Are We Going the Way of Rome?

Mackinac Center for Public Policy ^ | 9/1/01 | Lawrence Reed

[breakem]

to your last question absolutely not. Bread and circus was characteristic of the glory days of the empire and certainly didn't diminish the empire even though some of it was clearly immoral by most standards.

Even on a smaller scale the empire was in trouble, with cities like Venice and Florence emerging as strong centers of trade and culture. No, I don't see a vibrant Rome doing kuch more than it did for centuries after as the seat of the church. Which wasn't a bad tourist attraction.

[breakem]

The status of the eastern empire reinforces my point that developing population and cultural centers throughout the empire made it inevitable that Rome could not control the empire.

I'd like to split California into thirds, but I'd be in the wrong third.

[bethelgrad]

I had a Western Civ professor in college allude to this very thing. And also drew paralells to modern America. Not only was he a conservative professor, but also an Anglican priest--go figure!

[RLK]

evidence: we allow barbarians from the south to come and wipe our decadent arses, with the ultimate consequence that they will be the future of this geography, long after we've frittered ourselves into oblivion.

-------------------

Ah ha! You're starting to catch on. And we also have devised a delusion the the basic work that sustains this nation can be done elsewhere while our basic carefree concerns can be self-amusement, Britney Spears, and cults of personality.

Another pattern I find characteristic of decline is the evolution of a cult of inherited and/or soft leadership, whether it's degenerate Roman emperors, weak kings of France, or more cultivated weak useless families such as th Kennedys, Gores, incipiently the Clintons, and the Bushs.

[RLK]

There are many reasons, but disease can certainly be primarily responsible.

--------------------------

It certainly can. And the principle diseasess are the evolving infantility of emperors, kings, and even elected officials: the evolving softness of people who vote; and soft indolent self-absorbtion in the general population.

[qam1]

Rome's decline has far more to do with disease than moral turpitude.

Disease actually saved Rome. If the Plauge didn't decimate Attila the Hun's troops he might have taken Rome.

[SkyRat]

Thank you for helping me out.

I was very skeptical about happydogdesign theory and I still am. Of course, there were plagues then as they are now.But to think that Rom fell because of a plague just doesn't add up.

For once I would expect some witness report. Some text about this super bug.

Also, I can't imagine barbarian invading a city or several cities infected by plague or malaria. It is a basic human impulse to run away from sickness, not toward it.

Of course, a really evil bug could easily wipe out a nation. Or at least, kill enough citizens to practically erase it from the planet.

But, me thinks this would be a very rare event. This should find a way through history. Like Pompeii (sp?)

Anyway, I don't buy it. I don't think it was the key element that lead to the fell of Rome. But it could have accelerated the suicide of the Roman Empire.

Regards
SkyRat

[qam1]

The status of the eastern empire reinforces my point that developing population and cultural centers throughout the empire made it inevitable that Rome could not control the empire.

True enough though if the Eastern and Western empires stood together when fighting the Huns the western empire might have lasted much longer. But instead the eastern empire just paid the Huns not to attack and when the huns turned on the west, The west in order to fight them off was forced to make alliances with the Visigoths which later came back to burn Rome.

Oh no, If history is repeating itself does that mean the French are going to last but not us because they are paying off the terrorist?

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

...a delusion the the basic work that sustains this nation can be done elsewhere while our basic carefree concerns can be self-amusement, Britney Spears, and cults of personality.

It's sickening. But predictable. A civilization is effectively in decline as soon as food, water, and shelter come at very little cost to the average slob. Water comes dependably from faucets, food grows effortlessly on store shelves, human waste vanishes down the toilet, a garbage truck comes and eats the trash once a week. What with all our most essential needs met at the flick of a wall switch, it's time to speculate endlessly about Brittany, et al.

There's a fraction of one generation left in this country who know what means to endure widescale want and hardship. When the last of them dies, we'll effectively be adrift in the ocean of history, aboard a liferaft made of the most scrumptious whipped cream mankind has ever concocted.

[breakem]

It means we have to keep the Goths away from DC.

If the east and west had united they could have fough off a lot of folks. The point I was making was the waning ability of Rome to maintain direct control. If they had united the east would still be the emerging power and only the Pope kept people looking to Rome.

Also, this had nothing to very little to do with Roman morality or lack of individual responsibility. It had to do with demographics and the inability of a city to maintain military control over other expanding populations and territories.

[highlander_UW]

There's a fraction of one generation left in this country who know what means to endure wide scale want and hardship. When the last of them dies, we'll effectively be adrift in the ocean of history, aboard a life raft made of the most scrumptious whipped cream mankind has ever concocted.

And that whipped cream is constantly beaten by the whisks of PC historical revisionism.

[RLK]

You should be a professional writer. That was good.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

indeed.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

I sincerely thank you.

'night, all.

[octobersky]

bump to find tomorrow

[Major_Risktaker]

Eastern part was destroyed by Muslims many centuries later.

The Eastern part was destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church between 1198-1205 .

Fourth Crusade

The Crusaders were still reluctant to attack fellow Christians, but the clergy convinced them that the Orthodox Byzantines were the next best thing to the Muslims.

Pope Innocent III

Innocent started the Fourth Crusade, which the Venetians re-directed into the sacking of Zara in 1202 and Constantinople in 1204.

This was a great blow to the unity of the Church and played a role in the Great Schism. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians in return.

The Fall Of Constantinople in 1452
Constantine appealed to Western Europe for help, but Pope Nicholas V was unwilling to support the Empire after the failed Council of Basel.

None of this should have happen and Rome lost a the Cathedral of St. Sophia Constantinople which is now a mosque.

I hope you will check out the links..

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

The moral to that story happens to be the connecting link between the course of ancient Rome and the path which America has been taking for much of the last century>>>

This is complete horsehockey. The salient lesson is not that of Rome, but of Athens--and what happened when the rest of Greece ganged up on her and allowed the fatherland of democracy to be marched over by Spartan Nazis....

...laying the groundwork for the total obliteration of the Glory of Greece and its theft by Rome.

[Savage Beast]

"The people had lost all respect for the sanctity of private property"

The first thing that comes to mind is "environmentalists".

"When the Vandals, Goths, Huns, and others reached Rome, many citizens actually welcomed them in the belief that anything was better than their own tax collectors and regulators."

If "Liberals" have their way, Americans will prefer the likes of Vandals, Goths, and Huns to the taxes, regulations, and oppression that "Liberals" will impose.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

In brief, Roman Civilization was destroyed by Clintonius, Daschleius, Schumerian, Streisandian, and Iessiiacksonus.

[templar]

Rome's decline has far more to do with disease than moral turpitude.

"That may have been a contributing factor, but it wasn't the cause by any means. I've also heard it attributed to military overextension, economic woes, the cost of the 'bread and circuses' welfare state that developed, growing military resistance in outlying areas and increased military prowess and strength of the various 'barbarians', hedonistic decadance and self absorption among the leaders resulting in almost no vision for, or respect from, the people, etc. These are all probably factors but could more realisitcally looked at as being the visible symptoms (not the cause) of a culture in decline.

A strong moral people can withstand all kinds of severe hardships and setbacks and still survive, even grow stronger, in the presence of them. An immoral people falls to whomever or whatever seeks their demise.