#The Decline and Fall of the Rome Empire | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thepromptfoundry · 27 days ago

Text

Calling all history nerds, period piece connoisseurs, and fans of time-travel plots! Decades December is coming up here at The Prompt Foundry!

This list is being posted a little earlier than usual because historical work can take some time. The list has some reference points for you to jump off from. Show off your special interest in a particular era or event, or start a wiki walk from the the Wikipedia page for each decade to learn something new!

Have fun exploring resources like @thetimelinesofslang, the Fashion History Timelines from NYSU's Fashion Institute of Technology, or the fashion plates and historical photos from blogs like @omgthatdress or @historical-fashion-polls!

If you use this list, please tag me here @thepromptfoundry, I’d love to see your writing and art!

Feel free to combine different days' prompts with each other, or combine them with other events! Use your OCs, your favorite characters from media, your own experiences, whatever tickles your fancy.

Respond to as many prompts as you want or as interest you, don’t worry about missing or skipping any. Remember, this is supposed to be fun!

If you have any questions or musings, check our FAQ, and if you don't find your answer, shoot me an ask.

Plain text list below the cut:

1) 0010s Xin dynasty in China, Caesar Augustus in Rome

2) 1900s Edwardian era, Russo-Japanese War, release of the first feature film The Great Train Robbery

3) 300s Teotihuacan flourishing in present-day Mexico, writing of the Kama Sutra

4) 1910s World War 1, the Russian Revolution

5) 1440s Late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance in Europe, the hangul writing system is introduced in Korea

6) 1920s Prohibition in the US, rise of fascism in Europe, earliest sync-sound movies

7) 0070s Roman Epire, destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and destruction of Pompeii

8) 1930s The Great Depression, the Declaration of the Independence of India, art deco, color film

9) 1090s The First Crusade, the Liao, Xia, and Song dynasties in various parts of China

10) 1810s The Napoleonic Wars, the Regency era in England

11) 1940s World War 2, post-war rebuilding

12) 1000s BC The Iron Age, King David of the Israelites, development of the Phoenician alphabet

13) 1950s Baby Boom, Red Scare, the Korean War, rock'n'roll, zippers and television both become commonplace

14) 1340s The Black Death in Europe, decline of the Mongol Empire

15) 1590s Late Elizabethan Era in Europe, William Shakespeare, Imjin War between Japan and Korea

16) 1960s Moon landing, hippies, mod fashion, Chinese Cultural Revolution, Stonewall, Star Trek, the Civil Rights movement

17) 1770s The American Revolution, founding of the real Illuminati

18) 1860s American Civil War era, late Edo period in Japan

19) 1970s The Sexual Revolution, disco, the first video games, end of the Vietnam War

20) 2200s Whatever the future holds!

21) 1980s End of the Cold War and fall of the Berlin Wall, beginnings of the World Wide Web, the First Intifada in Gaza

22) 1660s Part of the Golden Age of Piracy, the English Restoration

23) 1990s Internet access becomes widespread, grunge, the Gulf War, the Troubles in Ireland, height of the AIDS crisis, Princess Dianna, first Pokemon games

24) 1230s University of Cambridge founded in England, beginnings of the Mali Empire in Africa, rein of Emperor Shijo in Japan

25) 2000s The “War On Terror”, rise of Big Tech, Y2K fashion, emo culture, cell phones become commonplace

26) 1880s Gilded Age, the first skyscrapers, electrification of cities, first household electrical appliances like fans and irons

27) 1640s Qing dynasty begins in China, the First English Civil War

28) 2010s Hipster culture, height of video streaming, YA lit boom

29) 500s Liang and Northern Wei dynasties in China, Heptarchy period in England, height of prosperity of the Mayan Empire

30) 2020s Present day!

31) 3130s Whatever the future holds!

#the prompt foundry #Decades December 2024 #history #historical fashion #historical fiction #prompt list #drawing prompt #writing prompt #art prompt #writing challenge #writing inspiration #drawing challenge #drawing inspiration #art challenge #art inspiration #speculative fiction #time travel #period piece

71 notes · View notes

whencyclopedia · 14 days ago

Photo

Fall of the Western Roman Empire

To many historians, the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE has always been viewed as the end of the ancient world and the onset of the Middle Ages, often improperly called the Dark Ages, despite Petrarch's assertion. Since much of the west had already fallen by the middle of the 5th century CE, when a writer speaks of the fall of the empire, he or she generally refers to the fall of the city of Rome. Although historians generally agree on the year of the fall, 476 CE, and its consequences for western civilization, they often disagree on its causes. English historian Edward Gibbon, who wrote in the late 18th century CE, points to the rise of Christianity and its effect on the Roman psyche while others believe the decline and fall were due, in part, to the influx of 'barbarians' from the north and west.

Whatever the cause, whether it was religion, external attack, or the internal decay of the city itself, the debate continues to the present day; however, one significant point must be established before a discussion of the roots of the fall can continue: the decline and fall were only in the west. The eastern half - that which would eventually be called the Byzantine Empire - would continue for several centuries, and, in many ways, it retained a unique Roman identity.

