Neos Dionysos

No, problem... I'll give as many reviews as I can, that is work around my school schedule etc. Anyone have any questions I'd be happy to answer and or just debate and talk in general on the subject.

Yes it does... sorry not sure how I forgot to mention them in the initial group... Of course other groups include the Lombards, Burgandians and Alemmeni(?).

We'll never get a good clear answer on this, though majority will favor Principate perhaps of the era, what it exemplified or that it was at the dawn of the Imperial Era. Personally, I think the Principate was an excellent institution though when the crisis of the third century ensued a true strong-man, dominate structure was needed to end the strife and the problems. Within the structure of the Principate, while the Emperor had supreme control, the Senate and other republican forms were given at last the perception of power and so they used this to nominate hiers and contendors to the throne and used it to influence the course of events. The army added to mess, so once the dominate established itself, you no longer had the Senate pushing for candidates to the throne in the face of military leaders who held the feality and loyalty of the army. The problems arose when the army could not decide on a single ruler and this continued as problems after the division of East and West, since each army would be loyal to thier own respective leaders over the others. This is all just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

Hey everyone, I figured this the best place to ask considering this has nothing to do with Roman history... (well indirectly it does LoL)... Anyway... I'm in the process of deciding which graduate schools to apply to once I get my BA which is not far off and I would of course like to continue into either Greek or Roman, (preferably Roman), history. Besides Ivy league schools, which is an obvious, (and which I think I would have no chance with anyway), can anyone perhaps point me in a good direction to a school that has a strong history graduate school? So far I have been told of Berkley, University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana, Columbia and University of Illinois in Chicago, University of North Carolina in Chapal-Hill. You have any others to suggest? Thanks.

Welcome, and I would try a google search of images... Also... where did you get your BA from?

I'd like to begin a discussion on the kingdoms which would come to replace and rule the land once part of the Western Roman Empire since there seem to be so few. To get the discussion going, we can begin by discussing the Franks in Gaul and Clovis... and of the Goths in Spain and Italy with attention to Theodoric the Great. On a side note, does anyone have any suggestions for books or source materials on this period, (400-600 AD), and on this particular kingdoms and people? Thanks.

I know that, I am merely pointing out that the delay in time from Constantinople's fall and that of Trezibond is not attributed to, (IMO), to the defeat to Tamerlane. They did need time to recover, hence why Constantinople was not going to be taken for another 51 years. Once they had taken that, they went to root out the last vestiges of Greek rule.

Yes he is responsible for letting them in, but he did give explicit instructions to treat them well, but you need to understand the culture and the social structure of how Romans treated Barbarians. Roman soldiers routinely were encouraged to treat barbarians harshly and in fact previously when other settlements came the chance of extermination was rife in the air. When in 359, Constanius allowed a large number of Limigantes into Rome and as he was giving them an address some, (a small minority), attacked him and because of that the Roman soldiers came down on them like a hurricane and massacred most of them. So often, when soldiers were tasked to re-settle people they could also suddenly be tasked with killing them, men, women and children, as a whole so it was a very tense and scary time for barbarians both coming into the empire and those already established for many years. Around this time a strong sense of anti-non-Romanism was high, it was hard to accept by common people and high ranking ones alike that they had to accept these people into thier borders. Such mentality and hatred and fear of these barbarian people is shown for years to come, and led to catastrophe when Honorius killed Stilicho and drove him loyal men to go to Alaric etc. The fault is with Roman society and culture more so than any individual person. By this time as well the word 'Goth' was synomous for slave and so this added to the problems. The two overall commanders of the re-settlement while really taking to extreme the way they treated the Goths, they were implementing techniques that was common and encouragesd in Roman society on how to deal with barbarians. While this was an effective measure it was not possible and would backfire with so many Goths and not enough troops. As for Valens, he did go into battle not waiting for his nephew but he had already waited a month and a half and learned that Gratian was just finishing up his unnessarcy campaign against the Lentienses and he was told to wait for his arrival. Gratian was not only over embellishing his victory but throwing it in front of his uncle's face and this just added to the tension and made Valens even more angered that his nephew could care less to was happening to him. Previous commanders that were sent to aid Valens did not even commit the forces with them, I cannot remember his name but the general fiegned ill-ness and other excuses why he could not assist valenbs when his college Richnomer(?) went ahead to help Valens. The inital rebellion could be contained but once the additonal Goths were able to cross unopposed because the border Riparian forces had to be pulled away the situation just spun out of control. Also, Valens, because he did not control the prefecture of Illyricum, was denied mobile units and another high ranked structured command. He had only one for his his entire empire and he had two major fronts yet only one military structure. To fix this he set up addiontial ones, but while this was needed the hast in dosing so rose to conflict and problems within the high ranking command and squabbles insued. The chaos that followed and dis-organization was indeed Valens fault, but he had to do something. You are correct that he did not want to share the glory, but this is attributed to Gratian and the way he treated his uncle and his use of his win over the Lentienses. Valens wanted to gain this victory and throw in back at his nephews face and use it to establish seniority over his co-rulers. It is a shame that the emperors could not come to terms for this crisis but it is apparent after reading on the subject that Gratian must share a lot of the blame for what happened. Once battle was gives Valens, as well as his four Magister Militum he had must also share fault. I just don't like how all balem is always thrown on Valens and no one else and the History Channels's episode, "Adrianople" on "Decisicive Battles" doesn't help to set the record straight either, the only way to really learn of the truth is to read and research it for yourself sadly but such is the way when it comes to late empire emperors and topics. and kinda why I love it so much since it gives one the chance to disprove popular accepted belief's of empeors in the late empire. Another great example is Emperor Gallenius who was given a terrible reputation when in fact he was better than we were led to believe, and recent scholarship is finally showing this.

