Leaderboard

I completed week five "Conflict, consolidation and renaissance: life on the Wall in the 3rd and 4th centuries." This week was a little disjointed. Then again, any study of the turbulent and unstable third and fourth century would be a little confusing. Topics ranged from the Romano-Gallic Empire of Postumus to the Britannic Empire of Caruasius. To add to the diversity of topics, there was an interesting 4th century banquet and a section on numismatics. There was also a section on the presence of Septimius Severus at the wall. There was a mention of this famous anecdote: This lack of focus may have created some confusion. Nevertheless, this has been an interesting course. The last week will soon be available to be reviewed. In answer to the above question, it seems most these courses are offered again. I recommend this course (and others) as a quick and inexpensive (free) review of Roman history. guy also known as gaius

The Republic did not fall in any way whatsoever - the idea that it did is a popular misconception caused by historical categorisation and emphasis on the antics of certain Caesars. The fallacy that it fell is easily overturned when one takes the trouble to realise that nothing about the Republic actually stopped or was dismantled - all it was was a significant political change, with powerful individuals acting as sponsored advisors, or in some cases, self important tyrants. There was no job description for the role of Caesar, no constitutional means of providing for a succession, and the Caesars themselves were not absolute rulers - even Caligula is known to have asked the Senate for permission to stage games. The poers of a particular Caesar were provided by the Senate, not the job, although whether popularity or lots of soldiers were the cause of this provision is another matter. Remember that not until the reign of Commodus diod the Romans accept that a Caesar had been "born to the purple", or in other words, succeded his father in monarchial succession.