Powerdoc, I know there are plenty of "silly" posters here just like any online forum. I was hoping to attract some thoughtfull discussion. By being a moderator and the first person to post you gave a green light for stupidity. You passed judgement on my post before the discussion could get going. I'm not above having a little fun. You are a moderator. How can you justify your posting?
Then you have the gall to put your happy face there to indicate how smug, smart and right you were. Unbelievable... I stick to my first assessment of you. Powerdoc, you are a little punk-ass...
Powerdoc, I know there are plenty of "silly" posters here just like any online forum. I was hoping to attract some thoughtfull discussion. By being a moderator and the first person to post you gave a green light for stupidity. You passed judgement on my post before the discussion could get going. I'm not above having a little fun. You are a moderator. How can you justify your posting?
Then you have the gall to put your happy face there to indicate how smug, smart and right you were. Unbelievable... I stick to my first assessment of you. Powerdoc, you are a little punk-ass...
Notice me. NOTICE ME! *tugging trouser leg and jumping up and down at waist height* I posted a serious reply at the head of this page. You coulda just carried on afresh with your original topic from there onwards. Got anything to say about my post then...?
SonOfSylvanus and other contributors to the topic, thank you. That's ALL I wanted. A little bit of crystal ball gazing from an intelligent(mostly) group of people. MAYBE the topic would have died an early death anyway. I accept that. That's the way it goes sometimes.
Powerdoc, I apologize for the PUNK-ASS comment. Please explain to me how your post was necessary. This was your response after people started contributing to the topic. I am to understand you see nothing wrong with this, correct?
Your comments Powerdoc:
Yes i am a mod, and this was my contribution
I knew that you thread will degenerate quickly because it had all the ingredients recquired. Now it's done.
Hardhead : it was just a joke. Then you insulted me. Jokes are not forbidden by the guidelines. You are new here, but there is plenty of jokes in threads, and an alone joke is not sufficiant to kill a thread. You are new here in AO, when you will have enough experience, you will discover that threads survive much more silly posts.
Why did i make this joke ? :
- sometimes i like joking
- you started with a blunt statement like " It's no revelation that their are some very interesting simularities between Great Rome and the United States today" . Well it's not evident at all for many members here. What similarities ? . I don't know. In general such comparisons are hidden critics of USA (Rome has invaded many countries, killed many peoples and have made many slaves).
Perhaps my answer was harsh " i knew it will degenerate", but frankly i do not appreciated your comments and insults (Powerdoc, you are a moderator? I posted for a legitimate discussion and this is your contribution.
You little punk-ass..). I choose to continue to reply in a light way ( ) instead of ( ), obviously that's whas the wrong tactic.
Don't make me responsible, or anyone for the fate of one's thread. For the record one of my last thread did not recieved any answer. That's not what i expected but it's life. In this case the only one to blame is me.
People who seemingly know little of Roman history apst highschool grade, make the mistake of assuming that the fall of Rome is to be equated with the fall of the Roman empire. They are not the same thing.
The Roman empire may have lost its ancient capital and the original western portion of the entire empire, but clearly the Eastern Roman empire continued on into the late 1400's.
It was finally conquered by Ottoman Turkish forces at about the same time that Columbus discovered The Americas.
People who seemingly know little of Roman history apst highschool grade, make the mistake of assuming that the fall of Rome is to be equated with the fall of the Roman empire. They are not the same thing.
The Roman empire may have lost its ancient capital and the original western portion of the entire empire, but clearly the Eastern Roman empire continued on into the late 1400's.
It was finally conquered by Ottoman Turkish forces at about the same time that Columbus discovered The Americas.
Perhaps, but that part of the "Roman Empire" was not at all Roman in Spirit or even in language . . . they tended to speak Greek, even at the highest levels.
It is called the Byzatine Empire for that reason.
