Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Roman Empire: I can't explain this ?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 10, 2012, 1:28 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

They were a brutal conquering nation of slavery, inequality and unfairness. And yet I feel a sense of great loss at their falling. Was it hope that was lost ?

111 Comments

111 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

Roman civilization was a great dichotomy. It had all of the brutal aspects you mention as well as the best civil engineering the world had yet seen with a sanitation system, a road system and aqueducts as well as classical art and architecture. Ancient Rome also introduced the Senate, Roman Law, the Latin language, etc. And, of course, great historical figures such as Cincinnatus, Justinian, and Marcus Aurelius.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

The world itself is a great dichoyomy. There is a deeper meaning in this simple observation than one would readily assume. It is the foundation of a wholeistic interpretation of human existance, and of our place in creation.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

So true. There is always good where there is bad and vice versa. You just have to seek it out.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes exactly, and in another sense mankind is in the unique position of existing in the middle of two dualities - existing at the crossroads between the lower, Darwininan order, of the material world where everything must fight for survival, and an apprehension of a higher reality; an appreciation of the divine.

The divine order, contrary to most currently held opinion, is not something that exists only in the realm of abstract speculation - is not just some intangible yearning that we dream of - but something verifiable by the concrete existance of seemingly abstract properties - things that exist in reality, yet have no tangible form.

Love, truth, justice, beauty (not merely physical but spiritual beauty ) harmony, peace, freedom - these things are demonstratably real and point like signposts to the divine - to the immortality of the soul.

Thus, we can define ouselves as beings striving through the birth of consciousness toward an aspiriation of the divine - and the material order, tied to the struggle for survival, is the lower order that our spirits strive to release themselves from. That, more than anything I think, is the justification for this movement.

We can either reach out to that divine order, and try to bring that vision down to earth for the betterment of mankind, and all the living creatures of the earth, or we can be subsummed into nothing but the "Darwinian" survival of the fittest, where life, struggling into being consumes itself for the sake of a mere brutal and empty existance.

Humanity is in the unique position of being able to make that choice, both on a personal level, and on the level of our influence over the fate of the world.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

There is something about achieving our dreams that adds fire to our heart. Without a dream would we wither and die. Thus does the dream give us life.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

As they say, man does not live on bread alone.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Agreed, and I think one of the great misconceptions of our age is that reason and spirituality are mutually exclusive. In the 20th century the great pragmatic leaps of science had the effect of almost making science our new god. But the material power of science alone will not save us. If we go back to the ancient Greeks, however, we will find that they addressed this question and concluded that reason can do more than just lead to scientific progress, it can also find answers to the deeper questions that we really need answers to, in order for the human expierence to have meaning.

That is partly why I was so intrigued by your post. As Faulkner said: "The past isn't dead, in fact it isn't even past."

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

This is true. We need reason.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

I always found it strange that some people actually seem to prefer behaving like apes rather than as spiritual beings, but nice post. :)

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Sorry about deleting the comment above GypsyKing. I wanted to revise my focus on your thoughts of duality between the physical and divine. I believe Thomas Jefferson was thinking along the same thoughts as you when he wrote " the pursuit of happiness "

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Jefferson was influenced by the Enlightenment, which was influenced by the Rennaissance, which was essentially a revival of Ancient Greek thought.

I think that Plato was the seminal figure in Western thought, but he is now largely either ignored or discredited. Promoting freedom, in all it's aspects, is not in the interests of the powers that be.

Plato was buried (figuratively) and Aristotle, whom Plato considered simply incapable of understanding his thought, or that of Plato's mentor Socrates, was substituted as the "great" thinker of ancient Greece.

The reason was that Aristotle was simply a philosoper of the material world, and therefore did not represent a challenge to the new spiritual dogma. This resulted in The Dark Age

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

GypsyKing, you and beautifulworld could probably talk all night about history. Although I find the subject very interesting , I have studied very little. I do recall platos shadow on the wall. And correct me if I am wrong , did Plato believe the world wasn't real, and the shadows represented this world?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

In my interpretation, what Plato said was that the "real" world is comprised of nothing but mutability. Everything in the material world is subject to change and decay. Conversely, their are qualities observable in the human expierence that are constant - even though they do not have material form. Truth, freedom, love, justice, harmony, beauty - these things are demonstratably real, and permanent.

