- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How did the ancient Romans feel about the Roman Republic/Empire
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:32 pm to BulldogXero
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:32 pm to BulldogXero
I really don’t think “fall” is the correct word here despite the typical verbiage. People try to simplify it to barbarians overwhelmed the empire against the empire’s will.
That’s not exactly the case.
In the complicated political world where Rome was using barbarians as officials and generals who had their own methods to supporting the empire, it eventually got to a point where regional leaders just decided they wanted to be autonomous.
It was less of a fall and more of a nap
That’s not exactly the case.
In the complicated political world where Rome was using barbarians as officials and generals who had their own methods to supporting the empire, it eventually got to a point where regional leaders just decided they wanted to be autonomous.
It was less of a fall and more of a nap
This post was edited on 5/4/18 at 6:35 pm
0
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:33 pm to Jag_Warrior
So..... jeopardy question. does anyone know technically who the successors of the Byzantine empire was?
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:35 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
One could also argue that the eroding of Roman Republican values, ignoring traditional Polical restraint/decorum in pursuit of power by elites, and the watering down of military requirements and in turn watering down the Roman army was the cause of the “fall” of Rome
Boy does that sound relatable.
History repeats itself.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:37 pm to kciDAtaE
quote:
A general thought is simply it got too big.
Exactly
Also, their coin was basically worthless due to over inflation. They had resorted to paying taxes by collecting people belongings based on how much they were worth. Imagine having to pay taxes by giving the government your shoes and Mule. It was the precursor to feudalism and made the rural populations dependent on their local magistrate for grain and water
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:39 pm to Breesus
quote:
One could also argue that the eroding of Roman Republican values, ignoring traditional Polical restraint/decorum in pursuit of power by elites, and the watering down of military requirements and in turn watering down the Roman army was the cause of the “fall” of Rome
bullshite. That started 500 years before the fall of the Roman Empire. Now if you meant republic, sure.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:41 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
That is true. Through this process, they started serfdom
Posted on 5/4/18 at 6:53 pm to athenslife101
Well I know the czars married into the imperial family but I’m pretty sure the last pretender sold his claim to one of the European monarchies of the time. I think maybe it was the Spanish
Posted on 5/4/18 at 7:04 pm to jackmanusc
The Russian empire is indeed considered the third iteration of the Roman Empire
Posted on 5/4/18 at 7:04 pm to BulldogXero
quote:
like when the barbarians sacked the capital and pretty much ended Roman influence in all of western Europe.
It was Roman influence that allowed them to do that.
The empire lasted, in some aspect, until the age of gunpowder, and left lasting impressions on western culture even to this day.
You should listen to Dan Carlin’s Celtic Holocaust.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 7:52 pm to fr33manator
Rome was starving and sick before the black man showed up and taught them philosophy, and how to wipe their butts, among other things.
Posted on 5/5/18 at 8:42 am to diat150
quote:
Rome was starving and sick before the black man showed up and taught them philosophy, and how to wipe their butts, among other things.
They wuz seezurs
Posted on 5/5/18 at 9:43 am to real turf fan
quote:
I'm currently reading Mike Duncan's "The Storm before the Storm The Beginning of the End of the Roman Empire
quote:
To answer the OP question, this book would give a feel for the sense of place at the time. Only a photographic memory could keep all the people straight (or even remembered in the next chapter
I have listened to all of Duncan’s podcast and i was under the impression the book was about the fall of the republic. Set prior to Caesar’s civil war
Posted on 5/5/18 at 9:53 am to fr33manator
quote:
and left lasting impressions on western culture even to this day.
LINK ]All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Posted on 5/5/18 at 9:54 am to deathvalleyfreak43
quote:
I believe that the rise in the Catholic church and the Bishop of Milan, Ambrose, had a great deal to do with the fall of Rome. Although the Roman empire was a shell of itself by the time Ambrose rose to power, he proved that the people in charge had no real power and challenged them at every turn with no real consequences. It also set the precedent for the power that the church as today. If he had not stood up to the weak Roman emperors of the time like he did with no consequence the church would not have as much power as it does toda
Roman’s were pretty tolerant to other religions and what not prior to the christianization of the empire. I firmly believe that Christianity is one if the key contributor to the fall.
Julian the apostate is my favorite Roman leader because of this. Besides him removing the church from the state, he also gave power back to local governors who of course said “thanks but i like to be figure head”
I think the world would have been a better place had that arrow not randomly found him in battle
Posted on 5/5/18 at 9:59 am to athenslife101
quote:
So..... jeopardy question. does anyone know technically who the successors of the Byzantine empire was?
