someone i met wrote this

Hi gavtmcc,

Your comment reminds me of Wittgenstein’s quip about the man who doesn’t believe what he reads in the newspaper, so he purchases a hundred more copies of the same newspaper in order to reassure himself that the story is indeed true. :slight_smile:

Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was primarily responsible for disseminating all this praise for the “virtues” of the Roman Empire. Given that most everyone read Gibbons in high school, is it really any wonder the “elementary guides” picked up his view? However, that is not the universal view among classical scholars and historians today. Take, for example, Rome and the Enemy; Imperial Strategy in the Principate, by S. Maltern, 1999:

"…the glory of victory - is so prevalent in the literature, art, coins and epigraphy of the Principate as almost to defy coherent discussion. Over 300 triumphal arches survive or are known form coins or inscription…

…signs of weakness on Rome’s part, such as a show of deference to a foreign people, or failure to avenge a defeat in war, or to punish a revolt with sufficient ferocity, are considered invitations to disaster.

For these reasons the Romans sometimes seem to react very aggressively to apparently minor breaches of treaty, to exaggerate the threat posed by rivals…while insisting that their concerns are for their own security; they place a high value on victory, conquest and the humiliation of the enemy…although the superiority of the Romans is ultimately a superiority of military strength, the most essential element in this system is the state of mind of the enemy: Rome’s empire depends on its ability to assert and enforce an image of itself as awesome and terrifying…

…as a state, the Romans behave like Homeric heroes, Mafia gangsters, or individuals in any society based on violent competition for honor or respect." pp. 168-172

And consider this passage from Human Rights in Ancient Rome, by Richard Bauman, 1999:

"Genocide occurs in two forms on the Roman scene. The external form encompasses acts of unbridled savagery, of virtual extermination, against large groups of non-Romans. In the internal form Romans systematically annihilate each other. External genocide is stigmatized by Seneca; ‘We are a mad people, checking individual murders but doing nothing about war and the ‘glorious’ crime of slaughtering whole peoples under the authority of duly enacted laws.’ "

The Roman Empire was built and maintained not primarily by diplomacy or trade, but by the might of its legions. The “glory of Rome” was made possible by a steady stream of returning war booty and heavy tribute from those nations it had vanquished and enslaved.

And speaking of slaves, Maltern considers Pliny the Younger only moderately wealthy even though he personally possessed over 1000 slaves. Bauman tells of L. Pedanius Secundus being murdered by a domestic slave. His entire household of slaves, some 400 men, women and children were tortured and executed as a matter of policy. The torture and crucifixion of slaves was so common that:

“An inscription has the funeral director at Puteoli obliged to torture slaves on request; he had to supply the crosses, yokes and floggers, and to see to the removal of the corpses.” Bauman, ibid., p. 117

I can see their business sign in my mind’s eye: Crucifixions R Us :astonished:

Yes, of course Rome spread its culture, laws and technology to other peoples. That’s a common fact of conquest. The nations that Rome conquered were very likely barbaric by your and my standards; they probably kept slaves themselves. But it’s a mistake to think that Rome brought the rule of law to the lawless. The nations that Rome conquered already had their own leaders, laws and customs. The question that is open for debate is whether their newly gained viaduct technology was worth being plundered, massacred, subjugated, enslaved and heavily taxed.

Gavtmcc wrote:

Gavtmcc, if life under Roman rule was so wonderful then riddle me this: Why were the conquered nations forever revolting against Roman rule? In nearly every instance local rebellion was answered by a massive and cruel Roman reprisal. So why did they rise up? What was it about Roman rule that men so often would revolt despite the risk of slaughter and crucifixion?

Regards,
Michael

Multiculturalism? Correct me if i’m wrong but I believe that Multiculturalism is what made Rome so powerful. Wherever the Romans went they usally left the traditions and religous beliefs alone in the lands they conquered, to advoid massive revolt (Riots did happen, but nowhere near the stage as a culture suppressed would). Rome alone had Temples to pretty much every religion they conquered, the Greeks were allowed to worship who they wanted and the holidays of the culture were respected. Even sometimes they would allow the rulers of the land prior to the invasion to mantain some control over the country to please the people.

Infact you might say that the lack of multiculturalism was one of the factors of Rome’s downfall. With the acceptance of Christianity all other religions were considered blasphemy, thus repressed.