Most people see the end of Rome as a continuum that started in the 4th century, where Romans did not take public service seriously, corruption ruled and the armies were filling with German mercenaries and even some officers (for example Ricimer, who was the virtual ruler of Rome in the mid 400s was a General, he ruled Rome completely but could not take the title of Emperor because he was a German (a Suebian))
Some people say that the decline of Rome was excacerbated by the rise of Christianity: many Romans were forgoing civic life and civic and social responsibilities for lives of 'unworldliness' and tended to see a devotion to the Empire as 'worldy' . . . this led to ranks and ranks of potential soldiers and civil servants and citizens abandoning Rome and its military . . . leaving it in need of more German troops and criminal elements.
Also, taxes were strangling the population because the rich found ways around them but became managers of estates and extracted taxes mercelessly from workers: these workers, in late Rome, were not allowed to leave land they worked no matter what, and sons had to do what fathers did, no matter what, land went bad, people were miserable. . . all because land owners needed their taxes . . another solution: let in more Germans to work the land (more dissolution of Roman areas)
and still taxes were not enough to support a decent army . . . and therefor another reason for more German troops . . .
By the late 5th century . . . Germans were suffused throughout Rome, and Roman Garrison towns were virtually non-existent . . . and still Romans thought that Rome would last forever . . . and they thought it as still 'glorious'
. . . -they lacked the social structure (corrupted and overly static) that allowed for intellectual rigor, insight or experimental and challenging development that would have allowed them to be reflective and critical (the only way I see a similarity with the current state of the US)
So, in 476 the Visigoths pranced right across the border and sacked Rome . . . a German, Odoacer, Ruled Rome but still had a nominal Emperor in power . . . but clearly . . . (Western) Rome was not as it was . . . and this went on for a long time (Odoacer being replaced in a violent war with Theodoric) and Rome eventiually sank deeper in the Gothic wars and then the Lombards came and then the Francks who became Catholic and restored the so called Emperor (Charlemange). . . But by that time it was an entirely European phenomena in Spirit and in actuality.
That's why I wanted a projection forward 100 years. Maybe I should have just called the thread "The US in 100 years...", as this country and the world will be very different.
As pfflam so articulately points out, the Suebians were becoming a numerous part of "Roman" society. As was a well documented cultural and societal stagnation. This is very close to what I was getting at. 100 years from now the US is going to be half Latino, mostly mexican american. Yeah, deal with it. However, if the country becomes a crap place to live it won't be on account of the latino population. It will be because we've been co-opted by the Corporations. This could of course, happen very easily before 100 years.
If the First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire with CHARLEMAGNE as it's last iconic figure, then the Forth Reich will come about when the USA has been subjugated as a corporate-state and is no longer in fact the United States. It's head won't be some lunatic with deficiency anxieties and a funny moustache, but a boardroom of somber intelligent (mostly white)men who feel they are doing what's best for everyone concerned. (snicker) Aren't they always.
It's complex and convoluted. Easy to get bogged down in the day to day realities. 100 years from now I think it very likely (I hope not) Western(American) society will be dominated by a kind of facist(I didn't say Nazis...) totallitarian Corporate overseer's kind of something. China, Japan and Korea will have put aside any political and historical differences to form their own block although globalization puts an unknown factor into that equation. With the legacy of colonial times still tainting most of Africas countries, Africa will probably be mostly Muslim. Europe will probably be at least half Muslim population. India will be the largest Democratic country on the planet. Barring a nuclear exchange with Pakistan. India would win and lose at the same time.
This Muslim population explosion won't happen here in the US because of Latino push back against them. No offense to peace loving Muslims. Of course, the people at the top always strive in keeping those at the bottom busy so they don't really pay atention to what's what...
Powerdoc, I'll say it again, I apologize for the insult I threw at you... I was a bit angry at you but that's no excuse.
I could, maybe should have been more specific about "which" simularities between Rome and the USA. Good point. Maybe you could have pointed that out to me as a moderator instead of the "martians are coming to eat us post"... If anyone but you, a moderator, had posted that, I would have ignored it and none of this ongoing discussion between you and I would be happening. I admit that to you. Obviously you feel you did nothing intentionally wrong. OK.
I do not want to get banned. However, if you do this to me again Powerdoc, I will probably get banned... Until then, peace and love.
Well i see your point, you feeled that my first joke (probabily lame and not funny) was an official post from a moderator, and you became angry.
