Dark Ages: The Sacking of Rome

   »  -   59 Comments
269
7.39
12345678910
Ratings: 7.39/10 from 33 users.

Storyline

Dark Ages: The Sacking of RomeAt its height in the second century A.D., the Roman Empire was the beacon of learning, power, and prosperity in the western world.

But the once-powerful Rome - rotten to the core by the fifth century - lay open to barbarian warriors who came in wave after wave of invasion, slaughtering, stealing, and ultimately, settling.

As chaos replaced culture, Europe was beset by famine, plague, persecutions, and a state of war that was so persistent it was only rarely interrupted by peace.

Dark Ages: The Sacking of Rome profiles those who battled to shape the future, from the warlords whose armies threatened to cause the demise of European society, such as Alaric, Charles the Hammer, and Clovis; to the men and women who valiantly tended the flames of justice, knowledge, and innovation including Charlemagne, St. Benedict, Empress Theodora, and other brave souls who fought for peace and enlightenment.

It was in the shadows of this turbulent millennium that the seeds of modern civilization were sown.

More great documentaries

59 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Refa

    Wow, a greedy and corrupt Roman Emperor called Justinian, who has sneaky ways to take as much money from everybody as possible.
    Is that where the word 'justice' comes from?

  2. tania

    Its strange how in many ways people haven't change. The rulers always wants more money and power, the little people are the ones who suffer and man always destroys anything beauiful, natural or man-made.

  3. ez2b12

    @ Refa

    It was as a legislator that Justinian gained his fame. He collected and codified all the principal imperial statues. The Codex, by which all previous imperial enactments were repealed, was published in 529. The writings of the jurists were next published as the Digest of 533. Finally, there appeared in the same year, the Institutiones, a systematic and elementary treatise on the law.

    In later years, Justinian promulgated several new laws, known as the Novellae. The Institutes, Digest, Code and Novels together comprise what is known as the Corpus Juris Civilis, the Body of Civil Law. So yes the word justice was derived from his name, and for very good reason. In fact several countries in Europe still recognize presidents set by the Justinian courts.

    Maybe he did find new and innovative ways to tax his citizens but his aim was to restore Rome and it's previouse stature as the light of the world. Just think of where we would be now if we had not of lost this ancient knowledge and as a result entered the dark ages.

    When these writings on law and the ancient writings by the greeks concerning philosophy and mathematics where rediscovered in Spain after the rule of the Moores Europe entered the renaissance period. Shortly after that we entered the scientific revolution in the 1700's.

    Both of these vastly important social revolutions owe their roots and shoots to the Greeks obsession with science and philosophy and the Roman obsession with law and order, not to mention the foresight of the Muslim's to save these works.

  4. Connie

    Thanks Vlatko !

    AWesome Doc, I'm watching it forr a third time tonight to absorb all those great details and I am not alone 3000 miles away my friends are watching it with me.

    Spectacular film

  5. Refa

    @eztb12: well, you must be on the other side of the law to defend it like that, are you a lawyer or something?
    Justinian killed 30.000 of his own people, and our modern Justice Department has about as much respect for life as he has: none at all!

    You argue that Justinian wanted to restore Rome and it’s previouse stature as the light of the world, like that's a good thing. Another one who tried that comes to mind, just imagine where we would be now if his Third Reich was still here. We would have even more 'justice' then we have now.

    Justice is a very dirty word, and it reminds me of killing, money, greed, bullying, tyrany, suppression and corruption.
    Words like freedom, honesty and compassion sound much better to me. I'll bet those words aren't even mentioned in the law.

    Now, about Ancient Knowledge: we DID lose it, everything!! It was already lost when Rome was first build. I am talking about ancient knowledge that was used by the Ancient Egyptians for example. Romans did not know how to build with huge monalitic stones for example, they used concrete.

    If you ask me, the Dark Ages aren't over yet.

  6. Justin

    "the Greeks obsession with science and philosophy and the Roman obsession with law and order, not to mention the foresight of the Muslim’s to save these works."

    Uh no. We owe thanks to the Christian Monks like Bede and many other Christian Monks who not only rescued the knowledge of the old world (Latin) but more importantly DEVELOPED it, built on it and later found the (Greek) in Muslim basements (where it was collecting dust) and ADDED that to what they were already developing.

