Rome Fell Because Their Entertainment Sucked.

Does my intense partiality for classical Greek theatre over Roman theatre make me a snob? I dare say there is no competition. Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes are theatrical giants, to be revered. The dawn of theatre as an art form arose with these playwrights; the Aristotelian model was put into place, and is still practiced in script analysis to this day. These Greeks of the fifth century B.C. transformed the myths of Homer into evocative performances, relevant to political and societal themes of the age, and instructive in ethical conduct while inspiring sympathy and catharsis.
The Romans, however, were all about entertainment value. Their canon of plays are almost completely farcical, and are disturbingly similar to our modern-day sitcom. Roman theatre was inspired by the Etruscans and the bawdy mime, and any serious content was blatantly plagiarized from the above mentioned Greek theatrical giants. The Roman playwright by the name of Seneca produced "The Trojan Woman", "Media," "Phaedra," "The Phoenician Women" (all of which he stole from Euripides) and "Oedipus," (taken from Sophocles) and "Agamemnon," (from Aeschylus). He didn't even bother to change the titles. However, he did decide to display the violence on stage in gory detail--much like violent movies in today's culture.

I do not think very highly of television sitcoms or unnecessarily violent movies. I like to have richness and depth in my entertainment. I always feel the need to improve my way in some form, and the idea of sitting down a watching an episode of some pointless, pansy-plot-lined show makes me want to gouge my eyes out and wander the rest of my life in exile.