Moderators have two hats : the official one, and the personal one. We probabily should have two accounts, but in practice it's a royal pain to register again and again under differents names.
Now concerning the future of USA, i will give an advice (personal).
I don't see a parallel between USA and Imperial rome, but probabily the egde of USA will finish.
Who will have the edge ?
A countrie, or a group of countrie?
Corps or orgs (remember the Sci-fiction movies where corps are the real leaders of the world) ?
Are democracy like we know today the last stage of developpement of governement, or shall we see new systems ?
Does China will have the leadership of the world ? : their population is their strenght, like their developpement increase. Their new capitalistic economic system, mixed with a communist governement system, is at the origin of a huge economic growth. But i think that any capitalistic economic system, will produce individualist people, who will want to gain power and ask political liberties. To my advice, this hybrid chinese system (capitalist economy and communist governement) will finish to lead to a contradiction (the yin and the yang will finish to struggle) and will collapse.
Japan will stay a US ally, because he is a direct competitor of China, and the past history of this countrie is not build upon love.
Korea, should be reunified, because the NK system will die certainly in some decades. The unified korea, should be a good partner for China. Korea is not very found of Japan, the hate is still present for the war crimes.
Concering demography of USA, and Europe, i don't know if what you predict will come true, remember that with the integration, the birth rate of new communities is decreasing, leading to a self-regulation. Let's say, that it's correct to assume that the number of latinos will increase in US, like the number of poeple coming from muslim countries in Europe.
I think that exploring the future, bring more questions than answers. However i doubt that we will still here to discuss this issue in one hundred years. It will be great if we had the opportunity to discuss it in 50.
It is so nice to read your roman history posts. I think we should get together and have a beer or three to discuss the finer points of Roman political/cultural/military history.
As regards the Roman/Byzantine empire speaking Greek..that hardly makes for a good argument. Greek, (as you well know) was the language of trade and commerce between various parts of the empire. It was the ancient Lingua~Franca.
It was also the language of "refined" upper classes.
In a charming example of that being the case, when poor old Julius Caesar was landing on the shores of modern day Dover, the assembled British Chieftans, threw insults at him and his soldiers in Greek.
Imagine the shock ! Poor old Julius never really recovered...
It is so nice to read your roman history posts. I think we should get together and have a beer or three to discuss the finer points of Roman political/cultural/military history.
As regards the Roman/Byzantine empire speaking Greek..that hardly makes for a good argument. Greek, (as you well know) was the language of trade and commerce between various parts of the empire. It was the ancient Lingua~Franca.
It was also the language of "refined" upper classes.
In a charming example of that being the case, when poor old Julius Caesar was landing on the shores of modern day Dover, the assembled British Chieftans, threw insults at him and his soldiers in Greek.
Imagine the shock ! Poor old Julius never really recovered...
It was the lingua franca of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire . . . the region which was merely a layer upon a layer upon layers of other cultures . . .
The most recent layer before the 'Roman' crust was that of Greece . . . but it allready had become something other than entirely Greek, as it had undergone different forms of synchretization with the various cultures under the Hellenic crust . . . this is what is usually what is meant by 'Hellenism'
In Rome, Latin was the language of the refined upper classes, and the Romans were fiercly 'Roman' only . . . . that is why Ricimer would never have been able to be an Emperor (Latin which is at the root of Lingu~Franca)
The Eastern Empire WAS different in Spirit than the Western! very different . . it was also politically different and even militarilly . . . it was not a formal break . . . not even religiously, but even in religious terms the Eastern (Byzantine Empire) was constantly at odds with the Roman POV . . . take for instance the whole situation with the Emperor Leo (IIRC) and Iconoclasm. It took them many years to finally formalize the various Dogma differences and split
Often the only thing that linked the two sides of the Empire were coinage minted with both Emperors on them . . . and even these most people of the time thought were wishful thinking
You can say that the Byzantine general Belasarius waged a semi-brilliant campaign to try and win the West back from the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, and therefor showed how they were still one 'Roman Emp', but, you can also look at his last ditch campaign, his abandonment of it in the middle . . . in order to go East to fight the Persians and save Byzantium's Arse, and his ill thought return campaign as being responsible for utterly devestating Rome and the central parts of Italy . . . driving the final nails into The Western "Roman" Empire . . . and you can say that had they really been 'Roman' they would have invested more in the West . . . but they were not Roman . . . neither in spirit nor in culture . . . the Justinian Laws were adopted by the West but they were, by then, of a very different order and mentality than that of the West . . .
