Skip to comments.Italian Historian Says Homosexuality Destroyed Rome ZOT!
Posted on 04/10/2011 1:29:58 PM PDT by 0beron
click here to read article
It was. LOL
just zipping through the thread and ran across your post again.
That’s why every American is filthy stinking rich.
[oh...wait...just the guy peddling that crap to suckers is loaded...never mind]
Sorry I called the posse and then went to bed.
I had good reasons, mostly to do with having to get up so much earlier than usual.
Thank you for #’s 91 & 92.
It was so poorly written it was nearly impossible to follow. You didn't miss a thing.
Thanks Sara and the rest who are courteous.
I’ve been posting here for more than a year with occasional rude posters. No big deal. Generally Freepers are intelligent Americans who are concerned about the welfare of their families and the destiny of their homeland. That’s always what it has been about for me.
The Admins have already told me I was ok, since the Religion section is kind of slow. Don’t much know what all the fuss is about, but if people want me to post entire articles. I don’t care. I’ve actually tried to post/write more lengthy things and it gives me this governor limiting he length of my post, so I’m thinking, oh, excerpts it is. I’m just too lazy to go back through again and post all of the links throughout, but that’s neither here nor there.
Anyhow, I consider a moral life to be the foundation of stable families without which the State, any State, can not long survive. The very nature of homosexuality militates against that and it has done great damage to the Catholic Church, incidentally.
For those who don’t care to read what I’ve written, I’ll direct you to the old Western Canon of Moral and Spiritual Writers from which the inimitable Bishop Sheen derived a great part of his wisdom: +Boussuet, +Manning, de Maistre, Burke, +Bellarmine, +Goffine and the Prophets.
I’ve found it very interesting that in this age, people have left off ascribing God’s wrath to natural calamities. I see no reason for this other than, perhaps, that people no longer trust God’s providence as they once did. If their theodicy no longer includes natural disasters, it also seems to have abandoned man made disasters, or even the thought of condemning behavior which was considered reprehensible even by most people in educated society half a century ago.
That was my argument. Cause and effect are not simple to determine. However, a few generations ago, the *assertion* would be that Rome fell due to its moral failings. But that was a conclusion based on questionable evidence. Rome was never a terribly moral place. But likewise, most of the immorality was for those that could afford it.
At one point, I’ll note that the Roman government had to ban a common weed from anywhere near Rome, as it was common knowledge that it made a fine poison, especially by housewives tired of their husbands.
Not what you would call the most moral of people.
I believe that's called "false witness," my dear.
That's like saying the cops arrested a shoplifter because they obviously don't like "shoppers."
Bloggers are fine, even if most are horrible. But that's not the problem. I say bring them on, and I can read the good ones and click off the bad ones. The good ones will get actual hits from me on their sites when I go there to get more.
But posting a teaser when the entire content could have been posted is not contributing. It is using.
If a blogger thinks he has something valuable to contribute, then let him contribute it, and not use FR as a base to post unnecessary teasers to force a redirect to an ad-ridden, and often cookie and flash-ridden, and sometimes virus-ridden site (and I am not bearing false witness here - it happens routinely).
That's called "lying." One of the Big Ten. There is no such governor. It is all laziness. You CAN cut and paste your content, but you choose to tease it and force a redirect.
Are you an FR contributor, or an FR user?
Like Partridge Family, Air Supply or maybe one of those awful one-hit wonder things from the 70s like "Wildfire?"
I mean...I'm at work now, but I feel a song coming on later...
you are wrong that they did not have morals. Their morals were based on pride in their position etc.
Rome, truly speaking, if you refer to the Empire, only fell in 1453 -- the "Byzantines" called themselves Romaoi (Romans)
Rome would have fallen after Septimus Severus and the disastrous 2nd century when it had a number of different emperors.
the roots go back to the end of the 5 good emperors, to the last, Marcus Aurelius who made the mistake of leaving the Princep position to his actual son instead of adopting a worthy heir as had done Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Commodus was a disaster and when he was assasinated, then came the year of the 5 emperors. This set the position for Severus who bribed his way.
