Neos Dionysos

You're overlooking some key issues though. For many, having Barbarians as your 'leaders' or those in control of you in the late empire was because either, 1) Rome put them in charge of the area like the Franks on the West Banks of the Rhine for instance, or 2) because after so many years of Rome's inability to protect and safeguard the people of the provinces, it must have seemed a welcome relief to know a powerful new force was governing the area and one which would safegaurd the people. Little was done to change the adminstration or the civic authority system and so you had no real change in daily life. While there were those who supported a 'barbarian' leadership and those who simply refused to accept the disappearance of Roman control, most just exchanged one overriding power for another with little more than a blink of the eye. In regards to Egypt and the Near East falling into Arab hands, the quick success of the Arabs is due to a series of factors, one of course being the Empire was exhausted militarily and financially after it's long war with Persia, (who easily fell to the Arabs because they were defeated by the ERE), but also because during the reign of Justinian and followed by his successors there was a large push to consolidate the church and to 'purge' the versions of Christianity the Patriachcy of Constantinople and the Emperor viewed as hereitic. This involved large areas of the Near East and Egypt, and so when the Arabs invaded and took over the land, there was little resistance because the the very foundations of Islam preached tolerance of other religions and a freedom of people to be whatever they choose. This freedom, lack of persection on the Arabs part was in contrast to the ERE's, "Either join us or pay..." mentality and policy and so the Arabs were seen as a relief more than a curse or bruden or something to fight against.

I remember that... good episode... While the History Channel is a great channel, I just wish they did more of the Late Period of Rome or on Byzantium than that of the Late Republic or the High Empire.

If there was I did not see it... I'm going to say it depends on the time frame. Obviously over time with the acquistion of new provinces, older ones which were before the most highly valuable soon fell away and newer ones became top priority. Though, all in all, I think I'm going to vote for Africa, since while Egypt was a major source of Grain, it was more so for the Eastern provinces than Rome herself, once Africa was lost to the Vandals, (and shortly for a time when the governor switched sides to the Eastern Roman Empire than the Western during the crisis of the early 5th century when the west and east were on the verge of war), Rome suffered immensely, and was in a serious crisis because she did not have the grain necessary to support her.

Recruited from scratch of from a person/people and it already exsisted? If he simply recruited it from scratch I would say no because he can then train them as Roman fro mthe start.

I'm Catholic and I doubt there is a majority of Orthodox here... don't assume. This is a relegious thing, not simply turning over what one people took from another. Egypt is Muslim and I doubt they care much about things Rome took from them 2 millineums ago, they care more about what European nations took from thier cultural history. (Mummies and artifacts). So simply because someone does not go to the site means they can't have strong personal beilefs? Many Catholics have never gone to a mass at St. Peter's Basilica... does that make them not important if a matter of thier faith were in question? The links are there, and you can do a google. While the church is still looking very wonderful, w/o proper care it will deteriotate over time. Like all museums it needs to be maintained, I think the point those who started this petition was, (besides restoring it to Orthodox Christianity), is that it is not being well maintained and taken care of. Religion in politics will never be eliminated... it's the sad truth of the world. The Sphnix I believe can't be 'restored' w/o damaging it further... hence why it has not been fixing since Napolaeons' troops shot off the nose with a cannonball. The EU is already badly damaged in image after the recent cartoons from France and Denmark... as well as the recent weeks long riots of Muslim in France. So they aren't 'strike' free... Finally, IIRC, people have tried to donate to it's restoration but the government will not allow it... I could be wrong but this is what I have been told in the past.

Hagia Sophia becoming Orthodox again would be incredibly symbolic but I don't think it would ever happen. After WWI I think the Greeks came close to gaining control over Istanbul/Constatinople because of the Treaty of Sevres which was revised after they were defeated in a war with Turkey. It would be very symbolic and I would love too see it but I doubt it will happen. It all depends on how hard the EU would push them for this requirement if they were to even impose it. I could see Greece pushing this obviously, (and if Pope John Paul II were still alive I could see the vatican and Italy behind it as well), but I don't think there is any of the support for it. Besides, a much higher concern is the Armenian Genocide, though I wonder how much the EU cares about that...

But why would he do that if Hannibal had crushed Rome. Generally you don't fix what isn't broke.

Andronicus Ducas had considerable hatred towards Romanus Diogenes. The family of Ducas had lost control over the Byzantine Imperium when Romanus took the throne for himself. Thus when the Emperor was lost in the fray, Andronicus deliberately added to the confusion by saying that the Emperor was dead, and that the day had been lost. Had he not been so selfish, the Byzantines could've held the day. Well, it's not really selfishness... it's more... "I'll make you pay for what you did." mentality. And IIRC I think that Romanus had killed, (or exhiled), Ducas' brother so... there's your motive.

