Posted on 09/15/2023 2:19:24 AM PDT by Chickensoup
I am listening to ANCIENT ROMANS by Thomas R Martin. Struck at how closely the fall of western civilization follows the fall of Rome. It is available through Blackstone audio using their Downpour app.
How MIGRANTS took over civilization and the outcome is the end of this fascinating book about the rise of Mediterranean civilizations. Not to be missed.
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Rome-Justinian-Thomas-Martin/dp/0300198310
Add
-Endless wars.
-Destruction of freeholding landed middle class as men away for wars and farms undercut by the slave labor they enabled
-Emergence of cut throat political parties.
-Rich powerful men inciting/buying the mob/elections with public and private money.
-Centuries old laws suspended/ignored, Senate becomes a comedy act.
-Conversion of a militia Legion system to a professional one.
-All wealth and power pooling in the Imperial City.
-Collapse of morals and Roman Virtue,
I could go on.....but others are doing a good job...
Alrighty, then:
Our 'transformation' is occurring as some of us play semantics.
/s
The Fourth Crusade paved the way for the muslim takeover.
Per the Bard, there is a tide in the affairs of men.
Nations are composed of men, and have their ebb and flow, and empires have their expansions and contractions.
Empires, being run by men, will overreach, they don’t know when to quit. They don’t perceive the forces of their destruction, they don’t see doom coming or even when it’s done with them.
A man is his own nemesis, and that’s true of societies, empires, and civilizations.
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.” — A. Lincoln
Bureaucracy Kills: A Lesson from Rome
Our founders knew this.
There's a very good reason kids no longer get a classical education in publik skrewls.
The argument that the Roman empire continued in the form of the Byzantine empire headquartered in Constantinople is valid. The Byzantine emperor had effective political control over a relatively large geographic area.
The argument that the Roman empire continued in the form of the papacy is pretty weak. The bishop of Rome effectively controlled only a very small area of Italy. To say that being head of state of the Lazio region of Italy is to be an emperor stretches the common understanding of the words emperor and empire. I guess you’re suggesting that the pope’s influence throughout western Europe was emperor-like, but that’s anachronistic. The medieval popes had far less control over the Catholic Church than the popes have had in the last 200 years. The pope’s authority beyond the borders of the papal states was limited for centuries to the role of settling theological disputes. They weren’t appointing bishops worldwide, nor were they exercising the sort of operational control of the Catholic Church that they’ve assumed in the period following the French Revolution. What happened is that the decline of the Catholic monarchies in Europe left a power vacuum that the papacy has stepped into.
I would somewhat agree.
They "transform" into oblivion, relatively speaking. That is relative to their previous power and presence.
In somewhat modern times, think of:
- Britain (sun never set on)
- Spanish (second most spoken language in the world)
- Portuguese (largest maritime empire in the world at the time)
- Dutch (another maritime empire)
All once greater world powers. Where are they today? The trash heap, used-to-be's mostly.
Go further back, and you see....
- Sumer
- Indus Valley
- Hittites
- Persian
- Greeks
- And, of course, the big one -- Rome
All relegated to the dustbin of history. Gone.
Keep another point in mind. When Rome (western Rome) collapsed, the modern world at the time was set back to the Stone Age, and it took almost a thousand years to get the mojo back. Roughly until the Renaissance. The same is roughly true for the Bronze Age Collapse around 1200 BC.
The so-called modern world at the time was stopped dead in their tracks, and it took almost a millennium to recover.
And here we are again today at the cusp!
Saying Rome (western Rome) did not collapse is like saying the Titanic just took on a little water.
Where’ve you been? I’ve been instructed that the USA would mirror Rome since I was in grammar school in the 50s. Even then, pundits with foresight knew the insidious and pervasive influence of the liberal mindset. I guess anybody who knew what happened to Joe McCarthy knew the USS America was going to capsize.
The empire falls. Just because it calls itself by the same name is irrelevant.
