Neos Dionysos

They probably did not exceed 10 lbs... which isn't that much for a grown man to wear... the standard military helmet weighs around 9-10lbs and it is not too much on the neck and you would not have a strain for wearing too long... though it might be cumbersome... I doubt they would make a crown that someone could hurt themselves just wearing...

The Urban Cohorts were the of a police force in the major cities... they did not have anything to do with protecting the eagles, that was the sole job of each individual legion and it's standards...

To add a point, while I have heard so much more of the version that he could not due to casulties I would much more like to beleive the version that Aetuis wished to keep the balance and knew how to play off the barbarians with each other. Another important fact that might support your version is that Aetuis growing up amongst the Huns knew very well how perhaps important they were to Rome, despite the problems they have given since now they have been 'checked' and with Aetuis around, he could ensure perhaps thier behavior. Of course saying such a comment to the emperor would be almost crazy... and so perhaps the other version was circulated... in addition, his not destroying the Huns also ensures that he will be needed and that this would be a safeguard to any attempts Valentinian III might have in trying to get rid of him, afterall he was the first general to defeat Attila and IIRC, the only person other than "God", though I think that was a fabricated story, and that he was really killed by his new wife, just his Huns could not obviously say the 'Scourage of God' was killed by a woman.

It's the Greek version of "Roman Empire"... The Latin term many know is Imperium Romanorum and the direct Greek translation is Basileia Romaion. It refers to the period most traditionally, (starting in the 18th century I beleive), with what we all know today to be the Byzantine Empire, however during that empire's existance and to many afterward it was simply called the Roman Empire since by thier logic and reasoning they were the legitmate Romans and still Romans from when they first became part of the traditional empire until they were finally taken by the Turks. You will also see references occasionly to areas of Greece and Asia Minor being called by the Turks and Arabs as the "Rum", which translates to Rome or the land of the Romans. The term Byzantine is a recent name, but several of us here do not use the term so much, since we prefer to call them what I think many of us clearly see them as... the Roman Empire... hope this helps.

Pardon? The whole raison d'etre of a phalanx was to drive the enemy back. It was an offensive formation. You're quite correct though, the phalanx couldn't manoever easily, which is why it fell from favour. As for defense, just wait for the enemy cavalry to get at you from the flanks or the rear. Ouch. Hoplite warfare was more or less a conflict of endurance and who made the first fatal impact. A Hoplit force marched into action and the last 100 or so yards they dashed, (this is shown and told to us by several accounts perhaps the best describing the battle of Marathon), the only way to defeat a phalanx when it was phalanx v phalanx was to either completly halt it's momentum and force them slowly backward, thus destoying the cohesion since the front is backstepping and the rear is trying to press forward, or to utterly break the formation by delivering that desicive first impact which was intended to cause your enemy to slow and stop and you to continue to press forward no matter at what pace. Look at Alexander's use of the phalanx though, (which is different than hoplites to begin with by thier armanments and equipement), he uses it to engage an enemy but not to try off the enemy, instead to keep an enemy force pinned and engaged, his cavalry was the key element. In ever single of his major engagments, he ALWAYS makes the first move with his cavalry using it either as a diversionary force, (like he did at the Granicus), causing the enemy to concentrate on the flank or area they were being attacked so as to allow his phalanx to enter into the contest and attack now a dis-organized or jumbled foe. In other cases, he allows the enemy to come to the phalanx, (which is moving forward mind you since it is not a smart idea to just sit back and let them come to you unless you have high terrain favoring you), but using the phalanx to engage the main body of enemy infantry and allow his cavalry to maneveor about the battlefield playing that critical decisive move. Later Hellenic armies tried to use the phalanx like a steam-roller, and in some cases, (like Philip V in 197bc, at Cynoscephalae), when the Macedonians had the high terrain as an advantage they were able to come down and steam roll the Romans, though this was only true for the left flank of the Romans, the right flank, having engaged a force of phalanx who were not in formation nor were ready for the battle were broken, dis-jointed and allowed the flexibitly of the Roman system to play the critical role in flanking and checking the enemy, thus allowing the victorious right flank to flank and assit the beuleargerd left flank. You say as a defensive tool it is not possible, because of the flanks... the same is true as an offensive, but the reason why it is more of a defensive formation than an offensive is because of the flanks. As a defensive formation, you can either use terrain or cavalry to defend the flanks. The enemy most either drive off your cavalry or light infantry to get to your flanks or they must break through the enemy center which is exactly what a general who has the phalanx would want you to do. On the other hand if you use it offensively, you are moving them away from any terrain cover and now relying solely on your own cavalry or light infantry to defend those flanks, and should the enemy attack that cover and engage them, and your phalanx is still moving on forward you've just exposed your flanks for an enemy like the Romans to exploit with thier infantry, not needing thier cavalry to do anything. If they had remainded on the defensive, unless the flank support was driven off, a general engagement negates the posssibilty of a concentrated, organized assault on the flanks and so the phalanx can just stay put and allow the enemy to come to them or at the last minute make that dash and impact hard into the on coming enemey formation, still knowing the flanks are secure because of the engagement that thier cavalry and the enemies' is currently invovled in... or they have terrain to gaurd them and have no need to worry about anything.