Through an enquiry into these things that went on for a lifetime, through dialogue with, among others, his mentor Socrates, he concluded that these things were more real and permanent than the observable world, and that they pointed to the existance of a higher reality, and the soul's ability to interact with that higher reality to achieve earthly harmony ( cosmos ), and also that the soul was permanent, and tied to that higher set of non-material verities.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Thank you

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

Exactly. Well said and quite profound.

There is a post somewhere here on anarcho-communism vs. anarcho-capitalism and someone was arguing with me that only under unregulated capitalism can humans be free to create and "succeed" or whatever, not those words exactly. I would argue that when humans feel secure, as they would in a well regulated capitalistic environment, or under anarcho-communism, they would be much more free to create. Remove the constant struggle for survival and people would be free.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

We are all striving for this, I think. We have simply not yet figured out how to attain it. One reason perhaps is that our thought processes are more attuned to forming distinctions than they are at arriving at synthysis. ( In other words we thrive on disputation. ) I am just as given to this as anyone, but somehow we need to acquire the discipline to work beyond disputation toward shared aspirations. Not an easy thing to do! LOL!!!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

I don't know. I kind of think the whole mission of OWS is to attain this. It may not be clearly stated but it is the over-arching goal.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, I think it is what we are striving for. Let's face it, humanity is running out of time. We will either reach again towards our highest aspirations, achieve a new renaissance, or slip into another dark age.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

I think things will get better so try not to get down. It may take a while, though, because watershed periods in history rarely happen overnight.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I am not downhearted, but I also see that we are going through a social change of similar scope to that of the industrial revolution, and that labor, as a means of wealth distribution, is rapidly becoming obsolete. We have no new schema to take it's place, and so I think we face many challenges here on MANY levels. I think we can deal with them, but not if our best thinkers are hiding in the stacks of our university libraries, protecting their publicly paid salaries, and not contributing here where it matters.

I'm not downhearted, but I am angry. We are facing the greatest challenges in our history, and I am still hearing a resounding silence from that quarter. We need our best thinkers here: can all of our academics have been so intimidated that they will not stake their salaries or their reputations and even engage in this conversation? Or are we considered too lowly to even be worth talking to? I have been approached by graduate students wanting to write their thesis's on this movement, and yet professors apparently would like to pretend that the whole thing is just too far beneath them for notice. There are a lot of people more educated then I am, who should be engaged here, and the fact that they are not is just sad.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I have introduced a few ideas on this forum. To only be shot down without mercy. I was very surprised that a movement protesting unfairness and inequality in todays economics gave no support to ideas of equality and fairness. Well very little support partly. I presented an idea that would remove the tax collecting budget system and replace it with an unlimited budget that would completely unleash mankinds full potential. But no support. So I began to question the integrity of this movement and forum and all the behind curtain people. Why no support for economic improvement.? Even a cap on profits which would patch the current crisis was rejected by this forum?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Well, I don't know. All I can say is that as an actual grass roots movement, this movement is really just a collection of people coming from a vast number of different belief systems, who have one thing in common, and that is a weariness of corruption and a desire to free themselves from it ( not to mention a lot who are here to disrupt that effort. ) So the answers you get at any time are largely random, and simply based upon whoever you encounter at the moment.

I would advise you not to get discouraged. Ecomomic concepts are among the most difficult for people to grasp, and to come to agreement upon. I'm sure there will be a lot of debate on that subject as this movement goes forward:)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

Don't ever look to traditional academia for answers to anything. They are a bunch of wuss's in my opinion and I've had some experience with them. This is going to be a grassroots effort driven by real people. We could use an economist or two, though, that is for sure.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yeah, I guess you've got to go to Russia to find dissident academics. They'd probably just come here and split-hairs ineffectually anyway.

I'm not downhearted. We have a lot of challenges to face, but we have faced challenges before and risen to the occasion. We can do so again!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I like your attitude.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

I wonder what's going on in Russian academia these days. I have no idea.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Nor do I, really. I was reffering to the Soviet era, and to Andre Sacarov (sp), etc.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Yes that feeling of security or contentment would remove the anguish we feel and make room for creative peaceful thought. You got it beautiful world. If we all had enough what would we do with our time.