Not exactly:
technically these were refugees (so still in line with the parallel you made) - Goths fleeing from the Huns
The Western Roman Empire collapsed because of myriad reasons:
The big difference...tourists visit the ruins of these ancient civilizations. Will there be ruins of our current civilization worthy of visitation by future civilizations? Will the “visitors” be aliens from another planet wondering just what the heck was a Hooters...or a Tesla dealership? Upon translating and reading history books of our time, will they wonder why we didn’t defend ourselves when our nations were invaded by other countries? Will future tourists or “alien visitors” learn a lesson from our destruction?
That's when I bought and read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Since then I've felt like Cassandra, shouting warnings. Some would hear, but many would not.
Many still will not heed the warnings.
There is no limit to the power of denial.
I believed him.
I believed in his great wisdom.
However I did not think it could possibly happen in my lifetime--or even in the lifetime of my grandchildren--and, considering the enormous internal strength of the American People, the American Government, the American Dream, and the USA at that time, I could not imagine how it could possibly come about.
Now I know.
Now I know only too well.
Probably for at least another hundred years there will still be much of the same infrastructure here, and monuments, like the white house, capitol, etc, and the US will still be operating under the same name, but it’s already a good way toward transforming into something beside what it was meant to be.
The Romans had a Senate, which on it’s surface was what we think of as a representative democracy, but it didn’t have what we call checks-and-balances, and also the Senators came only from the upper classes, and they were usually sponsored by powerful people and groups. Oh wait, that sounds rather familiar. Doesn’t it?
Well, our power elites have the ability to stuff the judiciary with like minded activists, so most of our “checks and balances” don’t really create much balance. The scales tip.
The interesting thing about all that was how the Senators promoted and protected the class system at the expense of the masses, it appears at first glance in history that the emperors and ceasars were tyrants who destroyed ‘democracy’ but at least the first few (Julius and August Ceasar for example) were populists who gave a lot more to the masses than the senate ever did. So it’s all a lot more complex than it appears.
The difference is that we have several power (elites) classes, including the huge bureaucracy. In some ways, it’s a stabilizing force, somewhat resistant to political pendulum swings, but in other ways, it crystalizes the power and wealth disparities in our system.
We wont have a coup, by the elites anyway. That’s why we have a silent coup, or a slow transition away from the constitutional protections of the people. The symbols and illusions of constitutional institutions will all remain in place, but they will not function to protect the rights of the people as intended.
I saw the cracks in our foundation while growing up when good people shrugged off the societal decay as “This is America! it can’t happen here”, the arrogance of the union workers, and looking back now, a luke-warm Church. Like you, I didn’t think it would happen this fast. Although, I’m surprised it’s not worse too.
We are 50 nation states operating under a Federal Govt that has gone rouge. If the Federal Govt. fails it does not mean all 50 nation states making up the republic will fail. On the contrary many, if not most would prosper without the Federal yoke on their neck.
The Decadence of Western Civilization in America erupted into the open as the counter-culture movement of the 1960's. Few people--including me--recognized it for what it was at the time. Since then America and the American People have continued to sink inexorably into deeper and deeper decay.
That's what the appalling corruption in contemporary Washington is--and the inability of millions of Americans to see it for what it its.
That's what the degeneration of the US Free Press into a crass propaganda machine and a Praetorian Guard for corrupt politicians is.
That's what the open borders, the widespread drug abuse and pornography, the ubiquitous crime, defecation of public sidewalks, political prosecutions, and all the rest are.
Can a civilization afflicted with decadence reject the decay and become once again ascendant?
Donald Trump believes that it can. So convinced is he that he risked everything he had--a considerable amount in his case--to save his beloved USA from decadence and destruction.
And witness what the evil ones and those who accept the decay have done to him! They are determined to prevent his return of America to ascendancy--to prevent him from Making America Great Again--at any cost, even the entire destruction of the USA and the American People.
This is the enormity of their profits from the decadence and downfall of America.