Michael, thank you for your response.

Before I begin mine, I should tell you that there are several points you make which are very reasonable. I will highlight what I consider them to be.

But I’m afaraid I see several problems with what you say, and I will try to address these too.

Thankfully, this is a topic upon which I feel well qualified to comment (unlike many others on this forum!).

It is true that Gibbon had a high view of the Roman cultural achievement. On this, I won’t argue. But what Gibbon produced cannot be dismissed as unrepresentative or inaccurate. On some of his points, (for instance, he has a dim view of the effects of Christian religion and culture on the Roman Empire’s strength in late antiquity), later historians have questioned his accuracy, but on most, he is a faithful guide.

a) This may be true in U.S., but is certainly not true here.

b) By elementary, I did not mean simple (easy), but fundamental, ie. canonical. eg. Colin Wells, The Roman Empire.

c) Most importantly, Gibbon’s work has been deemed worthy of scholarship by some of the most distinguished academics of this and past generations (most famously, the Cambridge historian, Bury, who edited his decline and fall at teh turn of the 19th century). It is certainly not the case, as you imply, that only smiple, unscholarly works have referred to Gibbon with any degree of favour.

In summary, Gibbon is certainly NOT an easy, ‘high school level’ text! He is a higely important scholar, and his impact in the academic field of ancient history has been very great!

Having never heard of, nor encountered, this text during 5 years of scholarship on the periods of history about which we speak, I was a little worried by your reference to it. I attempted to find this elusive book on amazon, but to no avail. I then searched for S.Maltern’s version on the database of teh copyright library at my university (Cambridge) and he does not appear there either!

Nevertheless, I will deal with the points he (and thus you) raises:

a) the Principate is a period which covers a period only of 320 years approx. of Roman history…ie. from Augustus (after his defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra) only until the end of C3 (ie. Diocletian).

b) The glory of victory is not a concept which sits easily with ANY of the poets of this (long period). Virgil famously intersperses his Aeneid with ‘further voices’ which undermine the grandiloquence and heroism of his text, which ostensibly glorifies the history and destiny of Rome.
Virgil is not alone. Later epic poets (esp. Lucan, but also Statius and Silius Italicus) through their poetry call into question the cultural, military and moral achievement of Rome in several, varying ways.

With this evidnce in mind, then, Mr. Maltern cannot be correct to claim that ‘the glory of victory is so prevalent in the literature…of the Principate’. When an historian makes such a fundamental error of judgment (or as I see it, an ignorant generalisation) like this, it is difficult to take what he says about issues with anything but a pinch of salt.

I must admit, I am no expert on epigraphy, coinage or architecture, but his erroneous statement on literature prejudices me against taking his comments on these aspects entirely at face value (and thus I do not accept them outright). I don’t, however, feel qualified to dismiss them outright, either, because I ma not well enough infromed on any of the respective subjects.

I don’t take issue with this point.

Using lierary sources to support an argument against this (excessive) generalisation is easy: Virgil’s presentation of the idealised Roman hero in teh Aeneid (Aeneas).

Aeneas’ governing characteristic as a representative of his race( he is a civilising, conqueror, on the move, and is the commander of an army) is one of a ‘pius’ (pious) man. This contrasts strongly with the ideology which is described above (and indeed with previous conceptions of heroism and identity in teh ancient world), and especially (in a conscious parallel) with those of Achilles and the pther Trojan heroes (as described in the Iliad and Odyssey).

This point leads us to doubt the following too:

‘Honour’? ‘Respect’? These are Homeric values, not Roman ones, and it is foolish to apply them to the case of the Romans. What interested Roman philosophers were values of justice and equality; and later, of morality and rectitude.

As with the above work you have referenced, I have found no evidence of the existence of this work (through no fault of my own: i have searched in all the obvious places).

I would be glad to hear of the context (reference) of this Senecan remark. Rmember also that Seneca had his own motivations…he was an adviser to Nero at what was a particularly bloody and violent time in the course of imperial history, and couyld to some extent be making points like this in order to protect his own skin (ineffectively as it turned out, as Nero had him put to death!).

Here is a classic example of historical misreporting.