    Easily one of the worst 'revisionist' of histories is this University cr** seen ALL OVER THE INTERNET which constantly keeps trying to retell this history crediting ANYONE BUT Christians for the Modern Scientific Method, yet,

    Anyone who wants to investigate this (just watch this doc) can EASILY find out that it is the Christian Church that doesn't only 'preserve' the old knowledge and 'sciences' but far more importantly develops this into what we now know as the modern scientific method, Universities, and, despite the 'southern renaissance' turning away from that towards more poetry and arts (over science) we certainly did get the Christian Reformers more North who are behind the 'Renaissance' towards Utility in Science.

    Christian Reformers did that. Protestants were doing that. They saw it as Christian. In fact Roman Catholics ALSO reformed themselves to kick up Universities, establishing 'fields of science' themselves.

    Muslims were not 'saving' those works but more significantly they did NOTHING with them but bury them in storage. Get real.

  7. Insomniac

    War corruption and greed are neither good or bad, they are simply natural reactions to ones environment. Animals steal food and kill for territory. Such behaviors are brought up by scarcity, we are chemically wired for them. The only big difference is that today we willingly allow scarcity. Look at the room around you, at all the useless c*** you have, think about who built it and how, ask yourself if it is necessary. We're all murderers and thieves. Blaming the big bad govt all the time is lazy.

  8. ez2b12

    @ Refa

    Buddy you have one distorted view of history. Comparing Rome to Hitler's third riech is about the wierdest and most unlogical comparrison i have ever heard. Further more, the move from building with giaganic stones that had to be first quarried, then chisled into shape, then transported, then moved into posistion one by one- all of this requiring methods we do not even understand and tons of labor to building with concrete, that by the way was able to set underwater, was a huge improvement. Further more the laws that were set out by the early romans as well as the latter Romans in Constantinople is what allows you to have the computer and internet to spread your out of date, simple, and mistaken philosophy about anarchy.

    No I am not a lawyer, in fact I have been arrested three times and am currently awaiting trial on the forth. I will not get into my offenses as that is none of your business. Suffice to say if anyone has reason to hate the law I do. But i am not that simple. Law is what allows us to exist as a society and make advancements in technology as well as social concepts.

    That being said our system is currently broken, full of greed and more of a show than an attempt to get at the truth. It is just like the presidential elections. Whom ever has the most money and the lawyer that knows best how to manipulate wins. Thier is no real justice left, if thier were you would not be so against the concept. Put down the joint and let go of the tree man, it's 2010.

  9. ez2b12

    @ Justin

    Yes Justin you are correct in a sence. The scientists that started the scientific revolution were christians and they did not see science as conflicting with thier beliefs. These scientists did end up in Northern Europe with the protestants as the catholics outlawed copernicanism.

    That being said to belittle the contributions made by muslims shows your own ignorance. It was the muslims that produced the first star chart that was later used by European sailors. They also did much more than just save the work of the Greeks in thier basement, they added a lot of mathematics and astronomy.

    And wether you like it or not thier was no science going on within the christian church before the rennasaince period, that anyone knows of anyway. This period was spurred into existance by the discovery of the Greek writings in spain and eventually led to the scientific revolution. And they did not add the Greek knowledge to what they already had, do you ever read?

    Baconians form England as well as Cartesians from France both declared that to get anywhere they must start over and not rest on the knowledge handed down from the Greeks. Francis Bacon devised the scientific method in order to get at this new knowledge and also asserted that unlike the Greek knowledge it should be able to be applied to realistic problems insted of just being a bunch of theories and conjecture.

    Yes the catholic church did and does store some of this old knowlege and literature, but this was not in an attempt to perserve it. It was an attempt to hide it, for christ sakes they locked Galileo in his home for life just for saying that the sun was the center of the universe. Now they will not let anyone in thier archives to see the stuff they claim to have until they are sure he/she supports the church and will not write bad things about them- true or not.Just because after several decades the church capitulated does not mean that they where at all instrumental in the advancement of the scientific revolution.

