Posted on 07/16/2007 5:34:07 PM PDT by blam
Rome fell when the Republic disintegrated to become an unrestrained democracy. The democracy was fueled by squandering the Roman treasury on the masses and excessive taxation on others. The fate of Rome was sealed long before the fall of the empire with the demise of that republic. Warnings of that impending fall came from Marcus Tulleus Cicero. An excellent novel appeared in 1964 called “A Pillar of Iron”, by Taylor Caldwell, which was a historical novel about the life of Cicero. Much of the book dealt with Cicero’s warnings about the dangers of unleashed democracy, and the exact quotes taken from Cicero will raise your hair. For those who don’t have the time to search through the classics to pursue the fall of the Roman Republic, the book is fairly accurately done and highlights the amazing parallels between their republic and ours.
That’s one I hadn’t heard. (Thanks.)
Now that you mention it, wasn’t there a Caesar Bushgusto?
Lead acetate was also added to sweeten old wine, even though some Greeks knew centuries before that lead was poisonous.
This came out some time ago, and a liberal paper editorialized to the effect that: "Hey, we don't have to worry about moral causes for Rome's fall. It was all the fault of those pots."
Maybe the moral causes are overdone -- Rome in its heyday, centuries before the fall, was already quite immoral by modern Western standards -- but the paper's response looks a lot like a cop-out.
Their answer is similar to the current argument that the decline in crime over the last thirty years is a result of decreased use of lead paint. It's hanging too much on one factor. People do that because it gives them the answers they want, not answers that fit all the facts. More here on lead poisoning and the fall of Rome.
I don't know what caused Rome's fall, but one thing people have pointed to, is that once the crumbling started it was easy to opt out of the Roman system. As things began to fall apart nobles could simply retreat to their estates and live separate, self-sufficient lives.
One big reason Rome fell is that people didn't think they needed the big, domineering state, but could take their chances with the barbarians and whatever else came along.
Indeed: the Empire didn’t end, it morphed. Good posts.
In other words they became fat, dumb and lazy. Just like America today.Yours is just fear cloaked in self-loathing. I know it's all the rage to hate ourselves these days, but I refuse to join.
The more dynamic empirical model would have been that which maintained all the economic and political benefits of land conquest without its costs and liabilities. I believe the Dutch were quite good at this for a while (and again now). Then the British brought excellence to the practice, although they, too, came to hold too much land.
The American system of franchise works quite well.
Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long summed it up nicely... “Roman matrons used to say to their sons: 'Come back with your shield, or on it.' Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome.”
“Yours is just fear cloaked in self-loathing. I know it’s all the rage to hate ourselves these days, but I refuse to join.”
You don’t get out much do you?
I certainly would not agree with the liberals' oversimplification. I just think it is interesting that the Romans may have had potentially very serious health problems associated with heavy metals. (The controversy over heavy metals still rages, of course!)
It was “illegals” then and it is “illegals” now.
Your statement about Fred Thompson is actually a very astute analysis.
I tend to agree that although Rome the city as a seat of an Empire generally ended as the capital was shifted away to Contantinople, the Roman Empire never quite died (and will revive again if you believe the books of Revelation and Daniel). It as you said evolved and reconstituted in different forms.
It was kept alive directly 1,000 years under the Byzantine empire. It revived indirectly in Rome as the Church conspired with the Franks to create the Holy Roman Empire, and continued with Rome’s influence over the various spoke and successor monarchies of Europe, as well various institutions adopted and carried on by those entities.
That thread of rulership continued clear up till the last monarchies, Russia, Austria-Hungary and then Spain ended in the 20th century. I think Luxembourg still sees itself as a successor kingdom to Rome. Politically, legally, and culturally the Roman Empire’s legacy carries through today as it is the skeleton to classic Western civilization. It’s one of the most fascinating sweeps in the study of history.
I do find it ironic that though the Germanics contributed to the downfall of Rome, they were so Romanized in the process that most of them spent the next few centuries either trying to protect, maintain, succeed or revive the Empire, or allied with Byzantium at one time or another. It was that love for Roman institution and order that made sure it’s influence carried thru to Western civilization and modern times.
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.