External Causes

One of the most widely accepted causes - the influx of a barbarian tribes - is discounted by some who feel that mighty Rome, the eternal city, could not have so easily fallen victim to a culture that possessed little or nothing in the way of a political, social or economic foundation. They believe the fall of Rome simply came because the barbarians took advantage of difficulties already existing in Rome - problems that included a decaying city (both physically and morally), little to no tax revenue, overpopulation, poor leadership, and, most importantly, inadequate defense. To some the fall was inevitable.

Unlike the fall of earlier empires such as the Assyrian and Persian, Rome did not succumb to either war or revolution. On the last day of the empire, a barbarian member of the Germanic tribe Siri and former commander in the Roman army entered the city unopposed. The one-time military and financial power of the Mediterranean was unable to resist. Odovacar easily dethroned the sixteen-year-old emperor Romulus Augustalus, a person he viewed as posing no threat. Romulus had recently been named emperor by his father, the Roman commander Orestes, who had overthrown the western emperor Julius Nepos. With his entrance into the city, Odovacar became the head of the only part that remained of the once great west: the peninsula of Italy. By the time he entered the city, the Roman control of Britain, Spain, Gaul, and North Africa had already been lost, in the latter three cases to the Goths and Vandals. Odovacar immediately contacted the eastern emperor Zeno and informed him that he would not accept that title of emperor. Zeno could do little but accept this decision. In fact, to ensure there would be no confusion, Odovacar returned to Constantinople the imperial vestments, diadem, and purple cloak of the emperor.

#History #Alaric #Attila #BattleofAdrianople #WHE #[#]

64 notes · View notes

bedlamsbard · 23 days ago

Note

Ok I am genuinely and independently curious about your opinions on the fall of Rome, but I do understand it not being the time, so answer this how you best see fit to not cause fuckshit

see, the thing is that I am immune to discourse about the fall of Rome because 99% of online comparisons to ~the fall of the Roman Empire just have a very culturally osmosed idea of Edward Gibbon's decline and fall and no idea what actually happened in the late 5th/early 6th centuries, and the thing I do professionally is The End of the Western Roman Empire. that is not an exaggeration. that's what my doctoral dissertation is on. (actually, technically it's about failures of Roman identity in specific regions of the (former) Western Roman Empire, but basically the End of the Western Roman Empire.) I have spent the bulk of the past ten years thinking extensively about the End of the Western Roman Empire. It is a safe bet that I know every major argument of scholarly discourse on the End of the Western Roman Empire. I have also read the original sources in the original languages. this is just to say that like. I have a lot of opinions about the end of the Western Roman Empire, and they digress pretty significantly even from common scholarly view, let alone popular opinion. (but I can back them up! I'm not sourcing stuff here, but I can.)

the traditional end date for the end of the Western Roman Empire is 476 CE, the year the emperor Romulus Augustulus was removed from the throne by a so-called barbarian usurper named Odoacer. after that, there were no other Western Roman Emperors and Italy was ruled by barbarian kings until the foundation of the Exarchate as a result of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian's invasion. Odoacer was, by the way, a Roman military officer and a citizen. Romulus Augustulus was fourteen years old and had been on the throne the year previously but his father and uncle, both of whom Odoacer killed. oh, by the way, the preceding emperor? yeah, Romulus Augustulus's dad didn't actually kill him. his name was Julius Nepos, and he did get chased out of Italy. he went to his native Dalmatia (modern Croatia) and wrote angry but pleading letters to his relative by marriage, the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor Zeno, who was a little busy at the time because he had just been chased out of Constantinople by a usurper named Basiliscus. By the time Zeno succeeded in retaking Constantinople and knocking Basiliscus off, Odoacer was safely seated in Ravenna (the city of Rome had ceased to be the imperial capital some time earlier) and had 14-year-old Romulus Augustulus and the Roman Senate (still in the city of Rome) writing letters to Zeno on his behalf. Romulus and the Senate both said, essentially, hey, why don't YOU (Zeno) be the first emperor to control both halves of the empire for the first time in centuries and Odoacer can just be king in Italy, basically a governor, but it's YOUR empire.

(by the way, Romulus Augustulus was fine. he was quietly retired to a villa in Campania with his mother, we actually have letters to him from years later.)

the Italian legation seems to have arrived in Constantinople at the same time as the Julius Nepos's Dalmatian legation, which said, "hey, cousin, congrats on getting the throne back, funny story! I have the same problem. could you maybe help me out here?"

the problem is that Zeno, having just finished fighting a major civil war that almost succeeded, did not have any resources to help Nepos, and also everyone in the Eastern Roman Empire hated him (Zeno) a lot. so much. what he ends up doing is writing a strongly-worded letter to Odoacer thanking him for the offer but reminding him that he HAS a Western Roman Emperor already! right now! don't forget!