    Stop listening to a bunch of preachers and fellow christians, it's pretty obviouse that you are one, and read a history book man. I don't expect you to be as knowledgable as I am about this subject, I hold a degree in theology and ancient history, but the stuff you are saying is very far from the truth and sounds plain crazy to anyone that is educated in these fields. By the way muslims are no more crazy or wrong than christians pal, you are both equally nuts.

  10. Refa

    @ ez2b12:

    I did not make a comparison between Hitler and Rome. I just pointed out to the fact that Hitler wanted to restore Rome's glory. That is what I learned in school from the history books. I was told the term Third Reich came from that: the first one was the Roman Empire.

    I think you should take your problems up with the Dutch education system, if you really think we are being tought a distorted view from history.

    Also, if this is not true you should be able to point me to the real truth, or don't you? I ask you: Why was it called the Third Reich?? I really hope you can provide a satisfying answer, or do you just have a big mouth?
    (No, I won't look it up in Google 'cause I might get flagged by the authorities. )

    No, I really think you are the one with a distorted view of history.

    BTW, buddy, you seem to be pretty full of yourself with all your big talk. Now let us see you prove just how knowledgable you really are...we are waiting.

  11. Canadian

    ez2b12

    you seem to know what you are talking about. The Muslims actively gathered up Greek and Rome texts and translated them. Far more than just piled them in basements. Although I am not sure why Justin thinks this is some sort of contest. Christians did their part in the development of the scientific method. Many of the early scientists where priests because they are the once with the time to carry out research as we know it. Although there are many cases of Christians obstructing scientific process. Did you know the vacuum was a forbidden topic of research?

    All of these things are true at the same time. History is not a baseball game where you get to take sides. No one wins at history. We can only find out history.

  12. Connie

    @ Canadian

    CAn you tell us more aboiut the vacumn ? Thats sounds interesting

  13. Canadian

    Scientists were not allowed to look into the vacuum is because since god is everywhere, how could it be possible to have a space where there is nothing in it. To try to find a space where there is nothing is to directly challenge god. I am totally serious. This might sound dumb, but let me assure you, homeopathy is dumber.

  14. ez2b12

    Definition of the word riech: The territory or government of a German state, as the Holy Roman Empire, or First Reich, from 962 to 1806; the German Empire, or Second Reich, from 1871 to 1919; the Weimar Republic, from 1919 to 1933; or the Third Reich, from 1933 to 1945.

    Riech is a german word coined by the germans and was not used by the Romans at all. They would have used the word Regnum (latin for kingdom) to mean the same thing. We say that the Roman empire was the first riech because it was the first global power and some historians hold that Rome never died but eventually turned into the nation of Germany. This is very questionable though as the culture, language, and government that was Rome did die after the invasions of the barbarians. In 962, the King of Germany, Otto I, took the Kingdom of Rome in Italy by force at the request of Pope John XII, and was crowned Emperor in Rome. Furthermore the original German state was run by a represenative parlimentary government, like the Old Roman republic.Hitler siezed on this association and called his government the Third Riech or third kindom trying to borrow validity and strength from the fame of the Roman empire. However, the differences between Hitler's German state and the Roman empire are vast and stark.

    The Romans extended the rights of citizenship to all they conquered and usually let them keep thier old religions and cultural traditions- to an extent. This was an enormouse change in the way that civilizations treated others they conquered. It meant that you, as a Roman citizen, could travel through out the Roman empire, which encompassed most of the world, with no fear of your marriage or ownership of your goods being in question. More importantly it meant that the laws that governed commerce or trade applied everywhere you traded within the Roman empire. It also gave you discourse through Roman law if someone did not pay or tried to extort money from you. This brought peace and unity to an otherwise disfunctional and disorganized system of trade. If you bought your goods in Italy then you had some idea of what they would sell for and how you could market them anywhere within the empire. If you bought property you had certain rights and discourse against offenses to your property.

    Did Hitler's Germany do any of this for say the Polish, French, or anyone else they conquered. No he used them for labor, placed them in camps, and exterminated most of them. Yes he had the same goal of world domination that the Romans had, but for different reasons and by different means. Now if the means and the end are different, where is the comparrison? Because they used a word that meant the same thing?