. . .you can also blame Stilicho for the fall as he (another German General in Command) seemed to want to let Alaric (who eventually sacked Rome) live every time that he defeated him or had him cornered (several times) . . . Why? it seems that he wanted the West to attack the Eastern Empire and to employ his reletives, Visigoths under Alaric, to help him out . . . not exactly what I would call unified huh?!
But these are just thoughts of a philophaster at best . . .
Just like Eastern Coast USA is different to West Coast USA..it is still part of the whole.
And sorry to repaeat this point Pfflam, but it was Greek that was very much the language of the Roman upper crust. That is why the noble houses of Rome took Greek teachers and scholars.
Latin was the language of the street. After all, think about it, why would you want to teach latin to your children as a way of marking you out as a superior class ?It doesn't make sense.
Only after Constantine did we see a resurgence of Latin to distinguish between the growing rift of Eastern and Western Churches.
As for the Western Roman Empire "falling" notion, it more or less just petered from a lack of it and its centres of power having anything of value to pass on to the newly self-installed invaders.
PS Powerdoc my mistake, but Pfflam is such a trooper he will buy us both a beer..
Only after Constantine did we see a resurgence of Latin to distinguish between the growing rift of Eastern and Western Churches.
As for the Western Roman Empire "falling" notion, it more or less just petered from a lack of it and its centres of power having anything of value to pass on to the newly self-installed invaders.
PS Powerdoc my mistake, but Pfflam is such a trooper he will buy us both a beer..
Won't you Pfflam ?
Yeah sure . . . if you don't mind a pint of Guiness
anyway, that is why I date the begining of the end at aroud Constantine's time . . . when the split becomes more and more pronounced and the two EMpires become each their own entity . . . . just like Southern and Northern California should be
The US is not a cultural super power. It is a war mongering bully with a history that is built on the carcasses of people. I can't see it survive by any other means having outsourced it's blue and white collar jobs.
100 years from now, the super powers we will have to worry about will be the corporates. They control the media, the election candidates and the policy of most nations.
Comments
Then you have the gall to put your happy face there to indicate how smug, smart and right you were. Unbelievable... I stick to my first assessment of you. Powerdoc, you are a little punk-ass...
Originally posted by hardhead
Unbelievable... I stick to my first assessment of you. Powerdoc, you are a little punk-ass...
Actually, he's French and English just isn't his first language. Sometimes there's a little confusion, but more often than not he's pretty OK.
Originally posted by hardhead
Powerdoc, I know there are plenty of "silly" posters here just like any online forum. I was hoping to attract some thoughtfull discussion. By being a moderator and the first person to post you gave a green light for stupidity. You passed judgement on my post before the discussion could get going. I'm not above having a little fun. You are a moderator. How can you justify your posting?
Then you have the gall to put your happy face there to indicate how smug, smart and right you were. Unbelievable... I stick to my first assessment of you. Powerdoc, you are a little punk-ass...
Notice me. NOTICE ME! *tugging trouser leg and jumping up and down at waist height* I posted a serious reply at the head of this page. You coulda just carried on afresh with your original topic from there onwards. Got anything to say about my post then...?
and it does not depend on one moderator or admin if tens of people don't think and contribute to something you wanted on the way you wanted.
Originally posted by Giaguara
hardhead, i see where you get your nickname from, but generally ... insulting a moderator of any forum, in public or in private, is never a good idea.
and it does not depend on one moderator or admin if tens of people don't think and contribute to something you wanted on the way you wanted.
Thanks Giaguara and well put (especially the point 2)
Hardhead, since i can't PM you, i will warn you. This was the last time i will tolerate an insult. Punk-ass
Originally posted by Powerdoc
We will be martians's slaves...
PETS, not slaves. We'll make great pets.
