Ursus

There is that bit where Scipius watches the destruction of Carthage and supposedly has visions of Rome suffering the same fate. But other than that I don't believe the primary sources suggest Romans could ever conceive that their empire would fall. And why should they? Persia was powerful enough to repel Roman invasions but not powerful enough to seriously challenge Roman territory. Until the time of the Hunnic migrations, the Germanic tribes were rarely more than a border nuisance. I think by the time of the late 3rd century they had been finally clued in that expansion was at an end, but total defeat seemed a remote choice. The Empire was vast and productive. The enemies comparatively weak. Most of the western world worth conquering had already been conquered. They had every right to believe the empire would go on.

Aside from Roman history, what interests do you keep? I have an interest in history and archaeology in general. But beyond history I concern myself with art, literature and theater. You know, high culture. I especially dig a good production of Shakespeare. And I listen to classical music. On the more earthy side of things I enjoy food and drink. I like nature, and animals. And of course I have an interest in advancing my career. I take courses on telecommunications when they present themselves. How about yourselves?

I never actually read the book. If it's a popcorn action movie on the same level as "Centurion" I can enjoy it on that level.

Oooh, this looks really interesting. And reasonably priced, too.

So this is basically going to be another "Centurion"? A nice popcorn action yarn? Cool.

To speak more directly to the issue, there is a book out there that is an excellent example of an intelligent interplay between Roman history and real world geopolitical analysis: http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strategy-Roman-Empire-D/dp/0801821584 I read the book. It's quite dry, even for someone who likes international relations theory. But it is a seminal work. And even if it's analysis is flawed at times, it's theories are applicable to the real world. I think the work might even be required reading in higher military circles.

I think historical examples can be used, generally, to illustrate certain principles of international relations theory. The most immediate that comes to mind is the theory of imperial overstretch. There comes a point in every empire's time when the long term costs of further conquests exceed the long term benefits. (Some people would assign that point in Roman history to the conquest of Britain. 3 legions tied up in a little piece of land, with some tin as their major reward for their efforts). We can look at other fallen empires to see when they turned the corner. And then, perhaps, we might have some insight as to when modern hegemonic powers might become overstretched. But this sort of thing quickly becomes degraded once you get outside a narrow field of impartial analysis by experts. Comparisons to Rome simply become a device of rhetoric from those that want to assign their particular moral schemes to the universe.

From where are these statistics? I''m afraid your data doesn't mean much without some sort of explanation as to how you are conducting your .. quantitative analysis.

What worries me is is a Taliban like element comes to power, and all the great relics of Egypt go the way of the Afghan Buddhist statues.

As I stated in my blog, I saw an updated version of MacBeth, starring Patrick Stewart. Very weird version with Scottish people pretending to be Stalinist Russians. And the three witches do a rap video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DorcFBk4sf8&feature=related

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Various film versions. I'm partial to the 1953 version with Marlon Brando. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esUMvBL3gnY

Yeah, but .... .. (off topic) .. If the South were its own country I wouldn't have various Southern congressman in DC today trying to advance a social agenda to which I often take exception. Which would be better for me and the Northeast. My apologies to the slaves ... (/off topic) ... I now return you to the academic and historic discussion of the American Civil War.

I saw a DVD once about the planned British resistance if the Wehrmacht ever invaded. Fascinating stuff. They estimated they would have about 2 weeks to carry out their sabotages and assassinations before they ran out of supplies and were neutralized ...

Unfortunate, if that is the case. I do like some kind of story to string together scenes of sex and violence. I guess I can only wait till I get the DVD to see for myself.

Personally I feel the empire fell because 1) the Romans liked to fight amongst themselves 2) the barbarians liked to set up kingdoms on Roman soil during the confusion. But if the climate were changing rapidly in the latter centuries, certainly it may have added to the confusions and the problems the empire was facing.

Interesting link .. even if I hate The Civil War. While I obviously abhor slavery, it seems The South had others issues as well. They basically felt that the North was trying to exercise economic hegemony over them, and given some of the tax debates at the time, I think their accusations were not totally unfounded. A few decades earlier New England had lodged some secessionist quibbles over economic concerns as well. Was the North justified in forcefully bringing the secessionist states back in line, to prevent a hostile power, possibly aligned with France and and the UK, arising on its southern border? I can see a geopolitical argument for it. On the whole though, I think if the Southerners wanted to leave the Union, they should have been left to do so.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133143758/could-climate-change-have-led-to-the-fall-of-rome Rome may have fallen hundreds of years ago, but much of the civilization the Romans built still dots the landscape today. One team of scientists recently unearthed a different kind of Roman artifact that may hold a surprising clue to the empire's downfall.

