Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The aim is to give people the idea of what it is like reading the book. I don't have any particular frame in mind. Gibbon himself varies his approach quite a bit. When he is being analytical I'll sometimes compare what he thought with what we think now. When he gets facts wrong I'll often point it out. But when he is storytelling I'll just go along with it. Basically, I am aiming for entertaining people and getting them interested in the book rather than anything academic.
Gibbon gets misrepresented a fair bit. He certainly wasn't a fan of the established church, and although he never admits it I get the distinct impression he was an atheist. But he doesn't portray them as being passive in the sense of turning the other cheek. He just points out that towards the end the church was diverting manpower away from the army, which isn't quite the same. As to the population decrease, he talks about it in some detail in fact. But of course he was relying purely on documentary evidence so he wouldn't know some of the detail we have. And of course, the size of the population of the empire is still a matter of some controversy.I'd recommend you read it, but if you don't have time I have done a review of Decline and Fall that might serve instead. The first video is here, but I haven't quite finished doing the whole book yet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AD2mKFIs4o
I think he's the only one who credited Christianity as one of the contributing factors associated with the fall of Rome, but from my perspective, it was what saved it. 🙂
Gibbon does go into this question in some detail and he points out advantages and disadvantages to the adoption of Christianity. He also prefaces the discussion by pointing out that religion is a matter of the next world not this one, and so the effect of the faith on the fate of the empire ought to be a matter of indifference to the true believer. He needed to bear in mind the sympathies of his audience and the legal prohibition on blasphemy so you can't take what he says as necessarily reflecting his own view. But I think on reflection his actual opinion of the reasons for the fall of Rome in the west was simply that it was overwhelmed by barbarians. He does point out that Christianity led to disunity within the empire and that it diverted resources that could have been used defensively, but he never says that this was enough to tip the balance.
I think it is important to remember that early Christianity was a very different thing to what we have now. The Bible didn't even get settled into its current form until the fourth century, and there were so many different varieties of belief to choose from that even firm adherents must have been a bit confused about what exactly was involved. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the details of the crucifixion story were pretty hazy in most Christians' minds at the time.
I am not sure that there are that many scientists who assert that evolution is a fact, but when people say that they are wrong of course. Evolution is and always will be a theory. It is a fact that all the evidence we have is consistent with it and that since it was proposed a great many new facts that would be predicted by it have come to light. So given what a successful theory it is, and indeed what a beautiful and elegant one it is, I suggest that if people skip the 'only a theory' detail they are not really misleading anyone. I can forgive that.The biggest tragedy is that the Neanderthals didn't survive long enough to hear it. If they liked things to be neat, well there are fewer things neater than the way that evolution explains the way the world works.
I think the existence of this road from London to Exeter was pretty well known. I knew about anyway, and have done for so long I can't remember where I first heard about it. I think all that has really happened is that they have found a particular section of it. Though that is interesting in itself. Given that roads have only relatively recently been so widespread I wouldn't rule out that there might be something to be learned of more than academic interest from studying Roman roads.
The unity point is a very good one. The enemies of America probably have more to fear from the million moderate march than they do from vociferous extremists. The people who are weakening America most are likely to be the ones that are accusing Obama of being a communist or denigrating Bush as a half wit.
The First World War is most certainly not forgotten in Europe. Every November the 11th here in the UK there is a 2 minute silence at 11.00 am to commemorate the moment the guns stopped. The Sunday afterwards is called Remembrance Sunday and is celebrated by parades and special church services. People wear red poppies to mark the occassion. If you go on twitter you will see a lot of avatars from people in Europe are currently sporting red poppies.I believe that if anything, it is remembered even more strongly in France.So no, not a forgotten war here by any means.
The Romans were not the only people in antiquity to debase their coinage to increase the money supply. The French and English did it during the middle ages as well, it also happened in 19th cnetury America. Where do you think the phrase “don't take any wooden nickels” came from?
Absolutely. I suspect that debasing the coinage was one of those ideas that occurred about 10 minutes after the original idea of coins.
In an armed conflict between the US and China, the US would win hands down. The only question is whether the war would last weeks or months.
“Before she set out on her Diamond Jubilee procession, on the morning of 22 June 1897, Queen Victoria of England went to the telegraph-room at Buckingham Palace…. It was a few minutes after eleven o'clock. She pressed an electric button, an impulse was transmitted to the Central Telegraph Office in St. Martin's le Grand; in a matter of seconds, her Jubilee message was on its way to every corner of her Empire. It was the largest Empire in the history of the world, comprising nearly a quarter of the land mass of the earth, and a quarter of its population. Victoria herself was a Queen-Empress of such aged majesty that some of her simpler subjects considered her divine, and slaughtered propitiatory goats before her image.''–James Morris, in Pax Britannica (London: The Folio Society: 1992)
As Tasha points out, the American colonists at the time would have regarded themselves as Englishmen. Plenty of other Englishmen living in England sympathised with them. People went to and fro freely and there were no doubt people born in England who fought for independence in America and then moved back to England. Benedict Arnold was buried in England in his America revolutionary uniform.When I learnt about what we call the American War of Independence at school in England, the grievances of the colonists were treated very sympathetically and were put in the context of other grievances that ordinary Englishmen had with the government of the time.The big difference is that the British still remember very well the role of the French in the success of the revolution, i.e., without French support the revolution would not have succeeded. This doesn't seem to be something that modern Americans are nearly so well aware of judging by the conversations I have had, though I am ready to be corrected on that one.
Can I offer a different perspective as a non-American?Its an interesting observation, that elections can change domestic policy but generally don't alter foreign policy. Look through history and it is only in highly autocratic states that changing the personnel of the government changes international relations, and pretty rarely even then.The US economy is pretty heavily influenced by military spending. So in the case of the US it is quite likely that a new government won't have much impact on the economy either.I don't follow the polls and the ins and outs, so I have no idea what the election results are likely to be. No doubt if the Tea Party got in it would have a big impact on a lot of aspects of social policy that affect the day to day life of US citizens. But I wonder if it would actually make much difference at all to the big picture. The US will remain a global superpower and will have the guns, ships and planes it needs to keep it that way. Democrats tend to talk more politely to the rest of the world. But their actions are indistinguishable from Republicans, and I predict they will be from the Tea Party too. And I bet they will spend much the same too. You could easily balance the US books by selling off the military hardware. But we all know that isn't going to happen whoever gets in.
