Posted on 10/08/2015 5:15:59 AM PDT by lbryce
Failure in Iraq, debates about freedom, expenses scandals, sex advice … the Romans seem versions of ourselves. But then there’s the slavery and the babies on rubbish heaps. We need to understand ancient Rome, but should we take lessons from it?
By the late fourth century CE the river Danube had become Rome’s Calais. What we often call the “invasions” into the Roman empire of barbarian hordes (or “swarms”, perhaps) could equally well be described as mass movements of economic migrants or political refugees from northern Europe. The Roman authorities had no better idea of how to deal with this crisis than our own authorities do, and, predictably, they were less humane. On one notorious occasion, uncomfortable even for some Roman observers, they sold dog-meat as food to the asylum-seekers who had managed to get across the river (dog was off limits for human consumption then as now). It was just one stage in a series of standoffs, compromises and military conflicts that eventually destroyed central Roman power in the western part of their empire. And it was exacerbated by the calculating policy of the Romans in the east, who by this era effectively formed a separate state. Their solution to the crisis of migration was to point the migrants firmly westwards, and try to make them someone else’s problem.
It’s tempting to imagine the ancient Romans as some version of ourselves. They launched disastrous military expeditions to those parts of the world where we too have failed. Iraq was as much a graveyard for the Romans as it has been for us. And one of their worst defeats, in 53BCE at the hands of a rival empire in the east, took place near the modern border between Syria and Turkey.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
No comments are to be made only until sunkenciv takes over this post. Just kidding.
CE and BCE?
What exactly determine the ERA? What is the dividing line between Current Era and Before Current Era?
YOU GUESSED IT= THE DEATH OF CHRIST
So why not dispense with this bullshit and call it what it really is? BC and AD?
CE and BCE vs BC and AD have always been a thorn on the side of certain political interests. It’s common knowledge that this two historical eras have always been interchangeable.
CE and BCE vs BC and AD have always been a thorn on the side of certain political interests. It’s common knowledge that this two historical eras have always been interchangeable.
Unlike the Romans, we can read our history and learn from it.
But that would be racist....
YOU ARE CORRECT
I was wrong... It should be his Birth but that was in 3 BC!
So....there you have it!
His birth is the dividing line. The calculation may be off by a couple or three years, scholars cannot agree, but His death and resurrection occurred around AD (or CE, the Common Era) 33.
Sadly, it appears that we are doomed to repeat the travails of the past regardless of whether we study history?
She has some really good documentries on YouTube about the Roman Empire. I especially liked the one about Pompeii.
CE => Christian Era
BCE => Before Christian Era.
Rub it in. Christ defines time.
An interesting and very worthwhile read. Like others, I am both annoyed and amused by the tortured use of BCE/CE when the yet unspoken benchmark of history remains the birth of Christ. Man’s exaltation of Self only emphasizes the self-evident omnipotence of God.
human nature has NOT CHANGED
I’ve been translating CE as “Christian Era” and BCE as “Before Christian Era” at the college where I work; much to the annoyance of my “colleagues.”
If one is Jewish, and therefore does not believe in the Deity known as Jesus, BC and AD have no meaning, especially AD, as Jesus is not our lord, therefore BCE and CE - Before the common era and common era.
Not true. BCE=before the common era, and CE=common era. AD especially has meaning only to Christians. To the rest of us, he is not our lord, therefore Anno Domini is a term of sacrilege.
Deny Him all you want, but in the end, you too shall bow the knee and acknowledge His Lordship.
One reason we define the era differently than you do is that the beginning of the common era marked the beginning of 2000 years of oppression by just about everyone from pagan Romans to Christian Byzantines, to Islamists, Christian Crusaders, and Rennaisance rulers, all of whom contrived to keep us out of our homeland, and blamed for every ill of societies.
Really?
That doesn't seem like a distinguishing feature.
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.