Augur

For the earlier "cool it!" thanks to PP, to all the ancient Gods and to all who value civility. Speaking of which, in that last exchange

Happy MMDCCLVIIIth B-day Rome, here's to your vast glory and to our puny efforts to learn from the lessons and insights you provide -- and to someone someday finding a copy of the lost books of Livy (can't you give us a hint, a little clue, something!).

Sorry to take additional room, but couldn't help but respond to: I wish I could see the major upswings of imperial fortunes that you see during the 6th, 9th and 10th centuries, but I'm afraid I cant. First, Justinian's re-conquest of the West was more a temporary occupation, and seems more a result of the weakness and collapse of the successor, barbarian-based states that were shoved aside so easily. Certainly it was not a result of Imperial strength -- have you ever looked at the paltry resources Justinian's generals had available to them? When compared to the glory days, pathetic. Justinian was, to be sure, one of those remarkably capable and energetic -- but rare -- leaders to come along during the later centuries of Rome/Byzantium, but for how long did his conquests survive? Some history buffs have even speculated that Justinian's impressive but brief exploits in the West may have actually weakened the Empire in the long term -- ie, for the catastrophy coming in the next century. One thing is certain: If you want to be truly impressed with Justinian's legacy, send some time under the dome of St. Sophia. As for the 9th and 10th centuries, how can anything be a long term "up" after the arrival of Muhammed, Abu Bakr and the many to follow, particularly after Manzikurt? As for the glorius impression that the 10th century Empire may have made upon Western visitors, I think that can safely be attributed to: first, the depths of contemporary squalor, ignorance and barbarity of the West to which they were comparing it. And, second, the remarkable fortifications that successfully protected the small island of wealth and grandure that existed within Constantinople for over 1,000 years. The surviving grandure and the walls are still damned impressive.

"Gibbon is 'funny'"? I'm sure you ment "fun," yes?, as in enjoyable, interesting, etc. Though actually there are some places where Gibbon did subtly inject humor, like this description of one Pope in which the reasons for the Pope's trial, conviction and removal were "limited to just rape, incest and murder." "Gibbon and Azimov," interesting connection. I have met few who love history who do not also share some interest in science fiction (ie "future history"), and certainly no one was more adept at spinning furture history tales than was Azimov (petty claim to fame: before his death Azimov lived in my neighborhood here in NYC, and we actually exchanged greetings on several occasions.). I must admit, however, that I have never seen a connection made between "Decline and Fall" and the "Foundation Trilogy." If there was a Roman author's work that is "similar" to Azimov's I would have assumed it might be someone like Plutarch and his personality-dominated "Lives" -- but that is quite a stretch. Cannot agree on this one, if for no other reason than that it was the 4th Centhury during which Christianity gained its dominant powers and immediately began its persecution of all others. I will not re-argue the recent string asking the question: "what was the primary cause of Rome's fall?," but as you may remember, in that string many of our colleagues identified the rise of Christianity as that primary cause. Beyond the tragedies of Hadrianople and an empowered, increasingly venal Christianity, what else does the 4th Century have to smile about? Diocletion's stultifying "reforms?" The standing-room-only Tetarch and House of Constantine? That curious collection from Valentian I to the 28 years of that bolt-of-lightening, Honorius? No, despite some noteworth ups and downs, heros and villians, I find any study of Rome's 4th Century is much like reading the medical chart of a dying friend. The friend may have good and bad days, but the direction and final outcome seems inevitable. [Dumb, totally unrelated footnote: As you probably know, Azimov's Foundation Trilogy ended up containing five (or was it six) books. Remarkabely, the last Foundation book seamlessly connected that storyline with the storyline of Azimov's even more extensive Robots series.]

Interesting string, which seems to raise questions less about sex and homosexuality than it does about the remarkable Roman tolerance toward truly outrageous behavior by its leaders, particulary in light of Rome's traditionally strict moral and social standards during the Kings and Republic. As already mentioned by several contributors, homosexuality itself was not considered "outrageous" during the late Republic and early Empire. It was probably only a source of rebald humor (eg. the raunchy marching songs of Caesar's legions) at lower classes, and snickered behind-the-back rumors among the Boni. What is of greater interest is how so many groups of Rome's most prominent and powerful stakeholder groups -- Senate, Assembly, Preatorians, etc. -- were willing to put up with behaviors we would all agree should be considered outrageous to any thinking person. Which raises the question: what is outrageous? Most of us have focused our interest on Rome and Roman history because we feel a sense of kinship, perhaps even affection toward Romans themselves: the old they're like us, we're like them assumption. There are obvious conflicts with this "us = them" assumption and one need not go too far to find them. Perhaps the two most conspicious examples of this are: first, Rome's universal acceptance of the insitution of slavery and, second, the popularity of slaughter and murder as intertainment. Face it folks, people who have lived their lives surrounded by slavery, and who flock to watch mass brutally violent gladiatorial murder ARE a wee bit different from us. So, one of the many reasons "outrageous behavior" was tolerated for so long was because Romans felt different about what was outrageous. Despite all the sophistocation, charm and order we may ascribe to Rome, it was still a life filled with harsher realities than many of us can grasp. [Oh my. Please accept my oppologies for drifting so far from the topic of this string]

