- 20 May 2014 09:56
#14409244
Cato is biased bullshit. We had this discussion so many times and i can already hear the steps of Potemkin coming to this topic. To sum it up there are several things that could have killed the empire but the above reason is not one of them. Its funny how they mention the 3rd century because because it was the time of crysis, civil war, tetriarchy etc. The reason the empire was split was because of the events of the previouse century. Basically the empire ascended to state of warlordism and no government so it had to be split to prevent 1 part of the empire or 1 of the many parts from sacking the other. Thats 1st of all. So social policy had nothing to do with this. Abscene of powerful centralist rule at this time destroyed the empire.
2ndly Rome achieved its greatness under impereal rule, the greatness that you remember atleast. Pax romana was created under impereal rule so both its greatness and its weakness was the resoult of this rule because some rulers were more competent than the others lets say.
3rdly If you want to point fingers than lets say Cesar and Augustus(Aka Gaius Octavius) were the foundations of this rule that came out after ceasars conquest and the subsequest civil war after his murder. As much as i would have to agree that Augustus stabilized the empire and gave it more life of sorts because the republican rule was failing. On the other hand he along with ceasar overexpanded the empire which was its downfall in the end(my opinion).
4thly After Markus Aurelius the emperors were no longer just from 'Rome' or 'Italy' so there were some emperors who engaged in some heavy antiroman policies like replacing jupiter as the main god for some syrian god etc. But the time after Markus Aurelius was really catastrophic and prone with murders and civil war.
So take your pick, but dont just agree with Cato bullshit.
I do not think that any nation is hopeless to change; however, I think that some nations do require a lot more effort than others to become changed. - Verv
Beginning with the third century B.C. Roman economic policy started to contrast more and more sharply with that in the Hellenistic world, especially Egypt. In Greece and Egypt economic policy had gradually become highly regimented, depriving individuals of the freedom to pursue personal profit in production or trade, crushing them under a heavy burden of oppressive taxation, and forcing workers into vast collectives where they were little better than bees in a great hive. The later Hellenistic period was also one of almost constant warfare, which, together with rampant piracy, closed the seas to trade. The result, predictably, was stagnation.
Stagnation bred weakness in the states of the Mediterranean, which partially explains the ease with which Rome was able to steadily expand its reach beginning in the 3rd century B.C. By the first century B.C., Rome was the undisputed master of the Mediterranean. However, peace did not follow Rome's victory, for civil wars sapped its strength.
Cato is biased bullshit. We had this discussion so many times and i can already hear the steps of Potemkin coming to this topic. To sum it up there are several things that could have killed the empire but the above reason is not one of them. Its funny how they mention the 3rd century because because it was the time of crysis, civil war, tetriarchy etc. The reason the empire was split was because of the events of the previouse century. Basically the empire ascended to state of warlordism and no government so it had to be split to prevent 1 part of the empire or 1 of the many parts from sacking the other. Thats 1st of all. So social policy had nothing to do with this. Abscene of powerful centralist rule at this time destroyed the empire.
2ndly Rome achieved its greatness under impereal rule, the greatness that you remember atleast. Pax romana was created under impereal rule so both its greatness and its weakness was the resoult of this rule because some rulers were more competent than the others lets say.
3rdly If you want to point fingers than lets say Cesar and Augustus(Aka Gaius Octavius) were the foundations of this rule that came out after ceasars conquest and the subsequest civil war after his murder. As much as i would have to agree that Augustus stabilized the empire and gave it more life of sorts because the republican rule was failing. On the other hand he along with ceasar overexpanded the empire which was its downfall in the end(my opinion).
4thly After Markus Aurelius the emperors were no longer just from 'Rome' or 'Italy' so there were some emperors who engaged in some heavy antiroman policies like replacing jupiter as the main god for some syrian god etc. But the time after Markus Aurelius was really catastrophic and prone with murders and civil war.
So take your pick, but dont just agree with Cato bullshit.
I do not think that any nation is hopeless to change; however, I think that some nations do require a lot more effort than others to become changed. - Verv