Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 00:18:26 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Chad" <> Subject: Profile of Herod, King of Judah I read a profile of Herod, King of Judah (37-4 BCE) that I thought was interesting from the perspective of a Roman ruler in a foreign land. According to JEWISH LITERACY, by Joseph Telushkin, Herod "succeeded in having the Roman Senate appoint him king of Judea. . . . He inaugurated his regime by murdering forty-five members of the Jewish high court. . . He murdered his first wife ... and their two sons. Later, he executed Antipater, a son from a different marriage, impelling the Roman emperor Augustus to observe: 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" He also beautified and expanded the Second Temple, rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, created the new port city of Caesarea, which became the Roman capital of Palestine. When Herod died, Augustus divided his kingdom among three of Herod's sons. Archelaus, who was awarded Judea, failed so totally that Augustus subsequently banished him. From then on, Rome ruled Judea directly, through procurators. JEWISH LITERACY, by Joseph Telushkin, pp. 124-125 ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:52:33 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott <> Subject: Cleopatra's Children I was part of a spirited discussion on Roman History this last week-end following a full day of skiing and a couple hours of $2 Margarita's. The question of Cleopatra having a child with Julius Caesar came up. I didn't see this in any of the reading, though the extended trip up and down the Nile was the perfect oppourtunity for #@!#&? (if you know what I mean.) Anyone have any info on this? ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 09:57:52 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Re: Cleopatra's Children > > I was part of a spirited discussion on Roman History this last week-end > following a full day of skiing and a couple hours of $2 Margarita's. The > question of Cleopatra having a child with Julius Caesar came up. I didn't see > this in any of the reading, though the extended trip up and down the Nile was > the perfect oppourtunity for #@!#&? (if you know what I mean.) Anyone have any > info on this? > Hi Scott, I read an article on the following net site; http://pharos.bu.edu/Egypt/Alexandria/History/cleo.html It has the following information, "In the summer of 47 BC, having married her younger brother Ptolemy XIV, Cleopatra and Caesar embarked for a two month on a trip along the Nile, aboard a legendary boat. Together, they visited Dendara, where Cleoptara was being worshipped as Pharaoh, an honor beyond Caesar's reach. They became lovers, and indeed, she bore him a son, Caesarion." Hope this helps. Mike ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:23:43 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank < > Subject: The Empire - The Fall When analyzing the decline of the Roman Empire one must look at the Empire itself and how it came about. This naturally, leads to analysis of the Republic and it's collapse. It can be stated that the very reasons the Republic collapsed, were the opposite reasons by which the Empire collapsed. In other words, the Republic collapsed because the Empire came into being. The fact that the Empire could not maintain its existence (the ideas and concepts that brought it to fruition) were it's downfall. Since I have stated my conclusion first I will attempt to explain my reasoning. I know we have already discussed the Republic; however, a brief highlight shows that the process to an Empire was a series of transitional steps. It basically begins with the Roman Revolution (133 BCE), into Sulla's dictatorship (80 BCE), followed by Caesar's command (49 BCE) and culminating with Octavian's supremacy (29 BCE). We can see that through this period (especially from the First Triumvirate to Augustus' rule) there was a consolidating of the concepts needed to transition from a Republic to the Empire. One of the main principles was the increasing role of the professional military and the need to maintain that military for political power. Suffice it to say, a strong, content military was necessary to maintain the Empirical powers of the various leaders; something the Republic did not provide. So we ask: Why then did the Empire fall? Considering the end as the time during the barbarian invasions of 407 - 417 we know several things were still in place.* There was still a belief in and obedience to the monarchy. The military technology was at least matching that of the invaders and it still had a population large enough to field a large force. So why the fall? It appears, particular defeats are almost uniformly attributable to the "rottenness of government," that "rendered soldiers undisciplined, untrained, frequently on leave, and without good morale or proper equipment." Soldiers went unpaid because of abuses in the collection and delivery of supplies and money from taxpayers. They became distracted from their duties by their own and their officer's abuses. For the same basic reason, "abuse of power wielded through service in the army or bureaucracy," the city administrations "no longer enjoyed the efforts of the urban elite." These administrators fled to some post or title that was in fact exempt. Finally, the corrective measure needed against these systemic weaknesses could not be developed by enlightened men. The very fact the Roman military was so disciplined (the stand against Hannibal's charge of elephants in Carthage), well taken care of - Patron/client relationship (Pompey's insistence on land for his men) and extreme loyalty (Caesar's march into Gaul and on Rome); created the Empire. All these factors were lacking in the end and the Empire could not be sustained. It can be seen from these points (which I have summarized from the Theodosian Code) that an empire that could not deliver to a point of need "...all the defensive force it still possessed, could not well stand against the enemy..."at its door. * There appears to be some debate as to when the fall occurred, not the least of which was presented by Dr. Knox. I have seen readings using the fall of literature, the Greek Revival, the rise of Diocletian and others as the "fall." I use this time, since all the events necessary to allow the end to occur, were in place. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 15:09:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Irene <> Subject: Re: Roman Constitution Teresa said exactly what I was thinking. One of the primary reasons why the Republic failed was because they didn't actually make their constitution concrete. They didn't have a base on which to build their republic. Not necessarily one set of rules but something that they can always fall back on. Our founding fathers were geniuses as far as making a set constitu- tion that can be continuously amended as times change. Another thing that contributed to the fall of the Repub- lic was the fact that the government was primarily made up of the wealthy and prominent families (chambers p.93). The Greeks made a wise move during the "Age of Pericles", by developing a system in which even the average citizen could participate in politics. The political system that the Romans devised, excluded the average citizen from making the decisions that would affect their lives. I believe that this built a gap between the patricians and the plebeians that could be appeased, but not bridged. The patricians were in control, but the plebeians made up the army. Their desire to have a say-so and flat out numbers threatened the patricians control. The patricians were able to persuade the plebeians by giving them priviledges but the plebeians desire for equality put a tension into things. Jeremiah T. ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 19:23:35 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank < Subject: Augustus vs. Diocletian In comparing the reforms of Augustus and Diocletian we must, invariably, compare the two leaders. It can be said that Augustus founded the Roman Empire while Diocletian ended it (or better yet Octavian was the first Roman Emperor and Diocletian was the last.) It would be prudent to compare the life of the two men. Octavian was the adoptive son of Julius Caesar. Born of a prosperous family in 63 BCE, he made his oratory debut at the age of 12. Diocletian, on the other hand, was the son of an emancipated slave (scribe) and entered the emperorship through force from the shadows of the army. Several major changes were instituted by the individual men and they were as different as the outcome of the Empire itself. Octavian realized (from the outcome of his father's assassination) that the governing class would welcome him as the terminator of civil war only if he concealed his autocracy beneath provisions harking back to the republican traditions. Diocletian however, openly proclaimed himself emperor and eliminated his rivals (Aper and Numerian.) Augustus was emperor of the entire Empire, while Diocletian "...possessed real power only in those countries that were dominated by his army. Some of the largest differences were in the Empire itself. Augustus, in association with Tiberius, provided many administrative innovations. He annexed Judaea, established at Rome a fire brigade with police duties [supplemented later by a regular police force (cohortes urbanae)], created a military treasury to defray soldier's retirements from taxes and created a permanent prefect in the city. Diocletian also instituted programs of domestic reform. He systematized arrangements in such a way that all his "...reforms led toward a kind of centralized and absolute monarchy that put effective means of action at his disposal." Administration relied less on individuals and more on the application of legal texts. He reorganized the army and brought back the old discipline. He instituted price controls and levied income and property taxes (capitatio and jugum.) Octavian had the effect of greatly expanding the Empire while Diocletian (while stabilizing) had the effect of shrinking the Empire. Augustus created a peaceful condition that saw Rome flourish in unprecedented fashion. Commerce was greatly stimulated by his reforms and expansion of the Roman coinage. Diocletian's reforms had just the opposite effect. While the Empire was at peace, he created (without premeditation) the bureaucracy and technocracy that was to muddle her resources. One important thing did occur under both men's leadership - peace. Turmoil was halted. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 19:41:27 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Darin < > Subject: Re: The Empire Forgive me if my comments are redundant of other's comments, I've been literally blind and deaf the past two weeks due to computer problems... Anyway, it is very intriguing to me when considering the fall of the Roman empire, especially with the correlations with our current society. The shortage of silver which spawned a hesitancy for people to use it which in turn slowed the economy (sounds familiar). The free bread and entertainment within the large cities in which the people lost a work ethic and desire because toils weren't worth the efforts needed when sustanance could be achieved without the effort. Currently our society is struggling with the number of those who are working and those who are receiving benefits from the government. This subject has been on the campaigning lips of politicians (both local and national) the recent elections. I know that comparing our society is dangerous or sometimes not exactly correct, but the similarities between the course of the Roman empire and our U.S. government's current course frightens me when I look at the two together. Again forgive me if this has been mentioned before, I got my computer up and running again today. ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 18:08:40 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Nancy <> Subject: Caesar's Time of Death Item Subject: cc:Mail Text This may be a petty issue but in my reading of Caesar's assassination, I find a conflict of what time of day it actually took place. According to "ANCIENT ROME" by Robert Payne, p. 151, "It was just after *eleven o'clock in the morning* when he stepped into the portico to receive the salutes of the senators, who rose to greet him. A moment later Lucius Tillius Cimber approached him to plead that his brother be recalled from exile. Caesar refused to listen to him; Cimber insisted, and as he did so the other conspirators gathered round, pressing themselves against Caesar, completely surrounding him. Twenty-three dagger thrusts felled him at the foot of Pompey's statue." According to "JULIUS CAESAR" by Jacob Abbott, p. 261, "*It was in the afternoon, the time for the meeting of the senators having been fixed at five o'clock*. p. 268...and soon fell under the wounds which he received." Some of the quotes about what those around him said were not exactly the same either. I also noticed that Skip even disagreed with Chambers on a certain point. Is this common for historians to have "different stories"? Is it a matter of interpretation or different accounts of historical events that causes historians to conflict? Nancy ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:18:23 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Linda T." <> Subject: Response - Religion in Roman Gov't Skip said, >Don't confuse the Empire with the Republic! There were Christians already in >Rome when Paul arrived there in the 50s AD, so one can hardly blame the >Christians for the fall of the Republic. And since Christianity was in the >capitol from the very early days, it's a bit hard to blame the religion for >the fall of the Empire, some four centuries later. This is not a contradiction, only a question. I do wonder about the role of Christianity in the decline of the Empire. Per the text, p. 134, "historians must take into account upheavals in ideas and faith...the new religion Christianity, may have weakened the defenses of the Empire." In a world where common people were feeling oppressed and the lowest of low, Christianity offerred at least, spiritual equality. Wouldn't this have been a reason why people must have felt much less eager to battle on behalf of Rome making it much easier for the barbarians to conquer? ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:26:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: The Annals of Imperial Rome Linda T. said, >The Annals of Imperial Rome (assigned reading), provides an interesting story >about the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, during the reign of the emperor Nero. Which gives me an excuse to recommend another book/movie, Quo Vadis. The book is a good read and gives an even more extended account of the great fire. The movie version dates from the 1950s, is shot in glorious Technicolor, and has a wonderful rendition of Nero by Peter Ustinov. The look and the storyline are pure Hollywood, but it was, to borrow a more modern phrase, "based on a true story." = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Walk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 21:06:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: John <> Subject: Greek exibit Just wanted to let you know that the art exibit at the Boise arts museum Nancy K. wrote earlier about, is well worth the $3.00. Plan to spend about 2 hours minimum to read all the descriptions on all the artifacts. There is also a 20 minuite video that is really well done. Do not make the mistake I did, and take your 3 year old. I have to go back to read the things I missed and watch the video uninterrupted. The effect of the pieces is incredible and you can really see the culture through the art. The museum also helps us see the transitions in the Greek states from artful and culture oriented to a war and battle ravaged society. Two thumbs up Also make you wonders just how many stone carvers, masons, and sculptors there were. John ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:12:57 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank Subject: Re: Response - Religion in Roman Gov't At 08:18 PM 2/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >Skip said, >>Don't confuse the Empire with the Republic! There were Christians already in >>Rome when Paul arrived there in the 50s AD, so one can hardly blame the >>Christians for the fall of the Republic. And since Christianity was in the >>capitol from the very early days, it's a bit hard to blame the religion for >>the fall of the Empire, some four centuries later. > >This is not a contradiction, only a question. I do wonder about the role of >Christianity in the decline of the Empire. Per the text, p. 134, "historians >must take into account upheavals in ideas and faith...the new religion >Christianity, may have weakened the defenses of the Empire." In a world >where common people were feeling oppressed and the lowest of low, >Christianity offerred at least, spiritual equality. Wouldn't this have been >a reason why people must have felt much less eager to battle on behalf of >Rome making it much easier for the barbarians to conquer? > I do agree with Linda to some degree but on the whole I feel there was little influence in the actual fall of the Empire. It is true that by the second century CE, there was a wide "...distrust of the Christians" due to their "...detachment and reluctance to serve in the imperial service and in the army." Since the Empire needed Loyal military men and administrators this may have aided in the demise. However, much of this distrust was caused by gossip and falacy. They were accused of secret vices "...such as eating murdered infants (due to the secrecy surrounding the Lord's Supper and the use of the words body and blood) and sexual promiscuity (due to the practice of Christians calling each other 'brother' or 'sister'...." They were used as scapegoats at various times (Nero in 64CE), by Valerian (257-259CE) and by Diocletian (303). One important point is the Christians enjoyed periods of calm and even brotherhood with Empirical powers. From 261 to 303 the church prospered while the "...Empire suffered external attack, internal sedition and rampant inflation." While some may attempt to associate the Fall with the Christians (those citizens of Rome during that era were probably in that group); their true impact was to influence the things to come (not cause their coming.) Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 04:45:44 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: The Fall of the Republic Skip writes: >Finally, is this the right question to ask? Is the Roman Revolution the >story of class struggle? Patricians vs plebians? Rich vs poor? I don't feel that the Roman Revolution was a story of class struggle totally. Sure, there was a lot of class struggle going on as there always has been. I think that it was more of a power struggle between the patricians (Senate) and the ruler of Rome. Take Caesar and Pompey for example. The Senate "drew Pompey into their camp" (Chambers) to keep Caesar from gaining too much popularity with the masses. Pompey was supposed to defeat Caesar in the Battle of Pharsalus. From this it seems that it could have been a class struggle, but the Senate always wanted the upper hand and not to have a ruler who was too powerful. Cindy ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 05:22:13 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Religion in Roman Gov't >Its a good point about the role religion might have played in the fall >of the Roman empire. Looks like Christianity came along at the >perfect time. Would Christianity have spread so quickly and draw so >many people had it come earlier to Rome? I liked this question from Mike and so thought I'd try to tackle it. I think that the people of Rome were at their wits ends when Christianity came about. Also, I wonder if they were not starting to doubt some of their own beliefs and religious practices. Under "Social Conditions and Decline" in Chambers (p. 132-133) it states that the citizens were very depressed because of the way that the rulers were forcing "absolute coercion" upon them, "stifling initiative and making the lower classes apathetic and resentful". It was very uplifting to have some hope at the end of their tunnel and this is what Christianity gave them. Cindy ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 22:46:39 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: Response -- religion in Roman Government Linda posted the following, in part: [snip] I do wonder about the role of Christianity in the decline of the Empire. Per the text, p. 134, "historians must take into account upheavals in ideas and faith...the new religion Christianity, may have weakened the defenses of the Empire." [snip] My feeling is that the "upheavals in ideas and faith" which paved the way for Christianity also paved the way for the Empire's demise. . . it was obviously a multitude of factors at work, but the social changes allowed both to come about without one having a direct impact on the other. ========================== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:14:01 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: The Empire In moving toward the 5th century as Skip suggests, I am pondering why and how the Eastern Empire survived for another thousand years after the so-called fall of the Western Empire in circa 476 (Chambers 132). The text goes on to examine some differences between the East and West as reasons for the Western demise but says little about how the Eastern Empire survived and in what form. Should I hold these thoughts for the upcoming units or can Skip offer any previews (or postviews, as it were)? ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 07:58:39 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank Subject: Re: The Empire At 11:14 PM 2/21/96 -0700, you wrote: The >text goes on to examine some differences between the East and West as >reasons for the Western demise but says little about how the Eastern Empire >survived and in what form. The Eastern Empire was heir to the Hellenistic civilization, a mixing of Greek and Middle Eastern elements dating back to Alexander the Great. It was more commercial, more urban and far richer than her sister West. The Emperors, who in Hellenistic fashion combined political and religious functions, had firmer control over all classes of society. Byzantium was also more skillful in fending off invaders, through a combination of warfare and diplomacy. Her Emperors, who still considered themselves Romans, continually nurished the dream of subduing the western barbarians and reuniting the Empire. Byzantine Christianity was more "mystical and more liturgical" than Roman Christianity and because of the region, far less unified. The sweeping success of the Arabs in 632 was in large part because of this disunity. Although large parts of the empire was lost, sweeping changes occured which strengthened the remnants. New administrative units were introduced along with "...a system of military land grants and hereditary service that ensured an adequate supply of soldiers." Sound familiar - no matter where you go there you are. The shrinking of the Empire actually strengthened its economy by allowing greater freedom to merchants and agriculture. It created a new landed class that was to contribute to the dynastic struggles for the throne. By 1054 the schism within the church caused further alienation from Rome. In the late 11th century Alexius sought outside help to stop feudalization of the Empire - it was the first of the concessions. It ended in 1453. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 08:06:48 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank Subject: Re: The Empire At 11:14 PM 2/21/96 -0700, you wrote: The >text goes on to examine some differences between the East and West as >reasons for the Western demise but says little about how the Eastern Empire >survived and in what form. The Eastern Empire was heir to the Hellenistic civilization, a mixing of Greek and Middle Eastern elements dating back to Alexander the Great. It was more commercial, more urban and far richer than her sister West. The Emperors, who in Hellenistic fashion combined political and religious functions, had firmer control over all classes of society. Byzantium was also more skillful in fending off invaders, through a combination of warfare and diplomacy. Her Emperors, who still considered themselves Romans, continually nurished the dream of subduing the western barbarians and reuniting the Empire. Byzantine Christianity was more "mystical and more liturgical" than Roman Christianity and because of the region, far less unified. The sweeping success of the Arabs in 632 was in large part because of this disunity. Although large parts of the empire was lost, sweeping changes occured which strengthened the remnants. New administrative units were introduced along with "...a system of military land grants and hereditary service that ensured an adequate supply of soldiers." Sound familiar - no matter where you go there you are. The shrinking of the Empire actually strengthened its economy by allowing greater freedom to merchants and agriculture. It created a new landed class that was to contribute to the dynastic struggles for the throne. By 1054 the schism within the church caused further alienation from Rome. In the late 11th century Alexius sought outside help to stop feudalization of the Empire - it was the first of the concessions. It ended in 1453. Frank Frank W. Frank W. ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 08:24:08 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank Subject: The Empire - The Fall When analyzing the decline of the Roman Empire one must look at the Empire itself and how it came about. This naturally, leads to analysis of the Republic and it's collapse. It can be stated that the very reasons the Republic collapsed, were the opposite reasons by which the Empire collapsed. In other words, the Republic collapsed because the Empire came into being. The fact that the Empire could not maintain its existence (the ideas and concepts that brought it to fruition) were it's downfall. Since I have stated my conclusion first I will attempt to explain my reasoning. I know we have already discussed the Republic; however, a brief highlight shows that the process to an Empire was a series of transitional steps. It basically begins with the Roman Revolution (133 BCE), into Sulla's dictatorship (80 BCE), followed by Caesar's command (49 BCE) and culminating with Octavian's supremacy (29 BCE). We can see that through this period (especially from the First Triumvirate to Augustus' rule) there was a consolidating of the concepts needed to transition from a Republic to the Empire. One of the main principles was the increasing role of the professional military and the need to maintain that military for political power. Suffice it to say, a strong, content military was necessary to maintain the Empirical powers of the various leaders; something the Republic did not provide. So we ask: Why then did the Empire fall? Considering the end as the time during the barbarian invasions of 407 - 417 we know several things were still in place.* There was still a belief in and obedience to the monarchy. The military technology was at least matching that of the invaders and it still had a population large enough to field a large force. So why the fall? It appears, particular defeats are almost uniformly attributable to the "rottenness of government," that "rendered soldiers undisciplined, untrained, frequently on leave, and without good morale or proper equipment." Soldiers went unpaid because of abuses in the collection and delivery of supplies and money from taxpayers. They became distracted from their duties by their own and their officer's abuses. For the same basic reason, "abuse of power wielded through service in the army or bureaucracy," the city administrations "no longer enjoyed the efforts of the urban elite." These administrators fled to some post or title that was in fact exempt. Finally, the corrective measure needed against these systemic weaknesses could not be developed by enlightened men. The very fact the Roman military was so disciplined (the stand against Hannibal's charge of elephants in Carthage), well taken care of - Patron/client relationship (Pompey's insistence on land for his men) and extreme loyalty (Caesar's march into Gaul and on Rome); created the Empire. All these factors were lacking in the end and the Empire could not be sustained. It can be seen from these points (which I have summarized from the Theodosian Code) that an empire that could not deliver to a point of need "...all the defensive force it still possessed, could not well stand against the enemy..."at its door. * There appears to be some debate as to when the fall occurred, not the least of which was presented by Dr. Knox. I have seen readings using the fall of literature, the Greek Revival, the rise of Diocletian and others as the "fall." I use this time, since all the events necessary to allow the end to occur, were in place. Frank ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:18:02 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Chad" <> Subject: Attitude of Senate/wealthy landowners in 4th century According to THE ANCIENT STATE, the typical 4th century "great" landowner was aristocratic, senatorial, traditionalist, and anti-oriental. They were very loyal to their own class rather than the nation as a whole. "In the Senate they called loudly for arms to defend civilization - when no personal sacrifice was involved; and when the barbarians were at the gates they spent their time not in meeting the foe but in hysterical attacks on possible subversives. When one considers the magnificently planned and executed defensive installations of the frontier, 'one cannot keep from being amazed,' say Diehl and Marcais, 'that they were not more effective than they were, and that this closely-knit network of skillfully deployed fortresses let the invaders pass through it so many times.' "This grim defect is attributed to the economies of the government, which, while giving away enormous wealth to individuals, so reduced the personnel of the border forces that 'the strong places, badly manned, were simply forgotten, often without garrisons,' and to the low morale and frequent desertions of the underpaid soldiers who remained." pp 215-216 I was particularly interested in the description of the elaborate defensive network that existed around Rome. To me, this is one illustration that the fall of the Empire was primarily due to political and social factors rather than military or economic factors. The military and economic problems followed the breakdown of the polical system and the social values. ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:18:04 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Chad" <> Subject: Empire weakened by poor rulers Chambers states that "Tiberius was morbid, suspicious, and vengeful. His successor, Gaius (or Caligula), suffered from insanity. Claudius was gullible and was manipulated by his wives and assistants. Nero was one of the worst emperors . . ." (p. 118) JEWISH LITERACY by Joseph Telushkin contains more details about one aspect of Caligula's reign. It describes Caligula's declaration that he was a deity and his orders to erect his statue in every temple in the Roman Empire. "The Jews, alone in the empire, refused the command; they would not defile God's Temple with a statue of pagan Rome's newest deity. Caligula threatened to destroy the Temple, so a delegation of Jews was sent to pacify him. To no avail. ... Only the emperor's sudden, violent death saved the Jews from wholesale massacre." (p. 134) Compton s Interactive Encyclopedia has this to say about Nero's reign: " The emergence of brutality and derangement in Nero occurred in 59, when he had his mother put to death. Her insanity and fury at him led him to this act. Three years later he had his wife Octavia killed. He also developed extraordinary pretensions as a poet, musician, and actor. He even considered abdicating to devote himself to the arts. He also became preoccupied with the mystery religions of Greece and the Middle East. In 66 he left Rome for 15 months of travel in Greece to further his religious quest. With leaders like these, it's a wonder that the Empire survived through the period following Augustus' reign. ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:50:21 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Environment and the economy Italy did not fair very well during the Republic or Empire. According to our lecture, Hannibal and the Roman army took it's toll on the country side. >The Punic Wars - Page 16 of 18 >Italy itself suffered cruelly in the war. Hannibal spent fourteen years there, >mostly in southern Italy. >During much of this time, both sides ruthlessly burned fields and orchards, slaughtered livestock, and destroyed villages. As the years went by, the steep >hillsides began to lose their topsoil. By war's end, southern Italy was >permanently impoverished. In fact, in our own century, in the 1960s, the >Italian government began to attempt to recover and reclaim the land from >Hannibal, an effort that still goes on fitfully. Hannibal's legacy outlived >Rome itself. On the other hand, according to Chambers (pg. 122/123), "..extensive deforestation and overgrazing led inevitably to erosion of the land and loss of fertile topsoil -- principal reasons for the economic decline of Roman Italy." This occurred due to the vast amounts of firewood required "to keep the Roman baths at comfortable temperatures. Even ancient peoples had the power to injure their enviroments." You think they would have learned from the Punic Wars what will happen if you abuse the land. Of course, modern civilizaton has not learned from mistakes past or present either so maybe this is a mute point. How much did the declining economy really hurt the Empire? I remember reading that Diocletian tried to help the economy or at least fight inflation, but I also read an article that states that Diocletian enjoyed building and re-building magnificient structures at great expense. Besides the political struggles, the economy may have played a greater part in the decline and fall of the empire than we think. Or is that I think? Mike ========================== Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 23:03:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Caesar's Time of Death Nancy K. said, > Is this common for historians to have "different stories"? Is it a > matter of interpretation or different accounts of historical events > that causes historians to conflict? Not uncommon. The different accounts regarding Caesar's time of death are striking because one would think that folks could tell the difference between morning and late afternoon (around 5pm in March the sun's low in the sky). One can take a couple of different routes to try to resolve the differences. The first is to question your sources. Were the accounts from eyewitnesses or from later historians? In this case, both accounts are from later historians. OK, on whom did they base their accounts? Do we have *those* sources? Sometimes it can be determined that account A uses a source known to be unreliable. A second course is to appeal to context. We use our knowledge of the times to try to choose between the conflicting accounts. In this case, I know from other reading that Julius Caesar was at his own home in the early morning and that he planned to go to the Senate that day with Marc Antony. It seems unreasonable that he would go to the Senate in the late afternoon, as the day was growing dark. Also, accounts tell of considerable activity after the actual murder -- the dispersal of the Senators, Antony recovering the body, etc. All this seems to fit the morning scenario better than the afternoon scenario. No, I do not _know_ which version is correct. In a very real sense, we cannot know, in the sense in which we know what time it is, or what color the sky is. I thought I'd take this occasion to explain a bit about how historians work, since Nancy asked such a good question. And, yes, much of what we know about the ancient and medieval worlds we know in this sense, as a weighing of sources, a judicious interpretation that we hope will hold up against the criticism of our peers. It's great fun, and it's one of those things that makes history the best course of study around. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Walk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 01:05:47 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Re: Empire weakened by poor rulers At 09:18 PM 2/22/96 EST, you wrote: >With leaders like these, it's a wonder that the Empire survived through the >period following Augustus' reign. This is an interesting point. The Empire did survive, that is a fact, but another question would be - WHY? Following Nero's death we saw the "year of the four emperors." There was constant civil war between the different armies. Nero emptied the treasury and by 69 the "...monopoly of the purple for the republican nobility" was ended. So why did it still exist? Well it barely did and it was difficult. As was pointed out, there were other despots that mimicked Nero; however, there were an equal or greater number of "good" rulers. Nerva (96-98) adopted a generally lavish and liberal policy, but failed to win over the soldiers. He did name an outside soldier (bypassing his relatives) to succeed himself and subsided the unrest. Trajan (98-117) was a very good ruler who provided the Empire with internal harmony and carefully planned government. We must remember this was the period of the "five good emperors;" Nerva (96-98), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Pius (138-161) and Aurelius (161-180). It also had the "Antonines;" Pius (138-161), Aurelius (161-180) & Verus (161-169) and Commodus (176-192). This was a good period for the Empire. Following Aurelius' death until the assassination of Commodus the Empire fell into civil war again leading the way for Severus and his dynasty (193-235). The government was turned into a military dictatorship and the next despots (of various degrees of success) came to power. Alexander Severus (222-235) was so weak he once again lowered the Empire's abilities. Maximinus put her back into 5 years of civil war and not until Diocletian (284) was there any sort of order. We have already discussed that his (Diocletian's) actions were those that directly divided the Empire. Not to negate those actions of Constantine in 330, but Diocletian already had the Empire in that direction. I think if we look at Chad's thesis (or statement/question) we can see that it in fact was dying. The Empire had been so strong, that the destruction caused by the "bad" rulers was offset by this strength, a century of good rulers and a few decades of average (not too destructive) rulers. Yet still, the stage was set for the ultimate split and demise. Just a thought. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:44:28 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Greek exibit >From: John <> >Subject: Greek exibit >Also make you wonders just how many stone carvers, masons, and sculptors >there were. John, from my Intro to Art class, I remember my teacher telling us that each civilization had its very own favorite way of expressing themselves. The Romans loved arches and anything having to do with stone, and carving. Cindy ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:04:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: John <> Subject: Fall of the Roman Empire I enjoyed Frank's overview of the collapse and agree with it. However I am curious about one of the underlying causes. First forgive me if this has been covered by someone but the volume of email makes it difficult to scan every message 2 or 3 times to make sure I don't say or ask something thats already gone out. I've got one of those chicken and egg theories that keeps rolling around in my head. Was its the moral decline of the senators and other Roman leaders that leads to the decline of the economy starting back in the republic? Or was it once the Republic/Empire reached its maximum expansion did it just naturally began to entropy, with no more wealth being brought in by the conquest of new territories. Sure there was expansion but the size of the empire(defending it) began to put too heavy of a toll on the coffers. One could argue at the morality of conquest. Chambers recounts many immoral acts by Roman leaders and it all centers around power and wealth. Chambers and Dr, knox stated that many good Senators were killed in battles and by the murder of other Senators, the population could not produce "worthy" leaders or they became more intelligent and would not run hence the forced terms in the 4th century (CE). I tend to believe that it was the greed and immorality that led to their demise. As I look back at one of my reply's to George about the wine in his statement regarding the "bread and Circuses", I believe the dole for the people is an insignifacant amount of money compared to the expense of a war machine. But, every penny adds up. When the decay started is hard to say, but it might be brought all the way back to the Punic Wars. I'm not trying to be evangelical or preachy but the foundation and justification for Roman expansion seems entirely greed oriented. Then we also have to throw in the ideas of self preservation... I guess where I'm going with all this is that it seems that a civilization based on wealth and power is destined to destroy itself. John ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:23:03 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Re: Environment and the economy > How much did the declining economy really hurt the Empire? I remember >reading that Diocletian tried to help the economy or at least fight >inflation, but I also read an article that states that Diocletian enjoyed >building and re-building magnificient structures at great expense. Besides >the political struggles, the economy may have played a greater part in the >decline and fall of the empire than we think. Or is that I think? > >Mike If we look at Edward Gibbon's classic work "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," we can see that Gibbon found the decline to be caused by a "decline from those ideals of political and even more, intellectual freedom." The material decay in Rome was (to him) the effect and symbol of moral decadence, "I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion." We can include or describe "moral decadence" as the wasteful consumption of resources in all forms (and this would fit into Mike's description of the economic contribution.) However, Gibbons, an 18th century agnostic, feels more that it was a loss of intellectual freedom. This declining principle seems to hold true for the West but has drawn considerable criticism when transfer to Byzantium. I tend to agree with the economic principles mentioned by John; however, I have read or am in the process of reading, many accounts which (like Gibbon) tend to stress the literary and/or religious aspects. Just a thought. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:33:30 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott <> Subject: MORE on the Fall of the Roman Empire The quality of the discussion seems to keep improving as the class progresses. I'm learning as much from the discussion as from the reading (thanks folks!) I'm beginning to wonder if the question should have been "How did the Empire last as long as it did?" as the number of possible causes of the Fall continues to grow. Here is one more element we haven't touched on much. Slavery and its effects on the Roman Empire. The number of slaves in the Roman Empire was staggering, of the 7.5 million people in Italy 3 million were slaves (Chamber's pg128.) Much of the economic growth during the early Empire was driven by the number of new slaves being added to the workforce. The slaves were part of the spoils of the Roman conquest. As the conquests slowed, the number of slaves started to decline. This decline was also the result of the slaves not reproducing at a rate to replace the aged and dying brought on by disinterest in passing on their lifestyle to their offspring. This reduction in available workforce forced higher prices for Roman goods allowing non-Roman goods to florish hurting the Roman economy. The slaves were also draw to Christianity driven by the "all men are equal in the eyes of God" ideal. The number of new believers was a big boost for the Christians and very harmful to the Roman status quo. ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 12:31:26 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: The Fall of the Empire Everybody has added rich detail to various aspects of The Fall. . . very = enhancing of our educational process, and I'm really impressed by the = amount of outside research being done and contributed here. It seems obvious to me that no single cause and no single ruler can be = blamed for The Fall -- further complicated by the fact that the = Republic/Empire really fell more than once. It takes many different = factors over many years to bring about the demise of such a vast and = wealthy Empire. For those who have concerns about correlations between the Fall of Rome = and the potential Fall of U.S.A., I would take a more optimistic view = that our society has a much more balanced configuration (yes, even with = voter apathy -- but look at how that is changing!), and this "sharing of = power" can ultimately save us from our own folly. Rome failed to share = (or balance) the power and succumbed to the dictates of the few who = possessed wealth and military strength, and this made the Empire much = more vulnerable to "bad leadership" and failed economics. ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 15:53:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Irene <> Subject: Roman Rule I think that Romes ability to be so successful in its expansion had to do with both its "superior mititary force", and even more, its organization. First of all, when Rome was first expanding throughout Italy, their administration of conquered communities was extremely intelligent. By giving some of the conquered communities full citizenship, they gained the respect and loyalty of the conquered cities. The cities had nothing to lose. In return for their loyalty to Rome, they received protection, an even chance at being involved in Roman politics, and the personal property rights. Rome formed alliances with other communities within Italy that involved Romes protection as long as they supplied troops for the Roman army(p.96 chambers). This organization of communities within Italy allowed the Romans to expand with the the knowledge that there would be few if any revolts from the inside. This also gave them the manpower to defeat the Greeks. Even when the Greek army won a battle, they suffered such heavy losses that in the end the Romans were able to push them back through sheer numbers. Secondly, their military strategy during the Punic wars was very important to their conquests. They were able to double the size of their empire by taking over the empire that Carthage had already built. Every time they took an island from Carthage, the Roman empire would grow stronger and that of the Phoenicians would grow weaker. After they took full control of Carthage in the third Punic war, their empire was so great that they had the absolute manpower to fight any country that they wished. So in conclusion, I believe that the reason that Rome succeeded was at first because of its organization, and then after they controlled Italy, their military force and strategies were the reason for their success. That is my perception of the Roman expansion anyway. Jeremiah T. ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 21:02:35 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Darin <> Your comments were interesting, but what is even more interesting to me is the brilliance of the Romans at conquering a people and allowing them to retain their customs such as religion etc. To me it seems to indicate a strong faith and confidence in the strength of their society to let those that differ to pursue "other" paths than the Roman ideas and beliefs. This practice seems to be the exception rather than the rule in conquering other peoples (even today). Most would have destroyed all remnants of other gods and cultures and would have forbidden their pursuance when conquering a new land. I feel that this led to Rome's rapid increase in power and strengethened or solidified control over others by giving them at least what they perceive to be their own identity. (Such as the Jews, and finally the Christians) ========================== Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 02:57:35 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Fall of the Republic > Did not Cicero choose Octavian to fight Antony, because he felt that he >could control Octavian? In the Chambers text (pg. 111) it states "Cicero, >the chief supporter of the old constitution, naively wrote of Octavian after >their first meeting, "The young man is completely devoted to me." Octavian >soon proved that he had plans of his own. >Mike Sorry, Mike, I stand corrected. I read the book first before the lectures and what I got out of the reading was much different than what I got out of the lectures. I guess everybody has their bad days. Maybe that's why one should sometimes re-read things second and third times. Thanks for your help. What I got out of the lectures was that both Cicero and Antony thought that they could use Octavian to get what they wanted most. For Antony, he wanted to be the ruler of the Empire and he thought if Octavian was to become ruler, people would see him as a weak and dumb individual. They would want to elect a much better man for the position and so Antony would ask for the position. As for Cicero, he was looking out for the stronghold in the Senate and thought that he could persuade Octavian to do whatever he suggested. Cindy ========================== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 20:25:29 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Re: Fall of the Republic > >Sorry, Mike, I stand corrected. I read the book