Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sallent, post: 2826984, member: 76194&quot;]Well, definitely the era of stability sort of ended. Even though Rome had some bad or questionable emperors in the 1st century (ie. Caligula, Nero, Domitian) the empire was still very prosperous, strong, and relatively stable, and there were some very good Emperors during that period too (I&#039;d go as far as saying Tiberius was not a bad Emperor militarily or economically, and the &quot;Reign of Terror&quot; during his time in office is much exaggerated by the ancient historians). Rome reached the heights of power, wealth, and stability sometime between the rule of the Flavian Emperors and the reigns of the 5 Good Emperors (69-180). That 111 year period was a very good time to be alive, and there was only one questionable Emperor during that period, Domitian. Things changed somewhat after the death of Marcus Aurelius and the chaotic rule of his son Commodus.</p><p><br /></p><p>After Commodus&#039; terrible reign and death, and the subsequent civil wars you can definitely see a decrease in wealth in the empire, and inflation starting to crop up, as evidenced by the devaluation of the coinage and the birth of the double Denarius. However, I&#039;d argue that despite those problems it was still a relatively good era as the empire was still more or less stable. The wheels didn&#039;t truly fall off the train until the murder of Emperor Alexander Severus in 235 CE.&nbsp; I think that was definitely the turning point. The next 50 years were full of civil war, near collapse of the empire, terrible economic problems, etc. The Rome that came out of that (the Late Roman Empire) was definitely never the same as the earlier Empire, though there were periods of prolonged stability in the&nbsp; late 3rd Century and the 4rth Century.[/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