Beware the fall of Rome...

[cannon_fodder]

I'll try to translate for you IP:

1) Rome had very few historians.

Roman historians abound.  Not to mention most politicians and even some soldiers kept journals that survive.  Following (envying) the Greek state, it was highly literate and well documented.  Though the earlier periods not as much as the later.

2) The Roman Republic lasted from 400-300bc.  The Empire took over with Caesar in 44 BC.  The time in between is apparently anarchy because "immigrants got citizenship."

The republican form of government lasted up UNTIL Caesar, about 450 years.  Or twice as long as our little streak.  Immigrants and the conquered were frequently granted citizenship throughout the existence of the Roman state.

3) " Caesar was murdered by a conspiracy supposedly by the senate."

By supposedly I guess he means "In broad daylight during a public session of the Senate."  It is well documented by both conspirators, the praetorian guard, historians (Suetonius, Eutropius, as well as Plutarch) as well as bystanders (notably Cicero) document the same event.  It is a fact that he was publicly murdered by more than 40 senators.

4) Nero might have been mad.

Nero was certainly mad to some extent.  He was probably not the horrible tyrant he is made out to be, but he was surely not a good leader.  The persecution of Christians was a matter of convenience (common enemy).

5) On the bright side, Rome was the most brutal civilization...

I think this is sarcasm.  Not sure.  In any event, its not entirely a true statement.  Rome did little in the field of brutality that other nation states failed to do.  IN other words, their brutality was par for the course.

6) Turning to Sports and Orgy's

I think he just likes this phrase.  He used it against the Greek a while back.  I'm thinking he correlates sports and orgy's with the fall of an empire.  In spite of the importance of both throughout the history of the Empire.  Perhaps he just means excess?  Not sure here, that's my guess.

7) Putting lead in their coins.

"I had modern economics and want the gold standard back."  Since Rome always used the gold standard, I'm not sure why the correlation really is here.  Not to mention Rome had strict laws about currency tampering, adding lead was strictly against the law as the only value of the money was in the metal - not the intrinsic economic value.  Read: Rome did not "lead down" their gold coins.  

The alloy of lead and gold is a soft mushy one.  Not suitable for the making of a coin.  Sometimes Roman silver has lead, since lead is a byproduct of the smelting process it was not Sterling pure.

Also, as a side note.  Rome suffered from the gold standard.  Whenever they completed a great conquest or where paid great bounty, the economy collapsed into a barter system.  The influx of gold caused mass inflation - success brought failure. Also, in times of foreign campaigns the expenditure of funds caused a shortage of coins... again leading to barter since they could not get coins to trade with.  The empire eventually realized it needed to spend the plunder to employ people and slowly release it into the economy (read central bank like).  Funny how even int he gold standard the government controlled the money supply or faced disaster.


- how'd I do?

[iplaw]

I'm still trying to figure out how a word of that relates to the US today...which is what he/she/it was saying.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm just a translator, not an interpretor.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'm just a translator, not an interpretor.

Well then...kudos on a job......done.  I think we all wonder what shadows is trying to say half the time.  It's amazing how clear (even though often incorrect) shadows is in other forum areas, but for some reason he/she/it speaks in quatrains when posting the political section...

[shadows]

The history by journal's were written by a person, like the posts made on this thread, often records only those thing in sight of the writer.  Because of the lack of historians, the writing of Shakespeare shows the gathering of history of the empire long after it had expired.  Because of the various sparingly recording of their history many assumptions have been made by many writers.  It is obvious we are not reading the same text.

I would assume that when it was written all roads lead to Rome, that were lined with the crosses, where the executed were nailed onto them, to rot as a warning to the enemies of the Rome coming down the roads, was a very brutal act.

Gold being the most pliable metal known that can be hammered in sheets as thin as paper would require other metals to be mixed with it in order to make coins.

In looking at the new "VISUAL HISTORY OF THE WORLD" who National Geographic has published, [foreword by Douglas Brinkley] "The monarchy was abolished around 470 B.C. and the Roman Republic was founded."   The use the middle of the 5th century B.C. which should have been the about in the last three quarters of the 5th century.

He writes "As early as 327-326 B.C. there were departures from the annuity in times of crisis" I believe this could be used as in the first quarter of the 4th century the republic started to degenerate.  

It was the Jew who recorded the events of the ministry of Jesus and the events of his death, not the Romans.

The relationship of the events of the Romans and USA are quoted at the beginning of this thread.    

[cannon_fodder]

Your turn IP, translation...