rome\'s most fearsome enemy

[varistus]

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "...about 200,000 Romans and Greeks had been killed (Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32). By this outbreak Libya was depopulated to such an extent that a few years later new colonies had to be established there (Eusebius, "Chronicle" from the Armenian, fourteenth year of Hadrian). Bishop Synesius, a native of Cyrene in the beginning of the fifth century, speaks of the devastations wrought by the Jews ("Do Regno," p. 2).[1]

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

speaks of the devastations wrought by the Jews

Christianity is very far from Jewish beliefs, but the fact the jews were made scapegoat by the Romand and Christians alike is a correct and valid point.

M.VIB.M.

[Ron Andrea]

Despite what I said earlier, I would nominate the lack of a universally accepted imperial succession as a key factor in the decline and fall of the empire. The Romans--the leaders at that--were their own worst enemy.

From the first century through the fifth, generals and politicians took any legitimate excuse to usurp the purple. No one seemed content to serve under another. If the current emperor was in the East dealing with the Persians or Parthians or in the North defending the Rhine frontier, some general at the opposite the of the empire would declare himself augusta and march toward Rome.

Take Britannia as an example. Constantine in 306, Magnus Maximus in 383 and Constantine III in 407 all usurped the purple and marched off, striping the island of its defending legions. The fact that the first succeeded probably encouraged the latter two, not to mention dozens of others.

Declarations of accession became almost annual affairs late in the empire. Christian or pagan, Roman or barbarian, east or west--it was the lack of an agreed upon succession which gutted the empire of leadership and defenders, and placed incredible stress on the people and food supplies. The barbarians had been pushing at the borders as long as there were borders. They increasingly found them hollow.

As I said before, time doomed Rome, but the Roman leadership hastened its demise by their lusting after the purple with its accompanying bloodletting.

[Virilis]

I am amazed how long the roman empire did survive! It is almost a miracle that it survived the horrendous third century...

[Antonius Lucretius]

The 200 000 dead in Cyprus --240 000 actually-- are from the Kitos War (115/117).
This is from Wikipedia:

In 115 AD, the Roman army led by Trajan was fighting against one of its major enemies, the Parthian Empire. The diasporic Jews started a revolt in Cyrenaica that also involved Aegyptus and Cyprus. In Cyrene (Cyrenaica), the rebels (led by a Lukuas or Andreas, who called himself "king" according to Eusebius of Caesarea), destroyed many temples, including those to Hecate, Jupiter, Apollo, Artemis, and Isis, as well as the civil structures symbols of Rome, the Caesareum, the basilica, and the thermae. The Greek and Roman population was exterminated.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "...about 200,000 Romans and Greeks had been killed (Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32). By this outbreak Libya was depopulated to such an extent that a few years later new colonies had to be established there (Eusebius, "Chronicle" from the Armenian, fourteenth year of Hadrian). Bishop Synesius, a native of Cyrene in the beginning of the fifth century, speaks of the devastations wrought by the Jews ("Do Regno," p. 2).
Then Lukuas moved towards Alexandria, entered the city abandoned by the Roman troops in Egypt led by governor Marcus Rutilius Lupus, and set fire to the city. The pagan temples and the tomb of Pompey were destroyed. Trajan sent new troops under the praefectus pretorius Quintus Marcius Turbo, but Egypt and Cyrenaica were pacified only in autumn 117. The situation was pacified also in Cyprus, where Jews led by Artemion had taken control of the island. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "Under the leadership of one Artemion, the Cyprian Jews participated in the great uprising against the Romans under Trajan (117), and they are reported to have massacred 240,000 Greeks (Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32)."
The Roman army reconquered the capital and the Jews were forbidden to live in the island.

And Marcus, christianity did not destroy the Roman world, it came from it. It was legalized by Constantine, a Roman emperor and soon became the only officially recognized faith in the Empire.

[Robert Vermaat]

And Marcus, christianity did not destroy the Roman world, it came from it. It was legalized by Constantine, a Roman emperor and soon became the only officially recognized faith in the Empire.

Hmm.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but there are other opinions.
Christianity existed 'despite' the Romans for 300 years before it was finally legalised and even became state religion.
But some, Edward Gibbon for instance, have a different opinion about the role played by Chritianity in the end of the Western Roman Empire.

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

But some, Edward Gibbon for instance, have a different opinion about the role played by Chritianity in the end of the Western Roman Empire.

Gibbon had some very ... well ... Eighteenth Century ideas. He was a great writer and (for his time) a great historian, but his "Christianity killed the Empire" thesis says more about Gibbon than it does about the Empire.

You'd be hard pushed to find many real historians who take it seriously these days.

[Robert Vermaat]

Of course Gibbon is outdated. But
a) he did not mention Christianity as 'the' factor that killed the Empire (just one of the main factors), and
b) even today, Christianity is still seen as 'a' factor (if not one of the main ones).

If only because Christianity weakened the Empire by weakening the 'us and them' factor:
Inside the Empire, vicious arguments, fights and much violence was instigated by rival Christian opinions.
Outside the Empire, non-Romans were converted and suddenly had a common ground with Roman Christians, something they did not have as non-Romans.
Bishops developed into a major power factor, undermining Imperial authority. Sure, that was also a blessing in disguise because they continued to carry a degree of local organisation when Roman government ceased to exist.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

LAUDES!!!!!!!!!!!

M.VIB.M.

[aitor iriarte]

I really LIKE that theory of Christianity 'killing' the Empire but I wonder seriously if it is scientific at all... :? Otherwise, how can you explain the survival of the equally Christian Eastern half of the Empire for so long after its Western counterpart fell?

Aitor

[Robert Vermaat]

I really LIKE that theory of Christianity 'killing' the Empire but I wonder seriously if it is scientific at all... :? Otherwise, how can you explain the survival of the equally Christian Eastern half of the Empire for so long after its Western counterpart fell?

Aitor, read the post..
I agreed with Tim that Gibbon was wrong in the sense that Christianity was the ONLY factor, or even the MAIN one, however I do think however (which I wrote) that it was ONE OF the factors...

Of course the main factor was the Roman inability to develop a stable succession system, which cause too many pretenders to make a gamble for the throne, resulting in civil wars, resulting in trade loss through insecurity, resulting in civil unease, loss of revenue through loss of provinces, etc. Agriculture was also hit by this.

Apart from that, economic hardship because agriculture was hit ny natural unfavourable circumstances.. The East's survival often hang in the balance but their economy could sustain more than that of the West.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

The Genius Populi Romani was stronger than any trouble, in despite of many individuals meanness, the ROMANS, as unity of civil morals, Ius, religiousness and awareness of their mission in the world, went ahead, and the Empire as entity worked at the same.

When the agreement with the Gods, about the miracle of the appearance of Roma in the History, was expired, that spiritual and organic unity was corroded by a undoubtedly skilled battle of spiritual propaganda and subversion, with inevitable spin-offs on political influence set-ups, the classic and traditional roman cycle was concluded.
Anyway, the same Genius influence gave spiritual strenght to the Byzantines too, in terms of imperial awareness as Romaioi. That awareness, seen as unity of people is fundamental in any national/imperial way. In the classical and traditional vision any cycles must to conclude themselves, so it was always and so it will be always. And that's not absolutely scientific.

Valete,

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I read that about Greeks too. A scar in the back could only mean you were running from your foe! 8)

[Chuck Russell]

who in your opinion was rome's most fearsome enemy and why

time

[Robert Vermaat]

time

for what?