Re: Topic 3 -- Early World History, Level I

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:05:27 03/09/02 Sat
Author: Jean Ritucci
Subject: Re: Topic 3

The reason that I beleive that the Romans had a strong civilization for such a long period of time is becuase of the fact that they had rulers that reigned for long amounts of time. Becuase they had rulers that ruled for such greats amounts of time, it also created the "Julio-Claudians" period which created peace in Rome and a strong civilization for the Roman government. The reason that I beleive that the fact that rulers that reigned for longer periods of time created a stronger civilization for Rome was because each emperor had a chance to "break-in" to the government, like "breaking-in" new shoes. All of the people of Rome were able to have their Rulers for enough period of time that they would get used to how the emperor was ruling and how their government was run. I think that when rulers reign for a shorter amount of time, there is not enough room for the people to get used to how their ruler is running the government. People like Agustus reigned from 27-14 B.C. and all of the people of his land enjoyed the fact that he was ruler and were able to cope with the way that he thought that the government should be run. In turn this created the fact that most all of the people in the government liked the way that their government was run and enjoyed the government and agreed with all of the economical or political ideas on their government. The "Julio Claudians" period meant a time of peace for the Romans. In every government or civilization peace among the people is one of the most important things. This is why I beleive that since the "Julio-Claudians" period lasted for such a long time, so did the Roman government.

The reason why I beleive that now-a-days civilizations arenot lasting as long as the Roman civilization did is becuase of the fact that people do not all beleive in the same government that should be run and the fact that the Rulers are not "reigning" for long periods of time. For example, in the U.S. our people do not all agree on the politcal and economical ways that government should be run, in fact our population is almost split in half of beleifs of Democrats or Republics (proof shown in the election of Gore and Bush). If our country could all agree on the way that the government should be run, it would be a lot easier to get a long, and A LOT easier to maintain a stron civilizaition for such a long time. Like in the Roman times, our civilization does not have any peace between the nations, we are in war about every generation, where in the Roman empire, they had all of that peace with no wars for the whole "Julio-Claudians" period. Peace between everyone is a majorly big thing for a strong civilization also, and the fact that wars are getting in the way of other civilizations, makes them less strong, or strong for a shorter amount of time for that matter.

The reason that I beleive that the downfall fo Rome finally happened is the fact that near the end of the "Julio-Claudians" period, the emperors were reigning for very shorts periods of time. In fact, after Nero and Aurelius died after 180 A.D. the Roman empire had a series of 28 emperors in 23 years. This was a time where now new emperors were coming in very quickly, and the goverment and the people could not get used to all of the changes in the way that the government was run. I think that all of these quick reignes eventually lead to the final days of the "Julio-Claudian" period. When this period ended, it meant that the days of peace between Rome were over. When peace is over between a civilization, it eventually makes the civilization weaker. I believe that when the rulers reigned for such short amounts of time and when the "Julio-Claudians" period ended the Roman empire weakend. This eventually let Rome to perish.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]