268 replies to this topic

[dark_reaper]

Sorry if its already been mensionned, but vitamin pills might be usefull eg Viatmin C.
If you're somewhere cold, or anywhere for that matter, it might be hard to get hold of fruit etc and scurvy etc aren't nice.

[vrooota]

thats a good point, scurvy in the 21st century would suck. Also, finding a doctor/nurse/med student to be a part of your team/community/whatever when it all comes down would be a priceless benefit

[Hippie3]

rome didn't really collapse,
it more withered away.
and that took over 2,000 years...
the last legal vestiges
of the old roman empire
survived until the first world war,
in the form of the austrian-hungarian empire,
which also considered itself the direct heir
to the old holy roman empire,
tracing all the way back.

aftet-thought-
i was technically wrong
in that really
there is still one last legal vestige
of the old roman empire
that survives even into our day-
i.e. vatican city & the papacy.

[Hippie3]

Sorry if its already been mensionned, but vitamin pills might be usefull eg Viatmin C.
If you're somewhere cold, or anywhere for that matter, it might be hard to get hold of fruit etc and scurvy etc aren't nice.

good thinking there,
vitamin E too
sunlight might be a bit scarce
after a nucler exchange or mega-volcanic eruption.
anyone noticing how fast the lava dome
on mt. st. helen's is growing ?
it's grown as much in 6 months
as it did last time in 6 years...
then there's the rumbling in yellowstone.
:(

[taoistshredder]

"there is still one last legal vestige
of the old roman empire
that survives even into our day-
i.e. vatican city & the papacy."

Ironic I blame that same organization for the downfall of said empire...

[Hippie3]

really, why ?
many, if not most, historians would posit the opposite,
that the Church actually was the instrument that
preserved rome for so long.
it was, eventually, the only thing left
uniting people from england to africa.
i think instead i would place rome's downfall
on it's imperial system,
'hereditary' [ in theory, if not in practice] autocracies
just lack the mass appeal that rome needed
if it was to maintain control.
once they abandoned citizen democracy
in favor of imperial rule,
soon even citizens were treated like slaves.
speaking of which,
slavery itself is sometimes blamed for
rome's decline and fall.
in the end
the slaves greatly outnumbered the fat, lazy romans
who wouldn't even fight any more,
hiring the defense of rome out to
the very people that they oppressed and enslaved.

[taoistshredder]

.
.
.
.
.
.
I don't know, I would argue that after Constantine made the Nicene Creed c. 325,
that sent the Empire into a split between east and west,
and that led to eventual divisions amongst all the stuff you're talking about.
I'd hardly say England to Africa was united for long after that -
it was less than a millinea before we had people running all over
with crusades and inquisitions,
many of which were European nations targeting other European nations over supposed religious differences.
Not that that was the real reason. :)
But I still pinpoint that initial break,
but would also concede that those other divisions existed before the Empire's east/west division.
I'm sure one could date it back to just after Marcus Aurelius (or maybe even Julius Caesar),
but imo the fatal blow/last straw was that east/west division that I attribute to the Creed,
though I'm sure there were plenty of other factors at play, as you suggest.
Obviously has the wanker Constantine not been emporer none of this would have happened:
it was the imperial system you speak of that made him who he was.
When you persecute a religion for a few hundred years,
literally throwing them to the lions,
and then suddenly the emporer says,
"Oh, no, I was wasted out in a battlefield and saw a symbol of a cross -
no more 'in hoc signo vices," from now on we're Christ-driven!"
Well...I've got to think that has a real effect on the population at large,
but that is by no means to say they hadn't had enough shit already.

[Hippie3]

i think you've put the cart before the horse,
so to speak.
constantine was not leading the empire in a new direction,
he was merely officially recognizing the fact before him.
christianity had already converted his empire,
he was compelled by political necessity
not any divine inspiration,
that was just saavy propaganda, of course.
might as well lay the blame at the feet
of jesus,
his teachings were the subversion that forced
rome to abandon its' pagan traditions.
and there's your irony,
jesus both destroyed and then preserved the roman empire.
as he himself was destroyed and then preserved by rome.

[taoistshredder]

"he was compelled by political necessity
not any divine inspiration,
that was just saavy propaganda, of course."

And there really is record of him being a drunk lol
Thank Tao for AP History!

"his teachings were the subversion that forced
rome to abandon its' pagan traditions.
and there's your irony,
jesus both destroyed and preserved the roman empire."

Coupled with the irony that Christian holidays
were made to coincide with pagan ones
to facilitate the whole convergance thing.
They were some sneaky bastids...
I really like what you say about Jesus;
I've always maintained he's the greatest anarchist.