Is that last statement even true? I mean, putting aside the fact that Rome had no welfare (though the upper classes did buy off the headcount with cheap grain during time of famine), did the lowest of the 5 Roman classes of freemen get noticeably bigger post-Caesarum?

If so, I wonder how much of that is due to the incorporation of Former Italian Allies as new citizens (which also happened about this time)? Come to think of it, Octavius’ land grab (which stole a bunch land from farmers to give to his returning soldiers) probably had something to do with any noted growth of the Head Count...

So in addition to being linguisticly horrible, this guy doesn’t seem to have his history strait...

We are surrounded by cliché Romes. They all fall. They all ignore the Eastern (Byzantine) half of the Empire, which spent another thousand years dwindling, and might still exist if not for the rise of Islam.

Word Note: When guys like Osama bin Laden talk about "Romans" they mean what we call the Byzantines...

In a certain sense Rome has never fallen, since so many of our institutions are based on theirs. I heard, though, that ancient Rome had a real problem with Gothic ex-slave welfare queens riding in huge chariots they'd bought with their welfare earnings. Pinky swear.