Excellent question, perhaps even more stimulating than "who is Rome's greatest hero." My vote for Rome's dirtiest dog must go to Commodus, a man certainly horrid enough in his personal appetites and abuse of power to match even the worst of them (Sulla, Nero, Calegula, Elegabalus, etc.), but also the person who occupied one of the pivotal, defining points in the fortunes of the entire Roman experience. Here's the logic, take a shot: If one were to draw a hypothetical chart of the ups and downs of Rome's fortunes (in terms of power, wealth, territory, etc), one cannot help but be awed by Rome's remarkable growth, hell, its why we are all devoted Romanofiles. Perhaps even more impressive, however, at least to me, is that our hypothetical chart would have so many "downs," moments and periods when Rome suffered catestropic setbacks, defeats and disasters (Gual's Sack, 2nd Punic, Hadrianople, etc., etc.). The truly unique and remarkable thing about Rome is how it survived and overcame these setbacks so successfully and for so long. To find Rome's greatest villian one must start with Rome's greatest misfortune, which is the decline and eventual collapse of Rome itself, which raises two question: Is there an identifiable point at which Rome's overall growth stopped and its decline began? And is there a particular Roman with whom this change of direction can be identified? There are many nasty candidates for the Dirty Dog Award, of course, but none answers these questions better than: Commodus, whose reign represents a clearcut watershed between the Golden Age that preceeded him and the tragedies and terminal decline that followed (in the West). No, it wasn't all down hill after Commodus, there were still many ups and downs and many great heros and villians to come. But the turning point was Commodus, which explains why Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire begins with his story.

Quote:"Hardly any of Livy's work survives, and much of it was written many many years before his birth at a time when historicla sources would not have been as available as they are today." "Hardly any of Livy's work survives..." Actually, the amount of Livy's work that still survives is quite extensive. It is true that only 35 of the 147 books of Livy's History of Rome survive, but I can think of no ancient Roman author from whom more is available, at least on the shelves of my own small library, which includes three Livy works containing a surprisingly large number of pages (over 1,700) packed with delicious Livy-text that deliveres a beautiful narrive of the founding of Rome (753 bc) down through the Third Macedonian War (167 bc). That's a lot of history. The man writting it had full access to all of the historical and literary resources that existed in 1st Century Rome. And all 1,700 pages are available from Penguin Classics for under $20 bucks.

I agree. Any discussion of the relative importance of Roman "conquests" must begin with the centuries-long conquest (and organization/governance) of Italy itself. The centuries of perserverence, effort and sacrifice required to accomplish this was, in my view, one of the most remarkable of all Roman accomplishments, and was obviously an absolute prerequiste to everything else that followed. As for the listed "conquest" options, I would say the most important of these must be Greece. It was through contact and eventual rule of the Greeks that Rome's traditionally conservative traditions, values and habits began to be erroded (some would say corrupted) and were eventually replaced by those from the East (one example: the obscure cult known as Christianity). Here I part with Ursus regarding Pergamum. Yes, the remarkable wealth (and taxation model) that came out of the Pergamum inheritance did greatly influence future Roman development, but, in my opinion, not as much as did the earlier initial exposure to Eastern culture, philosophy and religion that came primarily as a result of Rome's exposure to and conquest of the Greeks.

What well-structured, ambitious posts Subastianus, nicely done. One small item.

Livy is grand, but one can't overlook Polybius (bc 200-118) who provided much of the early source materials from which Livy wrote. Ahh, nor Plutarch (ad 45-120), who went into such detail about the most prominent early Romans (and Greeks)... and can any such list not include Suetonius regading the detailed glory and dirt of the first Emps? Nor, alas, can we ignore the fellow who, in my humble opinion, is the most eloquent of them all: Tacitus?

