Roman Empire
(→Chronology: Link.) |
(→Beginnings) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Beginnings== | ==Beginnings== | ||
| − | The pre-imperial history of Rome is treated elsewhere.<sup>''where?''</sup> {{more}} In brief, the Republic served to make Rome the most powerful military force in the west and led to great conquest, but it gave way to rule by Augustus | + | The pre-imperial history of Rome is treated elsewhere.<sup>''where?''</sup> {{more}} In brief, the Republic served to make Rome the most powerful military force in the west and led to great conquest, but it gave way to rule by Augustus in 27 BCE, and remained under the control of succeeding Emperors from then on. The Senate was reduced to a figurehead, and the Republic would never again be seen for Rome's remaining 500 years. |
The beginning of the Roman Empire played a strong role in the build-up of eschatalogical theories prior to and during the life of [[Jesus]]. Messianic expectations at the time of [[Jesus]] were known even in Rome. For example, the [[prophecy]] that "a savior would come out of Judea" was popular in the Roman Empire; so popular that the biographer Suetonious saw fit to include it in his ''De Vita Caesarum''.{{when}} However, Suetonious identified the savior as Vespasian in his ''Life of Vespasian'', since Vespasian did, as it was said, "save the State" during the year of the four emperors. | The beginning of the Roman Empire played a strong role in the build-up of eschatalogical theories prior to and during the life of [[Jesus]]. Messianic expectations at the time of [[Jesus]] were known even in Rome. For example, the [[prophecy]] that "a savior would come out of Judea" was popular in the Roman Empire; so popular that the biographer Suetonious saw fit to include it in his ''De Vita Caesarum''.{{when}} However, Suetonious identified the savior as Vespasian in his ''Life of Vespasian'', since Vespasian did, as it was said, "save the State" during the year of the four emperors. | ||
Revision as of 23:30, 24 July 2013
| Pars seriei de |
| Historiae civesque |
Contents |
Beginnings
The pre-imperial history of Rome is treated elsewhere.where? [more detail please] In brief, the Republic served to make Rome the most powerful military force in the west and led to great conquest, but it gave way to rule by Augustus in 27 BCE, and remained under the control of succeeding Emperors from then on. The Senate was reduced to a figurehead, and the Republic would never again be seen for Rome's remaining 500 years.
The beginning of the Roman Empire played a strong role in the build-up of eschatalogical theories prior to and during the life of Jesus. Messianic expectations at the time of Jesus were known even in Rome. For example, the prophecy that "a savior would come out of Judea" was popular in the Roman Empire; so popular that the biographer Suetonious saw fit to include it in his De Vita Caesarum.When? However, Suetonious identified the savior as Vespasian in his Life of Vespasian, since Vespasian did, as it was said, "save the State" during the year of the four emperors.
Chronology
Augustus was the first Emperor,When? leading a stable and peaceful Empire. He cut the size of the military and reorganized it so the Empire would have about 300,000 men under arms, manning the borders, with limited mobility. He decided against expanding the Empire after the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest in 9 CE and the loss the Romans incurred at that site. Very limited expansions followed.
The Fall
Historians, with varying motivations, have proposed equally varying reasons for the fallWhen?[please explain] of the Roman Empire. The rationales range from the idiotic and transparently biased to the mundane, with some outlying probable causes.
- Edward Gibbon, author of the monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, actually blamed Christianity, in relevant parts, for detracting from the civic republicanism and sense of unified purpose that had built the Republic. Most of this can be traced to Gibbon's own deep distaste for Christianity[1], although it is a colorable argument that Christianity, by splitting Roman society along (first) class lines and (later) violently among factions, the rise of Christianity inhibited a unity that would have forced awareness of, and staved off, latent problems in the Empire. However, this explanation does not account for other important variables.
- Luttwak[2] argued that Rome's fall was due simply to a decay of military prowess, and strategy, and the true problem of outsourcing one's army to one's enemy. This theory has the ring of credibility to it. Luttwak suggests that Rome abandoned its policy of fostering "buffer states" around its borders, which would be loosely defended by, and tributaries to, the Roman throne, and forestall barbarian incursions from entering Rome while the strategy was in operation. Coupled with a sudden upsurge in the violence of the barbarian hordes, caused by Attila the Hun pushing Gothic tribes out of their homes on the eastern steppes and into the empire, the overtaxed Roman army could not handle the incursions any longer, and collapsed. Roman tendency to depend more heavily on mercenary soldiers - which was a critical fault of Hellenic Kingdoms, allowing for their easy conquest 700 years earlier by Rome - did not help Rome's defense.
- Additionally, Rome at some point ceased in fact to be the heart of the empire, and thusly abandoned, justly fell. Constantine's shift of the capitol to Constantinople (the site of former Byzantium)When? focused the empire increasingly east, which Christianity's rise further impelled. As focus shifted away from Rome, so did money, trade, and defensive forces. Although Rome remained the spiritual center of the world, and of great symbolic value[3], without such trade the city stumbled and fell.