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

yet as beings endowed with moral conscience we are obligated to thoughtfully examine the morally void universe, define good and bad for ourselves, and fight for what is good. I can think of nothing more "good" than complexity, stability, and diversification. While the Romans had the complex down in some respects, their empire simplified cultural diversity in the Mediterranean region, and ecologically simplified the area though resource overexploitation and monocultural agriculture. My morality says the bad outweighs the good. Let's not look at European history through the rose tinted discursive glasses of the civilization that builds itself in the image of Rome. Rome was an empire. It conquered other people to gain resources and concentrate them in one place, for the benefit of a few.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

You make my point, but I'm not sure the universe is "morally void." I think the universe is morally ubiquitous we just sometimes lose our way.

True, it is not good to look at the world through euro-centric eyes. I was just addressing this post.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The world declined terribly for centuries after the fall of Rome.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

You had the Dark Ages in the West, yes, but do you know anything of Late Antiquity? Byzantium is a fascinating period in history that was the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East. Also, Asia was blossoming. You had the Tang Dynasty in China, one of it's greatest periods. You also had the classic period of the great Mayan Civilization and many more.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I know something of those you are mentioning. They flourished for a while. Then theydeclined. Just like Rome.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

All civilizations have ebbs and flows. China, however, is the longest running continuous civilization.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

No, nothing of late antiquity or Byzantine empire. What good did they have to offer?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

Too much to go into here. Read Peter Brown's "Late Antiquity." You'll learn a lot about the legacy of Christianity and it's a short little read. Another good scholar is Averil Cameron.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Wow, I'm impressed. I've never heard anyone mention Cameron before. There is a lecture he delivered that I've been trying to get my hands on for over a year - no luck.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

Maybe FriendlyObserverB will be convinced to read about Late Antiquity now....That period clears up a lot about the changes Christianity brought to the entire world. Very interesting stuff.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Name a few things Christianity did for humanity during this period.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

It's too much to go into here, it really is. Read the little book, Late Antiquity, Peter Brown explains it much better than I ever could. To sum, I would say, Christianity changed the very way humans see themselves.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Ahh please just a little more.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20757) 2 years ago

Here is a really good review of "Late Antiquity" that explains his thesis well. This quote from it speaks volumes:

"Brown’s capstone chapter serves to synthesize the late antique reorientation of religion with a late antique reorientation of social and spiritual mores governing the deportment of the human body, sexual behavior, and the institution of marriage that set the metes and bounds of the institution across the East-West expanse of the empire."

http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2011/03/14/review-late-antiquity-by-peter-brown/

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

a very difficult piece to comprehend ? I think I will pass .. Christianity may have provided some moral values .. but otherwise I am very glad we have seperation of church and state . Here we are concerned of governments being influenced by corporations, but over in other parts of the world .. where religion governs society .. is an awful battle to win..

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Very!

[-] 2 points by SkepticismAndWonder (29) from Imperial, CA 2 years ago

I would say yes. Though they achieved the peace and security that the Greeks sought in vain, towards the end their greatest minds were occupied more with theological issues, instead of trying to deal with the real problems at hand; such as bankruptcy due to corruption and an over extended military.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

What was their vision I wonder.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 2 years ago

I don't think Rome had any vision except a desire to "rule the word" which is as basic as it sounds. Rome to me was always an empire run on practicality and pragmatism, not vision or idealism. Its empire existed only where it was economically feasible to run it, it hated the Persians and the Germans but could never justify the high cost of maintaining legions long term in Iran or Germany. From what I understand most of the masses were eventually taxed into virtual oblivion and I have read that many Roman workers actually joined invaded Barbarian armies as a big up yours to the government.

I feel that it is only missed because it seemed like a lost opportunity. I have read many tales of how we would have been on the Moon by 969 had Rome not fallen etc. Despite its destruction being perhaps morally right it lead to a huge decline; European successor nations being concerned only with internal squabble and infighting right with poor life expectancy right up to the First Crusade in the late eleventh century.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

One would have to wonder about your definition of the term "hope", as well as what you were "hoping" for.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I threw hope out there as a possibility Not really where the sense of loss and sadness derives from.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's not a definition, nor does it describe what you were hoping" for.

Are you sad because their quest for World domination failed?

Did you feel the same for Napoleon?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Napoleon was my favorite. But not the same feeling. With Napoleon I feel admiration for his bravery and conviction to claim equality. The napoleonic code tells everything.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Well it seems Rome was the best of the best. That gives inspiration for hope.

[-] 1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

History repeats itself and we are living it now. The comparison of Rome vs the USA is scary.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Did Romes constitution include freedom of speech and assembly?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Perhaps so but this is a comparison that has existed in the minds of America's people for almost 400 years now.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

"Seems" is the key word here.