so true, bestie, Odoacer says to Zeno, and then proceeds to ignore Nepos for the next four years -- except. he continues to put Nepos on his coins. he continues to put Zeno on his coins. as far as the Roman senate and the population of Italy is concerned, they are still part of the Roman res publica. they are very clear on this fact. so are our Eastern Roman writers, interestingly, though the situation with the West is kind of tense, but Zeno is busy with like. six other civil wars. (because everyone hates him). so he can't actually do anything about the Odoacer and Nepos situation. Nepos dies in 480 (assassinated by his own nobles) and even though Odoacer springs up all "I WILL AVENGE YOUR DEATH, MY BELOVED EMPEROR" and conquers Dalmatia, this actually just makes the situation with the East worse because now there's not even the illusion of a Western Roman Emperor, but Zeno is busy having his five hundredth civil war so he can't do anything about it. (it's actually not his fault, there were numerous factors going on in the East, only some of which were that everyone hated Zeno for being essentially an outsider. his mother-in-law and his wife also hated him.)

eventually, however, Zeno manages to kill all of his problem noblemen and attempted usurpers except one guy and goes, huh, you know what. I would like you to get out of the Eastern Roman Empire but you're actually very competent so I can't beat you militarily. also would you please stop marching on Constantinople, that would be great.

that one guy is Theoderic the Great, King of the Ostrogoths. he was also a Roman citizen (Flavius Theodericus), a patrician, Zeno's son-in-arms (we're not actually sure what this entails), and a former consul, THE most prestigious office in both sides of the empire, with a host of Roman civil and military honors. he'd been raised in the court at Constantinople as a political hostage, which meant he knew the imperial system inside and out, and upon being released immediately went back to the Ostrogoths, raised an army, and started conquering things, both for and against the Eastern Romans. he had been on Zeno's side, he had been fighting Zeno, he had been on Zeno's side again, he had been fighting Zeno again, he was NOT responsible for the death of the other Gothic Theoderic, Theoderic Strabo (who once called him out for being too Roman), who died accidentally, but he was probably responsible for the death of Strabo's heir, which resulted in all of Strabo's Goths joining Theoderic's Goths. he marched on the walls of Constantinople. peak frienemy.

it's unclear if sending Theoderic and the Ostrogoths to Italy was Zeno's idea or Theoderic's, since sources differ, but one way or another Theoderic gathered up all of the Ostrogoths (men, women, and children) and set out on an overland trek to Italy, picking up various other barbarian peoples along the way, and arrived in Italy in 489, where he immediately set about making Odoacer's life a nightmare by conquering everything in Italy except Ravenna, where Odoacer holes up with his family. in 493 the bishop of Ravenna negotiates a truce between Theoderic and Odoacer, the two of them agreeing to rule Italy between them, and then Theoderic personally kills Odoacer and also has the rest of his family killed, leaving him as king of Italy -- rex Italiae.

or...what? we do know for sure that Theoderic used the title rex Italiae. he also used the titles princeps, imperator, and dominus. we even have one stone inscription, set up by a Roman senator (who ought to know) calling him augustus (emperor). what we don't know -- and scholarly ideas differ here -- is what Theoderic's actual legal relationship vis a vis the Eastern Roman Empire was because to all intents and purposes, for the next thirty years, Theoderic acted like, was treated like, and performed as the Western Roman Emperor, without ever explicitly claiming that title. but everything about his reign was centered around performing Romanness perfectly and about restoring territory to the WRE that had been lost decades earlier. which he did. he brought portions of Gaul and Spain and the Balkans under Italian rule again. he bragged about seating Gallic senators in the Roman senate for the first time in decades. every letter to he sent to the East was "okay, you're emperor, but I'm as good as you and don't you forget it, we're still the other republic (utraeque res publicae)." he went on what was essentially a triumph in Rome itself. he did the whole bread and circuses shindig. (literally, he reinstituted the annona, the grain dole, and held gladiatorial games even though he personally didn't like them.) most of the popes liked him and were happy to work with him (because they hated the patriarch in Constantinople and the various Eastern Roman Emperors). (I say most of because he definitely interfered with a couple of papal elections and may have had one pope killed.)

now, he wasn't a perfect Roman, because he was still a barbarian (non-Roman) king. there were legal distinctions between Romans and Ostrogoths in Italy. Theoderic made marriage alliances with most of his surrounding barbarian neighbors (who also all ruled former Roman territory); he wasn't a Nicene (Catholic) Christian, he was an Arian (Homoian) Christian. but he acted as a Roman emperor and seems to have been perceived as one by the bulk of the inhabitants of Italy. (yes, of course he had political enemies, yes I know about Boethius and Symmachus). also sometimes he did fight the Eastern Roman Empire but considering how many civil wars Rome had had that's basically one of the most Roman things he could do.

he dies in 525, without an adult male heir, and his grandson Athalaric becomes king under the regency of his mother, Theoderic's daughter Amalasuintha, who was essentially too Roman for most of the Ostrogothic nobility but made the Roman senate really happy. she was apparently pretty close to being a political genius, she was just unfortunately a woman. an unmarried woman. (Athalaric's father had died at some indeterminate point before Theoderic's death, we don't know when.) when Athalaric died before gaining his majority, Amalasuintha briefly reigned as sole ruler, then realized that that wasn't going to work with the Ostrogoths, and named her cousin Theodahad her co-ruler. (she did not marry him, anyone who tells you she married him is wrong. Theodahad was already married.) this backfired very badly. Theodahad had her arrested, imprisoned, and murdered.

