Neos Dionysos

Here's an image of a nicer tree IMO, Family Tree.

Peter Heather is an excellent historian and I look up to him but it seems the idea that of the "flood" of barbarians overtaking the civilized world is overdone in my eyes. I would say that things were now different because Rome had never dealt with a people like the Huns. In the past, they were able to play members of the people against the other. So, a second son of a king against the elder brother, a rebel noble against the king etc. Attila though, once he took power demanded all Hunnic nobles in Roman lands returned and once that was done he executed them before the eyes of the Roman emissaries and so destroyed any chance Rome had at playing off the factions as they did so well with other Barbarian peoples. And Attila did create a massive 'nation' on his own. Just look at the destruction he did to the Balkans, razing several cities along the important military highway, creating a wasteland in his wake. Even if there are "two" superpowers at this time now, the East had to deal with the Huns and Persia at the same time but were able to hold out mainly due to thier superior financial and geographical advantages. The West though only had the Huns... so they only had one superpower to deal with. How does your explanation account for the fact that different parts of the empire fell at different times? There is no independent evidence that the aristocrats in Britain, Gaul, Italy, Africa, or Asia were any more or less willing to lose their money than the aristocrats in the other regions. So why did some areas fall before others? Again, a good explanation for the fall has to account for the geographic and temporal variation in the decline of the empire (i.e., why *what* fell *when*), but since all general factor explanations (decline in morality, loss of will to live, willingness of the aristocracy to lose their money, etc) haven't the temporal or geographic specificity to explain these variables, they're bad explanations. I say this because the new Senatorial aristocracy of the East was new and thus not as hell bent on holding onto all thier property and holdings, even if they were, the Emperor in the East had actual authority where as in the West the Emperor was a puppet of the Magister Militum or the Senate and so they could not wrest control of thier money from thier hands.

I did not have any issues... did you do anything different? On a different PC or anything else etc?

It should be noted that Alexander idealized the Greek Heroes and fancied himself one as well so by going East he was following in the footsteps of Dionysos and Heracles...

The what? LoL... sorry Honorius but you'll have to refresh my memory on exactly what you are talking about.

I have no idea how to post on youtube LoL. Otherwise I would... It is a very beatiful city, very touristic though of course. And there are about a dozen churches in the city. Mostly on the Galatia side than the old city. There is one major Catholic Cathedral which is Frankish in origin... built in the 1600 or 1700's I think and many churches around it. In the old city, there is one on the southern side near the old city walls along the highway, (Orthodox), one also just north of the Faith Mosque sitting on the grounds of the old "Church of Holy Apostles". And further north of that you have a collection of churches as well as the Greek Patriachate and the Bulgarian Patriachate. In reality almost all mosques in Turkey take after the Hagia Sophia which the idea of a central dome and then smaller domes. The Muslims loved it so much they copied it and many mosques in Turkey, (the smaller ones), are just converted churches from the Byzantines. If it wasn't for the minerats on the Blue Mosque for example, up close and and around it, it looks like a slightly different Chuch of Holy Wisdom so I'd say Turkey's mosques are more Christian looking than Islamic, not Frankish like the Gothic style churches etc, but like Eastern Christianity. That they did, infact inside the Hagia Sophia you can see where they took down huge crosses, removed stone pieces that were crosses and just left the middel section, painted over all the mosaic, (parts of them have been removed so you can see what it looks like underneath). There is actually I think only one place of worship for Christians that has survived since before Mehmet came, the rest have come up since then and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque, where did you read it was a place of santuary for them after 1453?

I believe that Attila's forces were being plagued with malaria. That, and Aetius was shadowing him with an army.

I swear they sent another force earlier before the sack of the city and they did so only after Carthage had fallen and suddenly now had to confront the reality that with Carthage thier control of the Eastern Med was threatened and while the Eastern Army in Sciliy detered the Vandals, it recreated unrest eventually on the island and they had to be recalled, mainly then because this was the East's only main army and either the Huns or the Persians were making moves... I'm going to find where I recently read this so help me LoL. 250,000 is a gross overestimate. I doubt it was anything really over 25,000. Honestly, I think Gaiseric was simply coming to Rome to take what he felt was rightfully his, the hand of Eudocia in marriage to his son Huneric. Years before, Aetius, (most likely with Galla Placidia's assistance), arranged that Huneric should marry Eudocia when she was like 7 or 8. Now they never had any real intention to marry her off, but Gaiseric did not realize the ploy and so thinking of the advantages of such a prized wife for his son, he had his son divorce his current wife, (sister or daughter of the Visigothic king), and went so far as to cut off her nose in disgrace. This caused the two former 'friends' to become bitter enemies and was a perfect division between the two and where now Rome had the upper hand to play the other off each other, much like they did continuiously and Aetius was a master of this.