The first sentence is faithful to the truth. No problems there. The second is highly dubious. A ‘steady stream’? Contrary to what you might think, periods of peace, in the context of the history of the Roman world as a whole, were very, very long, in comparison to the short interruptions of violent conflict. Moreover, once conquered, it was taxes, NOT ‘war booty and heavy tribute’ of any other kind which subjugated nations contributed to the Roman cause. Indeed, as Finley (op.cit.) points out, slaves would arrive in short, sharp bursts, in the immediate aftermath of conquests.

I am well aware of this story. As it happens, there is more to it than meets the eye. This punishment was an exceptional case. It was issued on a point of law (which I think was subsequently changed) and was enacted by a magistrate with a heavy heart. It is not to be viewed as an example of ROman cruelty, but rather, as evidence of their staunch desire to affirm the laws and rules which governed them (even in the most regrettable circumstances). This particular circumstance certainly caused consternation to all concerned.

I am not aware of the context of this quote, Could you provide source details?

In fact, crucifixions were rare, and it was a method of punishment only used in certain parts of the ROman empire (anyway).

This is true. But look a little closer. Many conquered (+ subjugated peoples) were very thankful for the improvements the Romans made to their civilisations. Example of this are manifold in ROman Britain for instance. Another key difference Roman conquest made was to stop petty warring between neighbouring tribes: Roman presence united (previously at odds) tribes under the same (Roman) banner.

I never said life under ROman rule was ‘so wonderful’: that is your interpretation.

Thye weren’t ‘forever revolting’. MOst revolts originated from BEYOND borders ( not within them) in the east and to the north.

Nothing. Because this did not happen anything like as much as you appear to assume.

Regards
Gavin

Hello Gavin,

The book is written by Susan Mattern, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Georgia (Sorry, I missed crossing a “t” in her last name when reading from my notes). Here’s the Amazon listing, and this is the University of California Press link.

You wrote:

It’s interesting that you’d say “foolish,” given that it’s a thesis of Prof. Mattern’s book. Here’s a quote taken from a (favorable) review of Mattern’s book. It appeared in the American Historical Review, Vol 106, #1, February 2001:

“The essential point that the book makes is that modern historians should remember that Rome and those with whom it dealt were honor-based societies in which the psychological dimensions of power relationships were fundamental. In an epilogue on the literary treatment of the Punic Wars, Mattern suggests that these same values also characterized republican Rome.”

Decus or honor, was a thoughly Roman value.

Please take a look at this review by Jonathan Roth, especially where he writes:

“In some respects, Mattern’s work is a sequel to William V. Harris’s War and Imperialism in Republican Rome. Harris argued that Rome’s rise came in large part due to the bellicosity that imbued its culture. Mattern’s view is that, the Pax Romana notwithstanding, the Romans continued to put war, conquest, and glory at the center of their worldview well into the Imperial period.”

You wrote:

Here’s what Harris (Professor of History at Columbia University) says on the second page of the above mentioned War and Imperialism in Republican Rome; 327-70 B.C.

"The Roman state made war every year, except in the most abnormal circumstances. At the beginning of our period the Romans mobilized their army every spring and went to war with one or more of their neighboring states. There was an almost biological necessity about the event, as Nicolet has written…

During the first 86 years from 327 onwards there were…at most four or five years without war. It was probably in 242 that the doors of the temple Janus were closed for the first time after a very long interval, to be opened again almost at once because of the rebellion of the Falisci…However, while the seasonal character of Roman warfare declined in the third century, particularly after 218, war continued to be an utterly normal feature of Roman public life. It is unlikely that Rome was again at peace for a whole year in all the theatres until 157, in which year, Polybius says, the Senate decided to make war against the Dalmations, one of its reasons being that it did not want the people to be enervated by a lengthy peace."

Harris only covered the Republican period. The entire Roman period in question lasted roughly one thousand years. And in this long time-span there were indeed relatively peaceful periods - periods in which Pax Romana signified something more than merely a time to lick wounds (i.e. after tangling with the Carthegenians, etc.) and rearm. And yet it’s nearly inconceivable to me that any political summary of the Roman Empire would stress Rome’s peaceful nature. Harris begins his book with: “Since the Romans acquired their empire largely by fighting…”

Do you remember how the line “Render unto Caeasar what is Caesar’s…” came about? It wasn’t a taxpayer’s revolt, the whole squabble was about the idolatry associated with paying tribute to the Roman emperor and his gods.