You must remember, it's first history was written by those in the employment of the ruling class. In those days writing itself was a rare skill.

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

down with the monoculture! all power to the barbarians!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I know this is off topic, but I often think of the Athenian empire in comparison with today's problems. I believe we are being ruled by the Thirty tyrants, or the fortune five hundred, and Persia is at our front gates. History does seem to repeat itself. our era is analogous to the Peloponnesian War.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Thanks for your insight.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Great post! It really opens up avenues of thought. I understand your sense of loss. How can we not feel that, in a way, if for no other reason than that our modern lives are so circumscribed and ignoble in comparison to that wider, freer world, of antiquity.

Let me add a quote below from Robert Lowell (and let it be understood that I am not praising Alexander "The Great" ), but merely trying to identify the sense of loss that we both share:

Robert Lowell, in "Death of Alexander" from History (1973):

No one was like him. Terrible were his crimes— but if you wish to blackguard the Great King, think how mean, obscure and dull you are, your labors lowly and your merits less...

I think people were simply able to have more space and latitude to live genuinely human lives in antiquity, and that is part of why we have a longing for the Greek and Roman Age, no matter their terrible flaws.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

Rome was a media monster in the world and has tricked you into romanticizing their lame BS history. They were paranoid privileged idiots who used a BS god with BS book to make everyone feel guilt.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

But there was a bright side was there not? A side of superior civilization. A step away from barbarianism.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

True, good point.

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

I'm sure the European societies who had lived freely until being violently enslaved to support the frivolous wealth of self-proclaimed demi-gods thought civilization was pretty great too.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

Good point. There are so many pros and cons to everything that is done under the sun. It is hard to make general statement that is true and encompasses all degrees and perspectives to all that are involved including those in the past, present, and future.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Perhaps a few but not all. Life may have improved under roman rule for some.

Is it not better for Iraq that they are no longer under a brutal regime. Or is it not better that Libya has removed their brutal dictator. Or look at Syria , what would be the best outcome?

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

as life under us empire improves for a few too. There are always Carlos Slims. That doesn't mean that most are better off. I can't speak for Libya because we still can't know what the new paradigm will look like (I'm sure at least that it will price its oil in dollars and sell it openly to western petroleum corporations). But Iraq? First of all, it's utter chaos out there right now. Second of all, Hussein was essentially a US client for decades, and the religious militias that are now resisting occupation (and rightfully so, even if I don't like a lot of their ideology) subscribe to a form of Islam propagated by CIA-trained clerics who went to Afghanistan to form guerilla armies (the Mujahideen) to oppose the USSR in the '80s. Ronald Reagan even invited some prominent Mujahideen members to the White House and called them the equivalent of the US's founding fathers. He then wrote "To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom."

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

anytime a people disregards the council of our God in how we as his children should live during our brief existance here on the earth, the end result is the same. Although, because we were given an extra portion blessing, our punishment or suffering will be equally great as prophecied in Isaiah. But because of the minority who do live by the council of our God his judgements are suspended until after all who have had ample opportunity to accept and do still reject his councel shall continue to ripen in their iniquities and become ready for destruction. The people in America may not realize it, but that land was reserved for a righteous people as sworn in a decree by the God of the land, whom as the money says, the people of that land put their trust.

[-] 1 points by Algernon (26) 2 years ago

The Romans once stood for liberty and helped invent (classical) republican government. Their decline into despotism and militarism is a tragedy. Your sense of loss may come from witnessing history repeating here in the USA.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It seems impossible the United States would ever fall.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

It must have seemed, during the heights of the Roman Empire and the peace of the Pax Romana.... then, at the end of that period during the Reign of Marcus Aurelius, all but impossible that the Roman empire would ever fall......

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It must have. And it must have seemed slavery would never end. And it also must seem the free market with unfettered profits will never end. But it will.

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

slavery didn't end, it was just relocated to other continents and some of it replaced by petroleum. BTW. the civil war was not about slavery, it was about trade policy that pitted the landed classes against the industrial bourgeoisie.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

there are no "unfettered" profits......profits are based on consumer demand

when will you guys get it straight......YOU are the provider of "profits", if you don't like that withhold your spending.....

