You reminded me of something I read from back around when that bloke got elected, regarding amongst other things, the decline in the rule of law mattering to society…
"The greatness of Rome, brilliant with repeated marks of prosperity, has gradually faded… the ancient glory of military prowess and valour has almost passed away… by the growth of wealth and luxury.
The Roman world is falling: yet we concern ourselves with trifles… We heap up riches that perish and bury our gold in the earth as if we were piling up treasures in a lifetime of prosperity.
Rome was great and could tolerate its own vices as long as they were held in check by some degree of virtue; but when our hands ceased to uphold the laws, when avarice and luxury sapped the nation’s strength, the state itself lost control and went its way.
The finest men were shut out from office by the lowest dregs of society, who, having won the favour of the mob by base means, ventured to grasp at the highest offices.
The greater her glory, the more incredible it seems that she has been brought so low.
Empires are mortal. Rome has perished. Though she was built upon such firm foundations, Rome has sunk by her own weight."
Can you indicate which author is associated with which portion of your quoted text? I’m looking to verify the provenance of these statements. Thank you.
Alas no, I saw this a while back and saved it. I believe they’re mostly a mix of direct quotes (or as much as one can be given they weren’t speaking English), and a lot of summations from their published works. So rather than reading a whole book, you get a few sentences carrying their main points.
At least that’s what I recall :-)
My suggestion would be to look in to the authors, find their relevant works and give them a read, that’ll give you the same thoughts and opinions but with way more detail :-D
Among which historians specifically? I’m unaware of any serious debate here other than propagandists using the name second Rome, third Rome, ceaser etc. sorry buddy Roman empire collapsed when the franks, Visigoths, ostrogoths and Huns toppled the west. Wanna know why it ended then? Byzantine had split long before into a separate entity to distance itself from Rome and when it collapsed it chugged along with it’s greek orthodox ideals
You reminded me of something I read from back around when that bloke got elected, regarding amongst other things, the decline in the rule of law mattering to society…
- Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, Tacitus, Aurelius Ambrosius, Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis. 56 - 430 AD.
Rome fell before he was born
Can you indicate which author is associated with which portion of your quoted text? I’m looking to verify the provenance of these statements. Thank you.
Alas no, I saw this a while back and saved it. I believe they’re mostly a mix of direct quotes (or as much as one can be given they weren’t speaking English), and a lot of summations from their published works. So rather than reading a whole book, you get a few sentences carrying their main points.
At least that’s what I recall :-)
My suggestion would be to look in to the authors, find their relevant works and give them a read, that’ll give you the same thoughts and opinions but with way more detail :-D
Yet the Roman Empire survived and thrived for about a millennium afterwards.
Id barely call the byzantines the Romans. They were a greek led empire
Unfair, there is still actual debate amongst historians and scholars about when the Roman empire ended, and if ever, it fell.
Among which historians specifically? I’m unaware of any serious debate here other than propagandists using the name second Rome, third Rome, ceaser etc. sorry buddy Roman empire collapsed when the franks, Visigoths, ostrogoths and Huns toppled the west. Wanna know why it ended then? Byzantine had split long before into a separate entity to distance itself from Rome and when it collapsed it chugged along with it’s greek orthodox ideals
reaches for spatha