He has been and I do agree with his actions, deeds and I beleive almost overlooked contributions and accomplishments. Though I question the stories told by Procopius in 'The Secret History' on his wife Antonia and of Empress Theodora. I really think it's more false slander, there may be some truth but it's just so heavily laid on it's almost repulsive to take it as truth.

Right, but that was for Rome... Are there any examples or passages in Plutarch, Livy, etc of the Ptolemaics or Pontus creating them and using them against Rome?

Well they venerated the Gods Herakles and Dionysos on purpose over Zeus and other traditional ones because of the fact of the stories behind Herakles and Dionysos... predominantly how they both travelled far East, and conqueored far off peoples etc.

There are always a little bit of liberities taken, but it does get the point across to the reader that Cato met with such a glorious end as PP pointed out. Slightly off-topic, but was not 'death in battle' seen as the highest of all honors a man could bestow onto his family? Also, where did death by child-birth rate? Would the girl be venerated by the family and the honor/prestige increased or was she simply mourned?

A major inheirent problem though is the sense of the 'Monday Morning Quarterback'.

I've heard of these, and at various times had them come up during discussions but I have never fought actual textual sources describing other civilizations, (Eastern and Hellenistic ones), implementing imitiation legions in resposne to the success of Rome's and of each nations' failure to defeat the Roman legion. Any info would help, thanks.

I'll say this... The story, the theory, and everything else around is an amazing tale. Now is it JUST a story? Or is all fact or partly... My religion forces me to say it's all a damn lie... My brain tells me, someone's lying to me because the Church is not a 'perfect' organization ESPECIALLY during the rise of the church and the medival era... And Finally, my gut tells me... something is right in there... I just can't say which part I feel is truth... So, I know I'm going to go see this, I only cringe at the Church sermons that will come from this...

I have a question... how much is known by how many Romans made it out? Was there any significant group, (I know not a large force), but say a group of like 50 lead by a centurion or officer that fought out? Also, I assume there were 3 generals besides Varus, is there information at how long they lasted or if they lead a sizable group for a couple days before being cut down or not? Thanks.

Long hair was something that was frowned upon, for the reasons Pertinax stated but also, in battle, someone's long hair could be used against them. Having trouble fighting somone off, pull thier hair and force them off balance to get in a clean shot. I think it had more to do with hygene and appearance since the Romans took these two as almost relegious fervor.

The same men who then killed him in the East because his opponents spread the rumor he was going to kill the Prefect and top offices for an offensive, even though it was false, I love irony. But no I agree... I guess sometimes it's hard not to generalize in some cases since you can read something and respond rather quickly w/o thinking it through. *shrug* Either way... my beleif in the end stays the same... they were more of a negative than a positive for Rome.

I'd be more inclined to say that had Theodoric had good successors it would have, all he had was his daughter, (which was a perfect person to rule in her own right IMO, but the Goths would not follow her), and the whole theory and conspiracy with her death etc. is just more of the East interfering in the affairs of Rome.

If Romans thought it was so admirable to exploit one's priviliges, why were there so many courts set up to prosecute those who did exploit their privileges? Why were men like Cincinnatus celebrated? Let's remember--for the Romans of the Old Republic, "rex" was an insult. Roman ambivalence rears its head a lot doesn't it? There were all those laws and taboos but still many romans ignored them. However, as you quite rightly point out, many romans wanted to be good citizens. Some even commited scuicide because of an accusation, never mind a prosecution. The shame was too much to bear. others of course, squirmed and weasled their way out of problems while some stood firm and faced their accusers with honour. You should remember though, in Roman culture, falling on your own sword was seen as a way to preserve your honor. In our eyes it is 'weaseling one's way out of it,' but not to Romans of the day.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original reference, those soldiers of that battle were then of the regular army I was referring to the army as a whole. The East was hurt during the period of 400-420's. After that they were stablized very well and were then later on able to install the previously stated individuals to power in the West and I will agree they were strong enough to impose those people on the West, but I was merely referring to a certain period of time. Again, perhaps I misunderstood your statement for being a specific point instead of after the fact.