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

"vote with your dollar" is an illusion of democracy that we need to quickly get over. I do not "vote" for a car-culture by driving a car, I drive a car because I live in a city that has been built so that i cannot live without a car. Demand is manufactured by the people who profit from consumption. We are not dollar-redistributing machines, we are human beings, and we must oppose systems of oppression as the latter, what we are, not the former, what we are taught to be.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

One mans gain should not mean another mans loss.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

odds are....if you're in most large US cities it was built before cars......so your point is quite false...you just feel the need to use one because of it's convenience......and that is voting with your dollars...

There is no oppression where there are willing participants, and where, at any moment you can change your perspective and behavior and free yourself......

The "manufactured demand" is voluntary......as is bulk consumption....

it actually costs very little to live modestly.......so that is a choice too

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

whether or not the city laid its first bricks before cars or after the infrastructure now is entirely built around them. I cannot imagine a sound argument against that. I have lived in Los Angeles and riding a bike there is a death-wish, and busses are routinely up to an hour delayed; the schedules are completely useless. You can only get anywhere with any reliability by car, which is saying little because practically no matter where you go you will be stuck in traffic, doubling or tripling your commute time. I think that if people had better options, they would pursue them. They don't, so apparently there aren't. Los Angeles's light rail system was bought up by automotive and tire companies in the mid-20th century and decommissioned. That's manufacturing demand. The same companies also worked on the city planning, investing in huge tracts of land outside the city, developing them, and linking them in by freeway. That is manufacturing demand. Moreover, advertising has build a social perception of cars as status symbols, which is another way of manufacturing demand.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

We are

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

not having much of an effect, is it....

you have to be a majority, sorry......

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Anything that has a beginning must have an ending. Nations are no different. They rise, reach a peak, and then decline. Sometimes they rise again, only to decline again. Everything is cyclical. Eventually the nation, as it was, disappears from history. Another nation rises to take it's place whether having conquered that nation or otherwise. This is how humanity operates. There is no deviation from this pattern in all of recorded history.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I agree that every nation has risen and fallen, but can't say that I see a logical or scientific reason why that "must" be so. There may be one, but I don't see it. Theoretically, at least, I think it would be possible for a nation to grow endlessly.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

The powerful play repeats itself throughout history.......

From Freedom and Liberty

To Prosperity and Security

To Luxury and Ease

To Privilege and Entitlement

To Apathy and Dispassion

To Complaint and Sloth

To Control and Submission

To Repression and Restraint

To Tyranny and Enslavement

To Lack and Discontent

To Wearying and Disgruntlement

To Passion and Effort

To Rebellion and Defiance

To Liberty and Freedom.......

and on, and on, and on........

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Well put. Powerfully expressed.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I believe it was the foundation of past nations that caused them to fall. You can not build a nation with unfairness and inequality as its foundation. It simply will not support itself. If we could build a nation on principles of fairness I believe it will withstand the test of time.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think the foundation of the US was pretty good, but has unfortunately been subverted.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Yes, I also believe the USA has strong principles. What they do next may decide their fate.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

In which country do you live?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

All I can say is, history is against you. If a reason for the decline and fall of nations could be known, it is reasonable to assume that that knowledge would be used to prevent it. But nothing prevents it. It is an inevitability.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

But consider, until modern times, no human being was able to travel to the moon. For this reason, somebody during the year 1900, could have said - "No man has ever gone to the moon, therefore no man will ever go to the moon".

If that man would have lived until 1969, he would have seen that he was mistaken. So, who knows? If you were to live to the year 2100, perhaps you would find that you are mistaken, perhaps not.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Scientific advancement cannot be compared to social advancement. There has been enormous scientific and technical advancement in the last 300 years. There has been virtually no social advancement in terms of preventing the decline and fall of nations during that same time-frame. You are comparing apples and oranges, or a logical fallacy of Non Sequitur (does not follow). You are saying that if A happened B will happen. But this is only the case if A=B. If A (science) is not equal to B (society), it does not follow that C (nations will not fall) will occur.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

There has never in history been such advanced communication. So perhaps this is where science and social development work together.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Perhaps. Let's hope so for the sake of the human species (actually all species).

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Perhaps in the next 300 years, or 1,000 years for that matter, there will be tremendous social advancement.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Perhaps. If humanity is to survive it may be a necessity thrust upon it. For in no time in human history has there been potential for global destruction. When there was only regional destruction, those areas not impacted could fill the vacuum and/or assist in rebuilding. This next time, there may not be an opportunity like that.

