[Fwd: Iraq Dispatches: Inside Abu Hanifa mosque during attack]

[James E. Henderson]

Lan Barnes wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:18:34PM -0800, James E. Henderson wrote:
>  
>
>>Lan Barnes wrote:
>>
>>For the time, place and circumstances, the Roman Empire was a good 
>>solution to the developing conditions. As such, I would call it a Good 
>>Idea ... but conditions have changed, making it no longer workable.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I couldn't describe the system that brought forth Nero, Commodus,
>Caligula, and Elagebalus a "good solution", but maybe that's just me.
>  
>
But the Empire survived all of them and went on for a long time after 
they, as minor irritations, had been removed. Gibbon concludes 
Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire by mellowing the 
bloodthirstiness that created and sustained it. Nero, Caligula ('Little 
Boot') and the rest were bloodthirsty enough, as were those who took 
them out. Was Rome better for their coming and their going? I don't 
know. They were troubled times. But Rome survived them and prospered 
after they were gone.

One of my favorite books as a kid was "I, Claudius" by Robert Graves. 
When it was made into a mini-series it became my all-time favorite 
mini-series, even more than the various Horatio Hornblower sets. I just 
wish I could afford to get it so I could watch it all the time.

Robert Graves was my hero, not Claudius. He brought the ancient Greeks 
and Romans to life in a way that nobody else I've encountered ever has. 
Exposure to Graves would be enough to make me doubt the simplistic 
explanation of Gibbons as more than part of the cause of the Empire's 
downfall. Whatever caused a social phenomenon that had lasted nearly 
three millennia to come apart was not simple or easy to explain, but it 
should be interesting.



James