Powerdoc, I apologize for the PUNK-ASS comment. Please explain to me how your post was necessary. This was your response after people started contributing to the topic. I am to understand you see nothing wrong with this, correct?
Your comments Powerdoc:
Yes i am a mod, and this was my contribution
I knew that you thread will degenerate quickly because it had all the ingredients recquired. Now it's done.
Why did i make this joke ? :
- sometimes i like joking
- you started with a blunt statement like " It's no revelation that their are some very interesting simularities between Great Rome and the United States today" . Well it's not evident at all for many members here. What similarities ? . I don't know. In general such comparisons are hidden critics of USA (Rome has invaded many countries, killed many peoples and have made many slaves).
Perhaps my answer was harsh " i knew it will degenerate", but frankly i do not appreciated your comments and insults (Powerdoc, you are a moderator? I posted for a legitimate discussion and this is your contribution.
You little punk-ass..). I choose to continue to reply in a light way (
Don't make me responsible, or anyone for the fate of one's thread. For the record one of my last thread did not recieved any answer. That's not what i expected but it's life. In this case the only one to blame is me.
The Roman empire may have lost its ancient capital and the original western portion of the entire empire, but clearly the Eastern Roman empire continued on into the late 1400's.
It was finally conquered by Ottoman Turkish forces at about the same time that Columbus discovered The Americas.
Originally posted by Aquafire
People who seemingly know little of Roman history apst highschool grade, make the mistake of assuming that the fall of Rome is to be equated with the fall of the Roman empire. They are not the same thing.
The Roman empire may have lost its ancient capital and the original western portion of the entire empire, but clearly the Eastern Roman empire continued on into the late 1400's.
It was finally conquered by Ottoman Turkish forces at about the same time that Columbus discovered The Americas.
Perhaps, but that part of the "Roman Empire" was not at all Roman in Spirit or even in language . . . they tended to speak Greek, even at the highest levels.
It is called the Byzatine Empire for that reason.
Most people see the end of Rome as a continuum that started in the 4th century, where Romans did not take public service seriously, corruption ruled and the armies were filling with German mercenaries and even some officers (for example Ricimer, who was the virtual ruler of Rome in the mid 400s was a General, he ruled Rome completely but could not take the title of Emperor because he was a German (a Suebian))
Some people say that the decline of Rome was excacerbated by the rise of Christianity: many Romans were forgoing civic life and civic and social responsibilities for lives of 'unworldliness' and tended to see a devotion to the Empire as 'worldy' . . . this led to ranks and ranks of potential soldiers and civil servants and citizens abandoning Rome and its military . . . leaving it in need of more German troops and criminal elements.
Also, taxes were strangling the population because the rich found ways around them but became managers of estates and extracted taxes mercelessly from workers: these workers, in late Rome, were not allowed to leave land they worked no matter what, and sons had to do what fathers did, no matter what, land went bad, people were miserable. . . all because land owners needed their taxes . . another solution: let in more Germans to work the land (more dissolution of Roman areas)
and still taxes were not enough to support a decent army . . . and therefor another reason for more German troops . . .
By the late 5th century . . . Germans were suffused throughout Rome, and Roman Garrison towns were virtually non-existent . . . and still Romans thought that Rome would last forever . . . and they thought it as still 'glorious'
. . . -they lacked the social structure (corrupted and overly static) that allowed for intellectual rigor, insight or experimental and challenging development that would have allowed them to be reflective and critical (the only way I see a similarity with the current state of the US)
So, in 476 the Visigoths pranced right across the border and sacked Rome . . . a German, Odoacer, Ruled Rome but still had a nominal Emperor in power . . . but clearly . . . (Western) Rome was not as it was . . . and this went on for a long time (Odoacer being replaced in a violent war with Theodoric) and Rome eventiually sank deeper in the Gothic wars and then the Lombards came and then the Francks who became Catholic and restored the so called Emperor (Charlemange). . . But by that time it was an entirely European phenomena in Spirit and in actuality.
As pfflam so articulately points out, the Suebians were becoming a numerous part of "Roman" society. As was a well documented cultural and societal stagnation. This is very close to what I was getting at. 100 years from now the US is going to be half Latino, mostly mexican american. Yeah, deal with it. However, if the country becomes a crap place to live it won't be on account of the latino population. It will be because we've been co-opted by the Corporations. This could of course, happen very easily before 100 years.