While I am sure this happened on some occasions, some barbarians were far more capable and more Roman than some Romans... an excellent example being Theodoric the Great and his daughter Amansulatha. Barbarians by pure blood but more Roman than anything else and who knew how to run adminstrations and institutions the 'correct' Roman way.

There is this version of the story... the other being that casulties were so high on the Roman and allied side that they were not in a position of strength enough to completely anhilate Attila and his Huns even though they wanted to.

A point to add... Syagrius was not the Magister Militum... he was the son of the last Magister Militum of Gaul... and so he simply continued the Roman adminstration and system following his father's death.

OK, I admit it, I was avoiding your real point. Beer is completely out because so far as we know it wasn't even made anywhere near where your Senators are having their convivium, and there would have been no way of transporting it to Italy from northern/central Europe (if anyone wanted to). So unless they travelled far from Italy, they would never encounter it. Butter was also a rare thing in Roman Italy (without refrigeration it would be difficult to keep and to market it in Italy during much of the year) so it wasn't used much in cooking. No one in the whole ancient world, so far as I know, had the idea of spreading butter on bread or serving it with any other prepared food. That's not just an un-Roman idea, from the ancient point of view, it's completely alien. Looking at this matter from the producer's point of view, the only sensible long-term thing to do with milk was to make cheese from it. Cheese keeps. (How long? I'm off to Melle market tomorrow, and if the man from Saint-Romans is there with his four-year-old tomme de montagne I shall certainly buy another slice from it.) Milk is different. It was marketed in the streets of Rome: the way to do this, without refrigeration, is to drive cows or goats through the streets and milk them on the spot. But I'm not too sure who would buy it and for what purpose. I never read of its being served at a City banquet, and it doesn't crop up much in recipes so far as I remember. Not so much un-Roman as rustic, countrified. Romans were proud of their farms and the very fresh produce they could get from the farm, but it wouldn't be possible to transport milk very far. Thank you for clearing that up... I guess when I meant elite I also were thinking of generals and such on the frontiers, though I would think they would make sure they had a secure source of the 'luxuries' of Rome and that necessities of Rome as well.

Nice theory... ... and I agree that Christian dogma has colored many visions of the Romans, though I like to think some of us see past it. Also, the stories we have on these Emperor's, 'Suestonius', I wonder just how much was truth and how many of his 'truths' were BS.

Indeed, but at least Severus put an end to that the good old fashioned way Serverus was an excellent Emperor, it's just a damned shame he scared the hell out of his forces when he was angered and supplied with this knowledge, a tribune who was afraid of dying got the PG to think they were to be killed and so to save themselves they killed him. I wonder what would have happened had he lived to go after Persia...

The Barbarian Wars? Perhaps you should be more specific, because when you say "Shaped" it doesn't seem to fit and I am confused... did you mean how did the barbarian incursions from the 3rd Century to the 5th effect Rome and how did it lead to it's downfall and the consequences of Rome falling in the West? Also, be aware, several of us here do not feel Rome 'fell' but instead evolved, though I think we are the minority. I can give you an excellent list of books, however I would highly suggest you stay away from websites unless you look at where they got thier information from. Head to a library for good information and the books... also are you in college or HS, since I would then know which type of books to suggest to you since I know a college student has much better access to more books than someone in HS or grade school...

