Rome\'s 3 biggest mistakes.

[Epictetus]

the conservative attitude of the Roman elite, which did not like risk investment

Senators, of course, were forbidden to participate directly in some risky investments by the Lex Claudia.

He was also odious to the fathers on account of a new law which Quintus Claudius, tribune of the people, had carried against the senate, Caius Flaminius alone of that body assisting him, that no senator, or he who had been father of a senator, should possess a ship fit for sea service, containing more than three hundred amphorae. This size was considered sufficient for conveying the produce of their lands: all traffic appeared unbecoming a senator. This contest, maintained with the warmest opposition, procured the hatred of the nobility to Flaminius…

Livy. 21.63.4.

Dion went a step further to make good hard work derogatory. He claimed only agriculture and warfare were honourable.

[Romulus] appointed slaves and foreigners to exercise those trades that are sedentary and mechanical and promote shameful passions, looking upon them as the destroyers and corruptors both of the bodies and souls of all who practise them; and such trades were for a very long time held in disgrace by the Romans and were carried on by none of the native-born citizens. The only employments he left to free men were two, agriculture and warfare…

Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 2.28.

Official policy certainly didn’t encourage the most efficient use of labour or capital. That was certainly a major problem.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Dave, seems it was always politically advantageous for Romans to have religious posts to enhance their careers, but one christianity came along, there was a total takeover of power by religion....not instantanious, but a gradual process, until you got to the point where there was a position in a religious order that held sway over everyone, regardless of their position.... this is a terrifying power to hold over people, especially simple peasants....let alone over powerful military and aristocratic people.

But I am probably sounding heretical and anti christian here....
we pagans have to beware the mighty church these days....not like the good old days... :roll: :lol:

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Another mistake, I think provocated, is that Cesarion, son of C.I.Caesar and Cleopatra in real history is assassinated during the incursion of Octavian to Alexandria (30 BC) but in Rome HBO goes to Rome with the legionary Titus Pullo.

[Wander]

Part of the problem with the accession of Christianity was that, unlike the others before, it had no tolerance for other gods. So once Constantine made it official, EVERYBODY was expected to convert -- which not only put huge pressure on Romans who liked their traditional gods, but also meant automatic hostility toward (and from) pagan foreigners.

In addition, the Christianity of the time tended to stifle both independent science and independent thought, replacing them with dogma. At least with diverse gods Rome enjoyed a huge diversity of thought. In my (admittedly pagan) opinion this dogmatic result was a major cause of the intellectual stifling of the Dark Ages. (Not specifically a Roman problem, but a major post-Roman consequence.)

[sonic]

I think that part of the problem with Christianity was that in a way it made people 'opt-out' of Roman society. The early, pagan senators etc wanted to have the authority and respect that came with many pagan appointments - especially, of course, that of Pontifex Maximus. However, once inaugurated, they were still expected to live a life dedicated to the state, including serving in the armed forces and other, non-military duties.

However, becoming a Christian bishop etc resulted in that individual being taken out of the mainstream public life and forced only to serve God. In this way, many individuals who would have helped stave off the decline of Rome through their martial or civil abilities - one example being Ambrose of Milan, who forced hhe emperor Theodosius to do penance - were sidetracked and their services, on the whole, lost.

It is this dogmatic, restrictive side to Christianity that was - and still is - one of its greatest faults.

[M. Demetrius]

Well, this isn't the forum where a Christian can come to the defense of the Church, and in fact, many of the things described so far are the very things that I personally oppose about the "Early Church", and I'm a Christian.

I'm sure there were other religious groups and orders that were totally intolerant of those who believed differently...Nebuchadnezzar's attempted roasting of some Jewish prisoners, for example. Thousands of Christians crucified (Nero's Garden Party, anyone?) condemned to die in the arena by weapon or wild beasts, Egyptians were known to execute those who refused to recognize Pharoah as divine, etc. Sorry, friends, but none of that sounds particularly tolerant to me, but I'm just who I am.

No doubt we've crossed the line, now that the line has been drawn. I banish myself from the conversation lest I follow along in the usual path and it degenerates into another anti-Christian argument.

[Wander]

Well, despite my pagan affiliations, I certainly didn't want to lead this into an anti-Christian tirade. That's why I initially didn't address the comment about Christianity, and also why I was careful to address "the Christianity of the time" -- which was significantly different from modern Christianity.

Hey, some of my best friends are Christians.

And your point about intolerance is well made, though I will point out the difference of exclusivity: in many cases Christians -- and sometimes Jews -- were persecuted for refusing to acknowledge the divinity of a god, someone else's god. In essence, it's a statement that, "Our god is real, yours is fake." Most of those persecuting simply wanted an acknowledgement, and they weren't trying to say the god of the Jews/Christians wasn't real. The Romans were usually very liberal about accepting other gods -- Greek, Egyptian, Etruscan, more -- usually they'd just give them a Latinized name and put up a temple somewhere.

The attitude that, "Your gods are not real," can only be taken as an attack on someone's faith, and that's what caused the resentment.

Of course, there was that little thing about Nero blaming Christians for the fire of 64, and their apocalyptic preaching didn't help matters -- it sounded like they were just cheering for Rome to fall, hoping it would usher in the Kingdom of God. Kinda like my mother's faith now...

