[vannrox]

An interesting Read.

[Mike Darancette]

Bump for later

[I_Love_My_Husband]

bump for later reading

[Tokhtamish]

A very interesting read.

I see in it why Arianism died out in the West. It was the religion of the 'treaty breakers', the Goths, and why Gothic rule turned out to be so fragile in both Italy, Gaul, and Spain.

The Goths were the most civilized of the barbarian nations, far more so than savages like the Franks. Emperor Theodosius had a policy, and clearly represented a faction of which the young Sidonius had been a part, of thinking the Goths could be peacefully absorbed into the Roman Empire. But Gothic ambition could not be contained by the crumbling empire. When appeasement fails, the result is fury for having been a fool. Gothic 'betrayal' of Roman trust created a legacy of bitterness between Roman and Goth which made their kingdoms in Italy and Gaul/Spain 'conquest zones' and nothing more.

When the savage but orthodox Franks appeared on the scene, one battle, one Frankish victory pushed the Visigoths out of Gaul entirely into Spain. When the Moors appeared one battle, one Muslim victory, destroyed the Visigothic kingdom.

[FateAmenableToChange]

The changing identification analysis as an explanation for the fall of the empire raises intriguing questions for the potential of the American "empire" (i.e., the diverse conglomerations of cultures that live in the U.S.) to do the same.

[dix]

I get so much information from my freeper pals, and I really do appreciate it. We have to be some of the most informed people in the country.

[Cicero]

This makes sense to me. Excellent article. Gibbon was blinded by Enlightenment rationalism and anti-Christian animus. What's obvious on the largest scale is that Rome fell and Christian Europe rose in its place. The displacement to the north was due to the rise Muhammed and the spread of Islam through North Africa and Asia.

What gave Europe its fundamental identity and held it together was the Church, as Christopher Dawson has argued so well.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Diana Rose]

bump for later

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Red Jones]

bump

[KellyAdmirer]

I had never seen this analysis before, thanks for posting it.

It has striking similarities to what happened at the end of the Eastern Roman Empire 1000 years later. The clergy then fought any political approaches to Rome based on religious compromise that were being attempted to stir up another Crusade. These approaches also, as in the earlier times, were advocated and supported by "liberal" or "worldly" politicians. The clergy were fiercely resistant to any accomodation of their religious principles despite the fact it might save the remnants of the Empire. They wisely (from their perspective) held to their principles despite promises of short-term gain. The earlier, Apollinaris Western Romans only reached this epiphany after their Empire already was lost and it was too late.

Expressed in more contemporary terms, Sidonius Apollinaris was a liberal politician who turned conservative only after his liberal friends betrayed what he really stood for. His liberal accomodation undermined what he wanted, a strong Roman Gaul. So, in a sense he helped define "conservative" as "a liberal who got mugged." The Eastern Roman clergy never made his initial mistake, was conservative throughout, and their religion managed to survive to the present day. Food for thought.

[Ohioan]

A very interesting read, indeed. While everyone seems to be putting their own spin on it, it does reveal a dichotomy between ethnic identity and ideological identity, which goes to the core of the present debate over American immigration policy--and, indeed, to a much wider spectrum of issues.

Basically, the Left would define America in terms of an ideology--and some Conservatives have taken the bait. Our problem is not, however, really understandable in those terms. While the writer referred to in the essay could find solace in his Faith, there is not even the suggestion of a refuge for a loss of the American identity in any ideological substitute.

The American identity does have ideological aspects, but they are more in the form of unique images than a clear, common philosophy. To be sure, Virginia traditionally has a philosphy, as does Massachusetts. But they are conflicting philosophies. The common area--the area in which we Ohioans and you in other States are all Americans--are in major part image driven, dependent upon a common struggle and common interest, rather than a common value system. The vital images are being lost, today, in the Left's promotion of what I call a "musical chairs" concept of ethnicity, which is totally nonsensical.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[mrustow]

Bump for later study.

[Sparta]

If you want on or off the Western Civilization Military History ping list, let me know.

[Countyline]

Thanks for this post .... new perspective and an interesting one.

A.J. being a student of the Caesars and history, perhaps you will like this .

[SunkenCiv]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.

Please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)