My opinion on fall or Rome (Romans)
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32314
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 20:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: My opinion on fall or Rome (Romans)
Posted By: heyamigos
Subject: My opinion on fall or Rome (Romans)
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2012 at 19:48
| They should not have split the empire in half. Their succession of emperors should have been hereditary (like the Chinese, Persians, and Turks). They didn't really "Romanize or Latinized" all of its subjects. When the Chinese at times in their history broke up into competing kingdoms, they often later get unified by a stronger kingdom or strong-minded individual under a common heritage, culture and language. When Rome fell, it never recovered the pieces. |
Replies:
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2012 at 22:57
|
Splitting the empire in half saved the eastern half. Using a more meritocratic system was better than being a dynasty in some ways. Rome did assimilate alot of its empire. The Roman alphabet still survives. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 01:54
|
Well, the Roanizing ot all the citizens was impossible, because Rome rules over regius of very ancient cultures, the Greek part was culturally Greek since before Homer. A conquering nation can change the culture of a people ony if the last are a new culture, prefferebly illiterate, with no roots of heavy culltural tradition; ths wasn't the case with the Mediterranean. Besides, the Western part that fell first was the Latine one, the Greek one hold up to 15 century. The empire wouldn't have hold if it remained whole - too many pressures from all sides and directions to fight against in one block. It was easier to try t hold it in 2 pieces. The problem that happened, IMHO, was not that the empire was split, but that the two parts drifted one from another, which happened because of religion. If they had hold for each other, come to each other aids, etc, it would be different; but religious disutes put an end to ths closeness. Anyway every poitical concentration sooner or later falls, it's unavaoidable; the fight is to push the entropy as far back as one can. The Roman Empire did a good job on that pushing, IMHO. ------------- |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 11:49
|
Also when Rome grew it's citizens were warlike soldiers, when it fell they were villagers and farmers, it had to use entirely foreign armies. There was no way for Rome except a Sparta like reform where it trains it's youth to be soldiers again. Christianity further weakened the empire, it went from wolf to sheep. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 16:22
Wrong. It was not religion the superiority-inferiority complex of the Western, Latin hemisphere toward the Oriental one. On one side, Westerners in the past as today feel disgust for some aspects of Oriental way of life and thinking, on other hand they feel frustrated for being less cosmopolite and ancient as is the Oriental culture. This exists today, existed in middle age and Antiquity as well. The Roman empire was always composed of two antagonistic halves, the Greek one and the Latin one. -------------  |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 16:24
|
Anatagonistic halves? The West fell by barbarian invasion not a civil war. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 16:39
The weakening of the Roman empire was caused not for becoming less militarized, but because it became to big and complex to be controlled, many regions, generals or indigenous populations were rebeling and the Italian element has became iless significant in 3rd century. The 3rd century was the age of Illyrian emperors, raised from what is now the Balkans (former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria), who were all military chiefs. Constantine succeeded to create a more stable situation under the banner of Christianity which gave for a while an appeareance of uniformity to the empire but that could not last long, as there too many conflicting cultures and interests. Anyway, the 4th century was an interesting period, Christianity gave a sort of dynamism and enthusiasm, shaped a new perspective on life, seeing the human being as the supreme value, philosophy that still dominates the Western society. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 16:44
There were many civil wars as well, not caused by that cultural antagonism but by ambitions of claimants to the throne and rebellious generals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_civil_wars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_civil_wars ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 16:45
I disagree. The Middle East wasn't "öriental" in the time ot antiquity, nor was it accepted as such; the Greek part wasn't antagonistic to the Roman one, since the Romans themselves were more or less Hellenized. The Orientalism in the middle East came with the Turks, not before them. The Greeks were never seen as ""Öriental", but as Western. If there was notion of the east beain Oriental, it was by the Greeks toward the Persians - but in the time we talk about the whole east was thorughly Hellenized for centuries. The big religiuos split in 11th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism caused all bunch of problems for the consequent political connection between what used to be one well organized unity. That's why one the the cruades was against Constantinole, because the Crusaders felt justified to rob what they saw as ""ïdolatres". Thats why Constantinople was refused healp when the Turks came - religious reasons. ------------- |
Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 17:56
| Another main big factor was the clergy withheld learning from the masses while the Germanic conqueror kings did not promote it amongst themselves and favored a feudal, inherited society. In contrast, the nomadic peoples in China, even when they conquered parts or all of China, they promoted the arts and learning and did not disrupt native life (same as in Persia with Turkic rulers). |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 18:42
Romans displayed a love-hate relationship with Greece, epitomized by the Roman politician Cato the Elder, who was deeply immersed in Greek culture but who publicly denounced its corrupting influence. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3300 - http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3300
Turks were and are 'Oriental' because they assimilated the Anatolian culture. For example, the Islamic music (which was mostly shaped during Ottoman empire) is similar with the Byzantine or Christian-Orthodox one, which is older and the basis of the Islamic one. Orientalism, understood as the culture of ME, is not rooted in Arabic or Altaic cultures (from where the Islam, respectively the Turks originated) but in the culture of the Fertile Crescent, which was the heir of the multitude of ancestral cultures and civilisations that existed here over millenia, this being also the place where agriculture, hyerarchical society and civilisation first appeared (and from where these have spread in Europe and other parts through migrations or aculturation). 
From your link: "Although the Great Schism was still centuries away, its outlines were already perceptible.". Read the entire Wikipedia article, it explains that 1054 only consecrated what existed long before and what was caused by the antagonist ambitions of Greek and Latin hemispheres for political and religious dominations. With the movement of the capital from Rome to Constantinople, the prestige of the former has been greatly affected and its interests, as well as ones of the entire Latin hemisphere. For almost a millenium, between 330 and ~1200, Byzantine empire was the center of the world and the Western Europe hated this. The patriarchs of Rome, later caled popes and heads of the church, tried to mantain in the West at least the religious center of power, through many document fabrications and political games. They created false history about the so-called presence and apostolate of Peter at Rome (when in fact the poor fisherman never left ME), partly being confused by the fabrications of their predecesors. Is an example how a false tradition appears. Even if it's very complex and gives impression of authenticity, 90% of Church's sacred texts (the OT and NT), early records and rituals are false or based on forgeries (for example, the first 10 or more popes or patriarchs of Rome from their tradition never really existed). For example, you can read about some of the most famous such forgeries, which allowed the patriarchs of Rome or popes to become what they're today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine http://www.tecmalta.org/tft312.htm - http://www.tecmalta.org/tft312.htm http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm - http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm In fact, the gospels and many of the 'Apostolic' epistles are forgeries too, they're not written by their claimed authors (read the Wikipedia about each of them) and in many cases don't describe real events but are fictions. The creation of the Latin Empire of Charlemagne in 800 was a decisive step in the submination of the Eastern Empire. Charlemagne was declared Roman emperor by the pope who also nullyfied the legitimacy of the contemporary empress Irene of Constantinople. Anyway, to return to the topic: Reasons Roman empire fell: http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-empire/reason-why-the-roman-empire-fell.htm - http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-empire/reason-why-the-roman-empire-fell.htm ------------- |
Posted By: maks
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2012 at 06:17
| The fall of Rome was not depended at all by its splitting on two parts. its decline begun much earlier, most likely when its conquests ceased. The social order and its troubles along with the economic problems prompted the eradication of its stability. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2012 at 20:23
|
Re-militarising Rome by requiring all citizens to serve in the legions might delay Rome's fall, although ambitious generals weakened Rome from within by using their armies to seize power
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Alcebiades
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2012 at 13:00
|
Rome's fall can't be attributed to a single cause, but the two most important were: 1-) Loss of civic virtue of its citizens 2-) Relying on a mercenary army that had no loyalty to Rome whatsoever. The later Roman Empire was nothing but a glorified extortion racket |