this was a huge mistake, because Theodahad was actually incredibly incompetent, and the Eastern Roman Empire was out the lookout for blood since the Emperor Justinian was on his high horse about ~reconquering the Roman West.

and this is when the "the Roman Empire fell in 476" narrative enters the picture. it comes from an Eastern Roman Latin writer names Marcellinus comes, writing during Justinian's reign, and he is the very first person who points to that date, to the usurpation of Romulus Augustulus (who was never acknowledged by Zeno), and to Odoacer as a big, BIG change in the Roman world. previously there is no evidence that anyone in either West or East looked at 476 and thought "something fundamental has changed here." (I mean, maybe they did, but they didn't write it down or if they did it didn't survive.) in fact, Odoacer's and Theoderic's reigns were the most stable period Italy had had in decades; they'd gone through five emperors in ten years. Procopius, writing the Wars, also identifies Romulus Augustulus as the last emperor and Odoacer and Theoderic as illegitimate rulers, but the man is very much writing propaganda. (just because the Secret History hates women and also Justinian does not mean the Wars is not propaganda.) the East has a vested reason for identifying 476 and Romulus as a sea change: they want a legitimate reason to invade the West, and "avenging Amalasuintha" and "reclaiming Rome from the barbarians" are good excuses.

(Procopius really struggles with how to identify Theoderic, because he has to identify Theoderic as a usurper and a tyrant (in the technical ancient sense, not the modern one) for his propaganda to work, but even to him Theoderic is a good ruler, who could have been an emperor but never claimed the title, who held all these Roman honors, etc. there's even a big debate about Theoderic's legal status vis a vis the Eastern Roman Empire in the Wars, so it's clear that it was unclear.)

Theodahad fucks everything up, is murdered by the Goths, and the Goths name a man called Witigis as king. to legitimize this, Witigis (apparently forcibly) marries Amalasuintha's daughter (Theoderic's granddaughter) Matasuintha. too late, the Eastern Roman Empire has already invaded and they aren't stopping for shit. in 535, Ravenna falls, and the remains of the Ostrogothic court (which include a lot of Italo-Roman civil officials) are transported to Constantinople.

THAT'S the end of the Western Roman Empire, the fall of the Ostrogothic Amal dynasty.

the Gothic Wars continue for another twenty years, the Eastern Romans fuck up Italy almost irreparably (there are arguments that the repercussions were still echoing in the 20th century), and then the Lombards invade and make everything worse, but at that point there's no more Western Roman Empire, even if the Roman Senate's still around (and they are until what seems to be the early 7th century).

so basically, I feel very strongly that if anyone says they know anything about the fall of Rome, they almost certainly do not. it's not actually an equivalent situation to the modern U.S. or tbh anyone else. the 476 year is nice, it's convenient, you get the romance of Romulus Augustulus's name ("little augustus," named after the legendary founder of Rome Romulus), but it was not for more than fifty years that anyone actually decided that year was important. the situation was way, way more complicated.

#noblexcelestemorningstar #bedlam replies #your girl #I'm going to make this unrebloggable btw because my idea of hell is accidentally becoming a tumblr historian #primaries are cassiodorus's variae procopius's wars the anonymus valesianus various greek fragmentary historians ennodius's panegyrics #various papal letters boethius consolation of philosophy and some other bits and bobs

40 notes · View notes

gameofthrones2020 · 1 year ago

Text

Murder of Tiberius Gracchus

The murder of Tiberius Gracchus and why it was the being of the fall of the Rome Empire and why it's so relevant to modern-day political failures

The murder of Tiberius Gracchus is one of history’s most significant murders and events that contributed to and marked the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire when Tiberius was murdered in 133 BC and his brother, Gaius Gracchus, was murdered in 121 BC. The Roman Senate murdered both Gracchus’s brothers, with Tiberius himself beaten to death by Roman senators, similar to Gaius Julius…

View On WordPress

#American Politics #Eastern Rome Empire #Failure of Democracy #Gaius Gracchus #Gaius Julius Ceaser #Modern-day Politicas #Murder of Tiberius Gracchus #Political Leadership #The Decline and Fall of the Rome Empire #Tiberius Gracchus

0 notes

blueiscoool · 4 months ago

Text

Archaeologists Discover Traces of 5,000 Seat Roman Circus in Spain

Archaeologists from ARKIKUS have announced the discovery of a Roman circus at Iruña-Veleia, a former Roman town in Hispania, now located in the province of Álava, Basque Autonomous Community, Spain.

The town was an important transit centre on the Ab Asturica Burdigalam (Roman road), with a peak population of around 10,000 inhabitants.

In a recent study using aerial photography and light detection and ranging (LiDAR), archaeologists have found a Roman circus and previously unknown urban areas of Iruña-Veleia.

A Roman circus was a large open-air venue used mainly for chariot races, although sometimes serving other purposes. Chariot racing was the most popular of many subsidised public entertainments, and was an essential component in several religious festivals.