first before the lectures and >what I got out of the reading was much different than what I got out of the >lectures. I guess everybody has their bad days. Maybe that's why one should >sometimes re-read things second and third times. Thanks for your help. > >What I got out of the lectures was that both Cicero and Antony thought that >they could use Octavian to get what they wanted most. For Antony, he wanted >to be the ruler of the Empire and he thought if Octavian was to become ruler, >people would see him as a weak and dumb individual. They would want to elect >a much better man for the position and so Antony would ask for the position. >As for Cicero, he was looking out for the stronghold in the Senate and thought >that he could persuade Octavian to do whatever he suggested. > >Cindy > I know what you mean. There seems to be a fair amount of contradition in points of view between different historians. I have to admit, I really enjoy reading the various articles out there in net-land though. I also second Scott's remarks about the quality of information in the discussions. They have helped me out tremendously. Mike ========================== Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 04:50:42 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Environment and the economy > >If we look at Edward Gibbon's classic work "The History of the Decline and >Fall of the Roman Empire," we can see that Gibbon found the decline to be >caused by a "decline from those ideals of political and even more, >intellectual freedom." The material decay in Rome was (to him) the effect >and symbol of moral decadence, "I have described the triumph of barbarism >and religion." We can include or describe "moral decadence" as the wasteful >consumption of resources in all forms (and this would fit into Mike's >description of the economic contribution.) However, Gibbons, an 18th >century agnostic, feels more that it was a loss of intellectual freedom. >This declining principle seems to hold true for the West but has drawn >considerable criticism when transfer to Byzantium. I agree with Gibbon to a point. I have gathered from our readings that if Rome was strong militarily then they would have few others fighting for control and Rome wanted it that way. Makes sense to me. But, I have learned from my studies that both Greece and Rome were very much interested in the concept of perfectionism. This concept was applied to everything, including cultural aspects like beauty and intellectualism. The Romans felt that if they excelled in these areas, then not only would the gods be appeased but they would have superiority over surrounding lands and this would allow the Empire to remain strong. They strove for these ideals. Cindy ========================== Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 11:13:43 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: The Empire There was a whole spate of excellent comments regarding the Empire. I'll try here to summarize key points and to offer some additional comments. We spent so much time on the Empire's weaknesses and eventual fall, I'd like to suggest a couple of points about its strengths. As several people noted, there were some astonishingly bad emperors, and there were some periods when there appeared to be a near-collapse of government. Yet the Empire would recover and go on for centuries. How could that be? First, consider the nature of being a part of the Empire. A community in England or Syria or Spain saw only occasional evidence of Imperial rule. The Empire inherited the system of provincial rule created by the Republic, and this system proved amazingly durable. It consisted in leaving the locals pretty much alone, as long as they provided certain key things: men, money, and obedience. In many cases, the latter was a light load because the locals were allowed to follow their own laws in most matters. Second, and very much related to this, the government of the Empire consisted in far more than just the emperor and a few generals. True, their word was always final, but most of the business of government concerned them very little. The Empire was a vast bureaucracy, comprising both Roman officials and local bureaucrats. These people went about their jobs day in and day out with little regard for crises in Rome. What did it matter to a tax collector in Augusta Vindelicorum that Nero was cavorting in Athens? No more than a presidential scandal much affects your local IRS official. There is, however, such a thing as cumulative effect, and there is such a thing as a system-wide crisis. We do have evidence of long-term rot, especially after the troubles of the third century -- the failure of the municipia (cities) to provide men and money the way they once had, provincialization (a term I prefer over barbarization) of the army so that armies increasingly became German or Spanish or Goth rather than generically Roman, a serious breakdown in the taxation system, and so on. A number of you struggled with the idea of moral decay. This is a valid, but extremely slippery point. One must be careful not to project one's own values onto the past. The question is not, did Romans act in ways that we regard as morally corrupt, but rather did they start acting in ways that they had not previously and that were regarded as reprehensible in their own day or that of their forebears? In this regard, one striking note is an evident failure of public spirit. Often cited as evidence is the decree (Diocletian's, I think) requiring local city officials to serve in public office. Public service had become ruinous and dangerous and the leading people (that is, rich and of good or prestigious family) were abdicating their traditional role, leaving public offices empty. An essential part of Roman tradition was that the leading families had a duty to serve the state, so losing this qualifies as evidence of a moral failure. A final note: try to keep a strong sense of time as you work through this course. We move so quickly in a survey course, time tends to get compressed and we start finding causes for a 5th century problem in the 3rd century. Two yardsticks I use are, the span of my country and the span of my own life. For example, the span of time from the beginning of the Crisis of the 3rd century (235 AD) to the last Roman emperor (476 AD) is *longer* than the entire history of the United States. A lot can happen in two hundred years. And, even withing that, one person's life covers about 70 years (then as now). So, for example, a man might have spent his whole lifetime in the space between the sack of Rome in 410 and the death of Romulus Augustulus. Remembering this helps me keep a sense of perspective. Now we can plunge into the Dark Ages. Oooooh. Scary music. Dim the lights. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Walk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 00:19:07 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Darin <> Subject: Re: The Empire Maybe I'm seriously confused, but it isn't the first time, and if so I want you all to correct me. In my readings about Octavian, it is said that he loved the Republic and wanted it's existence to continue. Yet he took the power of the military and other of the "branches" of the govt. at the time and basically made himself to what I see a monarch. The interesting thing to me is the seemingly willingness of the people to accept this after living under the system of the Republic. I guess that my rights are deeply rooted in me, but it seems strange to me that after "tasting" the new and unique rights in Roman society, the people of the growing Rome would readily accept such terms. On the other hand maybe it shouldn't seem so strange to me for a people to want an "all powerful" leader. Isn't it basic human nature? (Look at virtually all societies and their need and references to all forms of deity) Just some thoughts, tell me if I'm not "eating out of the same bowl of cheerios" as the rest of you. Darin ========================== Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 14:03:13 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: Re: The Empire Darin posted the following in part: [snip] In my readings about Octavian, it is said that he loved the Republic and wanted it's existence to continue. Yet he took = the power of the military and other of the "branches" of the govt. at the = time and basically made himself to what I see a monarch. The interesting = thing to me is the seemingly willingness of the people to accept this after = living under the system of the Republic.[snip] =20 Darin, my suggestion is that you look at the benefits Octavian / = Augustus brought to his people. Yes, he created for himself the = greatest power ever, with the sanctions of the Senate, mind you, but in = return he used his wealth and power to greatly benefit Rome, her = citizens, and the empire as a whole. The people loved him, for he = provided for their security and comfort in ways that were never done = before. And he gave power back to the Senate, whereas it had been all = but stripped in the days of the preceding tyrants. A wise, kind, and = benevolent ruler is welcome and revered by a people who have long = suffered from civil wars and selfish politicians. That's my bowl of = Cheerios! ========================== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 01:03:42 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Re: The Empire At 12:19 AM 2/25/96 -0500, you wrote: > Maybe I'm seriously confused, but it isn't the first time, and if so I >want you all to correct me. In my readings about Octavian, it is said that he >loved the Republic and wanted it's existence to continue. Yet he took the >power of the military and other of the "branches" of the govt. at the time >and basically made himself to what I see a monarch. The interesting thing to >me is the seemingly willingness of the people to accept this after living >under the system of the Republic. I guess that my rights are deeply rooted >in me, but it seems strange to me that after "tasting" the new and unique >rights in Roman society, the people of the growing Rome would readily accept >such terms. On the other hand maybe it shouldn't seem so strange to me for a >people to want an "all powerful" leader. Isn't it basic human nature? (Look >at virtually all societies and their need and references to all forms of >deity) Just some thoughts, tell me if I'm not "eating out of the same bowl of >cheerios" as the rest of you. > > Darin Hi Darin: You make several good points, but I disagree with you on a few. Octavian did not necessarily "like" the Republic, but he respected it. Far more important to Augustus was law and order. The period prior to his acts saw aspirations running wild. Curruption and violence was putting the Republic into constant turmoil. Assassination and murder were the rule of the day. He felt he was the one to put the system back into place (maybe a little arrogant) and that he did. When you ask why the people (and more importantly the Senate) allowed this, Augustus used a very unique procedure. First he was aware what happened to his adoptive father Julius Caesar. He understood that he needed the Senate to have any form of civilian government. He respected customs and wanted his regime to seem respectable. Since, as you mentioned, he monopolized the consulship we know the Senate was angry. He did the unique thing that allowed him to in fact become the true 1st emperor. He resigned his consulship and had himself given tribune power. He oversaw all things related to the people and as a result they loved him. His true power came from the imperium proconsulore majus (which made him superior to the imperium of any other proconsul), but he never displayed this power openly. Coinage and other items refer to tribunal powers. As far as giving up power (by the people) we must remember what Skip brought out. Sulla brought reforms in an effort to save the Republic and he retired in 79 BCE. Augustus received his imperium in 23 BCE, some 56 years later. 