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

[James E. Henderson]

Lan Barnes wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 09:29:36PM -0800, James E. Henderson wrote:
>  
>
>>Lan Barnes wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I would hope for more from a government that was "thriving" than
>constant civil wars, military coups, and foreign incursions. Rome was a
>mess for its last 300 years. I don't want to live in a mess. I doubt if
>the citizens of the empire did, either.
>
>  
>
Yes, Rome was unhealthy for the last ten percent of its lifetime ... but 
it was a long life, considering either the Republic or Empire. It took 
them from the late bronze / early iron age to the Renaissance, from a 
time of lunar calendars almost to the age of science.

Rome lasted a long time and change came more slowly during its reign 
than it does now, but Rome saw tremendous technological and social 
changes being made. Starting as a city of cutthroats and bandits, after 
a couple of centuries it suddenly reached out and conquered all of 
Italy, then expanded to form a nation that stretched from France / 
Germany to Africa and the Middle East. Surviving the invention of Islam, 
it invented Christianity, which may have contributed to its dissolution.

There were a few nut cases along the way. It would be surprising if 
there hadn't been. We've had our own nut cases, haven't we? (You may 
submit your own list of candidates.)

>>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.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed on Graves. His Greek mythology opened my adolescent eyes to the
>dynamics of religion (and human sexuality). Too hot for Masterpiece
>Theater, I suspect.
>
>"I, Claudius" is probably a lot more romantic about Claudius' reign and
>abilities than the actual man justified.
>  
>
Claudius was the arch-typical absent-minded professor of history, 
bumbling his way unharmed through the minefield of intrigue set by some 
really nasty people, particularly his grandmother. He didn't do much as 
emperor but surviving as long as he did to fall into the office of 
emperor almost by accident when Caligula was deposed was a genuine 
accomplishment. Not minding seeming to be a fool helped, too, but he had 
a lot going for his foolishness, with the stuttering and the lame foot 
and all.

For the clownish Claudius to __become__ emperor was more significant 
than anything he did as emperor.

>Being a Georgist, I blame neither the political amorality, the predatory
>professional army, not Christianity for the fall of Rome, although all
>had their place. As the primary cause, I see the collapse of individual
>Roman moral strength as a result of the concentration or wealth and more
>specifically land ownership. The latifundia ruined Rome.
>
>http://www.personal.kent.edu/~bkharvey/roman/texts/latifund.htm
>
>  
>
The Romans were never so much morally strong as they were puritanical, 
giving lip service to good behavior while engaging in a variety of 
deviant behaviors, always punishing the weak or innocent in favor of the 
strong. As with so many of our modern Muslims, rape or infidelity was 
always the woman's fault rather than the man's. That was not really 
meant to pick on Muslims. I could have selected many similar 
contemporary groups, such as the Soviets, but a lot of us are presently 
familiar with the situation prevailing in Muslim lands.

One possible reason for the recent rise in popularity of Wicca is that 
it promotes gender equality. With that in mind, I'll leave you with 
their typical salutation:


Blessed be,
James