Recent Posts

Exquisite artworks hidden under 2,000 years of soot and grime in a Jordanian cave have been restored by experts from the Courtauld Institute in London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/22/hellenistic-wall-paintings-petra

watched the first episode....so so...not a bar of HBO's ROME.
Thoughts?

Archeologists have discovered the 2,000-year-old skeleton of an Asian man in an ancient cemetery in Italy, suggesting that the Roman Empire's reach was far more extensive than previously thought.

More Here

They had plenty of wild animals, imported for use in the arena.
I don't know if they had anything like a modern zoo.

Would they have had tigers, like the one in the film "Gladiator"?

Getting tigers to Rome from India would have been quite a problem.

Ok, i'll start...

A difficult question isn't it?

The first name that comes to my mind is Gaius Julius Caesar, Ceasar himself... He did what no one before him had been able to do, bend the republique to serve his own interests, become a god, gain more new territories than anyone before...

But he also showed that the ancient traditions of Rome could be passed by, without anyone to stop him (the crossing of the Rubicon).

Marius and Sulla had showed the way, Caesar made it a highway...

Therefore it's my opinion that Caesar, despite being one of the greatest man ever to walk this earth, cannot be the one who did the most for Rome...

So to come back to the subject, who might it be?

Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus (aka Trajan) could be the one. He was a great military leader, respected by the army, a pious man, highly regarded by the praticians and plebeians alike, extended the empire to its maximum extent, and chose a good man to be his succesor (Hadrian).

What do you think?

Salve,

Who in your opinion did the most for Rome?

Who served the greater purpose?

Who, directly or not, helped the most build a great  Rome and a great Empire?

Any name, any period, just go for it!!!

Ok I'll comment myself...

Re the byzantine empire.

As I ventured before, Christianity might have been a factor in the fall of the western empire, but on the opposite, it might have been what saved the eastern empire! (for a while at least...)

As I was saying, the eastern Mediterranean was more open to a monotheistic religion. The region had been increasingly hellenised since Alexander and the roman occupation had only reinforced this. The jews had been influential in Judea for a long time already, and there was the influence of Mithraism from Parthia. It seems to me that the people there were more open to monotheists than the still pagan west. In fact, as early as the 7th century, another monotheist religion had appeared in the region with Islam.

It is a fact that Constantine pretty much "created" the New Testament as we know it. He needed a uniting force for his shaky empire, and found it with Christianity... (on a little separated note, I can't help but wonder what our world would be like if he had chosen Mithraism...)

As Christianity was already strong in the east (Greece, Syria, Jordan, Judea and Egypt had strong Christian minorities) it played a perfect role in uniting all those peoples...

Of course, the fact that the byzantines chose to separate from the pope in Rome will bring the fall of their empire, the fourth crusade sacking the city in 1203AD...

Another little thought...

Any Comments?

Salve Imperator,

I don't know, it just seems very unlikely that Mark Anthony and Cleopatra have been burried together...

MA was after all a Roman general, and died before Cleopatra, how long before we cannot be sure but still...

Let's remember that Octavian had used the pretext of MA abandoning his wife in Rome and "becoming" Egyptian to disgrace him in Rome, but all knew that it was just political play...

We cannot be certain but I don't think that Octavian would have allowed MA and Cleopatra to be burried together...

Anyway, wait and see!

Hi, I've got a little break from work...

Re the fall of the western empire, I think that christianity has a lot to do with it.

Rome had thrived in religious tolerance, as long as the people accepted their gods too... If we look at the celtic western europe at the time (gauls, britons, celtiberians) they were all polytheists, therefore it was easy for them to assimilate one or more "extra" gods such as dead emperors and so on...

Whereas the east, predominantly hellenised in culture, had known monotheism for a long time already. Let's not forget that greece was the first "european" country to be converted, as soon as the first century! When Constantine decided to favor christianity, the greeks (who were of great influence in this decision) had been christians for nearly 300 years!

The intolerance that christianity brought in the western empire (with God being the only true god...) distanced the people of the base from Rome. The diferent peoples of the empire were proud to be Romans, and Rome was always being influenced by its cultures, but with christianity, things started to change.

Rome was now an opressor. Christianity was the only way, God was the only god.The vast majority of the western empire was polythiest. I think that the elite in Rome started loosing support around this time. And by then, the germanic tribes had started to gain a certain social prestige, dur in part to the fact that they were still polytheists. Despite the wars, a lot of trade had been going on between the northeners and the celts of Gaul. The Belgea considered themselves to be germanic, despite their celtic culture and language. It is even possible that a feeling of liberation accompanied the germanic tribes during their wanderings in gaul and spain.

And let's not forget one very important point: the farmers had to farm and the little people had to live, whoever was the taxman, Roman or Germanic...

This of course is not the definitive answer, but a little thought on the role of religion in maintaining the unity of the empire...

Any comments?

just a little note about the byzantine empire; it didn't really thrive... Sure by the 8th century Justinian had regained a lot of the former western empire, including Italy itself, but that was to be shortlived, by the 9th century, the empire of the Greeks (as it was known by then) had shrinked back to greece and anatolia, and by 1000 AD Anatolia had been lost. From 1200AD Greece was to be gradually lost also, leaving the "empire" to Thrace and Nicea in Anatolia...

In my opinion, the Eastern Empire fell as soon as the 11th century, the fall of Constantinople in 1453AD being more of a symbole than a real event, since a few thousands only were defending the city, which had become a "ghost" city...

But to answer the original question, I'll have to come back, gotta go back to work now...