Chariot racing declined in significance in the Western Roman Empire following the fall of Rome, with the last known race held at the Circus Maximus in AD 549, organised by the Ostrogothic king, Totila.

According to a press statement by ARKIKUS, the circus is an elongated enclosure that accommodated up to 5,000 spectators, and measures 280 metres long by 72 metres wide.

Until now, only a handful of Roman circus’s are known in the northern half of the Iberian Peninsula, emphasizing the importance of Iruña-Veleia during the Roman period.

The study also revealed a Roman street system, evidence of buildings with porticoed areas, and a linear feature indicating the route of the Ab Asturica Burdigalam.

By Mark Milligan.

#Archaeologists Discover Traces of 5000 Seat Roman Circus in Spain #Roman circus at Iruña-Veleia #Asturica Burdigalam #LiDAR #chariot races #ancient artifacts #archeology #archeolgst #history #history news #ancient history #ancient culture #ancient civilizations #roman history #roman empire

28 notes · View notes

hasufin · 4 months ago

Text

youtube

You've probably seen clips from this. This is Sen. Josh Hawley's speech to the RNC, in which he directly calls for Christian Nationalism.

I watched the entire thing. It's... it's a ride.

The weird thing is, sandwiched in the middle of his ahistorical bullshit and his Christian Nationalism, is an economic proposal which would fit right in at the DNC. It's weird.

Anyway, below is my complete reaction to it:

So, against my better judgement, I did listen to the speech.

Now, I’ve been reluctant to do so. It has been my experience that American Rightwing Christians tend to speak in a sort of dialect; that they tend to say things which – to an outsider such as myself – seem terribly incendiary, aggressive, and deeply unpersuasive. I’ve had Christian friends explain to me, of preachers “Yes, I know that sounds horrible to you, but that’s just how they talk in the Church”. And thus, I did ask this question [on Quora] to among other things give those within that community an opportunity to explain his words. I have, I confess, been disappointed: what I’ve received instead has been dismissal; just refusal to acknowledge that the things being said would reasonably be interpreted as threatening to one not steeped in that culture. Dismissal, I will say, serves to affirm our concerns: it’s like how Kavanaugh claimed that Roe was “settled law”… until he voted to overturn it. We don’t trust dismissal, because it has been a lie in the past and we expect it to be a lie in the future.

Now, the first few minutes of Hawley’s speech present me with a conundrum.

You see, he gives a brief historical recount of the fall of the Roman Empire, and of the Puritans (whom I have never before heard referred to as Augustinians, but again, I’m just not fluent in this particular patois.)

And the problem here is, his narrative is simply false. I mean, he pinpoints the early 400s as the fall of the Western Roman Empire – fair enough – but that’s also when Christianity became the majority religion of that empire; characterizing them as pagans as that point, and “paganism” as the cause of the fall of the Empire is quite ridiculous. But I’ll come back to that later, and why it’s deeply disturbing to me.

And then the Puritans. Again, I’ve never really heard them called Augustinians but that’s reasonably an oversight on my part – I’m of the opinion that their influence on the American colonies is somewhat overstated, but that’s just my opinion. His characterization of them is I think somewhat lack in nuance and reality, but the how and why of that seems important.

So I’m left with a bit of a conundrum. Do I assume his actual knowledge of history is that of a disinterested high schooler? Do I assume he just plain doesn’t know what he is talking about? If that’s the case, I – and everyone else - really ought to disregard whatever he says of policy: he is a fool, and we oughtn’t be led by fools.

But, perhaps he does know better? Yet, that’s worse. If he knows that the Roman empire did not fall due to “Paganism”; that the Puritans were a particularly intolerant sect of Reformationists who found freedom overly threatening and ultimately declined largely due to the infighting which is characteristic of rightwing authoritarian groups. If he knows this, and offers an ahistorical alternative instead, then he is a liar, and should be directly opposed.

One can slice that Gordian knot by realizing he offers these not as history, but as mythology. It’s not whether they’re true, but what they’re meant to communicate. However, as a non-Christian, that’s… that’s actually worse.

His decision, then, to attribute the downfall of Rome to corruption, to loving pleasure and self-indulgence, is important. Now, I think we all know that Rome did not fail because their soldiers were just too busy drinking and having sex. But that claim appeals to a disgust-based morality: it indulges in a visceral hatred of those excesses. And that same disgust-based morality can be used to justify any number of horrors. It’s a disgust-based morality which ties a gay man to a fence and leaves him to die; that beats a transwoman to death; that decides Jews are baby eaters and condemns them to ghettoes and them to death.

His ahistorical account ignores the entire history of Christian internal warfare. It pretends that the Puritans were an inclusive society – rather than one which executed their own on the mere allegation of them being people like me.

And I’m hearing him proceed further, to claim all things good… indeed, the utter ridiculousness of claiming specifically secular achievements as Christian. This is a fact-free speech, which is intended to appeal to a particular audience of which I – and any other non-Christian – is not a member. He proclaims that as a non-Christian I should embrace Christianity… after having lied and said many of distinctly non-Christian things are Christian. I mean, if you define Christian as “the stuff I want to claim” and non-Christian as “everything else” then sure… but that’s not what those things mean, and we’re back to that conundrum: is he a liar or a fool?