If you have ever watched the show "Life After Humans," they use Detroit as an example of what would happen to cities if humanity died off. In a mere 40 years, nature has reclaimed much of the abandoned parts of Detroit. In another 60 years, most of those tall buildings will collapse completely even if humans don't tear them down first. Yeah, I wonder how much faster this happened to Rome. They didn't have space age plastics and chemically treated lumber.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/show-patrol/2011/01/aussie-actor-liam-mcintyre-replaces-andy-whitfield-as-spartacus.html I'm glad to hear they finally replaced the lead actor and that things are going forward. If they do things right they can get 3 or 4 seasons out of this.

The Romans weren't as comfortable with male-male relations as Greek society. But it happened. As long as they took the dominant role, upper class Roman males could have sex with their servants. If they took the passive role, then they were considered womanly, undeserving of their status. This is the charge that was leveled at Caesar. Another taboo for the upper class male seems to have been fellatio. The mouth was seen as the source of eloquence in public life for an upper class male. Performing the act of fellatio sullied the mouth.

I liked the fact they were usually very practical about things. It shows in everything from their religion to their architecture to their political administration. Even when they started borrowing philosophy from the Greeks, they were still more concerned about daily things like law and ethics than in abstract metaphysical speculation.

One of the authors states that most of China's barbarian people seemed more interested in extracting tribute from China than in outright settlement, unlike Rome's later Germanic peoples.

Hey, more power to you. If I could quit my office job and work from home, I would do it in a heart beat. Welcome to UNRV.

I am writing a review, yes. Short version: it is not what I expected at all. It is not without worth, but it's overly academic and specialized. The last couple of chapters in particular are dry as sand. Honestly, the most relevant insight to me is the outline I posted above.

0: Prior to 500 BCE Antecedent civilizations lay cultural groundwork Rome: Greek colonization and Hellenization of Mediterranean China: Western Zhou garrison cities erected across Central Plain 1: c500 BCE Formation of nascent state Rome: creation of the Republic after expulsion of Etruscan monarchy China: Rise of the Qin state 2: 5th and 4th centuries BCE Growth, conflict, expansion Rome: Wars with rival city-states and tribes in Italy China: Expansion of Qin on central plain. 3: 4th and early 3rd centuries BCE Rise of hegemonic status over immediate area Rome: Rome becomes leading town of Italy China: Qin state subjects the Sichuan area 4: 3rd through 1st centuries BCE Establishment of hegemonic status over wider "core" area Rome: conquest of the Mediterranean China: domination of much of China 5: first two centuries CE Slow down of expansion as frontiers are reached. Rise of homogenous local elites and central monarchy. Rome: Romanization of provincial elites, rise of the Principate. China: development of local elites and central bureaucracy 6: 3rd century CE Fragmentation, Warlordism Rome: Crisis of the Third Century China: The Three Kingdoms 7: 4th - 5th century CE Attempted restoration, Barbarian conquest Rome: Rome temporarily unified, western part occupied by barbarians China: northern China conquered by barbarians 8: 6th century CE Rump states. Integration of barbarians into native culture. Rise of foreign, non-state religions Rome: Eastern core survives as Byzantine. Western barbarians adopt Catholicism. China: South China continues. Northern barbarians adopt Chinese culture. Spread of Buddhism. 9: post 6th century Divergence Rome: Byzantium eventually contracts under Islamic pressure. Western Europe fragmented into barbarian kingdoms. China: reunification under successive dynasties. As to why China survived intact while Rome fell, there are a variety of factors. The chief of which is probably geography: China is compact compared to the Mediterranean and protected on 3 sides by mountains and sea, where the Roman empire was ungainly long with indefensible borders on most sides. Also, the long standing presence of a Confucian-Legalist bureaucracy in China may have promoted cultural stability in a manner that Rome's less developed bureaucracy did not. From Rome and China. Walter Scheidel