Sorry, but I don’t have a copy of the book with me. The quotes came from my journal. I seem to remember Bauman saying that it was generally thought that a slave would only tell the truth under torture. You can find a review of Bauman’s book by Roger Rees in The Classical Review, Vol 51, Issue 1, March 2002, p. 79-81.

That’s not good enough, Gavin. You can find Austrians, Norwegians, Danes, Frenchmen, by the thousands in 1944 saying the very same thing about the Nazi invaders. A great many of those people who opposed the invasion and subjugation never survive long enough to give their opinion on the matter. You ought to know that its the victors and their collaborators who leave their memoirs and write the histories.

You disagree with me that rebellion was on ongoing problem for Rome. Strange then, that Rome bothered to garrison troops (at a huge expense) in its conquered provinces?

Sorry, but I’m nodding off here. I’d like to continue but I spent the day swimming at the lake and now I think I’d better to dive into my bed. It’s been a pleasure debating this topic with you, Gavin. Given that I’m only an armchair historian I’ve enjoyed the chance to correspond with a specialist in the field.

Cheers,
Michael

He did not just use the “some of my best friends are black” argument did he?!

Michael,

I will try to be brief in this response (!) since previous posts have run the risk of appearing excessively garrulous.

First though, I should point out to you that in your previous post, you only addressed some of the issues I raised earlier, and that for us to continue to be productive in this discussion, it is important for me to hear your feelings concerning them…

Now, forward…

Source: Mattern review from Amazon.

You must forgive me but this is not a commonly read book in my country. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed reading articles (such as the one posted above) pertinent to the book in order to find some explanations for you.

My diagnosis is the following: Mattern, like many (if not most) military historians seems to run risks in her (admittedly apparently fairly well received) writing. Any ‘radical reinterpretation’, as her book appears to be, counteracts and sets itself up in opposition to many historians of the past. For this reason, there is sound cause to be skeptical from the outset.

In essence, I would warn you against according so readily with someone who is essentially a ‘Military historian’ on ethical, intellectual and especially literary aspects of history. She is not an expert in these areas.
Nevertheless, I must stress again that her book is most probably worth reading, although (i would say) only in conjunction with something a little less radical.

Now…to take you up on a couple of issues…

In what sense? I would contest this point and argue that the concept of ‘decus’ is clearly inherited from the Homeric value of ‘Time’. In this sense, it is thoroughly Roman only insofar as the Romans had a word indicating its existence, not insofar as it was they who conceived of it.

BUt again, you’ve chosen to quote an historian with a reputation for reevaluative thinking…this is not a man whose work accords with that of the majority of other scholars’. Herein lies a problem. The historians you appear to be choosing to cite are those (like a small group in the academic world in all major subjects) who make their living by creating ORiGINAL work. This is not a compiment. Where they are concerned, careful scholarship often comes second to a desire to come up with a new take, a new angle, a new perception. Unfortunately, this results in the overlooking of important information which does not sit comfortably with their analysis.

You’ve made a mistake here. Jesus clearly intends is to understand him to be talking about Caesar’s control over our material possessions (and hence taxes…Jesus is defending himself from hanging around with tax collectors) and God’s over ouyr hearts.

Good point. BUt my intention above was not to enter into a substantive argument over this issue. It was to point out that conquest was not an entirely negative experience for those conquered.

Actually, it became less common for troops to be garrisoned in the provinces after 68ad, when Tacitus points out that for the first time, tehse troops could have a major impact on events at Rome. Emperors thus sought subsequently to concentrate their troops more closely around Rome (and thus avoid the potential threat of an invasion and coup from the provinces).

But I am generalising here and I am aware of it (as are you). In fact, the whole of our discussion has been fraught with generalisations I ma usually very hesitant to make. THis is my main regret in this argument. And it is also the reason why we are each able to contest the other’s opinion.

Gavin

Fergus Millar (p.10) in ‘The Roman Empire and its neighbours’:

‘The society and culture of all areas of the empire was formed by the importation, by conquest, emigration or assimilation of a dominant alien culture, and its imposition on, or fusion with, the pre-existing native culture’.

This quote is the essence of what I was trying to put across in this argument, Michael. I know I did it badly but I draw upon a historian of world renown to make it succinctly on my behalf.

I hope this quote demonstrates there is some common grouund between what we both argued above but that there are oversights on your part.

