Originally posted by debbiejo
I can't remember the book I read, but I did find a little link on it...so you can see what I'm talking about...they did accept all religions/beliefs, until they forced them out....also I think it was Caligula I was talking about I just can't remember right now.....If he was the strange one then that him....I remember reading about some other strange ones also.http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture14b.html
I don't agree with this article:
"It would take Western Civilization nearly ten centuries to recover and refashion a world which could be the rival of the civilization of Rome."
-> What a renaissancistic and un-educated view on history! I suggest the author takes a course in Medieval History and see that the "Dark Ages" is a term they made up in the renaissance which is faulty.
"Both civilizations produced a world view which we could only call pagan."
-> christian nut? narrow view?
"What had happened between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance was the bastardization of classical languages."
-> What about it evolving? Latin became a dead language and they kept it alive, what should have happened? Besides, is what americans speak than also a bastardization of English?
"This cult was nothing less than the patriotic worship of Rome itself."
-> Is this a bad thing? It still happens this day in other countries.
"The Romans were taught to believe that the destiny of Rome was the destiny of the world ..."
-> Like the Chinese.
"Despite the obvious fact that the majority of Roman emperors were scheming, devious, opportunistic, or plainly insane, ..."
-> Where is proof of this? He just mentions it but doesn't say WHO it was or WHAT they did.
"...emperors playing fiddles while Rome burned..."
-> Clearly showed he hasn't looked up his facts in a single book. First off, Nero lost a lot of his ground due to the burning, you would think if he burnt the city he would at least try to keep his loss to a minimum not losing most property.
Secondly; he couldn't play it.
Third point; he wasn't around to play it at the time being; not on the hill anyway.
"Edward Gibbon, author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (3 vols, 1770s), ..."
-> goody, quoting a book from 1770. There are much better books out that form a better nuanced, objective view on things.
The Decline and Fall of Rome? It has said nothing about it...
Plus no details about any claims, no sources, ...
and a rather one sided, lousy educated view on things that shows this author needs to stop writing.