Queequeg's 'Special' Threads: Roman-Persian edition

[Queequeg]

Hymen-mania, actually.

At least "Sassadolescent" makes sense.  If you know who the Sassanids were. 

[saskganesh]

I think the real final nail in the fall of the Byzzies was their decision to contract out their navy.

By the time they needed their navy to protect their stone walls they were already done.

One of the often over looked by significant things that ruined Justinian's chances of reforming the Empire was plague that decimated the Byzanteen population.

A good book on the subject is Justinian's Flea.  Here is a good review I found.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/may/05/featuresreviews.guardianreview9

disagree. maybe the real fall of the West but not the rest of it. the Empire was extraordinarily resilient, which is anti-Gibbon, but fits the facts better. They survived sieges of Avars, Varags, Persians and Arabs (because of the navy and the greek fire trick) and always came back, reoccupying lost territories and even going on the offense. They even had a revival after Manzikert.

now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Yup, my mistake.

I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...

sneaky

---------------

the reasons for the fall of the empire that have been given over the ages are as abundant as they are different. As we all know.

[Valmy]

now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?

Accounts of the Black Death never go into it that much, but surely at least 1/3rd of the population died in an era where they were already desperate for manpower.

[grumbler]

Hymen-mania, actually.

At least "Sassadolescent" makes sense.  If you know who the Sassanids were.

I like "Sassadolescent."  It's clever.  You will never live down Hymen-mania though.

[grumbler]

I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...

sneaky

Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.

[crazy canuck]

now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?

Wrong century.  My reference was the the Justinian plague that wiped out his manpower and reversed all the gains he had made.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...

sneaky

Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.

aye, but wht he did was and 'endpoint' (at least for a while) of a series of changes brought on by the acquisition of the empire. An evolution that starts as early as the Gracchi (if not earlier). So the question is less unfair as it would seem. But much of that depends on the level of the students (i.e. how many courses they already got before the question was asked).

[crazy canuck]

I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...

sneaky

Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.

Not so much unfair as tricky.  Once Rome acquired other provinces it did "gain" an empire and presumably PDH was looking for an answer that discussed the way in which the Republic had to adapt to that, eg creating govenors, an exanding army to protect and expand the empire etc.

[alfred russel]

Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.
[/quote]

And the Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be King of the Romans -- but presumably PDH would dock a student if he focused on Napoleon to answer a question on the final collapse of the western roman empire.

[grumbler]

And the Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be King of the Romans -- but presumably PDH would dock a student if he focused on Napoleon to answer a question on the final collapse of the western roman empire.

  Uh, yeah.   Sure.  Whatever. Not sure why any student would think Napoleon was a Holy Roman Emperor, but that would surely be a mistake of a different flavor than talking about the powers assumed by Augustus being part of the "changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic."

[alfred russel]

And the Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be King of the Romans -- but presumably PDH would dock a student if he focused on Napoleon to answer a question on the final collapse of the western roman empire.

  Uh, yeah.   Sure.  Whatever. Not sure why any student would think Napoleon was a Holy Roman Emperor, but that would surely be a mistake of a different flavor than talking about the powers assumed by Augustus being part of the "changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic."

I never said he was a Holy Roman Emperor--clearly he was not. But he certainly played a role in the abolition of the title.

[saskganesh]

now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?

Wrong century.  My reference was the the Justinian plague that wiped out his manpower and reversed all the gains he had made.

would have lost those bits anyway because of overreach. quite a bit remained anyway

look at the campaign areas:
Italy...well they held onto some good chunks. one emperor considered moving the capital to rich Syracuse in the 7th--8th centuries.
Spain: too removed from centers of power.
Africa: they kept it until the Muzlims. Heraclius "saved" the empire from this little powerbase.
Syria/Armenia: Back and forth borders until 11th-12th C.

[grumbler]

aye, but wht he did was and 'endpoint' (at least for a while) of a series of changes brought on by the acquisition of the empire. An evolution that starts as early as the Gracchi (if not earlier). So the question is less unfair as it would seem. But much of that depends on the level of the students (i.e. how many courses they already got before the question was asked).

Agreed.  The powers assumed by Augustus were the endpoint of the changes, and therefor a legitimate part of the discussion of the changes, unless otherwise specified.

I think the more Roman history one studies, the further off one puts the true "end of the republic."  A fairly strong argument could be made that it didn't truly end until Tiberius inherited Augustus's "republican" powers.  Octavian gaining the title "Augustus" just started the final process of emasculation of the Senate - that process wasn't complete until the Senate was forced to grant such titles whether it will or nay.

[Valmy]

IIRC Tiberius desperately wanted the Senate to rule the Empire so he didn't have to.  The Senate was simply too afraid of doing something wrong and being executed (which was probably wise of them) to have any initiative of its own.  Claudius also had that frustration I think, the Senate simply could not or would not use the authority some of the earlier Emperors wanted them to exercise.

I am not sure when the Senate lost its will to rule but I assume it was with the defeat of the Liberators.