I'd agree with Ursus: "...the empire could no longer be ruled effectively by a glorified municipal government." Caesar was aware of this and saw that the disfunctional, runaway Republic was going to wipe himself out, thus the Rubicon. He then shared this secret with the upcoming Octavian who, when HE got the power, spent the rest of his long life doing something to correct and replace it all. That the Republic under the Senate/Boni was no longer functional was obvious, but this fact must be matched with the fact that it was also not working when the populares were able to grab the power. To me the really strange thing about the 200 year transition from Republic to Empire was (besides the bloody proscriptions) was the degree of respect that continued to be conferred upon the traditional roles carried out by the Senate and other traditional offices by virtually all parties -- senate, plebs, equites, boni, etc.

First choice, Marcus Aurelius, but the interview should take place near the end of his reign, say 179ad. First priority: to be able to discuss Marcus' philosophy and his writings; Second priority: to find out how such a fine mind could damn the Empire by allowing his very strange son, Commodus, to inherit the throne. It is no mistake that Gibbon began Volume I of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire with Commodus, who ended the reigns of "Five Good Emperors."

Isn't this what Valentinian III said just before he went down? Skenderbed is correct about the agrarian core of Rome's culture and of its economy. The private land system, worked by the small private freeholder/soldier, was pivitol to Rome's development and accomplishments during the Republic up through the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC. In my view the seeds of most of Rome's future tragedies were planted when this central agrarian model began to be currupted by: excessive demands (duration and frequency) for military service, land accumulation by the wealthy, freehold farmers replaced by slave labor, Marius's "new" military with its new loyalties, and perhaps most importantly, violent (ultimately suicidal) opposition by the upper classes to all attempts at reform. Thus, while I credit all the listed reasons for Rome's fall, my vote goes to the earlier, less direct but perhaps more impactful combination of causes: "Other"

Why the fall? Always one of the juciest of topics, no? For my part -- having been introduced to Rome by Gibbon -- I spent a decade looking for answers to this question in the history of The Empire and, yes, nutty Emperors, Germans, Christians, plagues and other issues do stand out as the obvious villians during this period. More and more, however, I began looking further back, searching for answers during the Republic -- and here Marius's military reforms, the short-sighted corruptions of the boni, the population and economic shifts in Italy and other factors seem to predetermine much of the Empire's coming woes. Then about 10 years ago I discovered the historian Arnold Toynbee, who put things in an even broader context by asking: What is a civilization? How do civilizatons rise and fall, and what are the mechanisms of their birth, growth, decline and death? Helpfully Toynbee was originally a Greek/Roman scholar, and so much of his life's work "A Study of History" goes to the heart of the "Why the Fall (of Rome)?" question being examined here. As many of you will know, Toynbee postulated that 21 civilizations have existed (7 still do), and that all of them have shared common phases of growth and decline. Most relevant to this posting, Rome is not one of Mr. Toynbee's 21 stand-alone civilizations, but is part of a larger "Hellenic" civilization which runs from the early Greeks through the end of the (Western) Roman Empire. According to Toynbee the entire Rome phenomenon (Kings, Republic and Empire) was all just a predictable phase (ie. the Universal State) that is experienced during the decline of all civilizations. Being a lover of Rome I have always found this idea somewhat repugnant. Unfortunatley much of Toynbee's 10 volume argument is strikingly persuasive, and I cannot help but wonder if any of our members have applied this contextual framework to the juicy question "Why the Fall? Any Toynbee readers? [Note: for the record Toynbee's answer to the question "why the fall?" seems to be: when the creative minorty (whom the masses follow voluntarily) becomes transformed into a "dominant minority" (who lead by force/compulsion). Toynbee's read is that this occured within the Hellenic civilization in the 5th century BC.]

Oops. As just posted, I'm new. But having just read some of your posts I now realize I have failed to provide the short self-introduction that seems customary. So here's a bit: Im 63, live in New York City and been a fanatic for all things Roman for over 40 years. Spent much of the 1990's living and working in the crumbling Soviet Empire and was able to travel and visit many out of the way Roman and Byzantine sites (Hungary, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey). For many of these parts of the world "things Roman" still represents the high point in their long histories. I am delighted to find this place and hope I may be able to make a contribution.

Hello all. Just stumbled into this remarkable website. My congratulation to the creaters. I have been waiting 40 years to have an intelligent exchange about things Roman. Question: Is there a protocal for joining these chit chats, or does one just jump in?

All battles? The Battle of Kursk (truly amazing) Rome's battles? Marius' defeat of the Cimbri.