On a quick note I just realized I have been making entries but they haven't been posting and reason is they were only drafts when I thought they were posting... so... yay for being dumb...

I'm trucking on despite my complete lack of sleep... On a totally different topic, has anyone ever read this book? . If so can you tell me how it is, cause I am kinda cautious to get it... thanks for any info.

So I have 3 Power Hours on T and Th. Power Hour being a class that is an hour and fifteen minutes long and which are spread out throughout the day and here I am up and online, mainly cause I can't sleep, partially cause I just finished a great book and have an urge to start another and also because it's only the 4th day of classes, (2nd techincally for the ones I have only on Tues and Thurs), so I kinda don't care. More to follow soon... I am currently downing a Red Bull and debatting on a bottle of Killians... though I think I'll just stick to the book and the Red Bull right now.

Sorry, I didn't see the older thread. Perhaps the economic value was not there but surely the ideals? Meaning for propaganda usage and to over glorify the reigning emperor he claims a great victory over the land and expands his popularity, I can see this as the only good reason to take over the region other than establish control and stop raiding, though the walls did help in this.

Why was this part of Britannia not able to be brought under the Roman yoke? I ask because it seemed that in the late first century their were 3 invasions of the region and culminated with the Battle of Mons Graupius which was an undiputable Roman victory? Was there a reluctance to take this land? Lack of proper troops and logistics? Or the feeling it was not worth the effort? Any comments welcome.

Where did you read this? Give us a source please. On a side note, the idea of rape was pandimount in Roman thought. Going off to war was seen as a masculine thing, the idea of penetrating into virgin land beyond that is wild and untamed. Many symbols are even seen today like a plow digging into fresh land, the idea of the virgin land. The Greeks were also very heavy in this. As for statues, there exist many and coin images which always depict land as a woman. Two statues that come to mind is one of Nero and Claudius. Such images were on coins as well, though when it came to rebellious roman provinces they were not shown in such a bad light but more of a seated woman who has been 'romanized' and so is not violated yet still in a dominated light. The same type of scenes, (of women being conquered and having thier hair pulled), is shown on Marcus Aurelius and Trajan's column though Trajan's is not as graphic or as violent as Marcus'. The point I am making is while rape and conquest were a constant in Roman thought I have never EVER come across such a thing was used wide-spread as terror tactic although I am sure a few times it was but not the scale you are asking about.

LoL, he might make it worth your while though. I'd rather meet emperors and generals from the late empire, seeing as the atmosphere was completley different from that of the late republic/early principate.

No, that defeat happened in 1402, the defeat and death of the sultan gave Constantinople a repreive since it was said that the sultan, (can't remember his name), was planning on taking the holy city soon. I think a more plausible reason is the location of Trezibond, which is very rugged hills and mountains hugging the small coastline on the Black Sea. It fell just two years after Constantinople and given the logistics and the terrain I think a fair amount of time to pass before the attack would come.

