72 réponses à ce sujet

[Noctis Augustus]

Orian Tabris wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Well, I guess Caesar was a pretty good emperor, but I still can't believe he lit poor Graham on fire and threw him into the canyon. What an a-hole.

Graham is dumb.

Nou! Buttknocker.

Graham was actually quite smart, but he believed in God, therefore, he was actually dumb.

Indeed.

[Eternal Phoenix]

ibbikiookami wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Well, I guess Caesar was a pretty good emperor, but I still can't believe he lit poor Graham on fire and threw him into the canyon. What an a-hole.

Graham is dumb.

Nou! Buttknocker.

Graham was actually quite smart, but he believed in God, therefore, he was actually dumb.

Indeed.

Everyone believes in God. Atheists just replace him with The Mindless Singularity.

Your argument is invalid.

And you all smell bad too.

P.S

Nero sucks harder than a vacuum.

P.P.S

That's what Sporus told me anyway.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 27 janvier 2013 - 02:03 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Thanks ibbikiookami & Orian Tabris for ruining this topic.

[DarkDragon777]

"Everyone believes in God"




No.

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 27 janvier 2013 - 06:03 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

No u.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

No discussion of religion allowed in the forums.

End of line.

[TEWR]

Augustus.

[slimgrin]

Wait..I can say this without the thread getting closed?

....NERO!

[Sutekh]

 (I'm surprised at the number of "Nero", considering how he ended up and why)
Augustus, Claudius, Hadrian
And Vespasian, whose legacy still remains 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

ibbikiookami wrote...



My favourite Roman Emperors were:

Augustus, the founder of the Roman Empire, a brilliant politician and his rule was one the most peaceful and prosperous in Roman history.

Nero, an intelligent and educated emperor who liked persecuting christians and after the great fire of Rome one third of the land that was destroyed was rebuilt in brick.

Trajan, a brilliant military leader who managed to expand the Roman Empire to its greatest extent.


The emperor I dislike the most is:

Constantine, the first emperor to convert to christianity even if done for political reasons.

Ceaser even though he was only a dictator, without him they would have been no Empire, but yes Augustus was probably the best Emperor.

Also Marcus Aurelius without him we would not have had the film Gladiator.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 27 janvier 2013 - 10:36 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

DinoSteve wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...



My favourite Roman Emperors were:

Augustus, the founder of the Roman Empire, a brilliant politician and his rule was one the most peaceful and prosperous in Roman history.

Nero, an intelligent and educated emperor who liked persecuting christians and after the great fire of Rome one third of the land that was destroyed was rebuilt in brick.

Trajan, a brilliant military leader who managed to expand the Roman Empire to its greatest extent.


The emperor I dislike the most is:

Constantine, the first emperor to convert to christianity even if done for political reasons.

Ceaser even though he was only a dictator, without him they would have been no Empire, but yes Augustus was probably the best Emperor.

Also Marcus Aurelius without him we would not have had the film Gladiator.

Marcus Aurelius For a movie, selfish? At least you could say for his book.

Note: Susa is one hour driving with a car from my birthplace. 

Sutekh wrote...

 (I'm surprised at the number of "Nero", considering how he ended up and why)
Augustus, Claudius, Hadrian
And Vespasian, whose legacy still remains 

Nero is the emperor of psychos and this is BSN!
But who is more evil in the eyes of anti-Christians?

There were lots of idiot and weak emperors in 3rd century that no one mentions.

Finally Trajan and his three successors and Augustus himself are the best Roman emperors. Plus few good emperors since Septimius Severus.

[LTD]

Yeah damn those pesky Christians!! Why ruin perfectly fine OP with such end of the linetastic teenage angst? "Hey world look at me I'm almost nineteen now  and think God doesn't exist deal with galaxy woohooooo P.S it was SO upsetting to my mom PM me and I tell u all about it"

It is fascinating how Romans managed to rule such vast amount of land and people for so many centuries with 
extremely flimsy rules on succession. Strong ,traditional mythology- based mistrust  of monarchy pretty much ensured succession would never stay hereditary for long. Instead, it was usually this odd pseudo adoption based clusterhump that may or may not  actually happen.  Tis a miracle all those power struggles and civil wars didn't tear the empire down long before 4th century. They might have won so much stability by ignoring the traditions for once and just crowning Augustus as King, have Kings sharre power against senate and make succession strictly  heridary. 

Caesar+Octavianus/Augustus combo is propably my favorite moment in Roman history as well.(ofc former was't Emperor in name but hay. )It is crazy how decade or two of Caesar's wars ends up molding and shaping central European culture for thousands of years to come.

Modifié par LTD, 27 janvier 2013 - 11:51 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

But Gladiator is a good movie.

'My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next'.

[Sutekh]

 ^ For me, Gladiator will always be that moment of absolute brain blank, when in the battle against the Germans, Maximus yells, "At my signal, unleash Hell!", and there I was persuaded that "Hell" was the name of the dog.

But yeah, it's a fine movie.

[King KvT I]

ibbikiookami wrote...

My favourite Roman Emperors were:

Augustus, the founder of the Roman Empire, a brilliant politician and his rule was one the most peaceful and prosperous in Roman history.

Nero, an intelligent and educated emperor who liked persecuting christians and after the great fire of Rome one third of the land that was destroyed was rebuilt in brick.

Trajan, a brilliant military leader who managed to expand the Roman Empire to its greatest extent.


