Neos Dionysos

Well she was also a great fan of gladiators... and it is said Commodus was actually the result of her affair with one... it would explain Commondus' crazed interest and need to be a gladiator and fight...

Wow... outstanding... hmmm I wonder what would have happened had such a comedian said a similar remark to other imfamous Romans... I can see Trajan just sitting there and taking it with a look of contempt but not harm the man... Hadrian might laugh... Caligula would laugh and then laugh as the man was tortured to death... and I think Aurelius would laugh as well...

Actually Cato, from what I have always been taught it was the conqeuoring Arabs in the 7th century that burned down the library because everything it held was "heretical" and against the teachings of the Koran. I have never heard the rumor that Caesar did it... because if had then I would agree whole-heartidily that he not get the chance. As to what I'd like to have changed... hmmm... that Rome accepted Pyhrrus' offer of surrender etc and not continued to be the stubborn Romans that we know and love from history. Would love to see what would've happened then...

I can't say about nobles, but in Roman Egypt incest, (half brothers and sisters and even full brother/sister), marriages were not only allowed but encouraged, partially to keep property and legacies etc in the family and continual. It was something that they took from the old gods, since in Egyptian mythology incest was a common and accepted thing and the Ptolemies copied this when they attempted to assimulate the cultures and make them look like they were modeling the gods to make them look more legitimate. Every so often you had an outside spouse etc, but a lot of incest occured in the Ptolemaic line, full and half siblings and cousins and I think one case of parent and child. Now, while this is by our standards so bad, it obviously was not detremental since the most famous and perhaps one of the best rulers was Kleopatra VII. Depending on the people who commit the act, incest continually makes the good part in someone's genese even stronger, though at the same time multiplies that bad along with the good... Incest in Roman Egypt continued until the 2nd or 3rd Century AD when it was finally outlawed by Imperial Edict... give me a little time to dig up the exact info if you want.

Defense in depth? Do you mean how the size of the empire established a feeling of giving a buffer and or safety net if you will that would slow down or halt an invading force long enough for a major Roman army to confront the threat? Or am I missing your point completely?

Again, if are speaking of Adrianople, it was in 378AD. Secondly as I already stated the Eastern Army was not that large and 1/4 of it was already in the West. Valens was not seriously outnumbered, the Goths were around 40,000, compared to his 22-25,000. Initial intelligence said only 10,000 Goths, and this may well have been right; however, Valens waited over a month to attack when he was finally forced too because Fritigern threatened his supply line to Constantinople, he had waited for Graitan long enough, his nephew had sent a very small force to assist which Zosimus states was over very poor qaulity and Gratian decieded to instead pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them instead of going to his uncle's aid, many in the Western Court actually semed not to care much of what was happening in the East except for one of the top genrals, Sebatianus. The Goths, continually delayed action and continued to sent evnoys to 'talk peace' the entire time this happened, the Roman Army was out all day in the hot sun in their armor and this exhausted them and while he delayed this allowed him to recall other allies to his aid, amongst them the Hunnic and Alan horseman they had hired weeks earlier. Thus, once the Roman infantry, (already tired and hot and dehydrated), had committed itself, they were quickly attacked from the flanks and rear by the "Gothic" cavalry. Rome always recovered from her defeats and even diastrous ones, (like Cannae and Carrhae which were MUCH more costly than Adrianople combined), so to say she never recovered but was able to subdue the Goths during the 390's, (with Stilicho in command), and then later on defeat Attila is not a just sense. A further addition that hurt Rome more than Adrianople was the battle of the River Fridigus in 394ad, when Theodosius crushed his rival in the West and effectively destroyed a large portion of the Western Army... this damaged the Roman state much more than Adrianople did.