And then he gets back to his disgust-based morality, his appeal to hatred, his lies about his opposition, and just outright about what is going on right now.

Ah, and here we are: “the left” is evil, “the left” wants to destroy. And… wait, did he just claim that liberals like Ayn Rand? What??? And Milton Friedman? How… how does anyone buy this? I’m sorry, what the hell is this?

He is literally saying that the left is against god. This speech very literally demonizes his opposition. He lies about people, and and paints them as simply being against good. I wonder how anyone considers this as acceptable at all. This is Blood Libel.

Now, wait, he’s deriding other republicans? And saying that it was republicans who spearheaded DEI? I’m just confused here. Basically, it seems like he’s saying literally anyone who opposes him is evil, and he will make up Any Damned Thing to paint them that way.

Being honest, I’m not sure I am all that interested in the second half of this. Hist first half, in which he very literally calls everyone who isn’t on his side evil; in which he says the left is against love and god. I recognize that he doesn’t directly say “let’s put all the liberals in camps and kill them”, but this is the rhetoric which is used to justify these things. The policies he puts forth afterwards are less incendiary – and it’s kind of weird that he had to open a policy proposal which matches rather well with the liberal platform, with demonization of liberals, and I don’t know how anyone can reconcile that. But, y’know, he also claimed that liberals like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, so there’s a lot of contradiction there.

Oh, wait now he’s directly speaking against religious liberty. He’s saying directly that religious liberty is only valuable because it lets us all practice the same religion, and that Christianity is our national religion. So we’re back to Deeply Disturbing here. “More civil religion, not less”. Atheists are evil, they hate Christianity, this other not-religious thing is religion, trans people are evil… yeah. And he wants direct endorsement of Christianity. Now, I don’t think that taking down a pride flag is directly oppression, but I definitely see it as a first step: establishing that not-Christianity is a religion, and should be supplanted with Christianity by the state. So, having listened to this… I would dismiss him as a madman if he weren’t giving a speech at the RNC. But he is. And I see what he’s saying as setting the foundation for much worse. There’s nothing good to come of defining Everyone Else as being evil.

#Youtube #politics

24 notes · View notes

steampunkforever · 2 months ago

Text

So. Megalopolis. The world's first Solarpunk film. My prediction is that it'll be a misunderstood sci-fi cult hit 30 years from now, yet I can't say it doesn't deserve some of the razzing it receives today. It's a film in which Coppola tackles America as Empire (and subsequent decline), bourgeois excesses, his own legacy as the patriarch of a dynasty, and the very question of what it means to be an artist. It was bound to be a bit messy, but this doesn't preclude me from loving the film.

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm a documented Coppola shill, and my appreciation for his work and legacy means I'm not judging this in a vacuum. Yet I saw this film with my betrothed, who hated it, and I don't necessarily blame here there, even though I had a great time.

Coppola sold his winery for this. Megalopolis is a final film even if it isn't The Final Coppola film. It's a movie he's been trying to make since he wrapped on Apocalypse Now. There will be no more Coppola epics at this scale. And so with this framing I can understand some of his indulgence in making an epic on his own terms.

The story itself is twisty, referencing the Catalinarian conspiracy heavily as it weaves a story about an architect attempting to build a utopian city that will outlast the crumbling empire of New Rome, which is basically NYC where everyone talks like they've just left Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. It's a film that tackles fascism and scandal and what it means to build a future as the present falls to pieces, featuring Adam Driver as the architect flying in the face of it all to make something in spite of outward pressures trying to crush him.

The movie mostly pulls it off. What it doesn't pull off are relatively small things that stack up to be much bigger problems. The stilted classicist-lite dialog cuts in and out like weak radio signal, Shia LaBeouf's character is written decently but in ways that speak to debauchery of the 70s but ring more regressive for a modern context, Nathalie Emmanuel is out her depth trying to act with a script and direction that clearly do not help her pull the role off (I don't hate her as an actress but this role does not work for her) and the end of the film rings a tad sappy, which is understandable but all of this adds up!

Even so, the film still manages to shine. Giancarlo Esposito is fantastic in this. The visuals are gorgeous. Aubrey Plaza absolutely kills in her role as Wow Platinum. The cast is stellar overall. The core concepts of the film are engaging, and Coppola's approach kept me interested through the full 2 hour 18 minutes of the movie. Francis hasn't forgotten how to make films, even if he's breaking some rules on this last one. For all its foibles, I can't say that this is a bad movie.

The end result is a film that reads like a Manic Rendition of Brazil trying to tie a web of subjects together on corkboard with thumbtacks and red string, all directed by someone with a chronic case of being Italian. There is genius in the mess and yet I could not call it a triumph, even though I enjoyed it immensely. Well worth the watch, you should definitely go see this one.