    All of this can be verified by reading Western Civilizations vol. 1 and 2 by Robert C. Stacey and Judith G. Coffin. You should also read Perspectives from the Past primary sources in Western Civilizations. This is a collection of works written by those that lived in the Roman and Greek states compiled by James M. Brophy, Joshua Cole, Steven Epstien, John Robertson, and finally Thomas Max Safely. I do not use online sources though, just my prefferance. You may verify my degrees at the University of North Alabama, Miles University, and Bevill State university.

    I did not mean to come off as a know it all, I am just very passionate about my field of study. I'm sure you know many things I would not have a clue about. This is the nature of things. No one person is usually more intelligent than another. people simply have different areas in which they are educated. I for instance have trouble with spelling and grammar, if you haven't noticed. You should read these books though, I think you would find them very interesting and informative.

  15. ez2b12

    @ Canadian

    No I did not know that, the vacuum thing i mean. That is very interesting. I agree that history is not about winning or losing. Different religions and certain political movements are trying very hard rigth now to re-write history. We must be careful of the sources we trust, as always I suppose. I do however trust the books i have recommended as they present a very balanced and honest acount of history in my opinion.

    We seem to have forgotten that while we have a right to our own opinions we do not have a right to our own facts. The distortion of the muslim history and religion in the US right now is absolutedly shamefull. I am an athiest and do not see the validity of any religion but, I hate to see people distort the truth due to thier own predjudices.

    We do not need to take anything away or add anything to the muslim faith inorder to demonize it. It does this well enough all on its own, the same applies for christianity in my opinion.

  16. ez2b12

    Whoops, I made a mistake. Originally Germany was a monarchy. It did not adopt the represenative parliament until 1919 under the Wiemar republic, which was ended in 1933 by Hitler to set up the third riech. The first riech being Rome, second riech was the original German monarchy, and then we get the Wiemar republic leading to the Third riech under Hitler. Remember though that these are labels and associations applied by historians to Rome, not what the Romans called themselves. And historians never meant to say that Rome and Hitlers Germany were any where near the same thing. Why is it that when anyone wants to demonize a people or belief they relate it to Hitler? True history is set in stone and can not be changed or formulated, only discovered and interpreted.

  17. Canadian

    @ez2b12

    cannot agree with you more. There is a clear and active attempt to re-write every aspect of history along to fit the frame of neo-conservatism. One great example of this is the new robin hood movie. Robin hood was originally about robing from the rich and give to the poor. Within the narrative of the story is a clear struggle between classes. The new movie re-casted robin hood as a land owner fight against Taxation. When i was watching the movie, it occurred to me how insidious this revision actually is.

    This same revision is occurring all around. It feels like i am living in the novel 1984. So lets make a toast to the knowing the past. It apparently is a luxury enjoyed by the few.

  18. ez2b12

    @ canadian

    You are so right man. I did not know about the robin hood revision but, we have to remember that very little of the original Robin Hood legend was actuall verifiable history.
    The core historical element to the Robin Hood legend involves the reign of Prince John while King Richard I was off fighting the Crusades in the twelfth century. This part is based in fact, as King Richard I was off fighting in the Crusades, and while he was gone Prince John did rule in his stead. It is also true that Johns rule was not very popular amongst his subjects. Finally richard did return from the crusades and did reclaim his rule. So far so good right. Well heres the part none of us like to hear. Thier is absolutedly no proof what so ever that Robin gave to the poor what he stole from the rich. In fact he was probably just another outlaw. He most likely robbed whom ever he could, rich or poor, but with a little more charisma than the others. Thus he was remembered and the tale was built around him.

    This tale is a reflection of the feelings of peasants in the countryside whom felt that the citied nobleman, like the Sheriff of Nottingham, should not impose restrictions on thier livelihood. Before we get to excited about the fact that thier was a Sheriff of Nottingham remember that was a public office, of course thier had to be one in real life. However thier is no historical proof that robin ever encountered the Sheriff during his time. He very well may have seeing that he was an outlaw but we have no documentation or proof of this. The original tale was a ballad and was not written down for several decades. As is the case with stories that are preserved this way every teller added his or her own verse or verses usually shaped by their particular situation.