If the First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire with CHARLEMAGNE as it's last iconic figure, then the Forth Reich will come about when the USA has been subjugated as a corporate-state and is no longer in fact the United States. It's head won't be some lunatic with deficiency anxieties and a funny moustache, but a boardroom of somber intelligent (mostly white)men who feel they are doing what's best for everyone concerned. (snicker) Aren't they always.
It's complex and convoluted. Easy to get bogged down in the day to day realities. 100 years from now I think it very likely (I hope not) Western(American) society will be dominated by a kind of facist(I didn't say Nazis...) totallitarian Corporate overseer's kind of something. China, Japan and Korea will have put aside any political and historical differences to form their own block although globalization puts an unknown factor into that equation. With the legacy of colonial times still tainting most of Africas countries, Africa will probably be mostly Muslim. Europe will probably be at least half Muslim population. India will be the largest Democratic country on the planet. Barring a nuclear exchange with Pakistan. India would win and lose at the same time.
This Muslim population explosion won't happen here in the US because of Latino push back against them. No offense to peace loving Muslims. Of course, the people at the top always strive in keeping those at the bottom busy so they don't really pay atention to what's what...
That's my 2 cents. Eh...
I could, maybe should have been more specific about "which" simularities between Rome and the USA. Good point. Maybe you could have pointed that out to me as a moderator instead of the "martians are coming to eat us post"... If anyone but you, a moderator, had posted that, I would have ignored it and none of this ongoing discussion between you and I would be happening. I admit that to you. Obviously you feel you did nothing intentionally wrong. OK.
I do not want to get banned. However, if you do this to me again Powerdoc, I will probably get banned... Until then, peace and love.
Moderators have two hats : the official one, and the personal one. We probabily should have two accounts, but in practice it's a royal pain to register again and again under differents names.
Now concerning the future of USA, i will give an advice (personal).
I don't see a parallel between USA and Imperial rome, but probabily the egde of USA will finish.
Who will have the edge ?
A countrie, or a group of countrie?
Corps or orgs (remember the Sci-fiction movies where corps are the real leaders of the world) ?
Are democracy like we know today the last stage of developpement of governement, or shall we see new systems ?
Does China will have the leadership of the world ? : their population is their strenght, like their developpement increase. Their new capitalistic economic system, mixed with a communist governement system, is at the origin of a huge economic growth. But i think that any capitalistic economic system, will produce individualist people, who will want to gain power and ask political liberties. To my advice, this hybrid chinese system (capitalist economy and communist governement) will finish to lead to a contradiction (the yin and the yang will finish to struggle) and will collapse.
Japan will stay a US ally, because he is a direct competitor of China, and the past history of this countrie is not build upon love.
Korea, should be reunified, because the NK system will die certainly in some decades. The unified korea, should be a good partner for China. Korea is not very found of Japan, the hate is still present for the war crimes.
Concering demography of USA, and Europe, i don't know if what you predict will come true, remember that with the integration, the birth rate of new communities is decreasing, leading to a self-regulation. Let's say, that it's correct to assume that the number of latinos will increase in US, like the number of poeple coming from muslim countries in Europe.
I think that exploring the future, bring more questions than answers. However i doubt that we will still here to discuss this issue in one hundred years. It will be great if we had the opportunity to discuss it in 50.
It is so nice to read your roman history posts. I think we should get together and have a beer or three to discuss the finer points of Roman political/cultural/military history.
As regards the Roman/Byzantine empire speaking Greek..that hardly makes for a good argument. Greek, (as you well know) was the language of trade and commerce between various parts of the empire. It was the ancient Lingua~Franca.
It was also the language of "refined" upper classes.
In a charming example of that being the case, when poor old Julius Caesar was landing on the shores of modern day Dover, the assembled British Chieftans, threw insults at him and his soldiers in Greek.
Imagine the shock ! Poor old Julius never really recovered...