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

problem

1: turning Christian.
2: not being able to get rid of the slave society.
3: not being able to secure the borders due to misuse of finances.

M.VIB.M.

[Timotheus]

Well, despite my pagan affiliations, I certainly didn't want to lead this into an anti-Christian tirade. That's why I initially didn't address the comment about Christianity, and also why I was careful to address "the Christianity of the time" -- which was significantly different from modern Christianity.

Hey, some of my best friends are Christians.

And your point about intolerance is well made, though I will point out the difference of exclusivity: in many cases Christians -- and sometimes Jews -- were persecuted for refusing to acknowledge the divinity of a god, someone else's god. In essence, it's a statement that, "Our god is real, yours is fake." Most of those persecuting simply wanted an acknowledgement, and they weren't trying to say the god of the Jews/Christians wasn't real. The Romans were usually very liberal about accepting other gods -- Greek, Egyptian, Etruscan, more -- usually they'd just give them a Latinized name and put up a temple somewhere.

The attitude that, "Your gods are not real," can only be taken as an attack on someone's faith, and that's what caused the resentment.

Of course, there was that little thing about Nero blaming Christians for the fire of 64, and their apocalyptic preaching didn't help matters -- it sounded like they were just cheering for Rome to fall, hoping it would usher in the Kingdom of God. Kinda like my mother's faith now...

It may seem like a small point but I can see people being more tolerant of their Gods being laughed at then having them being denied completely.

I can say haha you worship Bubba your a goof and you may just decide I am an ignorant fool.

Now if I go further and instead say haha you worship Bubba, he doesnt even exist only my God Ferd exists and your much more inclined I would bet to stick your favorite knife in me.

[Wander]

HA! Bubba can kick Ferd's butt any time!

But that doesn't mean Ferd isn't real.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Well we have a smoker's church in Holland these days because of the ban on smoking in all cafes, and that group wants to get a court sentence to make their religion a legal one.

LOL

i have no problems with religions i have problems with any and all isms..

M.VIB.M.

[Timotheus]

Not so much priests in rome, but every general who saw the power lay in the religious posts.........and so on.....it's just fact , nothing to get upset about, after all priests are just people, not gods....and they were prone to all the weaknesses of man.

Hard to say.

One example, when Atilla attacked the Western Roman Empire he started by sieging several Roman cities to the north of the Roman capital.

What did the Pope Leo the First do? He sent word to the sieged cities that they had offended God and must return to full loyalty to God (ie fall in line with the Pope) or die.

[sonic]

Well, this isn't the forum where a Christian can come to the defense of the Church, and in fact, many of the things described so far are the very things that I personally oppose about the "Early Church", and I'm a Christian.

I agree. Although not religious myself, in that I don't follow a particular deity, my comments were concerning the fact that becoming a Christian bishop took you out of the cursus honorum and so made you unavailable for other service to the state. I was not intending to attack Christianity for itself!

I'm sure there were other religious groups and orders that were totally intolerant of those who believed differently...Nebuchadnezzar's attempted roasting of some Jewish prisoners, for example. Thousands of Christians crucified (Nero's Garden Party, anyone?) condemned to die in the arena by weapon or wild beasts, Egyptians were known to execute those who refused to recognize Pharoah as divine, etc. Sorry, friends, but none of that sounds particularly tolerant to me, but I'm just who I am.

Tolerance is not something that religions tend to be good at, mainly because people who worship other God(s) tend to be seen as different, and therefore alien and only worthy of denigration.

The only 'exception' that springs to mind in the West is early Islam, where Jews and Christians were seen as followers of 'The Book' and so tolerated.

No doubt we've crossed the line, now that the line has been drawn. I banish myself from the conversation lest I follow along in the usual path and it degenerates into another anti-Christian argument.

I hope not. I find anti-Christian/Pagan/Islamic/Buddhist/Shintoist/Sikhist etc rants and raves to be extremely annoying, as well as separatist. When I answered the post on Christianity and the decline of Rome I was simply listing the negative effects that Christianity had at the time; after all, the thread began about Rome's mistakes and in certain respects Christianity may have been one of them, if only in a political sense.
On the other hand, Christianity changed people's lives and so made them happier and/or more able to cope with the graft and grind of everyday life, so I'm not knocking it on a personal basis!!

Back to the original thread!!

The greatest mistakes made by Rome was to see internal threats as far more dangerous than external ones, and their failure to comprehend - despite previous historical evidence!! - that Empires tend to fall. The result was that 'barbarians' were underestimated, so they tended to waste lives and resources fighting each other, and that they fell into complacency about the survival of the Empire and took few steps to ensure its survival.
[/b]

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

BTW, who exactly is on an anti-christian rant here? Just for clarification....?

I argue the point as I see it as a valid one in this argument, especially from a pagan Roman viewpoint, which is where the success of the Empire
came about.....I don't see that as being anti christian......
more indifferent than anything....

[Wander]

I have to agree with Gaius -- speaking at least for myself, I don't think anyone is trying to attack Christians or Christianity, but rather making an honest attempt to evaluate its effects, both politically and sociologically.

If any of my comments have come off as anti-Christian, please accept my sincere apologies. No such meaning was intended, but it's easy for something like this to be misinterpreted.