The emperor I dislike the most is:

Constantine, the first emperor to convert to christianity even if done for political reasons.

 

I definately agree with those two, the empire was at it's peaks from their rule, I wouldn't agree Nero - he was a bit strange and he didn't end up all that well. 

I can see your reasons disliking Constantine, the introduction of Chrisitanity has often been attributed to Rome's eventual downfall.

[LTD]

KvT Resurrect wrote...


I can see your reasons disliking Constantine, the introduction of Chrisitanity has often been attributed to Rome's eventual downfall.

I'm not sure how well such attributions survive the daylight. If Christianity had some build-within mechanism to bring about downfalls of late antique empires, surely it would have killed or taxed Eastern Roman Empire as well? Instead, Byzantine remained Christian and prospered for over a thousand years.

imho "How did Rome last as long as it did?" makes a better question than the popular " Why did Rome fall?" In hindsight, it looks almost impossible(and impossibly impressive) it survived as long as it did.

The downfall was a very slow and stealthy process which took hundreds of years. It had roots in tons of different places.Corruption,inflation, stream of short lived emperors and migitation of peoples is usually what most schoolbooks like to list. Roots of it go hundreds of years deeper though;  things like the almost build-in instability when it comes to succession order, sheer size of the emprire and perhaps most notably, the outer limits of it's expansion having been met. It was a fire that began running out of oxygen. Larger the empire, larger the army you needed. Larger the army, more land Empire itself needed to conquer in order to have something to reward the rank and file of the army with. When Rome began running out of growing space,it also began running out of easy ways to reward the army and higher civilian officials. So the army and said officials began growing more and more restless.  Major parts of the economy was build around concept of slavery and having a large and steady supply of them. Less conquering you did, less new slaves streamed in markets..So economy and production began to suffer.  Empire eventually grew so huge it just got too difficult to keep growing. Most self destructive part in Rome was how it needed constant growth to stay healthy, when it stopped doing so implosion began.

When you combine all that decay over centuries to few back to back crisis of 3rd century (weak emperors, severe epidemic  of Smallpox or similar on peninsula of Italy, invasions of  Visgiths and co) things really start to spell doom. But I'm not sure how Christianity gits in there or how lack of it could have saved em.

Modifié par LTD, 27 janvier 2013 - 03:10 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Well let's see what were the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire. The conclusion of my studies in recent years:

- The structure and laws of the empire were good, but not good enough for the huge land of the empire for a long time. Succession and Citizenship laws had flaws.

- Lack of tactical and technological innovation in their military. German tribes have better weapons and shields in 5th century (3rd century against Persia -Sassanid Empire)

- Not enough Roman breed, the need to import grain from Africa, too many Roman casualties in the wars, many romanized citizens who entered their minor habits and cultural elements around Italy (can you see the big picture? I don't want to explain more about this aspect)

- Massive invasions of Huns, Vandals and Germans

Note: There are financial reasons about its decline too but I don't have much knowledge of it...

For more theories:

Theories of a fall, decline, transition and continuity

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

LTD wrote...

KvT Resurrect wrote...


I can see your reasons disliking Constantine, the introduction of Chrisitanity has often been attributed to Rome's eventual downfall.

I'm not sure how well such attributions survive the daylight. If Christianity had some build-within mechanism to bring about downfalls of late antique empires, surely it would have killed or taxed Eastern Roman Empire as well? Instead, Byzantine remained Christian and prospered for over a thousand years.

imho "How did Rome last as long as it did?" makes a better question than the popular " Why did Rome fall?" In hindsight, it looks almost impossible(and impossibly impressive) it survived as long as it did.

I agree with you.

It was the legacy of 'Roman Republic', Julius Caesar and Augustus, plus the minor reforms of some of the next emperors that kept the empire alive till the first conquest of Rome (by Alaric the Goth). After that everything was already lost.

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 27 janvier 2013 - 02:47 .

[King KvT I]

Im not saying that the introduction of Christianity was directly responsible for the fall of either Roman empire because it most definitely wasn't, as has been said. However, the transition of religion caused infighting between Christians and existing Pagans - this set unrest among people, as well as the Army.

However, the Eastern empire survive because of it higher population and better trade routes, not to mention that Constantinople was the strongest city in the pre-gunpowder era.

[Noctis Augustus]

Legatus Arianus wrote...

Thanks ibbikiookami & Orian Tabris for ruining this topic.

Haha I just love saying this things and watch how people react.

[Addai]

Sutekh wrote...

 ^ For me, Gladiator will always be that moment of absolute brain blank, when in the battle against the Germans, Maximus yells, "At my signal, unleash Hell!", and there I was persuaded that "Hell" was the name of the dog.

But yeah, it's a fine movie.

Even more ironic when you consider that the word Hell is Germanic and a Norse goddess. 

The Fall of Rome is one of those things that got really dumb about the 19th century, and dumb still endures in a lot of popular conception about it.  Something interesting to consider is the epidemiological aspects.  The book Plagues and Peoples talks about it.  Tightly knit urban population with unified water supply + trade with subtropical regions= waves of several epidemics in the early AD centuries that were similar in scope and impact to how we think of the Black Plague -- > diminished capacity to recruit for the army and diminished tax base.  The author thinks that the sicknesses were flu and chicken pox, which when first encountered by the Romans were completely new to Europe.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ op
Augustus, no question.

[Ninja Stan]

No longer on topic.

End of line.