2 generations of turmoil, murder (remember Julius Caesar*) and general havoc. The people that were living in that time had enough. Remember our own civil war lasted only 4.5 years compared to this half century (that's 25% of the time the U.S. has existed as a country). When you mention the use of his military, Augustus never used it against Rome. In fact one of the first things he did was to demilitarize units. He did not relish that thought. In summary, Octavian was seen as bringing order and prosperity to the Empire. He understood what steps were required to gain the power necessary to do so and outwardly he concealed it. The true pater patriae of Rome. Just a thought Frank *We must remember that Julius Caesar violated the treason law (Lex Cornelia Majestatis) established by Sulla when he crossed the Rubicon River. This was seen by the populace at the time, as an act of lawlessness that was shaking the foundation of the Republic/Empire. Frank W. ========================== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:58:23 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Compare Phrases The term "Dark Ages" can be considered both accurate and misleading. Both phrases (Early Middle Ages) are correct. This period between 476 and 800 CE, when there was no Roman emperor in the West. It was marked by frequent warfare and the virtual disappearance of urban life. Patronage of the arts all but ceased and the centuries old Mediterranean traditions of artistic training and production died out almost everywhere. Some imply that the phrase Dark Ages shows a value judgment; however, the more pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity. The term "Early Middle Ages" may be a more politically correct and accurate phrase. This period was not Dark, nor was it void of substantial events. It was however, filled with change that rapidly spread throughout the West. The imperial government of Europe was replaced by separate Germanic tribal states imbued by Christian faith. This transformation was accompanied by the spread of Christianity, which gradually established a cultural and linguistic unity in all of Europe. The paradox is that pagan Rome became the Christian center without the political and military authority. One other significant event that occurred during this time was the further isolation of the East from the West. The Eastern Empire had the opportunity to respond to the appeals from the West but did not do so. As a result alliances were made between Clovis I (and his descendants) and the popes, which eventually led to revival of some of the imperial traditions skewed by the Christian faith (Charlemagne.) Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:42:05 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott <> Subject: Re: The Empire In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Feb 96 14:03:13 MST." <01BB038A.2537BA80@pm1-27.cyberhighway.net> Just adding to Teresa and Darin's thoughts on Augustus: All of Augustus' actions show he truly believed in the Republic. His wisdow pointed him to the ills of the Republic e.g Military taking control of the Senate, the selfish dealings of the Senate. By taking control of the Military, treasury and foreign policy he was able to guide the Republic(?) away from the civil wars and corrupt Senate that had lead to the demise of the Republic that he admired. He was able to control the Senate while leaving the body in place by hand picking many of its members. Yes, I agree he appointed himself Emperor, but only because he felt it was the only way to restore the Republic. This very action signaled the end of the Republic (how ironic:^). Enough of this - lets get on to the "DARK AGES". Scott ========================== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 20:08:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: John <> Subject: Cleopatra Hey Y'all get off the web and turn on old fashioned cable tv. The movie Cleopatra is on all night tonight ch 31, AMC. 1934 but looks like is has been color enhanced. Pass the popcorn! John John ========================== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 21:34:09 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Infantcide I do not recall any mention if infantcide in the Rome section of our course, yet it is mentioned in Chapter 6 of Chambers (pg. 156). ".... Germans, unlike the Romans, did not practice infantcide, ......." Why did the Roamns practice infantcide? In one of the messages that Skip replied to concerning Augustus, there is reference to the status of women who give birth to many children and how this was an incentive to increase the population or the future military, I do not have the message handy so bear with me. Did they just kill the female children or were both sexes equal targets? Mike ========================== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 23:18:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Infantcide Primary victims of infanticide were malformed or sickly children. After that came a variety of motivations. When deciding that there were "too many" children in the family, girl babies were more likely to be judged surplus than were boy babies. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Walk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== ========================== Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 23:41:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: John <> Subject: Christmas Does anyone know or read about the first year that that Christmas was an official holliday? I know it was a renamming for the pagan winter solstace holiday but when did this actually take effect? Just curius as I was reading the lecture about Leo III... John ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 05:44:07 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Jeff <> Subject: "Deck the Halls with, Fa La La La La" Item Subject: cc:Mail Text Well, this is not the exact answer for John 's first Christmas Holiday question, however here are some tidbits about Christmas that pertain to the geographic area we are talking about . . . The earliest legend of Saint Nicholas reaches back to Asia Minor in the 4th century. Born in Patara, a seaport, St. Nicholas traveled to Egypt and Palestine as a young man. Wherever he traveled, his extraordinary kindness and his practice of giving gifts to needy children made him a hero to the people. Much later, the name "St. Nicholas" splintered into many variations among Protestant churches in Europe. Then, with the colonization of America, religious and secular images joined in recognizing "Santa Claus", who symbolized the spirit of giving. The ancient custom of the mistletoe dates back to the Druids and Romans. The Druids and Romans believed mistletoe had the magic power of peace, symbolizing "peace to all who enter." Opposing soldiers who found themselves under the mistletoe quickly laid down their arms and declared peace for the day. The custom of the mistletoe has remained popular in England and the United States. Mistletoe is placed over the doorway, and those who pass under the doorway are given a kiss. These Christmas items were found at: http://www.claus.com/traditions.html Remember about 300 shopping days until Christmas . . . Jeff ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:42:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: John <> Subject: HO HO HO we dont know Here's what encarta says. I was looking for the Pope, Bishop or ruler that instigated this but the world may never know...I know this is off the subject a little but just my curiosity. Christmas, in the Christian church, annual festival, held on December 25, to celebrate the Nativity, or birth of Christ. The origin of the festival is unknown. Scholars believe that it is derived in part from rites held by pre-Christian Germanic and Celtic peoples to celebrate the winter solstice. Christmas festivals, generally observed by Christians since the 4th century, incorporate pagan customs, such as the use of holly, mistletoe, Yule logs, and wassail bowls. The Christmas tree, an evergreen trimmed with lights and other decorations, is derived from the so-called paradise tree, symbolizing Eden, of German mystery plays. The use of a Christmas tree began early in the 17th century, in Strasbourg, France, spreading from there through Germany and then into northern Europe. In 1841 Albert, prince consort of Queen Victoria, introduced the Christmas tree custom to Great Britain; from there it accompanied immigrants to the United States. Meanwhile, Dutch settlers had brought to the New World the custom of celebrating St. Nicholas' Day on December 6, and especially St. Nicholas' Eve, when gifts were given to children, of whom the saint was patron. British settlers took over the tradition as part of their Christmas eve celebration. The English name of the legendary jolly, red-garbed man who delivers presents to good children at Christmas, Santa Claus, is derived from the Dutch Sinterklaas, a modification of Sint Nikolaas. _______________________ "Christmas," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation. John ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:57:28 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Nancy <> Subject: Photo of the Virgin Item Subject: cc:Mail Text The photo of the Virgin (p. 156 Chambers) holding a spindle and also wearing armor is an unusual depiction of the Virgin. I'd be interested in knowing what influenced this depiction where later the Virgin was shown as a "motherly madonna"... Nancy ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 13:47:43 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: Papal Succession and Powers In reading Skip's lectures, the first one [The Papacy] describes how = Henry III of Germany installed his cousin as Pope after deposing three = rivals to the seat. Didn't this have the effect of breaking the link of = popes to the apostles? In other words, the popes were choosing their = successors until that time, and those so chosen were linked all the way = back to St. Peter (even though it appears there was a gap from Clement = to Stephen I). So, Henry's installation of Leo IX in 1049 resulted in = the first pope who was not chosen by the church, right? This having = happened, how could succeeding popes claim apostolic power? And why = would the other leaders (and members) of the church accept such an = "outsider" as their supreme leader (obviously the answer has to do with = the current state of affairs within the church, said affairs being = characterized by corruption and ineptitude). That brings me to my second question: the powers. The link to the = apostles indicated that their spiritual powers were passed on to their = successors. What were the nature of these powers? Could they be = demonstrated or were they merely assumed? =20 ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 17:18:09 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott <> Subject: My two bits on Christmas This is what I've heard in Astromomy: The Three wise men were really astromomers checking out a bright Constellation of stars probably "The House of David". This would have put the time of birth of Christ in March. Dawning of the Age of Pisces or should we say "Age of Christianity". This can be traced back to Roman Catholics eating fish on Fridays to celebrate the age of Pisces. You have to wonder if all/or any of this is true. But, it is great fouder for disccusion while we all try to get far enough in the reading to start the next round of discussion. Cheers Scott ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:25:48 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Re: Christmas At 11:41 PM 2/27/96 MST, you wrote: >Does anyone know or read about the first year that that Christmas was an >official holliday? I know it was a renamming for the pagan winter solstace >holiday but when did this actually take effect? Just curius as I was reading >the lecture about Leo III... >John > John: The word Christmas is derived from Old English "Cristes maesse" (Christ's Mass.) Christian chronographers of the 3rd century believed that the creation of the world took place at the spring equinox, then reckoned as March 25th. Hence the new creation (birth) and death of Christ must have occurred on the same day, (the birth following nine months at the winter solstice, December 25th. The oldest extant notice of a feast of Christ's Nativity occurs in a Roman almanac (the Philocalian Calendar of 354), which indicates that the festival was observed by the church in Rome by the year 336. "Origins of Christian Philosophy," by Claude Tresmontant, ed 1962. The feast of St. Nicholas of Myra was seen to be observed on December 6 340. The feast of Christ's Nativity was instituted in Rome and North Africa as a Christian rival to the pagan festival of the Unconquered Sun at the winter solstice, as you said. The cult that leaned "...toward monotheism had been given official recognition by the emperor Aurelian in 274." Constatine himself was an adherent before his conversion to Christianity in 312. However, there is "...no evidence of any intervention by him to promote the Christian festival." Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman World, by Robert M. Grant 1970. It is still fuzzy, but seems the time is somewhere after 312 and before 336. Hopes this helps. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 20:57:37 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Carthage When was Carthage re-built, and why did the Romans allow this city to be re-built? I have noticed that it appears on the maps in the Chambers text and there is reference to Carthage on pg. 162 that makes me think that it once more became a powerful city. "But in the third century Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, maintained that all bishops were equal in authority; there could be within the Church no "bishop of bishops."" By comparing the maps on pg. 130 and pg. 153, Carthage is in the same location. The reason that I ask this is, I remembered reading the following from The Punic Wars (pg. 17); > Cato's slogan was implemented in typical thorough-going Roman style. The walls >of Carthage were torn down, the city put to the torch. The citizens were sold >into slavery and the Senate passed a decree that no one could live where >Carthage once stood. Scipio Aemelianus received a triumph for his victory. > The Carthaginians appear to be a very resilient people. Mike ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:40:23 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Re: Papal Succession and Powers At 01:47 PM 2/28/96 -0700, you wrote: >Snip: So, Henry's installation of Leo IX in 1049 resulted in the first pope who was not chosen by the church, right? This having happened, how could succeeding popes claim apostolic power? And why would the other leaders (and members) of the church accept such an "outsider" as their supreme leader > >That brings me to my second question: the powers. The link to the apostles indicated that their spiritual powers were passed on to their successors. What were the nature of these powers? Could they be demonstrated or were they merely assumed? Teresa: I don't quite agree with your premise that Leo IX was the first pope not chosen by the church. We know there existed a mutual, subservient relationship between the pope with respect to the King, dating back to Charles, who rescued Leo III in 799. In 996, heeding an appeal by Pope John XV, King Otto III, came to his aid. He reached Rome after the Pope's death whereupon "...he secured the election of his ...cousin, Bruno of Carinthis, as Gregory V, the first German pope." By the time of Bruno of Egisheim (Leo IX) "in accordance with prevailing practice, he was appointed pope...by the emperor Henry III." Since this was in fact normalcy, there was no real disagreement; however, Leo did do something different. This would answer your question in regard to acceptance by the church. He insisted upon being elected by the people and clergy of Rome, an action that implicitly indicated his opposition to the firmly entrenched lay intervention, especially by the emperors, in purely ecclesiastic matters. His aim was the eradication of concubinage, simony and lay investiture. How he did that answers your second question - power. The Papal States had existed for a considerable time and Leo saw it as one of the prime detriments to peace. A decade of disputes between the Roman nobility and the papacy existed prior to Leo and he managed to establish an uneasy peace. Generally, the reformed papacy, was supported and financed (hence authorized) by new Roman families like Frangipane and Pierleone, whose wealth came from commerce and banking rather than landholdings. Pilgrims began to percolate into Rome and their gifts and expenditures on food and housing stimulated a considerable flow of money. Rome was becoming, once again, a city of consumers dependent on a governmental bureaucracy. Leo's power stemmed directly from this new found (or reborn) commerce. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:12:07 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Re: Carthage At 08:57 PM 2/28/96 -0700, you wrote: > When was Carthage re-built, and why did the Romans allow this city to be >re-built? I have noticed that it appears on the maps in the Chambers text >and there is reference to Carthage on pg. 162 that makes me think that it >once more became a powerful city. "But in the third century Cyprian, bishop >of Carthage, maintained that all bishops were equal in authority; there >could be within the Church no "bishop of bishops."" By comparing the maps >on pg. 130 and pg. 153, Carthage is in the same location. The reason that I >ask this is, I remembered reading the following from The Punic Wars (pg. 17); > >> Cato's slogan was implemented in typical thorough-going Roman style. The >walls >of Carthage were torn down, the city put to the torch. The citizens >were sold >>into slavery and the Senate passed a decree that no one could live where >>Carthage once stood. Scipio Aemelianus received a triumph for his victory. >> > > The Carthaginians appear to be a very resilient people. > >Mike After Carthage fell in the Final Punic War, the area was bounced back and forth between various Kings of the region. Finally in 25 BCE Augustus installed Juba II as ruler of the area. He encouraged Romans to settle the area. It's growing importance required a proconsul, seated at Carthage, to oversea Africa Nova (roughly equal to modern Tunis.) The area was an abomination of peoples ranging from indigenous North Africans, Hellens and Romans. Yes, the area was resettled; however, the Carthaginians, as they existed in the Punic Wars, did not exist. Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:27:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Christmas The key word in John M's original query is "official." That word goes quite to the heart of the period we are entering (still recovering from our Rome exams, I think). Rome could have state holidays because Rome had a state. The kingdoms that swirl about in the wake of Rome's collapse in the West had no official holidays of any sort - there were only Church holidays (note the root of the word). It will be a very long time before Christmas or any other day becomes a state-sanctioned holiday. My guess would be not until the Protestant Reformation, but I'm just guessing. But, I hear you protest, people celebrated Christmas in the Middle Ages! 'Deed they did, but as a sacred holiday, not as a state holiday. Oh, now the teacher's merely dodging the issue. Mebbe so, but the point about no state holidays if there is no state is still worth making. So, when did the *Church* officially recognize Christmas as a holiday? Once again, words are important in essaying an answer. First, "the Church" did not exist, in the sense that there was a single universally-recognized authority that could declare a holiday. For a very long time, there were lots of Christian churches, but no Christian Church. Let us stay doggedly in the West, though, and recognize the Pope as the sole authority. Now, finally, having led you painstakingly to this point, your professor smiles and says, "I dunno." Canon law does recognize specific holy days and from very early on (I'm thinking here of the quarrel over the date for Easter). At some point Christmas was recorded as a holy day, probably some time after it had been recognized in practice. A last word to consider: what do we mean by "holiday?" One can surmise immediately that "a day off work" is not quite the right definition. A common phrase used synonymously was "feast day," which gives a better flavor of what we're talking about here. The day was recognized as a day for prayer, so usually a special Mass was said. And all of that certainly implies not toiling on that day, though in fact (then as now) local merchants often did a brisk business on holidays, selling to the crowd on their way back from services, as well as selling goods and services for the feasting. A good question, John. A good responses. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Walk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:02:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: How empires fall Well, they don't just tip over and crash to the ground, do they? The Empire didn't fall, it drifted away in bits and fragments, persisting in customs and institutions and finally only in memory. Try to picture how the Roman Empire would fall in your corner of Europe, in Spain or England or Gaul or North Africa. No one came riding up on a horse crying out that the Empire had fallen. You received more subtle clues. The Roman legion nearby was called away one day and simply never came back. Or the local garrison was all Goths by this time anyway, with Roman commanders. But some officers retired and others died and replacements never came, so the Goths elected their own officers and that was that. Same with the tax collectors. The Roman ones didn't come around any more. There had been a hiatus in the past, more than one, but eventually the tax collectors came around again. But now it's been since your grandmother's day since anyone came from the provincial governor. And in the meantime, the Frankish king levies an annual tribute. The Roman law courts in the neighboring city are long gone. Maybe there's still a court at Rome, or Ravenna, to which you can appeal. Maybe you have to go all the way to Constantinople. Most likely you have the money to do neither. And so you appeal for protection to a local Visigothic lord. Certain goods become rare. Merchants from Asia no longer come to the city. People have fewer occasions to write Latin, or indeed to write at all. In any event, there has been no state-supported school for generations now, no one can afford a tutor, and only the Christian monks teach reading and writing, and then only for their own purposes. The Vandals came through in your great-grandfather's day, and the Visigoths after them. The Franks came, but they stayed and built their own villages and even moved into some of the half-abandoned towns. Nothing new there. Your own family has a bit of Gothic blood, perhaps. Or Suevi, or Alemanni, or any of a dozen other tribes. And somewhere in there, some place along the line, folks didn't talk much about the Empire because it no longer showed its face. The buildings were there, and the walls and the roads. And some of the barbarians gave themselves Roman titles because it made them feel important, but everyone understood the charade. It was said there was still an Emperor, off in Constantinople, but that was a distant world. Your world was inhabited by tribes who had never known an Emperor. The roads deteriorated and no one ordered their repair. Bridges fell and no one knew how to fix them. The Empire was gone. Or, more accurately, you were gone from the Empire. But, in most places, people still remembered. It would make a difference, later. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Walk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 05:56:05 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Re: Carthage > > > After Carthage fell in the Final Punic War, the area was bounced back and > forth between various Kings of the region. Finally in 25 BCE Augustus > installed Juba II as ruler of the area. He encouraged Romans to settle the > area. It's growing importance required a proconsul, seated at Carthage, to > oversea Africa Nova (roughly equal to modern Tunis.) The area was an > abomination of peoples ranging from indigenous North Africans, Hellens and > Romans. Yes, the area was resettled; however, the Carthaginians, as they > existed in the Punic Wars, did not exist. > > Frank > Frank W. > Frank, Thank you for this information, it really helps with some assumptions that I had about this. Mike ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 08:14:26 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott <> Subject: A tip on my 2 bits Oops! I forgot the punch line. I wanted to say, the Christians then moved their celebration for Christmas to December making it less conspicuous, to escape persecution, as it would happened at the same time as the pagens celebration for the winter solstice. Sender: HY101 From: Nancy <> Subject: Monks in the making Item Subject: cc:Mail Text I didn't realize the extent of the influence the monks had over the Middle Ages and the new culture of the Central Middle Ages. It sounds as if it took about three centuries before the monks were organized enough to make such an impact. I would be interested to learn more about how they evolved to a standard that has lasted this long. Nancy ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:24:04 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Linda T." <> Subject: Compare Phrases After refering to a few several different sources, I'm still not sure that I understand when the early middle ages exactly began. It sounds as though no one really knows. Anyway, I agree with Frank and believe that the term dark ages can be both accurate and misleading. The nomadic invaders certainly were effective in destroying Romes efficient channels of communication, form of government, schools, libraries and common language. "They also lacked the knowledge and skill to carry on Roman achievements in art, literature and engineering." (Compton's) The age after the Germanic invasion saw a near triumph of nonliterate culture over the literate culture of Roman aristocracy." (Chambers 159) In this manner, they did create a period that could be referred to as dark. I do believe, though, that the period was also one that strongly influenced the development of Europe clear through modern times. The barbarians brought with them, a belief in the rights of individuals which served to additionally support the rise of Christianity. With Christrianity's rise came reforms by the Frankish rulers in handwriting, education and language that were crucial to the intellectual growth of Europe. During this time, horsepower was harnessed which "allowed northern Europe to support a denser population and established a tradition of technical innovation this has remained alive and unbroken to the present". (Chambers 160) The early middle ages "set the stage" so that term seems more appropriate to me also. ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:15:15 GMT+7 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: JASON Organization: Boise State University Subject: Pessimism & Optimism in Religion Something that strikes me as an interesting contrast between the Germanic tribes and the Romans is each's perspectives on religion. Chambers says that the Middle Ages marked the time when Christians and Muslims found a purpose in living: They had ". . . visions of an afterlife, visions that offered to even the humblest members of society a sense of individual dignity and destiny" (151). On the contrary, though, the Germans "displayed an abiding sense of pessimism [toward religion]" (157). Chambers says that the Germans viewed their gods as controlling, manipulative and unpredictable. It is hard for me to fathom how two cultures living in such close geographical proximity to each other can develop such opposing views of religion. What were the factors at play in the formation of these two cultures' respective religious philosophies?? ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:57:20 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Linda T." <> Subject: Monastacism's Role The barbarian attitude toward literature and learning saw the demise of literacy in what was, the Roman Empire. Eventually, the monks were almost the only people who were literate and learned (Chambers 164) This came about becuase of the need by the monks to be able to read and follow the Benedictine Rule. This rule was a kind of constitution (written by the Benedict of Nursia) that provided complete guidance for the government of a monastery in its spiritual and material well being. (Compton s) The result was that monks required education that was accomplished through collecting and copying the ancient manuscripts. Additionally, because they were literate and educated, rulers also recruited them from the monasteries. It was in this way that literary works and administrative records were preserved. (Chambers 165) ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:56:57 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: Papal Succession and Powers Frank -- your response to my query is very interesting, but I think you = may have missed my point. I was wondering about links to the apostles = as a source of authority and primacy by the popes (Doctrine of Apostolic = Succession from Skip's lecture on The Papacy, Pages 3 and 4). The = installation of popes by anyone outside of the church would seem to have = interrupted this flow. Perhaps the point is moot, and later church = authorities dropped this claim, but it had been clearly established = earlier that there was a direct line from Peter to the Popes, and Peter = was chosen by Christ to lead the church. My question regarding power had nothing to do with political authority = or control, it related to "spiritual power" which was purportedly = possessed by the apostles and passed on to their successors (i.e., the = Popes). Per Skip's lecture on The Papacy, Page 3: "If the = traditional of apostolic succession (the inheritance of power and = authority directly from the apostles) were taken seriously, the popes = could claim vast powers."=20 Perhaps I am taking all of this too literally, but it struck me that the = Popes, through their claim to power under the Doctrine of Apostolic = Succession, also were claiming some type of supernatural power. By the way, Frank, you made a few quotations in your post but did not = cite the source of your quotations. Can you enlighten me as to your = sources? ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:53:10 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Darin <> Subject: Re: Papal Succession and Powers I agree with your comments about the papal succession and the popes and find this subject very interesting. I've been reading Dr. Knox's section on this subject and one of Abraham Lincoln's quotes keeps coming to mind..."Absolute power is absolutely corruptible". I find it a sad revelation or aspect about the human family. It seems that no matter what the cause (building a nation, fighting an enemy, leading a church), lust, greed and egotism seem to infect those that are in such postions. Of course there have been good leaders, but it seems to be the exception and not the rule. It seems the study of history in some circles could almost be narrowly be defined as the struggles and transfer of power between individuals and nations during the human existance on earth. No matter how humble or innocent the cause may be (spreading the gospel of Christ) there always seems to be those who would use this as an advantage. Anyway, just some observations on my part. ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:03:28 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank <> Subject: Re: Papal Succession and Powers My reasoning was deduced from a complilation of information taken from three main sources. 1. HY101 on line lecture: Early Middle Ages: Charlemagne Subsection Emperor: Chapter "The Background" & "A Christmas Present." 2. Origins of Christian Philosophy by Claude Tresmontant 2nd ed (1962) 3. HY101 on line Reading: Western Church, Subsection Rise of the Western Church (310-600) Chapter "Conclusions" My interpretation of your phrase "spiritual powers" was obviously incorrect. I interpreted it to mean, the authority and assumed abilities held by one generally accepted as having high religious positions. This was my own definition and obviously wrong. I misunderstood you question. Sorry :-( Frank Frank W. ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:02:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Early Middle Ages Now that you've had some time to look around in the early medieval stuff, one thing may be becoming clear: we have lost our tidy narrative thread that we've had with both Greece and Rome. Nor shall we again recover it. With Greece, we really only did Athens (and then Alexander), and so we only had one chronology to follow. Ditto with Rome. Now, however, there is no central entity on which to hang our chronology. Very distressing, eh? The early Middle Ages are the worst, because kingdoms come and go, and most of them aren't going to survive. But the papacy is there and it will stick around, and you should try to get a grasp of what's going on there. Remember the major popes -- Gregory I and Leo I are the main ones, with a variety of secondary importance and lots who are of interest only to specialists. But try to have a general sense of papal powers, both claimed and actual. As for the others, everything is preliminary and embryonic. Europe doesn't exist yet, as a culture. France doesn't exist, nor England, nor Germany, and so on. We're looking mainly at predecessors. To me, the great story of the early Middle Ages is the invention of Europe. Put briefly, the civilized world fell apart in the 5th and 6th centuries in the West. The Carolingians began to build something new, but it was nearly destroyed by the Viking invasions. Then, in the 10th and 11th centuries, we can begin to see the outlines of the new culture. The Middle Ages that most people envision -- castles and knights and serfs and cathedrals -- did not exist before the 11th century. The period from 500 to 1000 is the true Middle Age, for it stands between Rome and Europe. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Walk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:45:02 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Re: Papal Succession and Powers At 01:47 PM 2/28/96 -0700, you wrote: >In reading Skip's lectures, the first one [The Papacy] describes how Henry III of Germany installed his cousin as Pope after deposing three rivals to the seat. Didn't this have the effect of breaking the link of popes to the apostles? In other words, the popes were choosing their successors until that time, and those so chosen were linked all the way back to St. Peter (even though it appears there was a gap from Clement to Stephen I). So, Henry's installation of Leo IX in 1049 resulted in the first pope who was not chosen by the church, right? This having happened, how could succeeding popes claim apostolic power? And why would the other leaders (and members) of the church accept such an "outsider" as their supreme leader (obviously the answer has to do with the current state of affairs within the church, said affairs being characterized by corruption and ineptitude). > Looking at the lectures, it appears that the link to St. Peter was broke frequently. There were no dates on the quote below, but I am assuming that these actions occured before Henry III stepped in, by the order of lecture material. The Pope must have gained much more power at later dates for these actions to occur. These popes obviously were not protector's of the city such as Gregory I. Papacy - Page 11 of 14 "The papacy itself became controlled by local Roman noble families. Becoming Bishop of Rome was a matter of winning out in the various feuds that raged. Occasionally the German kings would come down and appoint good popes, but most the time the Romans forced the election of extremely bad popes who were either incompetent or scandalously immoral and sacrilegious." Also in the timeframe mentioned above, it is clear that the emperor or king was the maker of pope's, whereas later with Leo's crowning of Charlemagne, the roles have been reversed. Charlemagne - Page 20 of 23 "It appears that Leo made the most of the situation as it was handed to him. To be protected from his enemies, he would have to agree to Charles being made emperor. But by crowning the emperor himself, he further insinuated the papacey into the business of making kings -- or, rather, making emperors. From that Christmas day on there would be a tension between pope and emperor, and a tension over how an emperor was created." Mike ========================== Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 04:34:10 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Pessimism & Optimism in Religion Jason writes: > Chambers says that the Germans viewed >their gods as controlling, manipulative and unpredictable. It is hard for me >to fathom how two cultures living in such close geographical proximity to each >other can develop such opposing views of religion. What were the factors at >play in the formation of these two cultures' respective religious philosophies?? I too was wondering the same thing. What would make the Germans have such a pessimistic attitude about everything that they had to deal with? Had they suffered so atrociously that they felt that God was not helping them out? They should have looked at it this way. For everything they had to go through, they would learn a new lesson and so become a much stronger people because of their hardships. The other thing that I was wondering about was Chambers mentioned that they would make jewelry to resemble animals. I know some of the older religions worshipped animal gods. Was this the case or did they just have a love of animals? Before I go, I would also like to say that it is fascinating to me that even though the Germans did not write down laws until the sixth century, they still had a very advanced culture. Cindy