Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Both had dissimilar ethnic groups within their empire. In the Austrian Habsburg's case, nationalism among them led to the empire's collapse after WWI. For the Persians, a lack of “persian” troops cost them victory in Greece in 490 BC
Reminds me of what they said about Marx and Engels. Communists read Marx, Capitalists understand Marx. (paraphrased)
I recall several conversations I had with a British Librarian on this very topic, am trying to locate them.
fair enough, I do concede that, but nevertheless, the chaos of the century prior to the fall, made it difficult for much to continue on… especially long term.
Roman governance collapsed in 476, but it's institutions survived via the church...
I see you subscribe to the traditional date of the fall of Rome. Roman governance did not cease with the death and overthrow of Romulus Augustulus at Adrianople. The forms of Roman government survived in a diminished reform through to today. Roman Law lived on in civil society as well as in church law. Local Roman governments throughout the empire continued until they succumbed to invasion or were rendered unrecognizable by time and change.As to why Rome fell, certainly the barbarization of the empire played a part. I would argue that a bigger reason was the moral decay at the center of the empire. It was this decay that made barbarization palatable to the emperors. The needed soldiers and the average Roman was uninterested in defending the empire so the emperors had to get them from somewhere. In the end, it was expediency, compounded by moral decay, which allowed the enemy within the empire and then ate it alive from the inside out.
I meant in terms of the western empire. By the fall in 476, Constantinople had exceded Rome in terms "Roman culture and governance for 150 years. Thus the transition from Latin to Greek. Without a connecting force to Rome itself, it's provinces broke away Britain in 410 on the withdrawal of the Legions, Africa under the Vandals, Spain under the Goths. "Byzantine Rome" survived and thrived for another thousand years, completely separate political identity.
I did not mean to imply that we should “revel” in bias, For instance, I'm of Irish background so I tend not to see much justification in what the English did to Ireland over 8 centuries. Facts are dead, relying on facts alone will give you a dull and boring list of names, dates and events. It is the intrepetations of an event that lead to the controveries over events. Those controversies are the lifeblood of our discipline. Currently, most students are presented with but one or two options. What I take issue with is that many textbooks at the high school level lack sufficient primary sources and have the narrative of a predictable and grotesquely long delphian prophecy.you cannot just write of a historical person's stance on an issue as "He was for popular sovreignty (Loewen, on Stephen Douglas) without showing why the issue is important.
Story has it that a sailor named Bresca broke the silence rule and saved the obelisk from collapsing. He shouted “wet the ropes”. He and his descendents have had the exclusive rights to sell palms for palm sunday to the vatican…
Although historical fiction, Irving Stone's The Agony and the Ecstasy is impeccably researched. Shows some interesting details on Savonarola that should be easily checkable for further info.
Iran provides too concrete a threat to the EU through its proxies(Hezbollah, Syria) or directly (a nuke) to have a chance of escaping unneutered. Suppose Ahm. pulls a Mughabe? what will the election matter? Those nuclear facilities need to be taken out before Jerusalem or Tel Aviv get bombed. If the Iran situation is dealt with, the trigger then becomes China/Taiwan...
yes, they did it with St. Peter not too long ago… can anyone recommend sources about the original St. Peters Basilica, from prior to Julius II's destruction?
What is your take on what the major issue will be. I sayTerror/Iraq/IranEnergy independenceIllegal immigration in that order...
I cannot speak for the new version, but the old one (1994) is accurate though slanted left in terms of its conclusions and what is emphasized. But, do we truly have a right to expect our historians to be truly objective? Shouldn't we emphasize looking bias as opposed to objectivity? For instance, disease is a crucial factor in Native/European interactions... rarely is it mentioned in school texts... A general lack of primary sources.... emphasis on the situation being foreordained. History is controversal, not a predictable soap opera...