    Part of the historical problem stems from there being no single source for the Robin Hood legends. They were popular stories of their time and those original ballads contained many of the core familiar elements. Other aspects of the story we know for a fact are not true. We know English writer Sir William Scott was one of the people who made the association between Robin Hood and the absence of King Richard during the Crusades. Thier is no proof this is even when he existed. Maid Marion appears to have been a later addition as well, we always need some romance in good a story. It seems as time passed Robin's tale was made more pallitable by removing the earlier aspects of murder as well, which Robin often resorted to in the original ballads to reallocate wealth.

    One thing is for sure though, he was not a land owner and he never fought taxation. This was never part of the original or modified tale that was so popular. I'm not sure this is a ploy by the neo-cons but, I sure would not put it past them.

  19. Refa

    @ ez2b12: Man you are so s!@#$%!! There is a difference between learning and thinking, and knowing much does not make a person smart, but I guess you didn't know that, right?
    Since you are still talking about a comparison between hitler and rome I don't even bother to read the rest of your posts.

    But I guess I did not have a distorted view of history after all. No apology needed, thank you! @$$#0L3!!

  20. David

    "As chaos replaced culture, Europe was beset" "warlords whose armies threatened to cause the demise of European society" "the men and women who valiantly tended the flames of justice, knowledge, and innovation"

    I cant believe such a simplistic and false version of post-Roman European history is still being pushed. A constantly changing and evolving multi-faceted complex several centuries long geopolitical landscape reduced to'goodies vrs baddies.' Nonsense.

  21. ez2b12

    @ Refa

    Look man you made the comparrison not me. Then you asked me to explain myself in a very smart a## way, so i did. If that bothers you maybe you should not have asked for it. I never claimed to be smart and explained very plainly that this was simply the area I was educated in, not that i was any smarter than anyone. Face it, you didnt think I could back up my assertion and I did and that pisses you off. Oh well.

  22. ez2b12

    @ david

    You are so right man. I do see Rome as a good thing but, the Visigoths and other germanic tribes where far from barbarians. They were just as sophisticated as the Romans and saw a chance then siezed it. Rome did the same many times. It is a very distorted way to look at things, good vrs. bad. Good to see someone read between the lines.

  23. nick_kcin

    This seems to have a very pro Christian spin considering that the widespread adoption of a single, personal, vengeful god was used to validate the actions of men who pretty much fucked up everything for everyone. I seem to pick up that sort of thing a lot from the history channel docos, anyone else notice that?

    a good documentary though still well worth watching

  24. icnivad

    After watching that doc I'm glad I wasn't born during that period. No education, famine, diseases, wars and worst of all no Disco music.. ; )

  25. Andrew C

    Great film. I know much about Rome and that of the middle ages. But I will admit, my knowledge into the "Dark Ages" is rather limited.

    This video gave me a good framework to start further research.

  26. ez2b12

    @ nick_kcin

    Yes i have noticed the same thing. However in my opinion the fall of Rome was due to the monetary system put in place by Julius Ceasar. It gave control of the economy to the rich elite and seemed to kill the average citizens motivation to fight for Rome. The also had Romanized so many of the civilizations that they conquered that the original Romans began to feel that to be Roman meant nothing, that is was no longer special.

  27. Gareth Devlin

    The start of this is Highly Inaccurate, Alaric the Goth invaded Italy because he was passed over for promotion, he invaded Italy for food. The real reason he invaded was he was looking for concessions from the Emperor mainly land for his people to settle in. He was betrayed several times by the emperor and so he finally attacked and sacked Rome, he did not wait two years because of the defences of Rome, he could have taken the city anytime he wanted. He waited and starved the people inside the city because he was trying to force the Emperor to recognise his people and give them land to live in peace in modern day alsatia

  28. tjo

    I didn't like the style of narration and even though the content was good I couldn't get through it.

  29. Fornis

    David: My thought exactly. I am not going to watch a documentary with a premise that biased and over simplified. this must be an American production and this narrative of prejudice and arrogance just makes me pissed of. Screw this.

  30. phil

    @Refa

    You fail at comments

  31. Not Steve Harper

    Couldn't watch this past the opening statement describing the Visigoth, who were in fact every bit as sophisticated as the Romans - this is revisionist propaganda glorifying the Roman Empire.