I basically agree with your explanation because it accounts for the most salient fact that has to be explained--that the empire fell at different points in time in different locations (depending entirely on where the barbarians were invading). No internal conflict theory can account for this fact. That said, Rome had defeated far more formidable enemies in the past, and when defeated in the past (e.g., by the Gauls or by Hannibal), Rome recovered. Why don't you think Rome recovered from its final defeats? The loss of patriotism and the old Roman spirit? The lousy economy? The apocalyptic beliefs spread by Christians? Something else? Sorry Cato, gonna disagree here. The barbarians had a huge impact but they merely accelerated the process of the empire falling. Barbarians invaded many points of the empire but soon after they were 'Roman' again. When they no longer became Roman was more when the land was given to germanic peoples, like the Visigoths, Burgandians and Vandals... and so then that land was no longer 'Roman' so you could say Rome was cutting itself up but this also allowed them to defeat less area since those germanic kingdoms were obliged to fight for Rome, (which they did most of the time but usually only with excellent diplomacy), and it allowed Rome to concentrate on the most important areas in the West, Italy and Africa. (Africa would be lost to the Vandals, due in no small part to the fact that the Vandals were ferried across by Rebel Romans to use as troops...). What do I think was the main cause, the economy and an aristocracy unwilling to part with any of thier vast estates until they suddenly no longer had control of it. Corruption was so terrible taxes were getting to where they were needed if anyone was even being paid taxes. The people most at stake who should have been paying were the wealthy landowners. Add to this the decline of the Roman cities. It became more and more dangerous to travel roads to marketlplace, transport goods. So, villas and estates began to do things autonomously, (we have evidence of this in Gaul and Britain), and so with the decline of cities you have an overral decline then of the local economy as well, breakdown in the normal social structure and then add to that the marvelous incursions, lack of manpower to do any defending of the borders... and finally an emperor in the West who was nothing more than a puppet of his Magister Militum. These are the causes of the West's fall. Barbarians were merely added fuel to the fire.

Yes, I'll have to make an album in my blog sometime, the Church of Holy Wisdom is breathtaking and in the video I shot, I was doing narration for family back home and a little history on what I was filming and well, I just kept screwing up because I still couldn't believe I was there. It was disappointing though that the middle section of the church had this huge scaffolding and they were doing some work on the central dome so I couldn't get that picture where the sunlight streams in and it makes the dome "float".

Oh I know... I was merely commenting... Political and Economic reasons, (with Economic trumping all others), I think were the main reasons for Rome's collapse. Decline of the army is not a cause, rather an effect from a declining state.

I have been trying to get my hands on a copy of that series for years... thanks for the info. Indeed they are, but they are more breathtaking in person.

Well yes, I omitted that because that is part of the "did not have the forces to follow up the victory", theory. But yes this is the commonly held belief. Presicely Antiochus, Aetius had assembled created a very loose but effective balancing act with the various peoples in and outside of Rome. He was key in helping settle the Burgandians as well, which was another form of insurance and used the Visigoths and Vandals against each other as well. You might say he was a genious in this regard because it worked so well, but, he bit off much more than he could chew and once there was one person he could not control, it all fell apart and he paid for it with his life. I put my confidence in this theory, of counter-balance etc, especially given the records of the day and embassies which all go to Aetius and NOT Valentinian III. The various people's regarded Aetius as the 'true ruler', which he was just w/o title, and by his actions while he reigned as Magister we can see just how deep and far reaching his actions were.

Well you double-posted for one... lol. But to comment on your perspective, I don't think many of us here beleive the Roman Legions to have been a steamroller that just walked over all foes before them and the only defeats attributed were by 'great leaders' (Hannibal etc). Perhaps those with only mild interest or knowledge of Roman history clings to the idea that the legion, unless ambushed or led by a moron, was invincible and the people who cling to that sadly tend to be the majority. These same people are those who know the name Augustus, or Caesar maybe Constantine but that's about it. It's a very nice perspective and I like it and agree, but I think we're the wrong audience... this would be something for those outside the civilzed and educated walls of UNRV,

A and B are correct... again depending on which half of the empire or what needed attention. There were never Magistri for every province, more so, a region would encompass several provinces, or for example, the Magister per Thrace would obviously be Thrace but then his authority may extend into Macedonia and parts of Pannonia, just like that of the Magister per Illyricum, who would encompass Dalmatia, Macedonia, and Pannonia... the other two Magistri above them, (Praestraii), or in the company of the army of the emperor, could operate anywhere with authority, though only usually did so when the emperor was on campagin. The reason there existed one for all of the Eastern Provinces, (Asia, Syria, Egypt etc), was because you had but one threat, that of Persia and could concentrate there without needing others in other locations like Egypt for example because they were in realtive peace. In the Balkan area though, there was constant trouble and incrusions and so you needed to break down the command to more than one man to watch the Danube and guard the interior hence the need for two. I know this must all seem confusing if it's your first job into this subject, especially Late Roman topics. A book I would suggest is one that has been reviewed for UNRV, it deals with the Western Roman Empire Magistri positions very well actually, since the topic is on the men who were the de facto rulers in the West and to be that, you had to be the Magister Militum Praestrai of the West (or Peditum). It's called "Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire" by John Michael O'Flynn and the link for the review is here. Once again I hope this helps and if you have more further questions or if you need me to clarify more, since I know I tend to ramble and lose focus... I'll be more than happy to assist you. May I ask the reason for the research? School related or personal? If school... is this HS or College level?