I think Valens does not belong with the others after all he permitted the Visigoths to settle in the Danubian provinces inside Roman territory in their hundreds of thousands. When the barbarians rebelled he decided not to wait for his co-emperor who was coming to his aid but instead decided to attack a huge Goth force that destroyed him and his army. Both decisions taken by Valens ended up being disasterous for the empire, it broke Rome's back, the goths were now inside Roman territory flowing with confidence after annihilating a Roman emperor and his army, it was the beginning of the end. For that reason Valens should be seriously considered as one of the worst Roman leaders not the best. His bad reputation is well deserved. Wrong, his success for out do his failures. Recent study has shown that he has gotten a very bad rap. He allowed only the Tervingi Goths to settle not the Greuthungi who Valens had fought against almost a decade before and who had supplied troops to the ursuper Procopius in 365. The crossings were highly watched and guarded but there was a large number but it was managable. Valens WELCOMED them into his land for the main reason of using the men as a prime recruiting ground. In the East he was having terrible times trying to raise men into the service. During his entire reign he was only able to get 4-2 units of men while his brother, (being able to use Franks and Alammeni and other barbarian groups), mustered 16-14 new units. Also recrutiing provincials and citizens was very expense and was costing the empire a great deal of money to simply fill replacements let along new units, barbarians were seen as a cheap and good way out of this and was implemented very heavily by Valentinian in the West. Valens was in no need of manpower in the early 370's and so Valentinian took 1/4 of his army, (roughly 16000), to the West and suddenly Valens within a few years faced problems in Armenia, with Persia and the Isaurians who were always a local problem that needed imperial forces to put down or halt. The fact that these Goths offered military service was something Valens COULD NOT pass up and he was following the example of his brother. Valens decreed that "once the Tervingi had crossed, they should be given food to supply thier present needs and land to cultivate for the following year." And he already began recruiting potential men for service as well. The problems arise when the comes per Thracias Lupicinus and the dux Moesiae Maximus, who were in charge, took complete advantage of the situation to turn a profit. Supplies were hard to get to begin with but because of the sudden influx of people it created a problem and the Roman Commanders held back food and charged exhorberent amounts. Ammianus tells us that the exchange of slaves for dogs to be eaten as meat happened and Zosimus and Eunapius lament over the frenzy of Roman Comannders to the region to get slaves for labor and to acquire personal sex slaves. They were treated very poorly and exploited not by Valens but by the local elite and the following year when there was a famine they suffered even worse. The people on the verge of rebellion had to be escorted under heavy guard near Marcianople and to do this, the Romans had to pull riparian forces from the Danube and leaving it open for the Greuthungi to cross who had been denied entry by Valens the previous year. They then moved in to join their neighnoring tribe to start a revolt. The failure of Lupicinus to stop the beginning of the revolt and his defeat gave them a new feeling of revolt and thus it began. Hardly can you say this was his fault and a terrible mistake. The blame lies with the Romans of the region and not him. This along with his amazing adminitrative abilities helped reinforce and strentghen the Roman econmoy. Now I am not saying he should be the Greatest Roman figure, I am merely saying he is one of my favorites who is looked very poorly on and only recently is being shown for the good, (not great but I think did a job above decent), emperor he was. The same for Gallienus as well, who has a tarnished past but is recently coming to light as a good emperor in his own right though sadly he was killed just when his greatest acheivements were coming about.

Well knee jerk reaction usually makes someone from the republic/early principate as the greatest Roman. But if we were to include the later empire, I'd put forward Diolcetian and Constantine, though I do favor Valentinian and Valens... but Valens has gotten a bad reputation after Adrianople... I've learned a lot recently on him and his brother and thier efforts to help the empire and get it back on its feet.

The problem with Cincinnatus was simply that he is a character based largely in legend. The details of the history are simple not available. I am not suggesting that Livy created him out of thin air... certainly not... only that because of the taint of the unknown I am personally forced to find another candidate. However the legend of Cincinnatus certainly qaulifies as 'the Greatest Roman Figure'. Hmmm... well I would not put it past him that he created him in an effort to show others and his contemporaries what a true Roman was like and therefore hopefully dictate current leaders into taking after Cincinnatus, ergo helping to keep the Republic ideals alive and show how they work when a good Roman heads it.