- Decay of morality is often proposed as a theory for the fall of the Roman empire. Its descent into decadence and perversion has become almost iconic in popular culture.[4] However, this theory is most often advocated by persons attempting to use this theory to support a stricter moral agenda in America, and justly reeks of bias.[5] The most that this theory can be justified is in the proper condemnation of the luxuries heaped on later emperors, and their corresponding inattention to issues of import to the empire.[6] This is not to say that faltering morality is to blame: rather, that a ruling class inculcated with a sense of entitlement is fatal to any government.
After "the Fall"
Although the Western half of Rome fell, the Roman Empire remained alive in the East in what would later become known as the Byzantine Empire. Although it never fully regained it's former glory the Byzantine Roman Empire (known simply as the Roman Empire to itself and it's neighbors) remained the preeminent power in the Mediterranean throughout much of the Middle Ages until Constantinople was finally seized by Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire in 1453.
Accounts of the the remains of the Western half of the Empire's immediate descent into poverty have been greatly exaggerated. Rather, rulers such as Theoderic the Ostrogoth and his followers (the Amal clan) ruled from Ravenna in the Roman style,When? maintaining much of Roman life and infrastructure.[7] Theoderic even employed Romans to ensure this continuity and sense of Roman stability. Indeed, in the eyes of the people of Italy, the formal pronouncement of the end of the Roman empire wasn't apparent; [more detail please] that is only a label that was put on in retrospect. One example was Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (or just Cassiodorus), who, writing as Theoderic, famously urged all Romans to "clothe themselves with the morals of the toga" - i.e., retain your Roman ways, in spite of the "barbarian" rule.
This twilight period was finally cut short by the reconquest campaign planned by the Byzantine Roman emperor Justinian I, led by the general Belisarius.When? In a bloody war, both sides reduced the Italian countryside to nothing, with the Byzantines finally inheriting a ravaged husk.[8] Many Romans - Eastern and Western - blamed Justinian for this devastation.[9]
Would-be successors
Aside from the Byzantine Empire, many empires and states have claimed, sometimes grandiosely, and with varying degrees of histerical historical accuracy, to be the successor to the Roman Empire.
- The Carolingian Empire was founded about 400 years after the fall of Rome by Charlemagne the Great, a Frank. He was crowned "Emperor of the Romans" by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800 CE (to create a counterbalance to the guys in the East). Charlemagne left the empire to his sons, who squabbled and broke it apart.[10]
- The Holy Roman Empire arose in Central Europe when German King Frederick I Barbarossa, who had gotten hold of Italy as well, was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Adrian IV in 1155. It was succeeded by the German Empire (the Second Reich), which was succeeded by you-know-what.
- The Papal States, always playing for the lead role, considered the Holy Roman Emperors to be vassals of the pope, with true earthly power emanating from the pope alone.[11] Which it did, whenever the Holy Roman Emperors wanted it to.
- The Ottoman Empire: After the Fall of Constantinople, Mehmed claimed the title of "Caesar" of Rome (Kayser-i Rûm). The claim was not recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople, or Christian Europe. Mehmed's claim rested with the concept that Constantinople was the seat of the Roman Empire, after the transfer of its capital to Constantinople in 330 CE and the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family; his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed may have claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos.
- Russia, after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, had ambitions of becoming the "third Rome." The Slavic word tsar derives from Caesar, and the first Russian "Tsar of all the Russians" was Ivan IV, "The Terrible", crowned thus in 1547.
- The British Empire colonized large parts of the world, spreading its language, culture, and a tradition of
democracybureaucracy to grateful people of color everywhere. They self-consciously compared and contrasted themselves with the Roman Empire, even today sometimes resorting to Latin.[12]
- Italy, homeland of the Romans, aspired under the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini to regain the glory of its imperial Roman past. After gloriously invading Ethiopia and Albania, the would-be New Rome was repulsed by the Greeks, and became overshadowed by its fascist younger brother Germany to the north.
- America: Many commentators have noted that the British Empire was more analogous to the Greeks, and the United States of America, with its violent, least-common denominator culture largely borrowed from the BE turned out to be more like Rome. Today it is exceedingly popular for pundits both left and right to compare current events in the US to the Decline and Fall of the first Rome.[13][14] Most of them are poorly informed about the true history of Roman decline and rely on popular myths and dubious references. Caution is advised.
See also
Notes pedis
- ↑ Forgive a citation to Wikipedia. My copy of Gibbon is in Atlanta.[Who?]
- ↑ Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire.
- ↑ Augustine's City of God, testifies to the fact that Rome was conceived of as the "mother of civilization.
- ↑ See, Hedonism-bot in Futurama, and the portrayal of Commodus in the film Gladiator.
- ↑ Conservapedia blames homosexuality, for example... which, as one can see, may be in line with their own agenda.
- ↑ Nero was legendary for hoarding gold and imperial resources, and neglecting his people and his empire. The emperor Vespasian, who followed Nero, reverted this trend, but the resurgence of this theme is common in Roman history.
- ↑ Peter Wolfram, The Goths
- ↑ Procopius, the Gothic Wars
- ↑ Procopius, the Secret Histories
- ↑ The-orb.net
- ↑ The-orb.net
- ↑ royal.gov.uk Annus Horribilis
- ↑ hotbedinfo.com: Top 10 Similarities
- ↑ Tomorrowsworld.org: the wingnut view