Rome 3
Posted on 5/5/18 at 10:23 am to athenslife101
quote:
So..... jeopardy question. does anyone know technically who the successors of the Byzantine empire was?
Constantinople was overrun and conquered by Muslims in 1453. This is considered the end of the "Middle Ages" in history. That was the end of the Byzantine Empire. My personal impression is that there was no real successor who wasn't a Muslim.
1453
Posted on 5/5/18 at 5:26 pm to Champagne
As a successor state in the same physical space, the successor would be Mehmed II and his Ottomans. It was recognized by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople at sword point.
In the terms of the titular claims, Bulgarian kings have tried to usurp the claim of being kings of Bulgars and Romans as far back as 913, though they struggled to claim them consistently. In 1345, a pumped up Serbian claimed to be Emporer of Serbs and Greeks; the title fell into disuse, until it was revived by his kinsmen trying to use it to legitimate their rule in Thessaly.
Carolingian Kings were in on becoming 'King of the Romans' very early, with Charlemagne just missing out on marrying the widow of a Byzantine Emperor and trying to subdue a new kingdom that spanned most of classical Rome-- instead he settled for being crowned as such by a Pope.
Eventually descendant dynasts within the Holy Roman Empire would make a half-hearted claim of being a 3rd Rome in 1806; the Hapsburgs never really stuck to the narrative though.
The closest claim, both in terms of bloodline, history, and continuity of things, is the Russian inheritance.
In the terms of the titular claims, Bulgarian kings have tried to usurp the claim of being kings of Bulgars and Romans as far back as 913, though they struggled to claim them consistently. In 1345, a pumped up Serbian claimed to be Emporer of Serbs and Greeks; the title fell into disuse, until it was revived by his kinsmen trying to use it to legitimate their rule in Thessaly.
Carolingian Kings were in on becoming 'King of the Romans' very early, with Charlemagne just missing out on marrying the widow of a Byzantine Emperor and trying to subdue a new kingdom that spanned most of classical Rome-- instead he settled for being crowned as such by a Pope.
Eventually descendant dynasts within the Holy Roman Empire would make a half-hearted claim of being a 3rd Rome in 1806; the Hapsburgs never really stuck to the narrative though.
The closest claim, both in terms of bloodline, history, and continuity of things, is the Russian inheritance.
Posted on 5/5/18 at 5:43 pm to real turf fan
I was reading something about a Roman official who had a slave and that slave had 30 attendants. Was odd how different the idea of slavery was then. There is an old fable of the African King who gave up his crown to become a slave in Rome just for the chance of one day being a citizen. Most think it's just a story, but it was used to show the influence and pride a Roman citizen carried.
Well. After Constantine opened the path for so many to be citizens, the aura of citizenship stated to fade. To the point to when the city did fall, most if the Empire was full of RINOs, or romans in name only.
It wasn't like they were taken out at the height if their power like the Aztecs.
Well. After Constantine opened the path for so many to be citizens, the aura of citizenship stated to fade. To the point to when the city did fall, most if the Empire was full of RINOs, or romans in name only.
It wasn't like they were taken out at the height if their power like the Aztecs.
Posted on 5/5/18 at 7:03 pm to BulldogXero
Roman Empire did not end with sack of Rome. It technically lasted until the fall in Constantinople in 1453. Actually vestiges lasted until 1918 in that the Russian word “Tsar” for emperor is a variant of “Caesar.”
Read Gibbon; Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, eight volumes. This was published in last two decades of 18th C but remains a monumental and informative work. Gibbon was a secularist which was only then becoming acceptable, and these volumes had a huge influence on the founding fathers of the United States and the development of our constituents.
Read Gibbon; Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, eight volumes. This was published in last two decades of 18th C but remains a monumental and informative work. Gibbon was a secularist which was only then becoming acceptable, and these volumes had a huge influence on the founding fathers of the United States and the development of our constituents.
Posted on 5/5/18 at 7:09 pm to Jacknola
quote:
Roman Empire did not end with sack of Rome. It technically lasted until the fall in Constantinople in 1453. Actually vestiges lasted until 1918 in that the Russian word “Tsar” for emperor is a variant of “Caesar.”
Most languages have Latin roots. Your comparison isn't ground breaking.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News