|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 8, 2020 19:08:48 GMT
He's not as well-known as some of the other Roman emperors, which is kind of too bad, because he took control of an empire that was falling apart very quickly, and he restored it. Hopefully we can all agree that for better or worse the Roman Empire would have been no more in the 3rd Century if not for what this man did. Unfortunately, the video has a commercial in the first few minutes, but you can fast forward through it. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Aug 8, 2020 21:33:16 GMT
And he got murdered for his troubles.
Always wondered why someone would want to be Emperor. Most got a year or two, then someone would knock you off the throne and then your head got separated from your body. Or you got a knife in the dark or a bellyfull of poison. Was it worth it? Between Marcus Aurelius and Constantine, not too many died a peaceful death.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 8, 2020 21:34:59 GMT
And he got murdered for his troubles. Always wondered why someone would want to be Emperor. Most got a year or two, then someone would knock you off the throne and then your head got separated from your body. Or you got a knife in the dark or a bellyfull of poison. Was it worth it? Between Marcus Aurelius and Constantine, not too many died a peaceful death. Maybe he thought it was something worth risking his life for.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Aug 8, 2020 21:49:07 GMT
And he got murdered for his troubles. Always wondered why someone would want to be Emperor. Most got a year or two, then someone would knock you off the throne and then your head got separated from your body. Or you got a knife in the dark or a bellyfull of poison. Was it worth it? Between Marcus Aurelius and Constantine, not too many died a peaceful death. Maybe he thought it was something worth risking his life for. Ahhh, the noble Roman. Maybe Aurelian.nHow about the other nameless ones on the list, known only to historians? Like this guy
Or all the zeroes who "ruled" after Theodosius the Great. Reigned at the whim of some barbarian general and if he got too big for his toga, he got the ax. Me, I wouldn't think the race worth the trophy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 1:24:04 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AurelianMany of the Emporers after the Pax Romana were not very good. But neither were Nero or Caligula. After western Europe was conquered as far as was going to be, the slave trade that made Rome wealthy died out; it had not real economy to keep it going and so it sank in to decline. Aurelian merely stopped the hemorrhaging.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 9, 2020 4:29:44 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AurelianMany of the Emporers after the Pax Romana were not very good. But neither were Nero or Caligula. After western Europe was conquered as far as was going to be, the slave trade that made Rome wealthy died out; it had not real economy to keep it going and so it sank in to decline. Aurelian merely stopped the hemorrhaging. He stopped the hemorrhaging long enough for successive emperors to salvage whatever was left of the corpse known as the Roman Empire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 14:56:51 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AurelianMany of the Emporers after the Pax Romana were not very good. But neither were Nero or Caligula. After western Europe was conquered as far as was going to be, the slave trade that made Rome wealthy died out; it had not any real economy to keep it going and so it sank in to decline. Aurelian merely stopped the hemorrhaging. He stopped the hemorrhaging long enough for successive emperors to salvage whatever was left of the corpse known as the Roman Empire. The exact date of the fall of the Western Empire is in debate. Some say 410AD after Rome was sacked. Some suggest the latter half of 6th century (b. footnote in link) while most agree on 476AD. I guess the real question is not asking how or why the empire fell but how or why it lasted so long. The west was from 27BC to 476AD; the east was to 1453AD. Most emipres die out not long after the conquerer dies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Aug 9, 2020 20:26:19 GMT
He stopped the hemorrhaging long enough for successive emperors to salvage whatever was left of the corpse known as the Roman Empire. The exact date of the fall of the Western Empire is in debate. Some say 410AD after Rome was sacked. Some suggest the latter half of 6th century (b. footnote in link) while most agree on 476AD. I guess the real question is not asking how or why the empire fell but how or why it lasted so long. The west was from 27BC to 476AD; the east was to 1453AD. Most emipres die out not long after the conquerer dies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire It boggles my mind that the East lasted as long as it did. Alone, without allies, it survived and outlived the Huns, the Goths, the Avars, the Bulgars, the Sassanids, the Abbasids, the Crusaders, the Seljuk Turks, the Serbs, the Bulgars again. Finally brought down by the Ottomans. Survived the loss of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Italy, Africa, the Balkans, even Anatolia. Survived the sack of Thessalonica and Amorium. Emperors dying in battle, Valens, Nicephorous I, emperors being captured in battle, Romanus IV. An endless string of palace revolts and blindings. An endless string of religious controversies. Being wiped off the map completely in 1204. The Eastern Roman Empire. It takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
|
|