From 193 AD right up until 284 and the reign of Domitian, the Empire was divided, had invasions by Germanics, had numerous barracks emperors who never even entered Rome etc.
Add to this, the problem of the 1st century when the Han Empire of China attacked and pushed the Xiongnu (huns?), who pushed the Scyths/Sarmatians/Alans, who pushed the Slavs out of their lands in the Ukrain, who pushed the Germanics out of their lands in Eastern Germany and Poland, who pushed the Celts, knocking on the doors of the Roman Empire.
A united Rome under Domitian and Constantine were able to provide a formidable resistance, but Constantine didn't follow Domitian's perfect succession rule (of 2 Augustii and 2 Caesarii) and also moved the imperial capital to Constantinople. Slowly Rome became less important, and by the 400s was a backwater. The Germanics slowly moved in and in many cases were terrified of the ones following them (huns).
Rome the city fell due to the
I would so love to hear something about a fine girl, maybe one who had eyes that could even steal a sailor from the sea.
Childish, even by blog pimp standards
The only thing I care about is destroying Marxism and promoting Catholicism.
How about some Stones? Wild Horses comes to mind. Wildfire is all right too. You will have to go with your muse, I guess.
Anything you sing will sound beautiful, I’m sure. Looking forward to hearing it in your lovely, dulcet voice and your own inimitable style.
Re: 1 Rome had plenty of strong leadership, sometimes too strong.
Re: 2 Sure, when the central government fell because it could no longer levy sufficient troops or depend on its governors because they couldn't be trusted to act with the interests of the State, it became disunited. I think part of it is the familiar problem of the people no l longer trusting their leadership.
But how do you suppose they got to the stage that there was a crisis in confidence about the leadership, and the inability to levy troops in sufficient numbers? Again, part of the problem is that their birthrate was so low, they had to depend on foreigners and mercenaries to man their armies. Even their Generals, like Stilicho, were Germans or foreign nationals.
I'll submit to you that the low birthrate was partly a result urbanization and the public dole, but primarily the moral decline of the civilization as a whole. Roman Society no longer had that firm agrarian Latin peasant with a religious piety for the land and a patriotic fervour for Rome and her institutions, he had left the lands and gone into the cities because the agricultural production was done primarily by slave labor, while the numerous foreign wars fought by the Empire displaced him too. Also, many Romans settled in far-flung areas to the East and West, forming the basis of the Latin Civilization which survived the Roman Empire in time. So, the old Roman Legions were no more because the immorality of Roman society led to the decay of family life, the displacement of Romans from their traditions. And since the family had deteriorated, you no longer had a stable place for Roman citizens to be born, no virtuous young women to be suitable brides for virtuous young men to be the building blocks of the State as a whole; sounds familiar.
if you take the city of Roma, then no -- gays were more rampant a few centuries earlier -- read about Elagabulus the Roman emperor in 218 AD who had a blonde slace named Hierocles (Gallic probably from modern day Turkey) whom he called his husband, He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the Queen of Hierocles" and was said to have offered vast sums of money to the physician who could equip him with female genitalia (Cassius)
This guy did lead to the decline before Domitian, but this was in 218-222 AD, 200+ years before the city fell to Roman-trained, Alaric in 410 and then Odoacer, a Roman cultured Germanic defeated Romulus Augustus in 476 AD. This was not due to homosexuality.
She even sat in a couple of times with that notorious band “HammerFrog”.
The Romaioi had the same problems that the Empire in the West had, although Orthodoxy in the East as in the West served as a stabilizing factor, but as in the Latin West, the Orthodox East had problems maintaining any kind of stable source of manpower loyal to the State. Part of the problem was too much centralization and high taxes, debasing the coinage, but all of that is ancillary to the moral, and there are many accounts of the immorality of the Romaik Empire told even by Monks and Bishops, threatening of a deluge. Indeed, when the city fell in 1453, most of the troops manning the walls were Italian and German mercenaries.
