|
Have you read Neil Faulkner's book on the fall of Roman Britain? General hypothesis is that Rome was a predator state doomed to fail once it ran out of new, rich, ripe targets to take, plunder, and incorporate into the empire. I.e., once Rome got into the harsh and poor lands of Wales, Scotland, and came up against the Seleucid empire in the east, the classic Rome ceased to be, leading to a hundred years of generational rebellions, and ultimately collapse. I'd recommend the book if for no other reason than it made me think differently about Rome than most classic "rome was the height of western civilization" histories/books will give you. Also, how much do you know about subroman Britain (i.e. 400-700 C.E.?). Thanks
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:It's easy for us to look at Rome with a full historical timeline and draw conclusions like this. However, if you look at Rome it directly parallels other empires like the historical Chinese dynasties. Like Rome one ethnic group became powerful (italians in Rome, Han in China) and united to form its first cohesive state that spanned a large expanse of land. Then this new state consolidated its power absorbing other kingdoms and foreign ethnicities expanding to the point that the cultural identity became pervasive and a universal concept. Even when the dynasties in China's case or emperors in Rome changed the character of the state the culture was still pervasive. Over time various "foreigners" adopted the state's culture and were absorbed into the larger civilization's identity. Eventually bureaucracy, religion, and outside forces stressed the institution to the point where it finally cracked. That's when the state ended but you could say Han culture is still alive and well and so is Roman culture. Fair points. I of course murdered a lot of the intricacies of his book/theory. I should probably mention that part of this sort of 'unbalanced predatory state' view he had was the Legions. The Legions were professional soldiers, and whoever controlled them, for the most part, controlled the Empire. This is contrasted against other socities where most warriors were also farmers, crafstmen, etc. (i.e. they were only seasonal fighters, not around the clock dedicated soldiers). By having this professional, expensive, heavily armored force though, the Roman state required new targets to plunder and subjugate: extracting resources, taxes, slaves, etc. to send back to mother rome, in order to continue functioning. The political families schemed and warred, and sought triumphs to conquer far of lands, because triumphs equaled resources and money. Some astounding numbers are thrown out in terms of just how much Emperors would pay the legions/soldiers. Once rome ran out of new territories to take that would be worth the cost, legions shifted from heavily armored, large unit conquering machines, to smaller unit/divisioned frontier rapid response forces. As to it being a 'grand design' or plan, Faulker doesn't make that argument. Rather, he sees it as the natural result of wealthy families seizing upon military conquests in order to drive political ascension. In any event, it's not my intention to defend or champion his theory. I was more just saying it's an interesting theory, almost a Marxist-historical view of the empire, that is worth reading. Still hoping to hear if anyone has insights on subroman Britain or recommend reading, etc. If you need more specifics, look at these posts I did for my little RP world [not trying to plug it] and let me know your thoughts/reactions on the accuracy of my general descriptions in there: http://legacydarkage.com/index.php?topic=4976.0 I can post them here (they're long though) if that's the preferred way. Thanks GamerL fucked around with this message at 19:39 on May 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If the (western) Roman Empire had fully integrated the Germanic Tribes like they integrated the Gauls or the Greeks or the Illyrians then who knows what would have happened. Was there some decision not to? Or could they not do it because the rough terrain, lack of rich targets prevented it from being worth it/possible to romanize them? I.e. build and defend roman towns, establish regional governments, etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Grand Fromage, I think you should read Neil Faulkner's Fall of Roman Britain. It's about $20 and would help fill in that area of roman history for you nicely. It starts with a hefty recap of the roman empire in britain, and goes through how the big events elsewhere effected things in Rome, and then goes through the multiple britain based rebellions/rebellion emperors etc. I just got back from visiting Caerleon (Newport) and Cardiff and there's some great sites to see. They aren't as impressive as Rome, but unlike Rome none of the sites are walled off or guarded, so you can walk completely through the foundations of old roman walls, barracks, amphitheaters, etc. Also, as to tech, there's so much Rome had/did that you don't even hear about usually. Extensive coal mining and burning, water boilers, rudimentary steam engines, surgery and anesthesia (C-Section comes from Caesarian, the son of Caesar by cleopatra, who was purportedly delivered via that surgery), etc etc. Having seen the pantheon, coliseum, and then the ruins in Caerleon last week, you're right that it was really their building tech that was truly amazing. Way out on the rear end-end britain frontier, they were making walls, ampitheatres, and other structures, some of which are still standing today. Those that are standing are mostly gone because people over the millenia plundered the ruins for bricks/stone to use in building new areas (i.e. recycling). Presumably a lot of this knowhow survived in the Byzantine empire, and I've also heard about how advanced the Persian and Chinese empires were in their own ways after the western empire's fall. Still, no doubt impressive what they did. GamerL fucked around with this message at 08:54 on May 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
 Forgive me if the answer to this is the seemingly obvious one (i.e. a desert), but why didn't Rome ever (or did they?) try to take more of Africa? All the maps (including in the op copied above) one ever sees of Rome has it only occupying the mediterranean north stretch of Africa, never further south. And unlike the north, one never hears about unsuccesful wars/attempts by Rome to take other parts of Africa. Given rome's seafaring prowess/trade/etc, one would think they might have sailed around and down the western side of africa. Or set out down the east side from their holdings in lower Egypt. GamerL fucked around with this message at 20:56 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
A few thoughts re: 'how come no rail tracks' 1. Metal (may) have been more precious or had better uses back then. 2. Looters may have seized on such rails to sell. 3. Enemies may have destroyed such rails to disrupt movement/trade. I don't know how abundant metal was in the Roman world, but sources I've read indicate it was *the* resource to have in terms of power/warmaking.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
To follow up on Pochoclo's question, what were general views on magic and the occult in pre-christian Rome? Magi and Egyptians? Cults of Mithras? Other references of sorcery, sin, etc?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
GrandFromage posted:Personally, I'd like records of what happened in the west during the "dark ages" (historians hate this term), especially the period from 476 to the mid/late 600s when it appears Roman culture continued more or less unchanged under the new Germanic rulers. You should read Gildas and Saint Patrick. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britanniae) GamerL fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jul 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Yo GF - So I learned this in my 6th grade world history class and also heard it again when I visited the collosseum: the notion that they would flood the arena with water and stage small scale naval battless in it. Fact or fiction? If it's true, what sources do we have? Also - fact or fiction, christians were killed in the collosseum?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Roman names by late the late empire, someone explain them to me. Gaius Julius Caesar - Would people, by the end of the empire, called him 'Caesar' as a first name, or would his friends call him Gaius and only strangers/respectful/informal references call him 'Caesar'? Wikipedia makes it sound like the cognomen was a nickname and/or family differential. WOuld it be like a guy nowadays named Tom Roberts 'the great' going around and calling himself 'the great' as a first name? I.e. what was the real 'first name' for romans by the late empire, how were the cognomen, praenomen, and nomen used? Thanks GamerL fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Aug 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
I don't think ancient republican or imperial rome could fairly be described as fascist. The biggest parallel to draw would be the veneration of the state/nation and perhaps certian leaders (triumphs, monuments, etc), but I'm not sure how real that is, further I'm not sure the state/nation was ever elevated above the gods/religion - which is one of the hallmarks of fascism. There's also little 'corporate control of the means of production,' 'revolutionary narratives,' or 'cults of victimization/decay' -- all of these are typically associated with fascist movements/upheavals.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2012 22:51
|
|