It is and something I think is sorely overlooked by many... If you find this facisnating I highly suggest Late Roman Warlords for more on others like Syagrius.

Indeed, it is not really an universal formation, apparently many of the later uses of the phalanx were unsuccessful because the armies wielding them relied too much on phalanxes alone, which is what Alexander, for example, seemed to try to avoid. Used correctly with other units in the right place it still would have been quite effective a lot longer even in the Roman era. The key difference is, Alexander used the phalanx to pin an enemy down and make it stand and fight unable to really move, this then allowed the Macedonian Cavalry, which played the key roles in almost every engagement of Alexander, to give the decisive blow to the enemy and turn the battle in his favor. The phalanx was used kinda like a fulcrum, the battle would shift and change but the phalanx was meant to be that stable holding force designed to prevent the enemy main force from moving. In contrast, later hellenic armies used the phalanx as more of a steamroller. Instead of using it as a force to pin down an enemy formation and allow the use of heavy cavalry to decide the battle, they instead relied on the phalanx to simply rollover the enemy which was a poor tactic when employed against the legions and republican manipulies. Perhaps had the armies of Philip V or Peresus used the phalanx as a stationary force and employed heavy cavalry things might have turned out different.

I find it hard to think of any people who have been more brutal and barbaric than Europeans. The Mongols! Obviously there was Temujin and his descendants, especially Timur the Lame who were all brutal. Even more than the Huns...

I think he did have physical relations with his sister, though this more due to the fact that growing up he was not close to anyone except her and they were all they had and so it kinda developed... one could blame Tiberius and all of his actions against Caligula and his family by his uncle that caused this and helped shape Caligula into a candidate for a future monster once in power.

Yes, agreed. But when someone offers you food and drink, do you look down on it and say 'That's un-Roman/un-British/un-American'? Or do you taste it? If I were a hungry and thirsty legionary, I'd try it, no matter what Cato might have said. Obviously, but I meant in terms of Roman Elite etc, and those who had clear choices etc. Like at a Senatorial gathering at one's home, if someone choose beer/butter/milk, (if it was even served), over wine and oil, then it would be looked down upon and seen as 'un-roman', but from a soldiers viewpoint on the frontier, you take what you can get and there's no second thoughts... At least I would assume...

I was speaking of the Imperial period... For the Late Republic I could not say exactly how the army was paid... and so this is a good point to bring up. However, if the generals paid the troops etc, then what did the Senate and state do? They must have done something if not pay a base pay? Perhaps the general's payment was nothing more than 'extra' pay to ensure loyalty etc.

Generals did not 'pay' their troops, they gave them a cut of the booty from compaigns and perhaps on a rare occasion they were given a bonus from thier generals, (rare, they usually only got donatives from Emperor's upon acsension), the state paid thier wages, and supplied them with arms and equipment. The only difference was now troops were professional and so depended on their generals to see to thier well-being after retirement. This did increase loyalty, though how could this be an advantage if the enemy had an army just as loyal as them? What I mean is, the way you stated it, you sound as if you are assuming enemies or cheiftans of barbarians held no loyalty amongst thier troops which I think is a very false statement. The manpower option entails that Romans had a vast amount of troops to call upon in the republican and imperial days. If an army was destroyed they could raise another and even larger force, few other states in the age could boast such a feat.

Ok but was drinking beer looked down upon? Or in cases where wine was availble was it looked down upon as being a 'non-Roman' drink? Thanks for answers though Dalby

Ok so... I am confused? What was the state of beer in Rome? Did Romans drink it? Did they even make it? Or was it seen as a 'barbarian' drink and Germans who wished to have nothing to do with Rome, (meaning wine), would they only have beer or what?

