Now Reading

[Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔]

I'm reading Tails PM

[Tails82]

I read a magazine article on JP Morgan's pic, where it looks like he's holding a dagger

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JP_Morgan.jpg

Here's the one. I was also surprised to read that he almost single-handedly ended a financial panic in 1907. Businessmen had wicked powers back then.

Also started reading another book, "How Rome Fell." Just the intro. So I dunno what his theory for it is, all he's done so far has commented on the history of other historians commenting on Rome's decline with their own theories @_@ The author's a Brit and at one point says US education is more well-rounded than elsewhere. I may have to converse with some foreigners to get a better idea of that.

[Tails82]

Read a bit today. There's some overlap between this and the politics topic so I'm splitting it up.

I read an article on the Colosseum. Specifically the excavated/renovated chambers beneath it that were buried under soil over time and forgotten for centuries. They would be used to raise wild animals up to the arena above through doors and such.

I skimmed through popular science magazine.

Read some neato Catholic stuff. Dealing with undercover videos of abortion clinics where employees were told by people staging as pimps/prostitutes they needed to get abortions for some minors. Collusion by employees was clearly wrong but the focus of this piece was whether it was acceptable for the undercover folks to film the video in secret and lie about their profession. The church doesn't look at consequences alone, but intention and the act itself, so was it good form for the video's makers to do this? Lying is a sticky wicket because some philosophers/theologians have gone so far to oppose it even when done as a joke. But when taken to an extreme, that would lead to bad things. The standard hypothetical situation where Nazis are at the door, you're hiding a Jew in the house and have to lie in order to protect that person's life. The write concludes that the issue is still open and under debate.

British study finds women 34% more likely of giving birth prematurely if they've had a prior abortion.

More on How Roe Fell: The author starts with the emperor Marcus Aurelius and goes from there. Over time the emperors get freakier and weaker. There were some extravagances before then, but the emperors of that era were even worse and made things unstable. The questions should not be how Rome went into decline, according to the author, but rather how the empire managed to survive for so long. The senate, once elected, was an aristocracy that had some influence in determining the emperor but had greatly lessened powers from the days of the Republic. The emperor was a military leader whose success depended largely on military support, although efforts were made to get the public on his side through patronage. Suspicions of disloyalty would lead to purges and emperors could often have violent inclinations. Conspiracies brought an end to emperors' reigns and civil wars were common, with rival military leaders fighting for power at least once each decade. If emperors were young or unpopular this could drive the Parthians (the only other power that presented some challenge to Rome, in modern Asia Minor) to war on the empire's eastern borders.
Elagabalus: an emperor of note, who I remember coming across in earlier research. Took the throne at 14, I believe. He had at 6 marriages, one of them to a Vestal Virgin but the public objected and he dropped it, but ended up marrying her again later. Like Nero he had a gay marriage, also unpopular. Sought out many prostitutes, and never took the same one twice. Asked if it were possible to perform a sex change, basically. Belonged to a cult that worshipped some sort of rock that they thought fell from the sun god. He brought the rock into Jupiter's temple which angered people since they saw him as putting the rock above Jupiter. It didn't end well for him.

[Tails82]

A bunch of silly test questions.

Reading more into the Rome book and getting an idea of the author's position. He goes on to a 50 year period where 60 emperors ruled. Assassinations by the higher ups in the military often to blame. Emperors had to get on their good side which meant promises of more money to soldiers. Persians presented some problems but for the most part the Roman army was amassed on the borders and could keep them back. The biggest problem was civil war, military guys proclaiming themselves emperor and fighting it out. Rome and the senate still had a symbolic unifying meaning, but were less relevant. Emperors didn't trust wealthy senators with too much power. They prefered equestrians from within the army, but the author believes this made things more unstable. Because now any one of those guys could rebel and seek to become emperor. Also the army could turn on its leader if Rome lost a battle to its enemies. The public wanted more expensive monuments/buildings, entertainment and bread but didnt want higher taxes. Some things never chance.

[Tails82]

The Sunday paper. Lots of talk about the debt ceiling and such.