  32. Joe Johnson

    There are theories that have been postulated that the Roman Empire probably declined because of the Catholic church - see Gibbons rise and fall of the Roman Empire. This type of belief espoused "loving thine enemy as thyself" and such other beliefs handed down from Jesus Christ. Not exactly a good slogan for maintaining or even expanding an empire. The Byzantine empire also declined later on as well. The documentary did not mention the Celts who were also a force to be reckoned with during the "dark ages". The Romans were also affected by lead poisoning in the sweetener they used for their wine, which created lots of mental problems in the upper echelons of their ruling classes. Caligula being a prime example. Eventually the Catholic church became so corrupt the reformation came about. People had to pay to have their sins absolved - this was called absolution -and the monks took this money and used it for nefarious purposes.

  33. Bryan Leger

    i just as some one the other day where the rome good or evil and I do think the rome are still here

  34. bardh bakalli

    Goths , smelly dirty heathens?? They were christians and not smelly/dirty/primitive since they had contact with rome for a long time and filled the ranks of the roman military for a long time....

    This simplistic view of the "barbarians" is the same as if in the future all documentaries regarding the Jews use Nazi literature...

  35. a_no_n

    calling them heathen when they were quite clearly Christian also underlines how little factual research went into this...was exactly the point i switched it off too lol.

  36. Jack1952

    They were Christians but of a sect known as the Arians. They did not believe in the Trinity and were branded as heretics. In many ways a heretic is worse than a heathen in the eyes of the Church of the times. They had also been displaced by the Huns and moved into the area which is now Bulgaria seeking refuge. Their original homeland lacked the stonewalled cities with running water, permanent learning institutions and a sophisticated road system. This is the heritage they brought with them to the Roman Empire. They may not have been the next thing to a Neanderthal but in the eyes of many traditional Romans they were not a very sophisticated lot.

  37. Jack1952

    They were Christians but of a sect known as the Arians. Arians were considered heretics....worse than heathens.

  38. Jack1952

    "This must be American". No bias there.

  39. Jack1952

    People fought wars long before there were Christians. Not one of the ancient empires believed in a single vengeful god.
    War is part of the human condition and to overcome it we have to recognize this by looking at the primal motivations behind our actions; not the superficial ones.

  40. Jack1952

    The story of Robin Hood has been a myth for centuries and is far from being an historical account. The new movie does not claim to be historical fact either. It is a story that was derived from an older story; one that has been evolving for hundreds of years.

  41. Jack1952

    I have never heard of this vacuum story but it makes sense in an illogical, medieval way. A place where there is no God would have been a sacrilegious idea in the Middle Ages.

  42. Jason

    I can't take this hillbilly professor's accent seriously... it's goddamn grating, actually, and spoils this doco...

  43. Terry Beaton

    Every bit??

  44. Dustin Manduffie

    That isn't even close to a hillbilly accent, he sounds like he's from the west coast... California/Oregan/Washington maybe. Hardly an Alabama or Kentucky accent...

  45. Banjo49

    This is one of the worst documentaries I have ever seen.

  46. Remy Cote

    Good Documentary. Watch it. I wanted to see an actually documentary film about life after Roman Empire fell.

  47. EcoCollectivist

    The Romans were just as barbaric as the Germanic tribes and we, yes our glorious "enlightened" society, is just as barbaric as all of them. This film re-affirms social and cultural superiority in order to demean and oppress the other.

  48. denielzvernaillen

    part 6 05:50
    st benedict smokes a joint..

  49. Snusgrop

    I hate when they leave out the fact that the Vikings were mostly peaceful traders..

  50. flaming_froghurt

    It's called "Reich" and "Weimar", not riech and Wiemar.

  51. Hardnekkig

    romans where murderers and pigs and when they got there ***** kicked its the best thing happened in europe ever

  52. William McFadden

    And this is different from today how? The only difference I see is the hidden intentions. At least back then they were upfront about their corruption.

  53. Winston Smith

    payback's a bitch.

