Ancient philosophers

[Ioulianos]

Artemidoros said:

Off topic again on the subject of death. Here is one for Ioulianos. Lethe by Mavilis. The English translation is poor but you can get the point. The Greek text is below.
genesis.ee.auth.gr/dimakis/poetrygreece/1/10.html

Lethe poem reminds me os Marcus Auerelius "Soon you will forget everything,soon everything will forget you"

[Ioulianos]

Artemidoros said:

I have not voted. I am undecided. Also, voting for a philosopher seems a little inappropriate to me. I have a lot of respect for anyone looking for answers. Here is some more poetry, I am sure you know this one.

But do not hurry the voyage at all.
It is better to let it last for many years;
and to anchor at the island when you are old,
rich with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offer you riches.



users.hol.gr/~barbanis/cavafy/ithaca.html

users.hol.gr/~barbanis/cavafy/ithaca-gr.html

Cavavis is me favourite poet but beware of cavafic irony,you must watch every word of his poem and have real knowledge of history for not being deceived by his sarcasm.

[Graeme]

I waver between stoicism and hedonism.

[Artemisia]

Ioulianos said:

Lethe poem reminds me os Marcus Auerelius "Soon you will forget everything,soon everything will forget you"

Right! That's why I said that Marcus' "Meditations" is an inspirational book but somewhat depressing. He himself suffered from depression and poor health most of his life.....I guess the opium did help a bit. I think Marcus was a bit too passifistic for a Roman emperor....good human being though.

[Artemisia]

Graeme said:

I waver between stoicism and hedonism.

Interesting. They are two opposite systems.

[Ioulianos]

Artemisia said:

Hey, it's simple: you can have your pie and eat it too.

Well if you mean something like this... users.hol.gr/~barbanis/cavafy/dangerous.html

[Graeme]

Yes, you are right. It is one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell. I like the contradictory nature of humans.

[Artemisia]

Yes, you are right. It is one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell. I like the contradictory nature of humans.

I don't think hedonism had much to do with the fall of the Roman empire. The Empire fell due to outside pressure (Goths, Parthians) and inadequate (and foreign) rulers.
If the Romans had followed Stoicism, though, they would have survived longer. However, it is still quite impressive that the Empire survived as long as it did.

[alex221166]

The Empire collapsed because of the constant attempts by provincial commanders to seize Imperial power. No more, no less.

Rome also had one major handicap: it didnt' export (in macro-economical terms) anything other than weaponry. On the other hand, it imported silk from China (through their main eastern enemies - the Parthians) and spices from India (again, through their eastern enemies). They also imported ambar from the Baltic shores (AGAIN, through the barbarians). By the fourth century, Imperial Rome had a serious shortage of gold. That is even reflected in the decay of the legionaires' weaponry, and in the early latifundiary-based early feudalism that replaced the essentially urban centres of Roman economy in the last two centuries of the empire.

Philosophy, moral decay, or even a racial decay (something that some morons believe in) had absolutely nothing to do with it. Empires are built and destroyed by the type of men that don't know how to spell "philosophy" and who have the morals of a Hugh Heffner. Philosophers and the defenders of morality stayed home.

[Artemisia]

alex said:

The Empire collapsed because of the constant attempts by provincial commanders to seize Imperial power. No more, no less.

Right! That is my opinion as well. If you have Illyrian, Thracian, Phoenician-Syrian, and Gallic emperors, it is natural that they wouldn't care a bit about Rome. The ancestors of these people were slaves to the Romans so it would be natural for their descendents, who made it into the Roman army, to seek some sort of revenge.

I also believe that the empire was too over-extended for its own good. Hadrian was smart in giving away conquered territories and focusing on internal affairs, but his successors were power hungry and incorporated much barbarian territoty into the empire.

[alex221166]

Artemisia said:

Right! That is my opinion as well. If you have Illyrian, Thracian, Phoenician-Syrian, and Gallic emperors, it is natural that they wouldn't care a bit about Rome. The ancestors of these people were slaves to the Romans so it would be natural for their descendents, who made it into the Roman army, to seek some sort of revenge.

I also believe that the empire was too over-extended for its own good. Hadrian was smart in giving away conquered territories and focusing on internal affairs, but his successors were power hungry and incorporated much barbarian territoty into the empire.

My words were misinterpreted. What I said was that the empire collapsed because provincial governors kept trying to seize the Imperial power particularly after the death of the emperor. This caused a great deal of bloodshed between the Roman legions that supported different factions - legions that had to be pulled out from their defensive missions in the borders of the empire. When the Romans redrew from Britain, it was only because a general called Maximus invaded Gaul to claim the title of emperor to himself. That event ultimately caused the Goths to invade southern France and the Iberian Peninsula.

It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the death toll in the Roman army was dued to the Roman legionaries that were killed during the (many) civil wars that plagued the existence of the empire.

Not only the emperor was often not strong enough to secure the imperial title to his direct descendent, but in many occasions he also had to keep an eye on the people that were supposed to protect him - the Pretorian Guard. The Pretorian Guard was often involved in coups to replace one emperor for another. Particularly famous is the assassination of Caligula, of his wife and baby daughter by his own bodyguards. Apparently they were fed up to see the collapse of the imperial leadership under that madman. On the other hand, they usually had a golden incentive to replace one emperor for another. In one occasion, they actually auctioned the title. I believe that the new emperor only lasted a few hours, until he too was assassinated once again by the Pretorians.

The empire was huge, but I don't think that it was over-extended. The problem was more serious: the Roman infantry legion could not face a highly mobile barbarian army based on cavalry archers and heavy cavalry, which is why they were reforming their 5000 strong legions into smaller more efficient 1000 men units stationed near the borders, supported by cavalry reserve "brigades" under provincial command.

Of course, no military reform can replace the dead soldiers that were killed during the civil wars, and ahaving allowed the Ostrogoths to cross the Danube to flee the Huns, was also a major mistake.