Time-scaled Conflicts

If your into Roman History Dave any book by Adrian Goldsworthy is an excellent read. He's a prof at yale and I've read 2 of his books too date and working on his new one as we speak.

Excellent info and he avoids the artistic liberties that other scholars take when discussing the empire.

Originally Posted by Tyburn

thats not entirely true.

First Romes Empire divided in two, and it was the break-away portion that got invaded by the Islamists who only made it as far as Greece, they never got to Rome.

Rome lost most of its northern Empire when it became literally to big to handle, and the retreat was gradual and slow. It was attacked afew times by a group called "Vandals" who were basically a resurgence from African Carthage...but after that successive rullers who conqured still considered themselves Romans until Basically the Eastern part of the Byzantium Empire, which was still Roman, reinvaded Italy in the Western part of Romes Empire...at that point they basically only had Italy, and Byzantium...but the point is, the Byzantiums WERE Roman, they just split the Empire before the West Naturally began to crumble. So its not like they were invaded by some foreign force, it was practically a civil war.

As I said, the East then Succumbed to the Islamists at the turn of the Middle Ages, but Italy remained. So infact Italy is still in essence Roman to this day except under the name given by the King put in charge of Rome when the Byzantium.

What truely made Rome become Italian, wasnt until after the Reformation. When Byzantium had gone, the Pope was all that was left of the Holy Roman Empire and he still asserted a lot of authority throughout what had been the Roman Empire, although not strictly governed by Rome...it still was Roman, the Roman Catholics basically reinvaded through missionaries after Byzantium reclaimed Rome...so in essence, the Empire never died at all. until about two hundred years ago, when the Pope got a battering first from the Reformation, and then from the Philosophical Enlightenment...how ironic that both those started in the northern Empire of what was Rome

Just like England effectively still has an Empire, its called the Commonwealth, well Rome effectively had Spiritual and therefore Political Sway over Kings in Europe for hundreds of years after the withdrawal of the Empire in terms of Government.

Some Empires never died. Romes Did during the Enlightenment...The English will probably collapse upon Elizabeth 2nds Death...I think that could be disastor for the Commonwealth because they arent loyal to the Monarchy...they are loyal to a very particular Monarch.

They will probably reject Charles...we could infact see the end of the Monarchy if Charles doesnt play it right...Ironic again, as the Civil War which removed the Monarchy for nearly twenty Years happened with a King called...Charles

I'm sorry Dave some of what you say is not entirely correct.

The western empire fell before the eastern. Oduvaca (i can't spell his name) and his army took over Rome and sent the imperial vestments to the Eastern emperor and informed him that a emperor was no longer needed in the west.

The Vandals did not originate from cartage they merely claimed the territory and used it as a home base for their wondering peoples. The vandal king married into the Roman line of emperor and formed the large nation of Vandalia in north Africa with the blessing of the Romans. Of course this would not last.

Rome fell for various reasons and the primary reason in my opinion is she was just too large to rule.

The size and wealth of the empire was hard to resist. As soon as a general gathered enough victories and wealth his troops decided to name him emperor thus starting a civil war. This happened with astonishing frequency.

Rome relied heavily on it's spoils of war and when nothing was left worth conquering she began fighting herself.

The religious loyalty felt to the ruling body of Rome completely disapeared and nothing was sacred anymore. after Caesar began his crusade. Marius and Sulla set the precedent for Caesar and Caesar brought about the slow death to the empire.

I rambled a bit but what I am saying is the comparison to Rome for long drawn out conflicts being the death of her was not the case.

Rome killed herself with her avarice and constant infighting. Change one or two of the power shifts in Roman history and things may have been much different.