TOPHalanx

I whole-heartedly agree with the comments made my Ursus. If success in life is based partly on technical skills, then an education in liberal arts will actually hurt you. I say that because the basis of a liberal arts education is to teach the student how to effectively think. I went into University thinking I knew everything: I left University asking questions and analyzing everything that came out of everyone's mouth, pen and keystroke. Not to catch someone off-guard, just to enlighten yourself with regard to some area of knowledge, and I loved every chance I had to talk with a professor, scholar, etc. Mainly because it didn't cost me much to ask those questions. When you constantly ask questions, and you move to employment ,the price you pay for those questions goes way up. Sure, you might think it harmless to ask question procedure in a company, but to management, they think you are some kind of dissident out to change the system. My jobs after university taught me one thing: only the rich people get to ask questions, and they never ask themselves anything. If I could have it all, I mean an excess of everything, I would want just enough to live humbly with my girlfriend, enough to play paintball, and the rest to read the history of the world. History is my mistress, data entry and MCSE certification are my colletive wife.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but.... I meant it more for the fall of the Empire. Even by virtue of how expansive the borders of the Empire were, I wager that parity between quality of life was rampant as the borders grew. I have no research on the topic, however conisder: was the life of a Roman in Gaul better or worse than a Roman living outside Nicomedia? At some point, "putting coin in every Roman hand" isn't the most pressing issue, maintaining border control is. So some Romans live better than others. I hardly think that civil aggression was based simply on the pride of Easterners or Westerners. As for the fall of the Republic, I tack it up to old-fashioned Italian hard-headedness on the part of the Senators. Being a descendant of a Calabrese father, I know all about this. New ideas were taking shape in Rome, and as mentioned before, the Senators were sticklers for the status quo. If whatever means either maintained their power or increased their power, there was no reason to change. I am reminded of the case for electoral reform in majority Parliamentary governments. Why does a majority power want to change the way elections are held when the change could cost them control? Back on topic. I wouldn't say a split in any real, tangeable sense caused the fall of the Republic. Segestan's comments are quite illuminating, but I wonder if the class separation itself manifested the end of the Republic. Look at the French Revolution: scholars to this day still quabble over whether social conditions or the rise of the Philosophes lead to the end of the Ancien regime. One group were too poor and stupid to do anything but flay nobility alive; the other group were already well enough off to not have to "rock the boat" as it were. If it was specifically a class split that caused the fall of the Republic, you would have seen revolution in the streets. In some way the tyrants must have noticed this and waited for the perfect moment to take momentum away from the poorer peoples and re-constitute Rome as an Empire.

I have a quick question regarding the opening theme of the "Rome" tv show. Near the end of the opening theme, I see a large wall with rows of Roman numerals, along with these raised boxes with curved slots for some sort of shape to go in. I've seen in some episodes, an older citizen walks up to take the shape out of one box and put it in another. It's quite vague I know, but perhaps if you looked at the opening theme for yourself, you will know exactly what I am talking about.

Easy: Marcus Aurelius. I'd smoke my pipe, have some wine, just sit and discuss anything, knowing that neither one of us is going to change the world Then, I'd beg to have him make me his adopted son and promise me the rule over all of Rome.

don't worry about careers in history. my ultra-top-scret plan to create "history factories" will employ all of us history scholars; even those of us who finished with undergraduate studies! seriously, I can't help you. I graduated 0T2 from University of Toronto, and I'm currently doing data entry and also studying toward my MCSE certification in networking technology. history factories...it's nice to dream, eh?

I'm brand new to the forums here, so a hearty hello from Toronto. Being removed from the scholarly life for quite some time, I will come off a tad rusty....anyhow my comment on the fall of the Empire... Vespasion's comment on who is culpable for the fall of the Empire appears to have a bit too much of hindsight. As it is true that Julius Caesar was the first emperor, you can trace the apprehension of later emperors to the first Caear and how you predicate the basis for his power. However, unified peoples of antiquity are much like modern corporations: they can never have enough. Especially true of Rome during the Caesars, health in the economy was based in large part (if not totally), on expansion. As a Republic, Rome fared quite well in expanding her borders, but would have reached (in my opinion) either diminishing returns or a bottleneck if allowed to exist for another hundred years, to be convenient. The Senate, as pointed out before, did a poor job in facilitating the machinery of government and its intention: to represent the populace. Let me make this distinction from popular rule. Being represented by the elected is one thing, but when the elected have it in their vested interest to keep from the populace, you end up with Senators being used as Roman candles. Back to my original comment. I would not put the fault on Julius Caesar for having begun the end of the Empire. It was up until the end of the second century that saw Rome's greatest triumphs, with Trajan and Claudius in my opinon making the greatest strides for expansion. However if I had to put one name next to the title of "destroyer of the empire" I'd have to name Diocletian, for a couple of reasons. First, Diocletian is credited with the tetrarchy system of rule. This was the seed of civil conflict in the Empire, no matter how much is said that the Empire grew too large to maintain (forget ruling over) by one person. It has been my contention ever since I got a proper foothold in Roman history that this separation would manifest itself in the end of the Western Empire. Second, Diocletian made himself more a king than emperor. As I remember reading of past emperors "ascending to the purple" wearing a robe of that colour, Diocletian made it a point to garnish himself in jewels. Furthermore, the commoners had to partake in more selfless actions when coming in contact with Diocletian, soon making the moniker 'princeps' a title fit for the Julio-Claudians. As the tetrarchy would separate Rome into East and West (Constantine's sons would later separate West further), Diocletian's reform of imperial character would further separate Rome into rich and poor. Not that Rome before then was an egalitarian utopia. The average Roman, before Diocletian, would refer to the Emperor as a man among them. Diocletian effectively put an end to that, in ways even the most average citizen could see or hear of it. A little long in the tooth, but submitted for your approval.