Clivedurdle

Something else also debated and possibly Roman propaganda!

The Celts and the druids loved their human sacrifice and watching death throes as omens, they also had roads before the Romans and probably better farm machinery.

Everyone had good and bad parts - like a Roman soldier killing Archimedes for example.

Greeks first, Romans later (and then reverted to Empire!) (Actually it was the xians led to the fall of the Roman Empire!)

GrandpaMithras

To be fair, Archimedes did smash up some ships etc, and wasn't exactly a non-combatant.

countjulian

I know what you're talking about, the storage containerds, right? Well anyway because of the organization of the Roman fields and the Roman government that provided law and order the Gaulic system of warring chieftans never could the Romans always outproduced the Gauls per person.

As Mithra pointed out he had really f-ed up the Roman fleet, and anyway lone soldiers entering a newly conquered city have akways done terrible things, just look at Berlin at the end of WWII. The actions of this lone idiot don't reflect on Rome at all (though of course Rome was extremely brutal by modern standards).

What's important for us is that the ideas lived on after the Empire, in the writings of Cicero etc. Anyway, most of the Emperors at least made token attempts to honor traditional Roman libertas, and some like Marcus Aurelius promoted and even strengthened the old freedoms and liberties.

mountainman

This is the thesis of the authors of the book

"The thesis is that ....

we've all been told a false history of Rome
that has twisted our entire understanding
of our own history - glorifying (and glossing over)
a long era of ruthless imperial power ..."

So I dont see any disagreement.

On the issue of "The FALL of Roman CIVILISATION"
or rather more specifically, its dating, I will post
a separate thread. It would appear that many
different scholars have different dates for this
"event".

countjulian

Rome was more advanced, and brought a better standard of living to the conquered peoples, no matter what the actual conditions of the conquest were. The point is if you were suddenly transported back in time you would want to be part of "imperialist" Rome instead of the Germanic barbarian rabble outside the Empire.

mountainman

This is an assertion that needs to be substantiated,
and a specific period of time would not go astray.
What do you classify as "more advanced" and "a
better standard of living"? There is no doubt that
the Romans had an advanced military command,
but you are not describing this.

You yourself have read Ammianus Book 14 I know,
but did you read books 15 to 31. What were the
conditions in the Roman empire 350-380 as decribed?
They were absolutely abysmal.


There were authors who actually wrote the opposite:
Who had lived with the German "barbarians" and had
written they were better off there (especially in the
later centuries).

countjulian

Such as who?

mountainman

According to Claudius Mamertinus c.362 CE:
"people preferred to live under the barbarians" (XI,3,4)

This particularly related, according to the authors of "Barbarians",
to those who were in the rural communities, and whom became
"quite overtly anti-Roman". Again, this was in turn probably directly
related to the huge increases in taxation and runaway inflation of
the empire, which was given in the opening quote.

DIOCLETION (305) Pound of Gold = 50,000 denari
c.307 = 100,000 denari
c.324 = 300,000 denari
c.350 = 2.1 billion denari

“Rich got richer and the poor got poorer”


p.69 BARBARIANS:
360 CE: "Land tax had tripled within living memory"

Lets say "living memory" implied an age of 60 years".
We have only to read Sextus Aurelius Victor ....

"Constantine was a mocker rather than a flatterer.
From this he was called after Trachala in the folktale,
for ten years a most excellent man, [decade 306-315]
for the following second ten a brigand, [decade 316-325]
for the last, on account of his unrestrained prodigality,
a ward irresponsible for his own actions, ." [period 326-337]

countjulian

I'm sorry, I'm not able to respond at this time, but I will in about a week. Is that all right?