Originally posted by Aquafire
Powerdoc,
It is so nice to read your roman history posts. I think we should get together and have a beer or three to discuss the finer points of Roman political/cultural/military history.
As regards the Roman/Byzantine empire speaking Greek..that hardly makes for a good argument. Greek, (as you well know) was the language of trade and commerce between various parts of the empire. It was the ancient Lingua~Franca.
It was also the language of "refined" upper classes.
In a charming example of that being the case, when poor old Julius Caesar was landing on the shores of modern day Dover, the assembled British Chieftans, threw insults at him and his soldiers in Greek.
Imagine the shock ! Poor old Julius never really recovered...
It was the lingua franca of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire . . . the region which was merely a layer upon a layer upon layers of other cultures . . .
The most recent layer before the 'Roman' crust was that of Greece . . . but it allready had become something other than entirely Greek, as it had undergone different forms of synchretization with the various cultures under the Hellenic crust . . . this is what is usually what is meant by 'Hellenism'
In Rome, Latin was the language of the refined upper classes, and the Romans were fiercly 'Roman' only . . . . that is why Ricimer would never have been able to be an Emperor (Latin which is at the root of Lingu~Franca)
The Eastern Empire WAS different in Spirit than the Western! very different . . it was also politically different and even militarilly . . . it was not a formal break . . . not even religiously, but even in religious terms the Eastern (Byzantine Empire) was constantly at odds with the Roman POV . . . take for instance the whole situation with the Emperor Leo (IIRC) and Iconoclasm. It took them many years to finally formalize the various Dogma differences and split
Often the only thing that linked the two sides of the Empire were coinage minted with both Emperors on them . . . and even these most people of the time thought were wishful thinking
You can say that the Byzantine general Belasarius waged a semi-brilliant campaign to try and win the West back from the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, and therefor showed how they were still one 'Roman Emp', but, you can also look at his last ditch campaign, his abandonment of it in the middle . . . in order to go East to fight the Persians and save Byzantium's Arse, and his ill thought return campaign as being responsible for utterly devestating Rome and the central parts of Italy . . . driving the final nails into The Western "Roman" Empire . . . and you can say that had they really been 'Roman' they would have invested more in the West . . . but they were not Roman . . . neither in spirit nor in culture . . . the Justinian Laws were adopted by the West but they were, by then, of a very different order and mentality than that of the West . . .
. . .you can also blame Stilicho for the fall as he (another German General in Command) seemed to want to let Alaric (who eventually sacked Rome) live every time that he defeated him or had him cornered (several times) . . . Why? it seems that he wanted the West to attack the Eastern Empire and to employ his reletives, Visigoths under Alaric, to help him out . . . not exactly what I would call unified huh?!
But these are just thoughts of a philophaster at best . . .
And sorry to repaeat this point Pfflam, but it was Greek that was very much the language of the Roman upper crust. That is why the noble houses of Rome took Greek teachers and scholars.
Latin was the language of the street. After all, think about it, why would you want to teach latin to your children as a way of marking you out as a superior class ?It doesn't make sense.
Only after Constantine did we see a resurgence of Latin to distinguish between the growing rift of Eastern and Western Churches.
As for the Western Roman Empire "falling" notion, it more or less just petered from a lack of it and its centres of power having anything of value to pass on to the newly self-installed invaders.
PS Powerdoc my mistake, but Pfflam is such a trooper he will buy us both a beer..
Won't you Pfflam ?
Originally posted by Aquafire
[ . . ]
Only after Constantine did we see a resurgence of Latin to distinguish between the growing rift of Eastern and Western Churches.
As for the Western Roman Empire "falling" notion, it more or less just petered from a lack of it and its centres of power having anything of value to pass on to the newly self-installed invaders.
PS Powerdoc my mistake, but Pfflam is such a trooper he will buy us both a beer..
Won't you Pfflam ?
Yeah sure . . . if you don't mind a pint of Guiness
anyway, that is why I date the begining of the end at aroud Constantine's time . . . when the split becomes more and more pronounced and the two EMpires become each their own entity . . . . just like Southern and Northern California should be
100 years from now, the super powers we will have to worry about will be the corporates. They control the media, the election candidates and the policy of most nations.