But I prefer to look on the bright side and hope/believe things will not turn out that bad.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I hope so too.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

Obviously you're drawn to brutality, conquest, enslavement, inequality & unfairness - you must be a Republican, or even a Neocon!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

But I feel no loss for Hitlers defeat.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

The Western Roman Empire fell 1,536 years ago, the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire fell 559 years ago, but Hitler only fell 67 years ago - you just need to give your feelings time!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

LOL !

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Civilisations? Was that what was lost?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It didn't fall.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I wrote about the fall for the Roman Republic

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65567019&postcount=17

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Can you write a few words to outline your theme.

[-] 0 points by Newt2012 (-138) 2 years ago

Here are my few words. You're a queer, trannie, fudgepacking asshole.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I don't click links on this forum anymore. Sorry can you cut and paste an entry.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not easily, the mark down language on this forum is gimpy

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

found it

I wrote about about the shift of Rome from Republic to a dictatorship. to the tune of Bad Romance

The Opening sets the stage with Julius Ceaser's assassination. The Senate's struggle to remain of the people of the earth contrasted against the military soldier.

Quote:

Bad Romans

Et tu - , Brute

Carpe Diem

Adscriptus Glebae

O BAD ROMANS

.

Fluked Plumed Helmet!

hing banded armor!

Gla-adius !

the roman soldier

.

The first 5 verses describe a senator more interested in placating his supporters with bread, circuses and Gladiator fights. It speaks of the slave culture and how less than 100 years before 6000 slaves were crucified.

.

Quote:

I want your vote in exchange for this bread

I'll join the Senate and soon will be head

I want your lot

lot lot lot

cast me your lot

.

judge our slave warriors with the thumb of your hand

watch fools get eaten by vicious lions

divert your thoughts

oh oh oh

forget your lot

.

you know that they had slaves

one third of the people

you know that they had ways

to keep them in shackles

' vent your frustration in the coliseum

leave the power to the other men

I give you panem et circenses.

you and me could write on Bad Romans

.

grizzled scarecrows all along road (Wo-0h---oh oh oh)

from Roma down to Capua

so the slave were shown the terrible toll (Wo ho ho ho ho- oh oh oh)

if they disobeyed the ruler.

.

The next verse talks about soldiers returning from conquest and pushing the senate around

Quote:

returning warriors

saw the senate decline

people were cynical

on who held the reigns

Senators were shoved

shoved-shoved-shoved

Senators were shoved

.

This is were Octavius comes on as an heir to Julius He offers the Senate protection and support with his legions but enviably talks behind the scene control of the Senate and has dissenters killed while away from Rome.

Quote:

offered protection

by Octavius.

who killed dissenters

while out in the sticks.

he wrote their laws

laws - laws-laws

their power lost

.

Once Octavious is the sole general in Rome, Marc Anthony is his only Rival, So Octavius rallies Rome against Marc because Marc had willed his inheritance to non-Romans, his Egypt born children. And that is how Octavius became sole Emperor of Rome.

Quote:

you know Antony lost it

while loving in Egypt

('Cause Rome was fascist baby!)

the cost for su-icide romance

He read Mark's will to the public forum

Antony's heirs were born foreign

Octavius used this as a means to an end

to preside over all Rome province

so control of Rome would now be honed

by one Emperor's hands

Octavius alone would own the shores

on the Mediterranean

.

The song then backs Up and tells of the Roman Military system

Quote:

Wield, right, cohorts flank

reserves move up, fill the ranks

Walk, attack in formation

feeding off the conquered nations

Vercingetorix wrought starvation (pronounced [werkiŋˈɡetoriks]

Cross la Loire, refresh the Legion (French pronunciation: [lwaʁ])

(That took Gaul! baby)

.

The song recalls the Punic Wars and how when they ended

they left Rome as the Ruler of the Mediterranean and a large slave population.

Quote:

We attacked Carthage

We broke their shields

We enslaved their men

and we salted their fields

'

ave atque vale - (Hail and farewell!)

ad bellum Punicus - (to the Punic Wars)

Carthago delenda est - (Carthage must be destroyed)

so we salted their fields

.

Over a hundred ago,

Rome warded her shores

from the Carthaginians

Rome had room to grow

once they were gone

with colonial expansion

.

After Octavius become sole Emperor, the question of Succession of Roman Emperors afterword lead to corrupt politics

Quote:

Empire Rulers (yelling)

the questions of

su-uccessions

made Emperors paranoid men

issued death orders

on mothers and friends

You and me could write a bad romans

http://voltic.com/P/recordings/Bad_Romans2.wav