I have seen the rest of the world, it is dark and brutal......

[Kosmo]

That is a fair point, of course. However, in, say, 375 it certainly would not have done any harm to have listened to the profits of doom, just as it wouldn't do any real harm today. The benefits, then as now, would far outweigh the minor disruptions needed to address these concerns.

 

Would a roman realised after Adrianopole that the empire it's at risk? Looking at their history they would have thought of a stinging defeat, but they always went back up after Cannae, Carhae, Teutoburg etc. Probably internal conflicts drained more blood than that batlle.

Was the empire definetly on the road to collapse? We know the way history turned, but maybe it was not unavoidable and if things were done different the outcome would have been different.

If you were a roman then and you knew what that meant could you have done a effective change? Was there something that could stop the endless fights for the imperial power and was there a way to restore lost military superiority? Could someone stop christians from fighting each other for arcane reasons?

The empire was big, rich and powerfull. It was the most advanced in culture, technolgy, arts and religion in his area (if not on Earth). It did not fell from trivial causes that a prophet could rectify.

Today we know that what happens in Africa it's bad, but can you propose a viable solution? What about polution or East European girls?

 

The capacity of states (and humans in general) to change things in the way they want to it's painfully limited. With the obvious exception of destroying things, something that was always easy to do.

[21th century Roman]

This line from gladiator, (a movie I ended up disliking, not just for the metal spoons the slaves ate with) bring to mind, just how different do you believe modern people are? "Rome was an idea," Aurelius said in the movie.

 

Are we so lacking faith in ourselves not to understand that the past holds but examples of what we can accomplish today. You who study Rome, are Romans, because you have bought into the idea and ideals of what Rome was. We today are no different in basic character then those of thousands of years ago. Wasn't Rome an attitude that spread to the provinces. Didn't the Romanized provinces consider themselves Roman. Not all of them I grant you. After a few hundred years, didn't the Britons or Gaul consider themselves Roman Britons or Roman Gauls. In the end they all became Roman citizens. The first truly cosmopolitan nation with shared interests.

 

History is the inspiration for the future, its possibilities and its hopes. Rome continues today in those that believe so and understand its legacy. From its earliest days there was no other direction for them but avanti, forward. To stand still was to die. They actually had to live by "carpe diem" or perish. Are we any different? Isn't it necessary for us also to go out and conquer each day in our own lives?

 

We look back into their lives. I wonder what they would think if they looked into our lives and discussed us. What do you think they would say? How would they view political correctness? What would they think of people out to save trees? Could they understand groups like Greenpeace? Are you up for a little cultural role reversal? You are looking into the future 2000 years hence, as Romans. What would be your observations on the world of today?

 

Ron

 

 

I think the Romans would be amazed that it has been over 2500 years since the Republic was founded and after all these many centuries the battle for the perfect Republic still rages on. They would be saddened that in Italy itself, there still is no working Republic . The people have not learned how to govern any better than their early attempts. And an ...I told you so !... that the return of the Christ and his peace on earth was a fanthom idealism, one that still has not come any closer to realization today than what was so proudly proclaimed in Rome 2000 years ago. Amazed at just how little has actually changed in the ordinary lives of humankind. Modern tools do not make for a better man.

I do like you're reasoning that all those who study Rome today are a Roman. But in my view being a Roman is best lived as a Republican idea, not any other. Democracy is Greek.

 

 

For myself also. the republican period was the struggle to create, and in that creation is found the the true meaning of Rome or any country. Its early history had heroes, its later history had few heroes and more villains. Funny how history repeats its self. Every modern nation seem to have the same story. In the beginning when needs are the greatest, unselfish men step forward to do great things and are remembered. As time passes virtues like self sacrifice, honor and duty are replaced by less than honorable characteristics, power, greed and ambition. If this is human nature, we will go the way of the Romans in time. Other line from gladiator that I did like was the soldier's salute, "strength and honor", that seem to characterize, at least by my view of the republican period.

 

Ron

[caldrail]

The republic was a very staunch regime in its early days, as it was formed in response to public outrage against the actions of the kings. After the punic wars, this patriotism began to wane and for the last two hundred years of the republic there is a gradual decline, brought to a head by the civil wars that ushered in the principate.

 

The military salute is probably not far from the truth, since the legions had evolved a very strong esprit-de-corps (which was further improved by the Marian & Augustan refiorms). That said, roman soldiers were often problem cases. Many were far from honourable.

 

Virtues are something of an ideal, and few people meet those standards. Also, the great men of the past are seen with rose tinted glasses, as legends and stories gloss over the reality of what these people were. Spartacus for instance. Today he's thought of as a working class hero, a man who fought for freedom against slavery. The truth is he was nothing of the sort. He was a rogue, a deserter, a bandit, and eventually a rebel whose objectives may have been freedom at the beginning but turned to something more selfish later. The romans themselves didn't think too well of him and they never regarded as a hero - and even some of the roman accounts romanticise his rebellion, so perhaps this was because it was better to fight a noble enemy than a bandit, especially when that bandit runs rings around the legions sent to stop him.