#megalopolis #francis ford coppola #filmposting #adam driver #giancarlo esposito

17 notes · View notes

jasminewalkerauthor · 4 months ago

Text

Deep dives into folklore: Roman emperors

The history of Rome, marked by conquests, intrigues, and cultural achievements, unfolds through the lives and reigns of its emperors. This deep dive essay explores the evolution of Roman emperors, from the establishment of the Principate to the decline of the Western Roman Empire, examining their diverse personalities, accomplishments, and the enduring impact of their rule.

I. The Principate: Birth of Imperial Rule

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Principate marked a seismic shift in Roman governance. Augustus, the first Emperor, set the tone for the future by combining political acumen with military prowess. His reign witnessed the Pax Romana, a period of relative peace and stability, laying the foundation for the expansive Roman Empire. Augustus established a new political order, balancing the facade of Republican institutions with autocratic power, setting a precedent for future emperors.

II. The Julio-Claudian Dynasty: From Glory to Infamy

The emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, including Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, brought both grandeur and infamy to the Roman Empire. Tiberius, known for his reclusive rule, set the stage for the unpredictable reign of Caligula, whose excesses and cruelty earned him a notorious legacy. Claudius, often underestimated, contributed to imperial stability, while Nero's tyrannical rule marked a tumultuous end to the dynasty. The Julio-Claudians encapsulate the complexities of imperial rule, oscillating between enlightened governance and capricious tyranny.

III. The Five Good Emperors: Peak of Imperial Stability

The second century AD saw a period of relative stability and prosperity under the Five Good Emperors—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. This era is characterized by wise and competent rulers who prioritized the well-being of the Empire. Trajan expanded Roman territory, Hadrian focused on fortifying borders, and Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher-king, grappled with the challenges of external threats and internal strife. This period exemplifies the potential of enlightened rule within the Roman Empire.

IV. Crisis and Decline: The Third Century Crisis

The third century witnessed a series of challenges, often referred to as the "Crisis of the Third Century," marked by economic decline, military upheavals, and a succession of short-lived emperors. The Severan dynasty, which included emperors like Septimius Severus and Caracalla, attempted to restore stability, but the challenges persisted. The fragmentation of the Empire and the rise of soldier-emperors exemplify a turbulent era, foreshadowing the decline of the Western Roman Empire.

V. Constantine the Great: A Shifting Capital and Christianization

The reign of Constantine the Great marks a pivotal moment in Roman history. His establishment of Constantinople as the new capital reflected the shifting power dynamics within the Empire. Additionally, Constantine's embrace of Christianity and the Edict of Milan in 313 AD marked a significant departure from traditional Roman religious practices, setting the stage for the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

VI. The Fall of the Western Roman Empire: End of an Era

The decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD marked the end of classical antiquity. A series of factors, including economic decline, military challenges, and external invasions, culminated in the deposition of the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer. The fall of the Western Roman Empire had profound and lasting consequences, shaping the course of European history.

The lives and legacies of Roman emperors form a complex and multifaceted tapestry that spans centuries of political, military, and cultural developments. From the establishment of the Principate to the decline of the Western Roman Empire, the emperors played pivotal roles in shaping the destiny of Rome. Their stories, marked by triumphs and tribulations, continue to resonate as a testament to the enduring complexities of leadership and the rise and fall of great civilizations.

17 notes · View notes

quartz-tsw · 2 years ago

Text

Demo | Forum

You are a high school student passionate about writing interactive fiction novels. Grammar, story structure, character design, and story design are foreign concepts to you, but that won’t slow you down because you have passion and the power of friendship on your side. A tragic accident sends you into a coma, transporting you into the world you have created.

Explore a world filled with bugs, excessive stats that cancel each other out, and ambiguous choices. Romance one-dimensional characters, overcome poorly designed challenges to escape the hell you’ve created, and become the Strongest Writer!

The game is primarily narratively driven, even though there will be silly challenges sprinkled here and there. Some random elements are present, but they won’t stonewall your progress. You will never be forced to replay an encounter because you had a bad die roll. Ridiculously difficult or poorly worded mini-games will pop up here and there. But the ones that have “correct” solutions are accompanied by a skip button that can be used without any punishment.

You will have a mobile base of operations, a castle that can fit in your pocket, where you can grow plants, make potions, train with your companions and decorate your rooms. After you reach a certain point in the game, time will advance when you complete quests, making the plants grow. The plants can be used for brewing potions that will add more flavor to future encounters but aren’t a prerequisite for progress.

At the end of each chapter, you will enter a dream-like state where you can communicate with the Real World via a powerful artifact. However, the communication is limited to sending updates to the game you’re trapped in and reading the player’s feedback on the forum.

After the first part of the game, you will get to have a say on how the Empire grows over the course of the story by voting on policies. These policies will get enacted if you and your crew complete quests that will sway the citizens in your favor. You will be free to tackle specific issues from a progressive or conservative lens without having the game punish you for making the wrong choice. Scratch that. Whatever you choose will have catastrophic consequences on the Empire but in different ways. By the end of the story, the Empire will be in crisis.