Disagree, there were still plenty of Italics in the army, but all were in Italica, The Army of stilicho against the Visigoths was entirly italic, the Army of Aurelianus against the Alemannics was entirly italic. Records and documents are being hold in the Communale Library of Milan and Piacenza and in the Cathedral Archive of Arezzo. Further More The Germanic mercenaries were also very discaplined, and were not known as troublemakers. And what is your definition of 'Italic'? Mine for the period would be anyone from the province of Italy, and thus by that they are also Roman Provincials and Citizens. Stilicho's army was not and could not be entirely made up of 'italics', (unless you count his thousands of germanic soldiers Italic). After Stilicho's death and the sudden anti-Germanic purges in Rome and Italy, many Roman soldiers of Germanic origin were killed, driven off or had thier families slaughtered by angered, frenzied mobs. The idea that all of Rome's troubles were due to Germans overal and Stilicho was purposely not destroying Alaric and was in some kind of conspiracy to see all of Rome fall etc., (which he was, but not to see Rome fall, he was attempting to work with Alaric against the East and unify the empire and the reason he was unable to early on destroy Alaric was precisely because the East signed a treaty with the Goths and since they were in Epirus and in Eastern territory, he was told to leave and not to engage. but I am side-tracking.) My point is, when this sudden anti-Germanic paranoia set in, and Stilicho was dead, 30,000 of his troops went over to Alaric. These are his germanic troops pre-dominately though I am sure Romans were among them, but they were not entirely Italian. These were the troops who had thier families killed and with thier general gone, had no where else to go except to Alaric who then used them to sack Rome a few years later in 410. Most of the regular army, under Sarus, left Honorius and Italy to fend for themselves following these events and actually joined with Constatine III in Gaul who was a a rival emperor rasied by local authorities there. Are you calling those 30,000 Germanic troops 'Italic'? If not, then your statement is false. The West collapsed because they had no strong civic leadership and had pressure from many other factors. The fact that Romans would rather kill themsevles and back-stab eachother rather than coming together to fight a common enemy is the #1 reason for her fall, and while Constantinople played a part in setting the stage for people like Alaric to cripple the West, it was IMO Rome's own fault for what happened. Before Stilicho was killed, the West was still realitively quite strong, (stronger than the East militarily, and around the same level in monetary wise I might add), it was after these events that caused the West to have no hope for the future. Think of it this way, the fighting and politically actions of both the East and West kinda broke each other's legs, each was wounded, hurt, but surely not out of the picture and not completely out of the prospect of coming back to some form of greatness. The West's final actions though, cut thier own throats, or you might argue cut open thier Aorta vien, they'll try a tourniqet during the 450's with Aetius but then once again, they will make sure that wound does not close, and so the West killed themselves.

The Western Government was already dead by the time of Theodoric the Great and of the pact with the Lombards to defeat the Ostrogoths. The last Emperor in the west to actually rule w/o having someone of power loom over them was Theodosius and this was for a very short time when he united the empire. His sons were both loomed over by Stilicho in the West and Rufinus, (followed by others right after his death), in the East. Odaovacer and those like him were seen as a way to control the Western govenrment, for decades, East and West were playing the other side off and trying to gain control, (if not direct then indirect), over the other, men like Odaovacer were needed, though the East could not stop them from becoming to powerful and from doing as they pleased as Odaovacer showed. Theodoric on the other hand, united the Goths and was seen by Zeno in the East as a good alternative to an archaic rule in Rome, he was able to say in way Rome was still Roman and under Roman authority, (which now only resided in Constantinople), if Theodoric was in control and I might add Theodoric saw himself as Roman and in a role of protecting the Roman way of life, system in Italy going so far as to educate his daughter into the mold of a Roman aristocratic woman, (which would have implications later down the road and would give Justinian his casus bellum). The split of East and West was total and complete in 395AD, and there was no hope of re-uniting the empire short of one half dominating the other, and the West had a much larger and I would argue stronger army than the East until the 450's-460's. Now I am not saying it's a 'Roman Army' but our standards, (it did have a large following of federates and allied states with it,) but by Late Empire standards it was. The East was stronger in civic adminstation and more politically sound and this is what saved them, not a grand army or some great general fending off the chaos of the West. To decay is to evolve though. From one state of being to the next, I have never stated it was a good thing it evolved or that Rome and the West was better off with it happening, (in fact I'll argue the collaspe in the West hurt us very badly to this very century). Rome evolved from what happened to her and ended up in a state of decay and ruin until she was able, (like the rest of Western Europe), to bring herself out of the chaos that reigned from the collaspe of centralized authority and protection.

AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied. No one is arguing that Rome, the state and government itself did not fall, I am arguing that Roman civilization, and culture and society did not fall, it evolved. The two are different.

If Romans thought it was so admirable to exploit one's priviliges, why were there so many courts set up to prosecute those who did exploit their privileges? Why were men like Cincinnatus celebrated? Let's remember--for the Romans of the Old Republic, "rex" was an insult. Agreed, hence why Augustus was so careful to call himself something that would not offend the masses, (like Princeps). I wonder just how much an elite they really were. Yes in the beginning they were hand picked, but what great military battles did they fight while they were on campaign with there emperors? What great combat awards/recgonition did they receive? It seems the PG became quite quickly a special club for men in the military. You served for 35 years instead of 25, and some, if they could, chose to stay IN the PG after thier time because, what did they do, they guarded some people, some buildings, were paid a LOT of extra money, were fed better, were equipped better and were able to shape Roman politics. The more I think about it, the more I think they were simply an over-glorified police force.