Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sallent, post: 2780795, member: 76194&quot;]The problem with your hypothesis is that Rome did not collapse from within, despite the frequently civil wars (dating back to the Republic), occasional breakups of Roman authority in several provinces (think of all the British rebellions, the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, etc). And yes, no one is arguing that civil wars didn&#039;t weaken the Empire (they did), but even with them the Rome of the 4rth century was still the most powerful empire in the known world by a long shot.</p><p><br /></p><p>The fact is that when provinces occasionally broke away, most sought to rule themselves under the same model as the Roman Empire, with many of the same titles, institutions, traditions, etc. We even see evidence of that on the coinage. The idea that Rome was conquered from the inside, and that the provincials and new arrivals were any less Roman or wanted to be some non-Roman &quot;nationality&quot; is imply not supported by the known history. *And I use nationality quite loosely there, as nationalism as we know it is a modern phenomenon of the last 200 years.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]643170[/ATTACH]</p><p>*You call me Gallic Empire, we call ourselves the new Roman Empire.</p><p><br /></p><p>And yes, structures changed. As Roman society changed, power fled from Rome and new centers of power and imperial structures arose in the 3rd and 4rth century, but that was due to the provincials becoming Romanized, wealthy, and no longer needing Rome to be Romans and conduct their business. Quite simply, once centers of Roman literature, Roman art, and trade developed outside of Rome, the idea of power being concentrated in a single city became obsolete. In fact, the greatest Latin writers and politicians of the 3rd and 4rth centuries were almost all provincials. That&#039;s not decline, but a success story. Just like in the US, at one point culture, power and money was all concentrated in the west coast in places like New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Now we have great centers of commerce, wealth, cultural and political importance in places like California, Texas, Florida, etc. I don&#039;t see that as decline but rather success.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]643171[/ATTACH]</p><p>* The provinces are the new Rome</p><p><br /></p><p>The reality remains that Rome fell from outside. Had the Barbarian tribes not been forced by hundreds of years of Roman raids and interference to become better organized political entities, and learned from the Romans how to beat the Romans at their own game, Rome would have continued for hundreds of years more...despite the occasional civil wars, despite the changes in religion, and despite the cultural changes.</p><p><br /></p><p>And yes, in the last few decades a host of barbarians did infiltrate and played the dying Romans for their own benefit, but that was after Rome was already mortally wounded and in terminal decline. Don&#039;t blame them for trying to pillage a weak and dying corpse of an empire. When the Empire was strong, prior to 379 CE, that stuff didn&#039;t happen.</p><p><br /></p><p>And as far as change, that&#039;s a good thing. Societies need to change for us to evolve and progress. Personally, I&#039;m glad society changed and didn&#039;t stay the same as in the middle ages, and I&#039;m glad the US of the 20th century was so different from the US of the late 18th century when only a few elite rich people had the right to vote for president, society was pre-industrial and isolated, and millions of human beings were kept in bondage.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]643176[/ATTACH]</p><p>* Every new generation there are people like me who shake things up a little.</p><p><br /></p><p>You seem to think culture remains constant, but it doesn&#039;t. Every generation changes it up a little and every generation re-inteprets their past history and the ideas and beliefs of their founding fathers to suit their own purposes. Which is why the American Constitution was so genius, as it could change and adapt to the times (and it has.) If you read The Federalist Papers, you&#039;d realize that&#039;s exactly what the American founders intended. Contrary to what some people claim today, they never intended for a document written in the 18th century to remain unchanging as if it were some sort of Holy Bible. They knew culture and society changes with time (after all, they were students of Roman history) and created a living document that would change and adapt to future generations.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in