Diocletian did what needed to be done to stablize the situation after such a terrible chaotic 3rd Century, I would also like to point out several great emperors came around during the crisis of the 3rd Century and Rome remained strong, the only setback being Aurelian abandoning Dacia, other than that, Rome repulsed countless invasions and large raids into thier lands. There was no "great blunder" in the late empire, in 369, Valens attacked the Goths mainly because he was trying to follow the institutions and adminstrative actions set forth by his brother in the West and also because to be seen as a good and legitimate emperor he had show he was also a 'soldier-empeor'. Another major reason was because the Goths had sent troops to assist Procopius in his revolt in Constantinople only a few months after Valens was named Emperor in the East in 365. This was the time for punishment, and from these two succesive campaigns into the lands of the Goths and former Dacia, no major military blunders occured, nor were any great victories won. The loss of 2/3rd's of the Eastern Army is also an exageration, it was more around 1/4th and the Eastern Army was not very large to begin with. 1/4 of it, (some 16,000), were sent to the West in 370 as per the orders of Valentinian. The total number of troops lost in the battle could not have exceeded 16-18,000 again, a bad defeat yes but not a crushingly irreversable defeat. If such a defeat spelled Rome's end why did the East survive 1000 more years while the West, which at this juncture had a very strong and potent army did not. There was not constant civil war from 192-284, while it was chaotic and a drain Rome was still able produce a strong front and continued for some time after as a very formidible faction. Men like Aurelian, Gallienus, and Septimus Serveus ensured a strong Rome that would continue to endure. The civil wars during the period after the establishment of the Valentinian Dynasty was what truely hurt Rome. Before, Rome fought itself, but simply repelled any outside threats, she had the strength to do this, but slowly, more and more incurisons occured and with the army busy killing each other as well as outside threats, the empire could not hold. It should be said that the West tried to survive by fighting off and "killing off" her enemies, while the East used pure diplomacy and rarely did any military action, in fact, the military of the early 5th century in the East was a joke and they had a terrible time dealing with simple raids or banditry, the West was the military powerhouse, however, in the West the Generalissimos controlled the government, while the East was very firmly controlled by the civic administration, be it government and espeically the military, unlike the West which was reversed.

To answer your question, I believe based on facts that the PAX Romana is a term/phrase to describe the economic, growth and stability the Roman Empire experienced during the rule of Augustus. This said that the PAX Romana lasted a good 100 years from the time Augustus assumed the throne from 27AD till the time the Romans went to War with Dacia. In the ensense, if you really think about it, the Romans really didn't have a serious military threat for a good 100 years, with a few small exceptions such as the defeat of two legions in Germany around 9AD, or a few skirmishes with Dacia around 89Ad or with th Macedonia Pirates during Tiberias rule. But overall, the Romans didn't have a serious threat until the time of Emperor Trajan. Eventhough Trajan went to war with Dacia and even went to war with Parthia. 27BC, not AD... and Rome lost 3 legions in Teoutoberg Wald, the 17th, 18th and 19th. But overall your description is accurate to what the term "Pax Romana" is coined.

Hello Dr. Heather, thank you very much for answering our questions. My question concerns the anti-barbarian rising in Rome that began with Stilicho's death and the death of many Germans and thier families allowing Alaric to pick up 30,000 men he used to sack Rome. My question is, I understand there always was some anti-germanic/barbarian sentiment but what set it off? Was there a particular event or series of events that launched the West to kill thier general and turn on thier army so suddenly, or was this something Stilicho brought on himself and his troops? Was this due to his designs wishing to invade the East, or different? Thanks for any reply you can give me. Regards, Phil

I wasn't talking about Terrorism... ...and the eco-system is not that terrible... we've improved from 30-40 years ago... where did you read the seas are not going to support life? Are they scientific studies or things made by places like Greenpeace etc.

If what you say is true then... this opens up a whole new set of problems and issues concerning the peaceful relations with muslim nations as a whole and I shudder to think of what some western governments supplied with this information, (if completely correct), would do to 'solve' the issues.

As much as I am against everything Irving has been pushing in his books over the years, (and I know of university professor just like him at Northwestern University near Chicago but they can't fire him because he has tenure), I am very much in his defense of the right to free speech. Even with the laws already in place, (and yes since he knew them it is his fault), this should be a sign that the very ideals we hold dear like free speech are in danger. It's one thing to disagree with someone, and a whole other to jail them for disagreeing.