Concise refutation of the original lengthy acephalous ranting diatribe:

“A state that cannot attain its ultimate goal usually swells to an unnaturally large size. The world-wide empire of the Romans is nothing sublime compared to Athens. The strength that really should go into the flower here remains in the leaves and stem, which flourish.”
-Nietzsche (trans. Kaufmann)

'Nuff said.

Not good enough for me, I’m afraid, zen. Nietzsche, like all educated Germans of the 19th century transposed the ‘qualities’ of Athens onto themselves indiscriminately: this explains this sentiment. The Germans were very much enemies of the Roman Empire, you see, so they were uncomfortable about deferring any praise to its achievement. The Greeks, on the other hand, had no bone to pick with Germany.

To be blunt, there is no historical validity in the claims in your Nietzsche quote, at least none of any worth. The historical worth comes in the reflection of Nietzsche’s own ethnic and national identity which was characteristic of his culture.

Nuff said.

No argument with anything after the word “all.” :slight_smile:

The man was incredibly critical of “Germans” and the “Reich” and the tone I take from reading him is that empire itself, whether Roman or German, is crass, loud, and stifling. I hope I’m not projecting my own views too much onto his writings, but I think there’s support for the claim that politics for politics’ sake or for empire’s sake he found completely abhorrent.

Did I inadvertently set up a straw man from what you wrote? If you were merely stating that Nietzsche could not distance himself from “the Germans” enough to get rid of prejudices unreasonable to apply only to Rome and not Athens, there is probably a case for that; if you are disagreeing that the Roman political entity espoused political expansion at the expense of culture and civilization, I must take issue.

Athens, during the expansion of the Delian League, managed nevertheless to produce myriad works of art, literature, poetry, etc. I would argue that while Rome did have its share of such things, much was mere copying from Greek work, a lot was jingoistic crap, and much of the rest was satire aimed at various aspects of Rome - worthy (and quite amusing!) in its own context but not exactly long-lived. Certainly there was good Latin literature and poetry; as I understand things, however, Athens had proportionally much more.

I don’t support empire in any fashion (cf. Thucydides). Perhaps what I was intending to say (and did not give any points of my own for it) is that any assumption of the “greatness” of Rome is predicated on the “greatness” of tyranny and conquest and not a hell of a lot else. Could Latin poetry have flourished without empire? I’d like to think so, but a lot of it would have been quite different. How about Athenian culture? I believe much more of it was independent of empire than was the case for Rome.

Am I showing the prejudices inherent in my several-generations-Americanized but still largely German blood? Or are they based in my tarantula politics? :smiley:

Hi Gavtmcc,

You wrote;

Then please allow me to draw upon another world-renowned historian in order to support my claim. In his 1996 tome, Europe: A History, Professor Norman Davies (Supernumerary Fellow at Wolfson College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and Professor Emeritus of London University) remarked:

“Modern attitudes to Roman civilization range from the infinitely impressed to the thoughly disgusted. As always, there are the power-worshipers, especially among historians, who are predisposed to admire whatever is strong…” Ibid, p. 150

Davies own attitude is summarized here:

“…the long list of Roman vices cannot be forgotten. Critics have pointed to a specially repulsive brand of slavery, to cruelty beyond measure, and in time, to a degree of decadance that made hellinism look puritanical.” Ibid, p. 150

Speaking some pages later on slavery, he writes:

“Slavery was omnipresent in Roman society, and in some estimations the key institution of the economy. It provided manpower for agriculture and industry, and underpinned the luxury of the cities. It involved the total physical, economic, and sexual exploitation of the slaves and their children. It was supported by the wars of the Republic, which brought in millions of captives…Julius Caesar sold 53,000 Gallic prisoners after one battle alone, at Atuatia (Namur).” Ibid, p. 166

It seems that Livey’s,"Vae victis!" (Woe to the vanquished!) was no idle warning.

I came upon an interesting review of Millar’s The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours (along with several others) by the the late, M.I. Finley, a name that I think you might recognize. Sir Finley writes:

“No administration in history has ever devoted itself so whole-heartedly to fleecing its subjects for the private benefit of its ruling class as Rome of the last age of the Republic.” That sentence, from the final chapter of Professor Ernst Badian’s exciting little book on Roman imperialism…will even today shock some Roman historians and some readers…Yet the statement is true beyond any possibility of argument." “A Profitable Empire”, New York Review of Books, Jan 29, 1970

You wrote;

I’m surprised to hear you say that, Gavin. History isn’t merely about amassing great gobs of chronological facts; the point of the excercise is to make generalizations - to draw generalized conclusions about those individual facts. Surely, you’ve heard that famous quip by Paul Valery:

“L’Histoire est la science des choses qui ne se répètent pas.”