Will enough Americans awaken to reality and recognize what's happening in time to save the Greatest Nation the World Has Ever Known?
To Make America Great Again?
Only time will tell--but that time is growing short.
I agree that W.W. II may have represented our Zenith, I also think the JFK assassination did more damage than was ever thought and still is.
Jerod is PARTIALLY correct - “Rome” as the empire didn’t fall until 1453.
The predecessors of the Ottomans had the title Sultan of the Rum (i.e. Rome) when they conquered most of Anatolia. But the Ottomans themselves didn’t take up the title of Basileus/Augustus.
fyi. the title of the “Emperor” varied from “Princep” (First citizen) that Augustus took, to “Dominus” - which Diocletian took until the arrival of the 6th century when “Basileus” i.e. “Monarch” came to be used officially.
As an aside - when the Hellenic Kingdom of Greece took over the ionian islands in the 1919-1920 Turkish-Greek war, they conquered an island (can’t remember the name) and kids came out to watch. the Greek soldiers asked them what they were looking at, and the kids said “we’re looking at you Hellenes” - and when the kids were told that they too were Greek, they said “No, we are Romans” :)
But Jerod, you are incorrect about your first paragraph in multiple other cases:
1. “It merely transformed from...” — the Roman empire became officially Christian in 378 AD under Emperor Theodosius (Constantine had been dead half a century) - and the Western Roman empire was given up to the East in 476 AD - so it was already Christian for nearly a century before the west was “lost”
2. The Gothic kings still gave a lip service to the emperor in Constantinople “yeah, yeah, you’re the emperor, now leave us alone” and the emperor acknowledged that they were the confederati - or “rulers I LET rule”
3. It didn’t fall because it became Christian (despite what Gibbon’s propaganda hit piece tried to say)
4. and no, the Roman Empire didn’t “pervert Christianity” — the same or similar doctrines (Eucharist, baptism, Tehotokos) is found in
A. the Ethiopian church which was in an allied empire but not next door
B. the Assyrian church of the east which was in an ENEMY empire (the Iranian Sassanid empire)
C. the Marthomite church of India which was far, far away from Rome
5. The Holy See as a monarchy only dates from 781 AD and Charlemagne emphatically made it under his domain. This was before Charlemagne declared himself Western Caesar in 800 AD.
6. “the empire of the Holy see” — that’s utter nonsense, there was no such empire. There were the Papal states and they only really came to fore AFTER the middle ages
7. the “Dark ages” - historians don’t use that term any more as it was created in the 1700s and 1800s by anti-Christians who saw the rise of Christianity as a bad thing, and they themselves were part of the “Enlightenment”
7.1. During the Middle Ages - literacy only fell from around 550 AD to around 750 AD — this was caused by the Gothic wars when the Roman empire tried to reconquer Italy and Spain.
7.2. from 800 you have the Carolingian renaissance when literacy rose once more
7.3. Science and inventions happened during the middle ages - but this was no longer under the centralized states of the Classical period. They were driven by smaller states or more likely by monasteries.
8. “Even in the Dark ages Christ was worshipped” — well, duhh, during the Middle Ages, Christianity SPREAD through Europe. In 476 AD Christianity was mostly in what was the Roman Empire and it was (in Europe at least) Catholic/Orthodox. Outside the empire there were the Arian Goths (who believed that Jesus was a “lesser” god)
8.1. during the Middle Ages the English (Anglo-Saxons) were converted to Christianity
8.2. during the Middle Ages the Germanics in what is now Germany and then later the Scandanavians were converted to Christianity
8.3. during the Middle Ages the Slavs were brought into the Christian fold and finally the Balts (Lithuanians, latvians) in the period 1300-1450)
So, the Middle Ages was when Christianity really became dominant in all of Europe.
“That’s why we have a silent coup, or a slow transition away from the constitutional protections of the people.”
Yep. We’re watching this unfold in real time. And it brings tears to my eyes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.