Rome the city had no strong leadership from the death of Constantine -- the Western Emperors were uniformally weak. Rome the Empire (Constantinople based) had wark emperors from the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD until the rise of Justinian.
Sure, when the central government fell because it could no longer levy sufficient troops or depend on its governors because they couldn't be trusted to act with the interests of the State, it became disunited.
Not completely correct -- the disunity was caused by various generals all declaring themselves to be concurrent Imperators.
But how do you suppose they got to the stage that there was a crisis in confidence about the leadership, and the inability to levy troops in sufficient numbers? --> because of two reasons:
Again, part of the problem is that their birthrate was so low, they had to depend on foreigners and mercenaries to man their armies. Even their Generals, like Stilicho, were Germans or foreign nationals. -- the birthrate was not "so low" -- don't forget that the Romans spread over Dacia, to Britannia and their blood is to be found in all of these places. The "foreign nationals" you call were Roman citizens, Roma did not care for your birth ethnicity. They even had a Semitic Emperor and probably a black/Berber (confused information on that) one too. It did not matter, they were Roman
primarily the moral decline of the civilization as a whole -- no proof of that at all after the Empire adopted Christianity. If anything, morals improved and were better in 410 compared to that under Elagabulus
. Roman Society no longer had that firm agrarian Latin peasant with a religious piety for the land and a patriotic fervour for Rome and her institutions, he had left the lands and gone into the cities because the agricultural production was done primarily by slave labor, while the numerous foreign wars fought by the Empire displaced him too. -- incorrect, the Latin peasant was still around, he also had farms in gallia, aquitania, belgia and Dacia and iberia. The foreign wars fought by the Empire did not displace him in any way as the wars were initially fought outside the boundaries of the empire and when won, the land was given to legionnaries to settle down and make roman in culture -- which they did
And since the family had deteriorated, you no longer had a stable place for Roman citizens to be born, no virtuous young women to be suitable brides for virtuous young men to be the building blocks of the State as a whole; sounds familiar. nice take from Gibbons, but not factual. As I said, morals actually improved in the 300s compared to the 200s.
I’m sorry but your analyses and comparison of Eastern and Western Empires is incorrect. The centralization and high taxes were not the root causes of the fall, they were the problems of the 200s century not the 300s.
She must have been the highlight of those evenings.
Allegra, you make my day when you sing, truly! ;-)
Oh Allegra! Please sing us a song! One full of emotion! Please! We await your great talent!
Then why not quit excerpting your own words and post the full content at Free Republic.
Would that not get more of your words read by more people? Why limit it only to those that continue on to your blog?
Centralization and high taxes were not root causes. The collapse of morality was. I never said that. They were certainly significant. Actually, decentralization was a becoming a significant problem in the 300s after Constantine. You wrote that you believe that morals were improving in the fourth and fifth century. What evidence do you have have for this?
I’ll be reading this. I like the Cato Institute for starters, but the first couple of sentences caught my attention.
It’s one thing I alluded to above with regard to State Socialism in the Roman Empire. It as certainly a factor and seems to belie what you’re saying when you say centralization and taxation wasn’t a problem in the 300s. The Reforms of Diocletian for example, attempting to stop inflation not only by freezing prices, but occupations as well:
Maybe his blog gets a lot more daily page views than Free Republic.
I heard "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" on AFN Radio yesterday and thought of Hammerfrog.
...and asked if I could learn vocals on about two hours worth of songs in five days because y'all had committed to a gig...LOL
Never forget that I didn't say "no." ;-)
Well, yeah... there was that! ;-)
Take it easy, salamander. I am not that into your hysteria on this topic.
Data mining by marketers is nothing new on the Internet and there are plenty of tools to disarm it. I understand your anger over the invasion of privacy you wish the Internet respected. It irks me, too. I sure don’t think protecting all the outrage that comes to you with the topic of data mining belongs on the head of a blogger who came here to share an interesting article from an conservative angle not covered in the mainstream press.
My reading comprehension is pretty good most of the time. Just so you know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.