get real, Rome did not have trial lawyers, the ACLU type organizations, no quotas, no PC and no restraints of any kind. When Rome set out to conquer, they killed everyone, end of problem. To compare us with Rome is ridiculous.
For the record, Anglo-American jurisprudence is largely based on Roman law. One of the most prominent Roman lawyers was Cicero, who was also an orator, politician and philosopher. His first important case as a trial lawyer was defending Sextus Roscius, who was accused of the crime of parricide. Cicero won the trial, but incurred the wrath of the dictator Sulla when he named one of Sulla's friends as a likely suspect in the crime. Fearing retribution, Cicero had to move away from Rome for a while.
On one level, this is one of those counterfactual discussions more appropriate for high school seniors or bible thumpers who try to draw ridiculous correlations between a 5th century morality and another more than 15 centuries later to serve as some weak moral lesson. It also indicates a total misunderstanding, or more to the point ignorance of the history of the Roman Empire. For example, which empire are we discussing, the Roman Empire up to the 5th Century or the Roman empire that lasted well into the 15th Century?
One last thing, Roman was a great regional power but was by no meaning a global one. Empires or equal power and area existed in Asia, South America and Africa, so to call the Roman empire a super power is rather tendentious and Eurocentric.
True. But there are similarities about the moral and values disintegration in this country.
That's as vague as your user name.
Morals and values are subject to change, and should be changed to reflect new conditions. At one time Manifest Destiny was thought to be a great moral good, spreading the American democractic experiment as far and as wide as possible because it was the proper system, the one truly ordained by god etc. Manifest Destiny today would mean the occupation of the entire Middle East, as well as the sieizure of Cuba, Northern Mexico, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Let's throw in the west coast of Canada as well so that we have a land bridge to Alaska.
American isolationism was once considered a great value, now we are too integrated with the rest of the world to just ignore problems arising in foreign lands. Isolationism as a value has fallen.
White is right has fallen.
Males uber alles has fallen.
That such values once existed, but now are seen as belonging to an age when they were appropriate, but no longer, suggests that all of our seeming values may be subject to change. Thus, changing morality is not necessarily congruent with bad replacing good, its frequently good replacing bad, and sometimes it is just appropriate then being replaced by appropriate now.
Your shortcoming here is in failing to distinguish between "disintegrating" and "evolving."
True. But there are similarities about the moral and values disintegration in this country.
Oh, I am so sick and tired of this right wing Christian argument, I just don't know what do with myself. I can't think of a single scholar who ascribes to the Christian propagandist who believe that the Roman empire came to a close as a result of Neroian orgies of decadence when the fact is even the western empire would out last his legacy for another 400 years.
What right wing Christians don't want to talk about is that the decline of the western Roman empire began with the acceptance of Christianity and its decline was just as much about imperial overreach than anything else. In short Rome fell because of its attempts to rule other people!
If you want to draw analogies between Rome, or any other imperial power, and the U.S., before jumping up and down about "moral values" start thinking that the price for maintaining regional, much less global dominance comes at a heavy national price.
I don't think that Rome is dead.
The Western Roman Empire evolved from pure materialistic power to the conquest of souls. The Imperator lost all his titles except Pontifex Maximus.
Christianism allowed Rome to reign over the Empire's ruins.
The Barbarians did not destroy Rome, and they didn't want to destroy Rome.
I think that most of Rome's legacy remained intact -trade, road, Latin, the power of provincial Equites- until the invasion of North Africa and Middle East by Islam.
Eastern Roman Empire was far more populated and vibrant, and the ships arrived to all former Western Roman Empire.
Islam destroyed trade, crippled Eastern Roman Empire and gave more importance to barbaric Northen Europe, and removed the Mediterranean from the scene during centuries.
As to Christian Propaganda, Roman History is still tainted with their poison, no wonder, they won.
Nero was a good Emperor, he tried to alliviate the tax burden of provinces and he protected the welfare of slaves. He had to kill his mother because she was a monster. Nero had to fight Christians because they were like modern day terrorists.
I don't think that Rome is dead.
The Western Roman Empire evolved from pure materialistic power to the conquest of souls. The Imperator lost all his titles except Pontifex Maximus.
Christianism allowed Rome to reign over the Empire's ruins.
The Barbarians did not destroy Rome, and they didn't want to destroy Rome.
I think that most of Rome's legacy remained intact -trade, road, Latin, the power of provincial Equites- until the invasion of North Africa and Middle East by Islam.
Eastern Roman Empire was far more populated and vibrant, and the ships arrived to all former Western Roman Empire.
Islam destroyed trade, crippled Eastern Roman Empire and gave more importance to barbaric Northen Europe, and removed the Mediterranean from the scene during centuries.
As to Christian Propaganda, Roman History is still tainted with their poison, no wonder, they won.
Nero was a good Emperor, he tried to alliviate the tax burden of provinces and he protected the welfare of slaves. He had to kill his mother because she was a monster. Nero had to fight Christians because they were like modern day terrorists.
Well Leo ..... your the first on here who loves Nero and i tell you that he sure didn't love the pagans up in Britannia either who wanted their independence from Rome as he sent General Suetonius to crush the Iceni and Trinovantes Celtic nations which he pulled off an incredible victory with only 2 Roman Legions (10,000 troops) compared to some 80,000 Iceni/Triovante's troops according to Tacitus at the Battle of Watling Street.
Anyway the Western Empire was too weak by 452 a.d. to stop it's impending doom however Emperor Valentinian III cemented their quick demise by killing Rome's last GREAT and powerful general and my Roman idol .....''Aetius'' .... who along with his Visigoth allies Gen. Aetius stopped Attila and the Huns in France from conquring ALL of Europe as he assummed De Facto Dictatorial powers that was unheard of since Julius Ceasar as the Western Empire had a sitting Emperor and a Military Dictator ruling simultaneously who was more powerful than the Emperor as that's why Valentinian tricked and killed General Aetius which allowed the Vandals to sack Rome a year later which quickly brought on it's demise some 24 years later in 476 a.d.
So for my 1/4 Roman Bloodline (Maternal Grandmother) i look at Valentinian III as a scum emperor .
Last edited by Six Foot Three; 06-27-2009 at 09:19 AM..
Reason: changes - 6/3
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and i tell you that he sure didn't love the pagans up in Britannia either who wanted their independence from Rome as he sent General Suetonius to crush the Iceni and Trinovantes Celtic nations which he pulled off an incredible victory with only 2 Roman Legions (10,000 troops) compared to some 80,000 Iceni/Triovante's troops according to Tacitus at the Battle of Watling Street. 