I would agree if they are being held together, though I thought they were held in seperate regards. A personal favorite of mine is the Valentinian Dynasty but to be regarded as the best... not sure... one could argue that the Flavians are deserving perhaps.

Yeah, there is a reason for that, Octavian got his initial start AND his position from being the heir to Caeser in his will so why would he NOT take on this role? After so long of a period when Julio-Claudians were in power they were seen as the established base and the legitmate people to rule Rome all steeming from Caeser himself, why would they NOT take his name and use it as a term to rule? The further and further you go, the more Caeser, (and as I have been pointing out EVERY HISTORICAL FIGURE), is turned into something greater than he was and used as a tool but the current leaders as a way to legitimize themselves and thier positions and titles. How is this not a sensible arguement? And for the record I am not a Caeser-basher, I merely understand points that others make, perhaps if you read completely my comments you will see I am not just writing negative attacks but using logical points to make them based and arguable. And I never inteded to call those who came after him ignorant for using his name as a title or part of their own name. My point was that people today, who have NO understanding or knowledge of ancient history or Rome will most likely be able to know at least the name 'Caeser'. A couple pages back I mentioned Marcus Furius Camillus as a candidate, but in that time period all of the aristocracy was decidely anti-plebe. Quite honestly its difficult for me to vote against Scipio Africanus as the greatest Roman. When one considers all of his accomplishments... militarily in Hispania, Africa and the oft ignored campaigns against Antiochus that brought Asia under Roman influence, and the way in which he retired from service, is there another Roman that exemplifies what it meant to be a Roman. He understood the power of the mob yet did not use his popularity to incite them to violence against his political enemies (but he wisely used them to protect himself). Unlike the characters of the late Republic, Scipio Africanus laid down his arms and withdrew from public life rather than sully the greatness that was Rome. Have you ever considered Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus? Of course the times are different but he held dictator twice and like a true good Roman he went back to farming and a private life once the crisis had been averted.

Well to each his own. It is his own opinion whether he likes Caeser or not but it's not a blind hatred, as much as I have seen he has always forwarded good and founded arguements against Caeser with good reaons. Though I must ask Cato, where/when did you first start be so anti-Caeser if I may ask? Was it a professor? A book? A lecture? etc. First, thank you for noticing that I don't just yell, "I hate Caesar" (unlike the "Hail Caesar!" posts), but I instead offer specific and detailed arguments. Second, the origin of my anti-Caesarism comes primarily from my love of the republican ideal as put forward by Polybius. It's an almost romantic version of the Roman constitution, but I think the reality was not as far from Polybius' ideal as was almost everything else. From there, Caesar's role in the Catilinarean conspiracy (as described by his friend Sallust) earned by disrespect; Caesar's destroying of the republic earned my anger; and Caesar's behavior after the civil war (particularly posing as a demigod) earned my total contempt and disgust. I wouldn't single out any particular book as putting me off Caesar, but Syme's Roman Revolution--which is mostly about Octavian--struck me as having strong implications for how we should evaluate Caesar as well. Finally, I confess to a certain reactionary impulse with respect to Caesar: if he weren't so widely celebrated, I'd not feel so compelled to set the record straight. Well we owe that to those who have come before us. As I mentioned in another thread, we make figures in history greater than they were, everyone in some form or another. And I do understand your point on that, afterall when people think Rome or of a famous Roman... even people ignorant of Roman history they know of Caeser or at least the name.

And what about the relief Gallic force that attacked Caeser from behind? Logicial military protocol tells us that one cannot continue or maintain a seige with the enemy to your back yet Caeser acheived this. Now you can say he was irresponisble and make a very risky and gutsy call but it doesn't change the fact he succeded with such success given the circumstances. Giving all the credit to engineering qualities is not fair in my eyes.

Well to each his own. It is his own opinion whether he likes Caeser or not but it's not a blind hatred, as much as I have seen he has always forwarded good and founded arguements against Caeser with good reaons. Though I must ask Cato, where/when did you first start be so anti-Caeser if I may ask? Was it a professor? A book? A lecture? etc.