My comment on the date of Adrianople was in response to an older comment... so... please disregard it... The fact is, Gratian and Valens had issues. Valens was clearly the senior Augustus but Gratian would not be the junior and both were 'equal', so this caused tension, another aspect is that Gratian did not return the legions Valens had sent West earlier for his brother when they were doing nothing but sitting in Illyria during the Gothic rebellion, and so Valens had to do with what little troops he had until he could build an army. All help sent from the West was miniscule and of very poor-qaulity despite the pleadings of Valens and of Gratians own general Sebatianus. Gratian then took his time to finally assemble a force which he told his uncle was coming, and what caused Valens to wait a whole month for him, allowing his enemy to grow in strength and continue chaos since it was in the Eastern provinces and not the West. The West and East were on the brink of war from 395/400-408AD, and acted against each other in many ways, making peace with an enemy without informing the other, allowing an invasion to occur and not informing the other of a possible threat, threatening forces of the other side to leave their lands, (mainly this is Eastern actions against the West), and then Stilicho imposed trade embargo on the East. Once Stilicho though was dead, relations quickly repaired themselves and the East actually sent a force to assist Honorius in Ravenna against Alaric, albeit it was very small, it was still a very strong gesture. During the time following Theodosious' death though, my point is, (as I am sure you realize), the bickering and attacking of one another and the Romans pre-occupation with destroying ursupers rather than dealing with barbarian incursions, (Constantine III being a great example), shows how detrimental the situation was for the military and the society as a whole and why they could not recover. My point of comparing the battles was to give examples, that after every major Roman defeat, Rome bounced back, regardless the army recovered, while it was not immideate, the Roman army recovered from Adrianople, the civil wars though is what caused her final breakdown from which she could not repair. Recruitment in the East was very hard, but not the West, so losses could be replaced, just not with Romans or provincials, mainly federate or germanic troops, but this was nothing new in the West.

It was a morale thing and from then on Alaric troops, (even though perhaps only a handful of the original survived), would later claim until the day they were finally settled in Gaul that they had defeated the Roman Army of Valens. This did not make recruitment harder, recruitment was already a VERY hard thing to do, so hard that 10 years prior, Valens was so desperate to raise troops he forced monks who had gone and sought asylum in abbeys to join the ranks. The East had a real hard time recruiting, (unlike the West which could make 3-4 units to every 1 in the East), so Adrianople didn't make things harder, things were already as bad as they could get recruitment wise before the battle anyway. They were never really part of the army though, (unless you are counting auxilia troops etc), for the most part they would fight as federate troops or laeti troops, and Alaric used his force not as a migration of people, (they evolved into that), but more of a mercenary army that got as much out of the Roman state as they could when the oppurtunity permitted. I always found it ironic, how exactly 25 years passed from when Alaric began his revolt, (which went on and off), lasted some 25 years before they were finally settled on land to farm, which was a first farming was mentioned in any negoatiations. 25 years being the same span of time a Roman Soldier would need to serve before retiring... so it begs the question how much of a mentality did Alaric and his forces consider themselves soldiers...

I never said the Romans were not outnumbered... you originally made it seem they were outnumbered 10-1. Secondly I am not arguing the fact that the 'Gothic' cavalry, (again Alans and Huns), shocked the hell out of the already exhausted and deployed Roman legions... that was the essence of thier victory, not the fact the sun had set on heavy infantry. Also, I will agree that Valens was not a good general; however, it didn't help the fact that there were 5 other generals at the battle as well. The East, not the West, is what played politics and hence was able to survive... the West used more military power than politics to solve thier problems. The army was crippled for some time after the Adrianople incident, hence the settlement with the Goths and why Alaric and the Goths were not destroyed, of course another important reason is that just as much as they had to deal with thier threats and raids, they also needed them as a military force, and the Goths of Alaric acted much more as a mercenary force not a migration of people, since every single settlement or treaty made with them never once stated another about settling down on land and each time Alaric which either to have his troops be given annoae as was the usual provisions given to armies of Rome and also, Alaric several times stipulated that he wanted to be in command of regular roman forces, not just Germanic ones. A point to note, the dealings of the East, (mainly through Rufinus), prevented Stilicho from dealing the death blows to Alaric... Anyway, my point is, while Adrianople hurt Rome badly, it did not cripple her, since she rebounded and her armies were still quite formidible though now Rome more and more pulled back into herself and ignored many of the outlying provinces, and only focused on Italia and the central provinces for protection.