Julian

Justinian finalised the destruction of the Pagan religions. See Gibbon. He mentions this destruction as being a singular event in human history. Genocide employed by the Christian's wiped out the pagan religions. This is well documented.

Sadly I do not have much time right now. But I always thought this was good. REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers. LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers. REG: Yeah. LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers. REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?! XERXES: The aqueduct. REG: What? XERXES: The aqueduct. REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah. COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation. LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like? REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done. MATTHIAS: And the roads. REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads-- COMMANDO: Irrigation. XERXES: Medicine. COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh... COMMANDO #2: Education. COMMANDOS: Ohh... REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough. COMMANDO #1: And the wine. COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah... FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh. COMMANDO: Public baths. LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg. FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this. COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh. REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? XERXES: Brought peace. REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up! [bam bam bam bam bam bam bam] [bam bam bam bam bam]

Shakespeare, or Marlowe??? Oooh the controversy. ;-)

I tend to see other socio economic problems as being the real cause. Many people, such as Diocletian, may have felt that Christianity had a chance of weakening the Empire, but history shows us that Christian nations can be as hard and warlike as any other. Plus it should be remembered that Constantine moved the capital city to Constantinople. Even if Rome in the west later fell, the capital still existed, and it was Christian. Albeit in the East. Later of course there was a resurgence under Justinian with the victories of Belesarius in the west. Although the west was lost again later. Personally I see the version put out by the Church as being purely propaganda intending to show the fall of an evil Empire, and the rise of a good empire based upon the Christian faith. If we look deeply into it we see it never really fell. Rome simply became poor and lacked the influence it once possessed. Not surprising seeing as though the centre of its power structure was no longer there, but in Turkey.

That's great! Thanks for posting that story.

I think a good thing to remember about Mel's story, is that it is based on the visions of a mentally ill nun. How close it is to any accurate history is anybody's guess. We cannot even prove Jesus lived, let alone that he was tried by Roman govenor, in a Jewish court involving Jewish laws based in Jewish religion. Not to mention the fact that no Jew would be crucified by Jew's on the eve of passover. That any Jew would suffer so is against Jewish law. It sounds to me as if the story of Ben Stada became that of Jesus Christ. Of course everything about this event is purely speculative.

Thanks very much. Although I joined a while ago, I've not had time to post. I must say I agree with you. It is very difficult to judge what would have happened from our time.

The Jewish uprisngs were all very important. The conquest of Britain was another. The end of the Julio Claudian line yet another. In fact there were so many important events it is hard to single any out. While I agree with Viggen in part that the rise of Commodus contributed to a general decline, I also must consider that when we are speaking about events that took place over centuries rather than decades, there is more to it then appears on the surface. Yes the Empire had been destabilised with a rush for the Purple on the part of many after the confusion left by Commodus, however this does not really differ from the legacy of the Julio Claudian's and their subsequent demise. The individual's rush for power was long established by the time Commodus was killed. I see the breakdown of the Empire being more linked to the difficulties brought about by the Empire's expansion and the logistical problems that were the result of such great distances and the control needed over many nationalities. Not to mention the world outside of the Empire constantly pressing in from many sides. The many civil wars that followed were also largely dependant on these distances. I think the wars fought after Diocletian had abdicated were the result, not only of individual desire for power, but also created due to the distance. A man far from Rome ruling his area of command, where his will was done, his army backed him, and the feeling of estrangement from the Capitol all led to these general's waging war for supreme power. I feel that there were so many complications in the last 2 centuries leading to the fall of the western Empire that one alone can't be singled out. The death of Julian after his abortive war against Persia must also be seen as a vitally important event. The power in the west had been restored under Julian and he was well loved in that part of the Empire. If he had succeeded in his expedition to Persia, would we have seen yet another rise, not only to Rome's former glory, but perhaps even greater glory? The questions posed by Rome's fall and Byzantium's rise are very interesting indeed and I don't think there are any easy answers to any of them.

The greatest? Well that really depends on one's definition. Was Caeser great? I don't know. Was Napoleon great? I tend to favour Cicero for reasons of his humanity, as well as his literary achievements. However I see Scipio as being perhaps the best in his defence of Rome. As for my greatest Roman of them all? I favour Flavianus Claudius Julianus. Philosopher, restorer of religious tolerance (Ignoring his persecution of the teachers due to his feeling they were hypocrites) great general, governmental reformer, his high level of respect achieved in the eyes of his army, his unwillingness to abuse his power.......... There is much I admire about Julian the Apostate.

I replied that it took a monumental effort for Rome to win. I also don't think Carthage could have won outright. At best they may have been able to negotiate a peace that may have served some of their interests. However I see their role as being similar to that of the Japanese in WWII after the Coral sea and Midway battles. All out victory being beyond their grasp, but negotiated terms not. Whether the Roman's would have been prepared to accept any terms from their main rival in the area is speculative.