If you’re hesitant to make generalizations, what is the point, for example, of knowing the particulars about the Treaty of Westphalia? As Valery would say, there isn’t going to be another Treaty of Westphalia - at least no sane historian is waiting for one. We read history in order to form a commentary of it, and that commentary necessarily amounts to generalization; otherwise, historians would be relegated to a mundane, minor task of simply amassing endless lists of individual dated facts.

I stand by my original statement - the one you first objected to:

Your objection to my characterization was (quoting you):

Let me ask you, Gavin; suppose a powerful foreign invader burst upon your homeland, sending your sisters and brother away to spend the remainder of their lives in chains. Would you cheerfully abide that turn-of-events as long as the invader brought along with them an improved method of, say, harvesting and storing oats? a more efficient way of tax-accounting?

The Spanish Conquistadors, for example, brought to Central and South America advanced metallurgy and shipbuilding techniques (to name only a few of their novel imports), but at the price of a wholesale slaughter (whose gruesome particulars I won’t recite here). Do you think that the decimated indiginous population ought to have looked at the “big picture”? taken a utilitarian view? ought to have seen their ensalvement and massacre as a trifling when compared with the gain of those new technologies?

Doubless, small tribes do make war on other small tribes. But are you seriously trying to sell the notion that people become less bellicose once they join with a stronger (and in Rome’s case, ferocious) military power?

No advance in acqueduct technology or improvement in chariot-wheel fabrication could possibly counterbalance the massacre of a single generation of men on a battlefield and the enslavement of their wives and children. Those ancients who so suffered was each of them a human being, with a life as dear and meaningful to them as my life is to me. Primitive or not, they loved their familes no less than I love mine.

Regards,
Michael

Apologies in advance…I will have to postpone my part in this discussion for about 3 weeks due to demanding work schedule. Wish me luck…I’m looking forward to giving this one a crack this xmas. And yes, Michael, of course I’ve heard of Finley! Come on.

Interestingly, Norman Davies was at a lecture at my college earlier this week (he is now a very old frail old man)…incidentally I dont see any evidence of Davies’ own views in the passages yo uoquote, he merely seems to describe the views of unspecified ‘critics’. Please clarify!

Ok back to work…

Gavin,

Good luck in your studies!

Michael

Are you referring to the kind of certaintly that has made every history book call Richard III a legitimate royal? :slight_smile:

Will:

No, these remarks are not ‘certain’ in that pejorative sense! I stand by their validity.

Michael:

I should have mentioned before I can’t agree with this! Your view of history is apprently unfairly polarising: either it’s a mass of facts, or it’s a series of generalisations. This does not have to be the case as you will no doubt (I hope) find when you read my essay for instance!

cheers.

Hi Gavin,

Nowhere have I said that history is delimited to either a mass of raw facts or a commentary about those facts. I’ve said that the Ultima Thule of history is commentary.

Regards,
Michael

Replying to an earlier post, whats all this about Rome losing its value as a name? Am I mistaken or, wasn’t there this thing called the Holy Roman Empire?

You cannot say that America is following the same path because now there are many more factors to be taken into account.

Hi ApocalypseOfWar,

The so-called “Holy Roman Empire” was something altogether different than the Roman Empire. Moreover, there’s a standing joke among some historians which says that the Holy Roman Empire: wasn’t holy, wasn’t Roman, nor was it an empire. :wink:

Regards,
Michael

There is something extremely flawed with your post polemarchus… What historians are you referring to? We have no idea what their ‘concept’ of christianity actually was, all we know is the writings tey left us to interpret from our contemporarily biased viewpoint. Any worthy historian would not make a statment so bold.

Take it easy, Apocalypse. Voltaire was the source of that quip:

“This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire is neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.” Essay on Morals and the Spirit of Nations, 1756

Please take a look here, for example.

Btw, AOW, I’ve been meaning to ask you who is the fellow in your avatar? My best guess is that it might be Frederick the Great. Eh?

Regards,
Michael