The game is split into three parts: Escape from the Underworld, Rise of the Empire, and Fall of the Empire. In the first part, you will escape the Underworld, the hell of your fictive world, with the aid of your fully customizable romanceable companion, Olympia/Olympus. You will gather a party of virtuous souls and traverse the Great Barrier into the surface world. Upon escaping the Underworld and entering the MC’s fictional world, the “Real” World, you and your companions become Immortals, overseeing the fate of the Empire for centuries to come.

At the time of writing the story, the MC was sick of all the medieval fantasy stories that resort to misogyny for the sake of realism, so they wrote an “inclusive” setting that “solves” inequality issues only on a surface, superficial level. The Empire is a mishmash of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece under constant assault by progressive barbarian hordes who enslave and torture citizens equally, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation. Political decisions in the Empire are ultimately made by a supreme ruler, Caesar, but every citizen has a right to express their grievances and opinions in the Forum (an actual roman style forum, not an online one).

As generations pass, you and the Immortals will oversee the Empire grow from antiquity to a steam-punk future near its decline.

Olympus/Olympia

age: unknown/ timeless

race: unknown

gender: player selectable

appearance: custom

Olympia/Olympus is the first immortal that the MC encounters in the Underworld. The self-proclaimed soul mate of the main character, Olympia/Olympus, is the primary romantic option for the player. Kind-hearted, straightforward, overpowered, and with a non-existent sense of personal space, Oly will accompany the MC almost everywhere. The only times when you will be apart is when you have to do challenges alone.

Bellona

age: 27

race: human

gender: female

appearance: average height, athletic build, olive skin, brown eyes, long brown hair in a high ponytail.

Bellona is one of the finest warriors of the Empire, who knew no equal on the battlefield until she found her end at the Kālá’s hand, whom she managed to take down with her to the Underworld. Abandoned at a young age by her parents, she had to learn to fend for herself and develop a can-do attitude that no one rivals. Impulsive by nature, she has no regard for diplomacy - her creative swear words are common in any heated discussion. The one thing she hates more than whining and weakness is others picking on her friends, even for the most trivial things.

Athena

age: 30

race: human

gender: female

appearance: tall, slim build, fair skin, green eyes, undercut, blonde hair.

Athema is a scholar, politician, and equal rights activist. She died at a banquet where a political adversary poisoned her wine cup. Outspoken and articulate, her opinions have sown the seeds of critical thinking within the Empire, prompting a vocal minority to question whether the Empire will be remembered as a bastion of enlightenment in history or a shameful asterisk. Competent in rhetorical debates, she never backs down from a winning argument, even if it means losing political currency. Although she stands her ground firmly in intellectual standoffs, physical confrontations are a no-go for her, looking for cover at the first sign of danger.

Hera

age: 22

race: human

gender: female

appearance: petite, light skin, heterochromia eyes (blue and green), braided, black hair.

Hera is a quiet, reserved young woman whose life ended in mysterious circumstances. She does not remember how she died or does not want to tell anybody. Although she does not enjoy getting involved in politics too much, she is convinced that the best way to organize society is through clearly defined gender roles. Family is the most important thing to her, and she hopes that she will be able to start one as soon as possible. Her cooking and organizing skills are unmatched, which is why she was often employed by wealthy nobles to host their lavish banquettes.

Vulcan

age: 46

race: human

gender: male

appearance: burly, gray hair, groomed silver beard, dark skin

A respected inventor, this reclusive self-reliant man found his end at the hand of an ambitious experiment to replicate the sun in his forge. Even though he feels more at home with his inventions than with people, he is kind and gentle despite losing his temper from time to time. Vulcan will be the main driving force behind the rapid technological advances that the Empire will go through during the game, and you will have a say in what innovations take priority.

Plutus

age: 33

race: human

gender: male

appearance: tall, thin, blond messy hair

This neurotic treasurer got on the wrong side of a knife after uncovering a circle of corrupt aristocrats who were siphoning gold out of the treasury. His obsessive compulsion to account for every penny spent makes him an excellent financial advisor for your team. His expertise will be invaluable in growing the Empire over the centuries.

Kālá

age: unknown

race: unknown

gender: unknown

appearance: short legs, wide hips, elongated torso with thin, long arms, large hands. Dark skin, black eyes, bald. Wears extravagant clothes.

Little is known about them besides their affiliation with the Barbarian hordes and unorthodox fighting style. Before the encounter with Bellona, Kala was undefeated in combat. Has the role of the main antagonist of the story.

Olympia/ Olympus will be the only RO with which you can have a meaningful, long-term romantic relationship. There will be the possibility of having flings with minor, episodic, one-dimensional characters. But you will not be able to be in a relationship with other immortals (but that does not mean you can’t try). As far as the attraction to Oly is concerned, you have multiple options: regular attraction, no attraction, “platonic” attraction, “asexual” attraction, too much attraction, and attraction once you get to know each other better. There will be no explicit sex scenes, but you can expect bizarre scenes that kind of resemble it.

#interactive fiction #hosted games #choicescript #cyoa #satire #social commentary #comedy #wip #hg #choice of games #interactive novel #tsw #the strongest writer

194 notes · View notes