And a speech I highly beleive was inspired by and partially written by Aspasia. Why? She had an impact on his life, (going so far as to get her and her kids Athenian Citizenship even though technically it was illegal but who was going to say no to him?), and she being a hetiarai she would be a very well educated woman, knowing politics and current events and of how much he was in love with her, I think she inspired parts of his speech... through her influence, intelliect, etc.

This is very good point and Athens was undoubtedly very heavy handed with those of her empire who wanted to get out. However, we tend these days to be too quick to judge imperialism by modern standards. The smaller states in the empire mainly wanted the protection. Small states cannot stand alone, today we have economic imperialism and small states still need it, witness at the moment the influnce the West is trying to exert over Palestine...Palestine is almost entiely reliant on Western aid...that's hegemony! In the ancient world small states needed the protection of a large empire to exist. Better heavy taxes to the Athenians than domination by the Persians. Well that's just it, the Melians were not part of the Delian League or the 'Athenian Empire'. Melos/Milos was netural and tied culturally to Spartan and the Lacomadian League, Athens came to them and like they had done with cities they 'liberated' from Persia, tried to force them to join against Sparta. So yes it was a small state but it wanted no part in anything thing and not even the protection of the Athenians, thier action toward them was a clear sign on how tyrannical the Athenians had gotten in controlling thier empire... Indeed it is... And a speech I highly beleive was inspired by and partially written by Aspasia.

Hey guys, one last request, this friday is my 2 year anniversary with my GF/fiaiance and I want to surprise her with a passage in Latin since she is an avid Romaphile. "To you my beautiful angel, I love you so much. You are the light of my life, and the delicate flower which blooms in the sun. I cannot bear to think of my life without you in it. Each and every day I know deep in my heart that our love is eternal and I look forward to our lives together on the day we are wed before all of our friends and family. I am to have you. I would do anything for you and always will I be your guardian, best friend and lover. I can't say how much I love you, and how lucky ." If you guys can translate this I would be SO thankful and appreciative... I understand it's big and if it's too much I can also understand that it can't be done. Either way... I thank you in advance.

It's a mercenary group, they are not simply fixiated at one location until thier people move, a mercenary group goes where the money is, so while the Alans as a people are there, there were still mercenary groups who operated around elsewhere and who were also at times for hire by Romans before Adrianople I might add. The Mercenaries are not 'doing the job' they are the hired help, simple as that, they played a role, doesn't mean they are going to suddenly turn around and destroy those who employed them. We do not have any evidence or knowledge of how the Goths defeated the Sarmations, perhaps they needed little cavalry to do it, perhaps they attacked thier lands instead, or if the cavalry was important, and the Alans were used to win a victory, why would the Sarmations now, having just been defeated, suddenly rise up against the Goths once the Alans left, (if they did at all). If they did, the Goths may have had a small but adequate cavalry force able to hold the Sarmations in check and the Sarmations, having been recently defeated, would be in no shape or mood to start another conflict. The Goths probabaly did play larger parts, however without any details or basic information on what transpired we are left just guessing. Again, maybe cavalry for some reason, played little or no major part and if we are left with the fate being decided by infantry then the Goths clearly have the upper hand.

Perhaps they adopted the old faithfull tactic of the Romans - hire some of the enemy you are having trouble with to fight for you. The Alans or Alani were a Sarmation tribal group, perhaps Gothic use of Alan mercenaries balanced the sarmation superiority in cavalry ? That's my arguement... they do it later on, so perhaps this is evidence that it was a practice they had used before becuase of the success it brought them.

Hey guys... just a couple of quick questions on translations from English to Latin if you would not mind... 1) "In the name of our ancestors, you will always be victorious." 2). "Through your blood we listen, but through your words we obey." Thanks a lot guys...