Sup Tobais... long time no see... Back on topic... The generally accepted outcome of the battle is that it was a stalemate, but unoffical Roamn victory and niether side had the forces to destroy the other but mainly Aetius not having the troops to complete the victory. Personally, studying the career of Aetius, we can see that even if he did have the forces to destroy Attila, (I think he did), he pursposely left him as a threat, because we have to understand that Aetius had a unique relationship with the Huns and Attila, (especially Attila's late uncle Rua), and so Aetius twice used the Huns to get him into his power positions, and if Attila and the Huns were gone, he knew that Galla Placidia and Valentinian III would have no need of Aetius any further, but his ability to "control" the Huns previous to Attila's campaigns ensured his position as the de facto ruler of the West, once Attila became hostile, Aetius, while needed, was slowly losing his power and influence since he could not hold the Huns over Rome's head like a threat that COULD be unleashed. They went from tools of Aetius to out of control ones and he ultimately suffered because he lost his control of them, so hence the reason he did not finish off Attila, because to do so would have completely destroyed his reason for being.

I have heard of this same thoery and to expand on it, it ties into the idea that every 500 or so years there is a climate change and using a rough idea of 500 or so years you can trace back when we have records of mass migrations of people, this could be an explanation for the sudden influx of barbarians moving south when during the late republic, early and high empire there were none.

The Empire had strong fighting sprirts as well, it simply came more and more dilluded overtime. The army starting around the 3rd century was no longer going out on campaigns like it did under the early and high empire and so you were more of a defense rather than 'offensive defense' and so there is less money to be made, constant civil wars, the manpower of Rome starts to weed down and those willing to serve even worse. If you could not provide an able body, you had to "pay" for what one would cost and Romans much preferred to pay money rather than serve, and what does the emperor have left to him other than to recruit from the Germans who lead lives of military existance so...

Are you looking just for names and regions? Or of what thier actual office did and the influence they had? An example is how in the East, the 5 Magistri, were hierarchy in two tiers. The two magistri praestrai(?) of equal standing and then below them the three regional ones, East, Illyricum and Thrace if I remember correctly of the top of my head. While in the West there were two, Magister et Peditum and Magister et Equitium, with at varying times there existed a Magister Militum per Gallium, (which is what Aetius was before he rose in rank), one for Britain for time to time... and the Infantry post was always higher in power and influence than the cavalry counterpart which it wasn't supposed to be and at times the slot of the cavalry commander was vacant for years. Just some examples, hope it helps and I will try to assit if you have other questions.

I agree with you Pantagathus, controlling those straits would have greatly assisted them, though Constantinople was so weak they may not have had the resoruces, if I recall they also did not have control of Karakoy and Galata right across the Golden Horn. This was just as an important post, though without control of the Asian side it might have been a mute point.

He was cleared of all charges and reinstated as general of the armies. In fact, even in retirement Justinian asked of him to defend the empire from Slavic forces from beyond the Danube, (IIRC). I don't put to much credance to the idea of the "Begging Belisarius"... I think it's a bunch of bull, used only as an example for art. Procopius tells us he was once again Jusitinian's frend, confidant and loyal general after the charges against him and following the death of Theodora, so why should we believe that he did not recieve all that was taken from him when the wedge driving them apart was gone?

I don't know about that, Belisarius received his wealth and estates from Justinian. The two were close friends for many years, it was Theodora who drove a wedge between the two, and after her death the two once again became very close companions.

No not really... They were often in the form of a narrative 'periplus' which would have had a lot of point to point descriptions. Not really maps or charts. In other words, more like a merchant or fleet sailing and they see a particular bluff... point one, and then if they sail north-east, they run into an island... point two, and repeat correct?

The Fleet also became quite important in the 5th century when the Vandals amassed a great fleet after taking Carthage and North Africa from Rome. IIRC, there were at least two crucial naval engagements, one being a Roman victory and the second a Roman loss.

I've always had this personal feeling concerning the WMD's. It was a huge issue for both parties, and the Democrats did not waste a chance to use it to attack Bush's policy, but then, overnight, the subject is completely dropped, (by both sides), just a few months before election and never again brought back up in the media or political floor. Honestly, I'm willing to bet we found WMD's but that what Saddam had was left over from what we supplied him in the 80's or new ones made from material of our stuff. Now, call me crazy but to say "We found WMD's... and they were once ours we gave Saddam" would be suicide for both parties and really hurt the image of the US, (like that exists anymore). Another reason they were so, 'sure', is again, because we know what we gave them... Oh, and sadly I cannot support this so I will say this is rumor, I've been told that it was not just us saying he had them, but intel from our European and Middle Eastern allies as well... so... ... in either case. Just some food for thought. Well, Reagan wasn't all the popular IIRC, during his terms especially the second and yet he's regarded, by majority, as one of the best presidents we ever had. I'm willing to bet that if Iraq turns out 'minimally succuessful', (and add propaganda and a pretty smile and you make it seem like complete success), then I see no reason why in 20 years he'll be another, "Good", if not worshipped President with a personality cult.