dagblog - Comments for "The Future and Past of the American Empire" http://dagblog.com/arts-entertainment/future-and-past-american-empire-13615 Comments for "The Future and Past of the American Empire" en After Commodus and the http://dagblog.com/comment/153092#comment-153092 <a id="comment-153092"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/153084#comment-153084">I really do not mean to be</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>After Commodus and the Severan Dynasty, the Roman Empire nearly collapsed during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century">Crisis of the 3rd Century</a>, split into three states, was briefly reunited by Aurelian, but under Diocletian became a looser association of four regions known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy">Tetrarchy</a>. Diocletian became only co-emperor, or <em>Augustus</em>, and there were two <em>Caesars</em> as well. After several decades of infighting between competing Caesars and Augusti, Constantine once again unified the Empire, but there was fighting between his surviving sons. All the succeeding emperors through Theodosius had to fight rival emperors from the East or West to keep the empire together. Theodosius' son Honorius became the Western Emperor and saw Rome sacked by Visigoths. Arcadius was luckier to inherit the Eastern Empire.</p> <p>So, I wouldn't exactly call the empire <em>intact</em>.</p> </div></div></div> Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:03 +0000 Donal comment 153092 at http://dagblog.com I really do not mean to be http://dagblog.com/comment/153084#comment-153084 <a id="comment-153084"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/arts-entertainment/future-and-past-american-empire-13615">The Future and Past of the American Empire</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I really do not mean to be snarky here but I recall:</p> <p><strong><em>THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE</em></strong></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_%28film%29">1964)</a></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It was redone in 2008 as <em><strong>The Gladiator</strong></em>.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And the title comes from the classic The Decline of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon which I was dumb enough to read a few years ago.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Both films deal with the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Well, the Roman Empire did not fall in 180 AD.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In fact it stayed in tact for over 200 years following the attainment of power by a nobody named Commodus. (from which we received the word commode!)</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I was just thinking; not an exercise I am that well at but international corporations and their empire would fall into ash without us.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I mean the oligarchy has to hedge their bets on this continent every single time and their bets are not going to be with Brazil!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We are an empire. We buy dictators just like the Brits did but the Brits did not have drones and GPS and video satellite capacity everywhere and the best Hessian like army in the history of the world and...</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">America is not in decline.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Most Americans are in decline.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">the end</p> </div></div></div> Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:12:00 +0000 Richard Day comment 153084 at http://dagblog.com