Moving on to Diocletian's rule. He managed to bring a period of stability and began reform within the Roman army. He also divided rule among 3 other tetrarchs, although he remained the one in charge. The four of them took up jurisdiction over different parts of the empire. With this system came an acceleration of bureaucracy to provide for the 4 tetrarchs. Something else that was rare: Diocletian ruled 20 years and then retired. The author says at this time the military dictatorship was clear. Since Octavian's rule, emperors had tended to veil their rule behind appeals to traditional republican values. But as time went on both Rome and the senate lost their importance.
Constantine, the son of a tetrarch, would consolidate power and become the next emperor. He's best known for his conversion to Christianity and the founding of Constantinople. The last systematic persecution of Christians was under Diocletian, usually it was the leaders who were arrested and told to recant or be killed. Under Constantine Christians could worship freely. During this time the public had a better understanding of Christian practice and didn't rely on hostile rumors so it was more likely to be tolerated. People were trending more toward monotheism in general, with some idea of Jupiter being the supreme god or the multiple gods being seen as different embodiments of a single god. Constantine passed some laws based on religious views, like a ban on face tattoos for slaves since people were made in the image of God and that image shouldn't be distorted. He was baptized shortly before his death. Tradition was still strong enough for the senate to deify him posthumously, although this would be the last time this would occur. Constantine had continued reforms and the family name was fairly popular, though some of his descendants would eventualy lose the army's favor and fight among themselves. More civil war happens with emperors making rival claims again and usurpers springing up.

[Tails82]

Things begin going downhilll again for the Roman empire. Julian, the last pagan emperor, leads a campaign into Persia in the hopes of emulating Alexander the Great. He ends up dying instead of conquering the east, and his successor is forced to make concessions to the Persians. The Goths start to rebel, though they are not a serious threat. They don't have the capability to besiege cities and they have to keep moving to find more food. Still it takes the Romans 6 years to crush them. The state of things are not good for the army. Since Diocletian divided the empire in 4 parts, things have not been unified. And this time there wasn't a strong leader like Constantine that arose to keep everything together. The east and west end up doing their own thing. They haven't completely split and are similar in laws, but separation between the two grows. The western half has a longer frontier to defend and an army which has seen better days. They will face more problems as time goes on...

[Tails82]

The Huns arrive from somewhere in the east and start pestering the eastern empire for money in return for an end on raids. The east goes along with it, and the barbarian groups take this as a sign of weakness. They ask for more gifts each year, and start raiding again under Attila the Hun. Romans had a tendency to give lavish gifts to ambassadors as a sign of respect. Attila abuses this by sending multiple different embassies each time over silly small matters. This has a psychological effect as well because it reminds the east that the raiders are a real threat by now. Earthquakes hit Constantinople and Attila wants to take advantage of this, but the walls to the city are fixed long before he gets there. The Huns move westward and prove to be an even bigger problem for the western portion of the empire. But Attila's conquests end after he takes another wife, drinks too much and dies in his sleep. The Huns go back to being disunified for the most part. Other barbarian groups are on the move while the west is too busy fighting amongst itself. Emperors have lost much of their power at this point, being mostly figureheads while generals hold the real power and fight potential usurpers. Starting in Britain, various tribes begin to take land on the frontiers. Rome's leaders were busy dealing with threats from within, so they would let foreign groups settle on some land in return for some soldiers. In the long term this screwed the west over because it meant no more taxes from those regions resulting in a weakened military. They'd hire one group to fight off another, but then that group could turn on the empire within a few years when payment stopped. North Africa falls to Vandals, efforts are made to get it back but they both fail miserably. The first attempt at sending ships fails to get out of the port. The second attempt they make it but become hesitant to attack and try to negotiate. The barbarians take advantage of this and attack the fleet. Rome gets sacked a couple times in the coming decades, but the first raids are temporary and don't hit things like churches at the request of the pope.
The western part of the empire ends up divided into different kingdoms as Rome's military continues to fail. It was more of a gradual decline than a rapid destruction. Barbarian leaders wouldn't and couldn't kill off the people already on their land. More likely, taxes just changed hands and went to another guy. Local rulers didn't have the resources to build new large-scale projects but tried to preserve the ones already there (e.g. aqueducts, one remained in use in Spain up until the early 20th century). There was a gradual decline in building knowledge/expertise. The church managed to preserve some things and keep a sense of unity. The new kings don't try to destroy this in order to prevent a possible uprising. Rulers end up being Christian. The Roman empire remains in the east, and the author suggests this is mostly because of geography. The Persians were to their east and relatively peaceful with Romans at the time, and it was easier to deal with a single power than multiple raiding bands. They had some problems with barbarian groups but the frontier wasn't as long for them, they had less civil wars and Constantinople was an established capital bringing in wealth. Meanwhile the west was divided and Rome wasn't really the center in anything but name. North Africa's loss was a real blow for the west, resources-wise. Rulers fought for control but the system wasn't completely broken, because the empire managed to remain in the east for several centuries.

[Tails82]

Eastern part of the empire sticks around until the 15th century. We'd call it the Byzantine Empire but they considered themselves Roman. Byzantine was a Renaissance label by people in the west who wanted to relate back to Rome as their ancetors. Justinian recaptures North Africa, Italy and some of Spain but after his death they can't hold on to it all. They keep parts of Africa but the Lombards move in to take Italy, making this the time where more of Roman culture is lost there than in its previous occupation by Goths. Persia and Rome have good relations for a while, considering themselves as equals in power. But this ends up going downhill when Persians attack because one of their kings needs more prestige. Neither side can really hold on to any of the land they invade for long. In the 7th century Muhammed comes in and the author stops at the time when Arabs take over Persian lands and drive Romans out of Africa.
The author believes the Roman empire fell in the west because Rome and its senate were made meaningless. It may not seem correct to advocate the rule of an aristocratic class, but at least with that emperors could forge relationships with every senator and only had to deal with a few threats. When equestrians began taking power and were seen as legitimate contenders for emperor, this led to a downhill spiral. Anyone who felt Rome wasn't looking after regional interests enough could rebel and gain support. Emperors had to worry about remaining in power and potential usurpers could be someone they never met. The senate loses much of its power and Rome becomes a spiritual capital. Emperors become suspicious of giving senior officials too much control over a certain army, and as a result bureaucracy became bloated, and the army could not handle attacks from raiders properly. Emperors tried to micromanage the efforts by directly controlling armies in military efforts, which was doomed to fail because an emperor could not be everywhere. Efforts to divide rule among tetrarchs came about under Diocletian but due to a lack of strong unifying leaders in later years, divisions among the different regions grew. Raiders failed in the east but succeeded in the west because the empire there had become too weakened from the inside. Officials were not chosen based on their abilities, but on loyalty to the emperor. Corruption was a problem because of this.
The last part looks at what lessons can be learned today from the fall of Rome. He believes corruption starts at the top and moves its way down into the general population. It was the sheer size of the Roman empire that kept it going for so long, since it could afford to make several mistakes before it failed to function as long as a basic level of competence was present. Rome's decline was for the most part self-inflicted. In the end, public officials have to be held accountable for wrongdoing and bureaucracy must avoid becoming bloated and inefficient.

[Chromeo]

Look, I tried to read all those walls of text at the start of this topic but even I can't continue and I'm a literary geek. I think you could be wasting your time here...

[Tails82]

Eh, this is more for myself anyway...

[Tails82]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7547129/Council-condemned-over-Britains-shortest-cycle-lane.html

[Chromeo]

Clearly they have to fulfil a 'look ma we're eco friendly' target.

[Chromeo]

Wait, why is that in this topic?

[Tails82]

It was some random factoid from Readers Digest *shrugs*

Today I started a book on Greek and Roman literature. Read the intro to it, which covers all the authors they chose to include. It's a collection of translated excerpts, poems etc. I read some of it for a class but a lot of it wasn't assigned. The intro went through the basic historical background. Greeks adopt a written language but it is forgotten for centuries (until modern people find it). Then the Greeks adopt a different alphabet which is more suitable for use. Early epics like the Odyssey get written down based off oral tradition. Greek city states arise, conflicts with Persia. Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great conquer a lot of land, spreading Hellenistic culture which would greatly influence the Romans. Alexandria is built and its library would preserve a lot of works which are now unfortunately lost. Today we only have a few plays from distinguished Greek authors and a lot of things are in fragments 3 main kingdoms form from Alexander's conquered lands. Rome becomes a major power as it defeats Carthage and moves on from there. But things go bad. Rome becomes an empire which is preferable to the last days of the Republic. Roman castra (camps) set up in the territories, can be seen today in settlement names like Lancaster or Manchester. There are some bad rulers but the Pax Romana brings a long peace. At no other time in history would all the territories of the Roman empire be at peace for even half as long. The common view is that things went downhill after Marcus Aurelius. Both this book and the last on I read cite a book by Gibbon on Rome's decline/fall, which is meant to be a classic historical work so I might try to get my hands on that later. The author of the introduction considers 410 to be the fall of Rome, as it was sacked and dealt a large psychological blow at the time. The east went on until the 15th century and preserved some stuff, but Alexandria's famous library was long gone by this time, along with several old works.

[Tails82]

Homer. Little's known about him. 8th century BC maybe. Some portions of the Iliad. Achilles is a very angry man who gets vengeance on Hector by towing his dead body around Troy's walls. But he feels remorse and lets the king take his son back later on.
Started parts of the Odyssey. Odysseus leaves Calypso to return home after 20 years, even when the voyage is not going to be a good one. Man going through hardship, but coming out triumphant.