They did use heavy cavalry at the battle of Adrianople but the cavalry was not Gothic, it was Alan and Hunnic mercenaries that had been hired to fight alongside the ever growing Gothic entity that formed in the Eastern Roman Empire. The Goths had cavalry yes, but it was more of light nature and they were not adept at horsemanship. They were excellent swordsmen and of various other infantry but not in heavy cavalry. This is why there is really no mention of Gothic Cavalry till they are in Roman lands, and as I explained they were mainly made up of Alan and Hunnic horsemen. I can't answer how they defeated the Sarmations, although as I stated above, they may have acquired the assistance of allied contingents of Alans and Huns who were renowned for thier horsemanship.

If raiding was only limited to border actions, why did whole provinces fell it better to break away from central authority in Rome on a few key points from the 3rd century to the 5th. The fact there was no military resistance, (because the army was concerned more with defending Rome), then the land could easily become under barbarian control. Are you then, a civilian or group of people in communities going to resist when you know how little Rome has done to protect you? No... they are going to accept the new rulership. Well, you need to understand the short term. Would you rather live under a government that openly persecutes you and who will either force you to convert or kill you? Or would you rather take your chances with a new power who, in the beginning allowed freedom of religion and practice. Yes later on the same thing happened again, but not to the same people who showed passiveness to the newcomers. They cared about being Romans to a point, they cared more about thier faiths and beleifs and would rather give up being Roman than being forced away from thier choosen religious path.

What's unusual about it. Seems to me like the view Lucretius expounded is almost a perfect match for the view that many men today would endorse--sleep with whomever you wish to get rid of your lust so you can focus on more important things. I'm too much of a romantic to buy that view, but I dare say that many moderns have an altogether cynical (and Roman) view about romance. I'd push that for the most part the Roman view of Romance is actually tamer at times that many underground, but widespread, modern conceptions. I can't speak for Europe, but I think because of America's Puritan past, the idea of love, sex, romance and intimacy is for the most part worse now than in Roman periods. In Roman society there were brothels, prostitutes etc of course, and also one's personal slave in the household, but now you have a culture that propels people to act in a very viceful manner and there still exists that aspect of slavery etc, except it's more underground than public for obvious reasons. Frat parties? Try Frat and Sorority initations... depending of course on the chapter... some can be much tamer than that Lupercalia and other could make even Vlad Tepes cringe...

I've been trying to dig around information on this festival and over the Dionysos cult in general and I still seem lost. I know Dionysos is one of those few Gods who enterned into the Greek culture from who knows where, just that he's always been there, (or at least longer than the Greeks), and over time his image and interpretation changed. Concerning the Bacchanalia, why did Rome declare it illegal and subversive to the Roman Way of life? I've heard why they claimed they did but was thier any truth to those claims? Was it something else entirely? Were they scared of it? And finally... did early Christianity borrow many aspects of the early faith from the worship of Dionysos, as in stories and events or believed actions that had been performed etc? Thanks for any comments, info or simply suggestions guys.

Finishing up my BA at Purdue University.

I'm sure it was very regionally specific and as usual the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle between the barbarian yearning to be a Roman and the foaming at the mouth pillagers. It's academia, new scholars have to make their mark so what's old is often new again and so on. The area north and northwest of Macedonia got hit pretty hard as well when the Goths crossed over and set up shop for a couple of years. I'll look up Liebeschuetz and see what he's written. He's written some excellent books... one of which as soon as I finish I'm reviewing for UNRV. Yeah I know it did... infact Macedonia and Thrace and Epirus kinda got reamed for that period around 378-408. Though it was not constant pillaging, several times they were peaceful and simply inhabiated the land like a stationed army, not some migrating people. I simply choose Gaul and Hispania because they seemed hardest hit and the hitting lasted the longest compared to what the Goths did in the East and Italy, they came and went while in the Gaul etc, they just kept coming in successive waves for over 100 years with little down time...

There is evidence that points to some areas coming under intense violence with the new barbarian arrivals and others of realtive calm. Peter Heather is an excellent scholar, though I have read books by J.H.W.G Liebeschuetz, (and a few other not so famous ones), who refute Heather. Then again... it seems to a lot of scholars, they are right and everyone else is wrong... Overall I'd say the areas I see hit hardest with violence is Hispania and Gaul, the other provinces, (when compared), got off kinda easy...