bkunit Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 I was wondering if anyone could tell me about any important events that occured during the 1st-2nd century AD. Battles, Expansion, Politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 Some of those things can be found just by looking around at this site a little bit... http://www.unrv.com/provinces/province-chronology.php http://www.unrv.com/government/emperor.php http://www.unrv.com/military/battles-of-th...rst-century.php http://www.unrv.com/military/battles-of-th...ond-century.php We are still progressing on a concise history of the Empire, but if just go through our emperor list and run some Google searches on pretty much any of the 1st-2nd century emperors, I'm sure you'll pull up plenty of stuff. Hadrian, Trajan, etc, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 Personally i believe the single most important event was the rise to purple of Commodus. (and i dont mean it in a positive way). Till 180 AD the Roman Empire was in my opinion solid as a rock, only a few decades down the line and 20 emperor laters (if you take Septimius Severus out of the equotion, who did restore stability, but developed a highly militaristic and bureaucratic government). the empire laid in shambles and since Marcus Aurelius the empire has never been the same again.... regards viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 The Jewish uprisngs were all very important. The conquest of Britain was another. The end of the Julio Claudian line yet another. In fact there were so many important events it is hard to single any out. While I agree with Viggen in part that the rise of Commodus contributed to a general decline, I also must consider that when we are speaking about events that took place over centuries rather than decades, there is more to it then appears on the surface. Yes the Empire had been destabilised with a rush for the Purple on the part of many after the confusion left by Commodus, however this does not really differ from the legacy of the Julio Claudian's and their subsequent demise. The individual's rush for power was long established by the time Commodus was killed. I see the breakdown of the Empire being more linked to the difficulties brought about by the Empire's expansion and the logistical problems that were the result of such great distances and the control needed over many nationalities. Not to mention the world outside of the Empire constantly pressing in from many sides. The many civil wars that followed were also largely dependant on these distances. I think the wars fought after Diocletian had abdicated were the result, not only of individual desire for power, but also created due to the distance. A man far from Rome ruling his area of command, where his will was done, his army backed him, and the feeling of estrangement from the Capitol all led to these general's waging war for supreme power. I feel that there were so many complications in the last 2 centuries leading to the fall of the western Empire that one alone can't be singled out. The death of Julian after his abortive war against Persia must also be seen as a vitally important event. The power in the west had been restored under Julian and he was well loved in that part of the Empire. If he had succeeded in his expedition to Persia, would we have seen yet another rise, not only to Rome's former glory, but perhaps even greater glory? The questions posed by Rome's fall and Byzantium's rise are very interesting indeed and I don't think there are any easy answers to any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Interesting post Julian, thanks, I agree (not a single event) but a contributing factor was distance, i could imagine that people in far away provinces knew about their emperor only from coins and hear say. Maybe the Romans were to far ahead of time, so to speak too big for the kind of transportation that was available? cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilcar Barca Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 Three percent of the population were slaves, and they mainly caused the downfall of the civilisation. How did they do this? Asides from the three Servile wars which occured in the closing years of the rebublic, slavery was hardly an issue. Corrupt emperors, badly thought out policies, civil wars, foreign invaders and barbarianisation were what caused the downfall of the western empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 [Mod Note] the post quoted by Hamilcar above was deleted due to the user name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.