  54. Winston Smith

    Boy does this doc over-simplify! IM just into part two and the narrator is talking like the 'technology, architecture, wealth and education' of Roman society were for everyone! They wasn't. In fact it was only fro select Romans. Sure the plebs had some rights but it was a highly stratified autocratic society. At the time of it's fall, 1/3 (of 6 mn people living there) were slaves! A Roman could do whatever s/he wanted to a slave. So you could imagine the horrors that went on as a matter of course. Rape wasn't some vile thing but just another aspect of life, depending where on this scale one lived. The 'dark ages' was when they built all those amazing Gothic cathedrals. Had 'la convivienza' in Southern Spain under Muslim Moor rule and so on.

  55. jeczaja

    The Roman Empire was just the Mafia with a big army. The "barabarians" were Germanic families looking for land to live on-promised land by Rome and then deceived. Eurocentric BS.

  56. Rogelio

    we have to be thankful to the men of courage who gave up their lives in bringing the words of God - the Bible today- into the general public which Roman Catholic prohibits long ago, a church of a Pagan practices in origin, a professed Christian religion, but in truth, an instrument of Satan to bring the inhabitants of the earth into damnation

  57. Devon Griffiths

    True, but I think you're judging it by modern standards. At the time, this was no different than any other culture. Almost everyone practiced slavery (including groups like the Germanics and Celts), many groups engaged in genocidal warfare, and so on. Most groups were also just as stratified, albeit less possessed of luxury. The Celts even had colour codes for clothing according to one's caste; a Bóaire had the right to wear certain colours but not others. Most of the population consisted of serfs called bothach, who were not freemen (and only barely above the slaves).

    None of them accused the Romans of being illiberal because their society was too stratified. It wouldn't have occurred to them; at the time this was seen to be the natural order of things. Rather, they were (initially) warrior cultures guided by distinct notions about honour which ran counter to Roman ideals of expedience and efficiency; to them the flaw with Rome was that it made people soft and caused them to abandon the values associated with their warrior cultures.

    In 387 BC, the Romans - when they were just a city-state - had their phalanxes ripped apart by Gallic warriors at the Battle of Allia. The Gauls seized and plundered the city, killing, raping and robbing, then demanded 1000 pounds of gold to leave. They were caught using loaded weights, and when the Romans complained, their chief threw his sword onto the scales and said, "Woe to the conquered, for they have no rights." So its difficult to imagine that they could have seen the Romans as illiberal. In fact - we get our liberal concepts as a further evolution of ideals begun by the Romans and elaborated upon during the Renaissance, with the re-awakening of Classical ideals.

  58. testable hypothesis

    No one will ever convince me that this happened 1500 years ago. Ever try to do complex calculations with roman numerals, calculations needed to do the architecture for the Colosseum that the so called 'Romans' had. Why do people believe this crap. It is all a fantasy created by Josephus Scaliger and Dionysus Petavius, two catholic monks, in the 1500's. They were not even scientists and made up 4 identical chronolgies and shifted them back in time to artificially elongate human history. Really. Think about it. How far has society come in just 100 years. In 1914 we barely had automobiles and now flying is as easy as anything...do you really think that since the fall of the 'Roman' empire, 500 a.d. or so, that NO ADVANCES in technology happened until the Renaissance, especially when complex technology was needed for warfare, weapons, armour, siege engines etc....and whoever got the advantage on those technologies would dominate....really? So learned people just stopped thinking for say 800 years!!! or so, and then, poof! Renaissance time....lets build canons and fire arms and printing presses....really? and even geographically, all roads do NOT lead to Rome in Italy, but they do lead to Constantinople on the Bosporus, from both the East, West, North and South, and it is also a city with a massive defensive, 3 ringed wall system. Why? Because it was the center of a massive empire in the 11th, 12th century (or should be the 1st or 2nd century since the nativity of Christ (Andronicus)) But don't take my word for it. Talk to Kasparov, or Anatoly Fomenko and other learned scientists who have been questioning this so-called 2000 year fake chronology that we have in the west. Other great scientist, like Newton for example, also questioned the veracity of the West's chronology.

  59. Peter JC

    I dont think you can be convinced. There are Roman ruins scattered throughout the former empire, they did build and create formula for underwater concrete, render, stucco and suspended arches but to name a few. I think you have another agenda. Newton was an alchemist by the way, real credible science!

Leave a comment / review: