Neos Dionysos

I think there is a review on it if you go through the non-fiction books list on this site. Though I don't think a member reviewed it. Couple hours huh? It's possible, but I've always only heard the 3 day deal... course one learns new things everyday so. What evidence are they showing to support the couple hours theory?

What are you reading? Have you read the archaological evidence from Bryan Ward-Perkins' "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization"? I have and I am still of the school of thought that it was an evolution more than a complete fall.

The Praetorians were a terrible organization. Any unit that kills off a good emperor and then auctions off the empire to the highest bidder is a terrible unit in my book, I can only think of one noteworthy military action they were a direct part of, and that being the battle of the Milvian Bridge. As Constatine drove his rivals forces, (and his rival), onto the pontoon bridge to be massacred and for them to kill themselves under the pressure of thier mass, the PG fought against Constatine's troops until nightfall when what remained of them finally surrendered. They were a good idea, but turned into a really bad one later on. The reason for many later emperors having German bodyguards was they could count on thier loyalty no matter what, because the lives of careers of the men not only depended on the person they guarded, but also because several times the emperor or general took care of the bodyguards' families, so any action against the commander or should he die, then they and thier families would die.

I'm not a fan of the lead issue... but I do agree with your comment that to Romans of the day... things went on as usual. In fact, the last true Emperor in the west was Theodosius, (when he ruled jointly). After him the west was ruled by the generals of the army. And it can be argued that the West, collasped because of they allowed control of the military to leave all civic hands while in the East, they prevented any one general from becoming to strong or powerful, while thier army suffered and they had almost no performace of any notation, they retained control of it using the civic authorities and used diplomacy more so than anything. Of course other factors play into this, but I think that;s what it boils down too. The West used the hammer in all instances, while the East used the pen. The breakdown in military organization, in control and a long list of ineffective rulers who based thier power on Generalissimos broke what was left of the West. The East, where the military was margainalized, kept in check, (purged of forces from time to time and who killed off many generals who could have had thier success go to thier head), and with effective rulers saved the East from the fate of the West. And yes, Rome did not fall she evolved, I am of the same school of thought. "Rome" in the West did not fall until the 6th century IMO.

Yes there was, however mass migration was not one of them. It should be noted that several major 'settlements' of barbarians was at Rome's request and the treaties drawn together with Rome being in the position of strength not weakness. Rome suffered FAR more from her civil wars and infighting. An example being when an ineffective ruler was in power, and the provices felt he was not protecting them enough, (Honorius), they raised thier own man to the purple to protect them, (Constatine III), and Imperial Forces, instead of dealing with Vandals and Alennai(?) who were invading over the Rhine, instead turned north from Italy and fought the ursuper instead of trying to push back the barbarians. This is a perfect illustration on how Romans were far more concerned with fighting each other than defending the provinces. Rome was not sacked because of an increase in Germans, but because of the aristocracies backlash at having Germanic people in power/charge of positions and a number of them in the amy, (despite many of them being loyal), so Alaric, his chief opponent gone and now the Imperial Army destroyed by it's own infighting and purges, flocked to him. Another major problem in the late empire was that East and West were on the brink of war with each other at various points during a 15 year period. There was back-stabbing, and political manevuring which would hurt one half, but save another and there was no consideration at all about the other half, except for a handful of men like Stilicho and Fravitta. And I agree completely.

I question that only because Seleukos, (when he had no where else to go), went to the court of Ptolemy and fought with him and for him, (and if we are to beleive sources, Ptolemy consulted him on his war plans), and he even gave Seleukos forces to retake his kingdom. After Antigonos was gone Seleukos campaigned everywhere to retake Alexander's empire except Egypt. I think thier bond was more than simple, oppurtunity.

I would say no. It wasn't the Greeks looking for improvement it was them simply fearful of a rise once more in Macedonian control over the Greek cities. The Greeks had been pawns for the most part with many Hellenistic kingdoms since the era of Philip II. The Greeks have a long history of bringing in outside forces to crush any one power, (even other Greek cities), from becoming to powerful, even Persia was brought into Greece on a few occasions because some Greeks, (Sparta did this), were becoming to great a force. Now, they had no one but the Hellenistic kingdoms to contend with, so it was simply trading one for the other. Rome however, brought a new people, a new culture, and a new hope that Greece could regain her independance with Roman intervention. They did, to an extent, but over the years when Rome became to extert control and influence over the Greeks, the Greeks hated this and tried to once again break free. The Romans made an example of Corinth in 146BC, by razing it to the ground where it was left in ruins for another 100 years. So I would argue agianst Philip V beind despotic, I would say it was more along them lines of the Greeks afraid of another Philip II, and they did not want this. An excellent book on the subject is "Philip V of Macedon" by F. W. Walbank

It was the first-born son of Ptolemy. He had been dis-inheireted because Ptolemy had taken a liking to his new wife Berekine over that of Keranus' mother Eurydike. One should wonder then, what was Ptolemy's reaction to this since Seleukos was one of Ptolemy's oldest and closest friends.

Well of course that's because in the middle 5th Century Rome, (as many historians believe), fell in the West and this is our normal date for the fall of Rome overral. The backbone of the army was not an elite cavalry base, the backbone was the comestitaes units, perhaps you can then rightly argue that the true backbone of this force was the axilia palatinae which served as the Roman Emperor's field army in replace of the Praetorian Guard. Legions were reduced to around 1000-2000 troops in strength due to the changes in structure and makeup of how the army would function as more of a reactionary force. The Froniters were guarded by border forces and troops of garrison quality, while the main field armies were in the back of the fronts and stationed and billeted in cities, not large cavalry vexelations, only one large cavalry force is attested and this was from the reign of Galienus but it was broke up soon after.

Just a minor error in that. Twas not the 9th Gemina, it was the XIV, (14th) Gemina which performed that amazing victory. Also, it is also attested the Romans only numbered 10,000 since it was only the 14th and elements of the 20th Legion, and the Brtions 100,000 (Tactius), but Dio Cassius claims 230,000.

I am submitting a paper on the Maccabee Revolt into my school's undergrad history jounral in hopes of it getting published so I have something really nice to present to a graduate school... I probably won't find out how I fare/ if it is accepted until the middle of Feburary... Wish me luck... Phil

And what about Washington, Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt? T. Roosevelt was a war-monger and had the economic acumen of a turnip. He was not a bad economist, he was simply a man of his school of thought. He was the first 'Progressive' President. The Progressive movement can best sumed up that large corporations were needed, (as in monopolies etc.), to penetrate foreign markets and therefore promote informal imperialism. The idea being, the US had to have the most effiecent economy in order to win world economic supremacy, which they did. T.R. wanted to use these new economics to the US advantage, but he also knew its evils and wanted a form of "Concentration and Control." T.R. would distinguish from good and bad businesses and so would protect the good ones and punish the bad ones. He sponsored conservation like he did big business, he was, contrary to belief, not a preservationist. The idea was... to protect our resources not for its beauty, but so we could always have a resources of our own, so instead of cutting down all the forests in one swoop and make a lump of cash.. then nothing for a long time... you do it in moderation and plant new trees etc, of course over time his preservations became completely protected. He did was he did to promote effienceny. An addition was the 1906 Meat Inspection Act, which people today say was because of the book 'The Jungle'. That's false. The Act was meant to protect the prosperity of farmers, the idea was you can sell bad meat in Chicago if it is made in Chicago, but not in Europe so the seal of approval would prevent foreign tariffs and allow the US to get a deeper hold into foriegn markets. Sinclair wanted labor reforms and was a socialist, he could careless about people's health from meat, it was mainly a tool to an end. My point is, T.R was not a great president, but he knew what he was doing in order to promote American foriegn imperialism and domination in markets and commerce, which is something we now enjoy and have been enjoying for almost 100 years if not more.

I've also come across the fact that Caesar was derived from him being born of a 'Caesarian Section'...

You know I've always wondered about this. I mean, I know it to be a true statement just, how was he viewed since afterall, marriage b/w Romans and Germanic peoples were illegal and forbidden under Roman law. If he was a such a poor source then I would say it is quite odd so many modern historians use him. Understandlbly they may doubt or contradict some things here or there... but if he was so unreiable they would not use him to the extent of which they do.

Let me say Condratulations on continuing your educational interests at a higher learning level and escaping the dogmatic teaching of Catholic schools... (I myself am a Catholic and went to a Catholic Grade School and HS so I know how it is). I wish you luck and hope you enjoy college because it really is an amazing experience in life, the best times of my life were my freshman year at college and just going knowing no one, thus being forced to establish friends and contacts which I did and several of whom I consider my closest friends and who I know I will be with and in contact with in my adult years. Oh and like I told you, Justinian is for the most part all done but thanks for telling me you are having PC issues, I'll send it to Tobias then.

Hmmm... perhaps some of you can relate and some can't but I am throwing this out there nonetheless. After so many years at college, I have come to realize that tutition is near robbery, (meaning how they tack on an additional 10,000 just because I am out of state), but what's worse is Follets and textbooks. That SURELY is robbery, you pay $100-200 for a brand new textbook that, when you try to sell back they will either give you, $35 for even if it is in pristine condition or two... they won't take it back because a new edition, (which seems to come out every 6 months), will be released and they cannot take it. Having worked for UPS a few years ago and my job being loading the huge semi-trucks, I had the chance to come across Follets Boxes being shipped to my school. I went to my current school for a year, left for a year to do core requirements at home at community college to save money, (at which time I worked for 13 months for UPS), and then went back to my current school. Now, boxes come open all the time, and allow me to tell you, that packages are NOT treated well and having 'fragile' on the box almost guarentee's harm to it. But anyway, back to my story, a Follets box busted open, so I pulled it out of my truck and placed it on the side so it could be re-packaged. During break I just happened to go through for the hell of it, I was curious. I not only discovered that Follets not only ships to thier stores here, (obvious), but also supplies thier "competitors" as well, so there is only one source and not the competition or 'choices' were are led to believe on campus. Having discovered this irony I looked at the invoice in the box and saw they were some Chemistry Textbooks and Biology Textbooks, being sold at around $80 and $130 respectively. Now I could have guessed that being the prices, but when I looked at the what the actual cost of the books were from publication I was shocked. Each being $30 and $70 respectivally. Now, this just upsets me how books which come out are a decent price and over time or right from the start are marked up for whatever reasons other than draining more money from students who will have to buy a new textbook a year later. Sorry all... had to vent a little on that since I have spent around $750 on books this semester alone. Phil

As I already mentioned in more detail in one of my previous posts, while the republic was more stable when it came to succession it didn't really matter at the end, the system was failing anyway and became very unstable, I guess because of ineffectual rule. As soon as the principate replaced it things immediately started improving. Yes they improved because you had a strong, and excellent leader at it's head, Augustus. But when you had poor leaders, the Principate deteriorated... and hurt the people and Rome. You had to replace them with good leaders again, hence why you had civil wars, when a bad emperor came to power, he brought out the worst of the Principate, only until he was gone could a new and good emperor take over and make the best of the Principate shine.

Topic resumes... I think a true defining moment and turing point in the Delian League/Athenian Empire's actions has to be that of the incident on Melos/Milos. I would argue that this one act, shows the complete 180 that the Delian League took when it was established... to that moment when the island was destroyed and enslaved simply for not joining in a war it wished to remain neutral.

I'll agree perhaps I am overdoing it a bit... and given the full understanding maybe being too hard on the person... but I think I remembered him at a bad time and so my judgement was a bit clouded. And as you stated... on with the topic...

Yes and these all came as a result of the Diadochi struggle, none of them had ANY ties to the royal house, (except Cassander who married Alexander's half-sister), all of thier intermarrying happened so they could secure a sense of security with one another. Each monarch though still fought one another regardless once the situation and oppertunity presented itself. My intial point, (and perhaps I should have been more precise), was that none of the Diadochi were related by blood or marriage when Alexander died, only because of the struggle for supremacy or survival did they start to form these marriage alliances, with the second generation of each house having some blood relations to another house. Each of the actual men who started their own house was never blood related with each other. Family in the ancient world is different than our own modern conception. When a woman was sent off to marry someone else, she passed from the family of her father, into the family of her husband and from henceforth was considered a member of her husband, not her father's, family. While marriage were used to settle disputes or ensure the good behavior of two families, that bond only went so far, as in some cases we have sons killing thier mothers, (an example being one of Cassander's sons killing his mother Thessolnike), or other wonderous situations all for the goal of attaining power, or some other coveted item or position, etc. You argue that through the marriages they were all related, by our modern standard that is correct. But I look at it from a different view, that unless they were blood related, they were not true family and those bonds of "in-laws" were weak and easily broken as we can see how long each marriage brought stablity in few cases. Do you know what he did? Look him up, evalute what he did, and tell me he was at the very least not a complete fool. Regardless, it is my personal opinion to evaluate an individual based on what they have done, the same way as a standardized test evalutes someone on thier intelligence by how they perform, so do I evaluate this person on the circumstances and thier actions, and my opinion is he was a retard. Am I writing it in stone somewhere? No... I am merely stating MY opinion... not what should be given to people as the ever-perfect truth. And, again... we are off topic...

No one was related by blood... each of these men were, (except Antigonos), Alexander boyhood friends and bodyguards/companions or another better word, somatophylakes. Antigonos was one of Philip's, and was one of 3 who had served Philip, and he would serve under Alexander and then be the last alive during the Diadochi struggle. Roxane and Alexander IV were killed in 310 by Cassander. His sister Kleopatra was kept under house arrest for most of her life by Antigonos since if she married one of the Diadochi and bore a son, that person would then be proclaimed king by the army. Kleopatra first tried to marry Leonnatus, however he was also offered marriage by one of Antipater's daughters, showing the rivarly of the two houses. Either case, Leonnatus died in 322. Then she tried to marry Perdiccas who was the overal regent and ruler of all the satrapies, but when he tried to exert his rule over Ptolemy whom had broken off, Ptolemy defeated him twice and he was killed, thus Ptolemy was the first to rule independant and to proclaim Egypt his by, 'The right of the spear'. Finally she would attempt, (with Eumenes help) to reach Ptolemy and marry him who showed interest... she wasn't able to escape Antigonos hold however and she was instead killed. The Argead house was then only Olympius, Alexander's half brother Philip III, (who was older than Alexander but never ruled because he was mentally retarded we are told), and his half sisters, Cynnane and Adea Eurydike, (who was one hell of a woman and I think would make a great regent, she out shown Olympius let me just say LoL), and also Thessalonice who would later be married to Cassander and help him establish a tie to the old Argead House but his dynasty would die out soon after, (the Antipaid), because sadly, he and two of his sons were afflicated with a diease of the lungs. All of them in time were killed off and the Argead house was gone, thus the Diadochi destroyed the royal house. Antigonos, after Antipater and Perdiccas' deaths slowly asserted more and more control, (and if you remember even took Seleukos' satrap which is why for a few years he was with his longtime friend Ptolemy). This was the nature of the Diadochi, Antigonos was not some hero trying to hold onto the house, he was never even part of it, he was just like the others, they had, had thier share of power, (meaning being a satrap), for too long and thus wanted to hold onto it and not wish to hand it all over when Alexander IV came of age, hence when Cassander killed him no one seemed to care. The same for Heracles, Alexander's first born son by Barsine. Antigonos was actually the one who killed the royal house in the sense of it ruling again, when in 306 he declared himself king. Which thereafter, all other satraps did likewise, and thus the royal house, (what was left of it), would never had a legitmate claim to kingship again. Oh and a little side note, Polyperchon was a retard... Also perhaps we should get back on topic...

Antigonos is considered one of the Diadochi. Diadochi = Successors. Antigonos was one of the successors to Alexander, he held the land of Syria and a good portion of Asia Minor if not all of Asia Minor. He was a key player in the 2nd-4th Diadochi Wars which finally climaxed with the Battle of Ipsos. After 301, the Diadochi wars were over, since the entire essence of the Diadochi wars was to see who would succed to Alexander's throne and his dominion over ALL of the conqueored lands.

Athens did, they were secured and part of the Antiogoid Dynasty. In fact out of free will they had established and payed for magnificant statues of Antigonos I and his son Demetrios. I think they simply feared being nothing more than a lower partner or looked as a resource and not a powerful member. Athens did what all Greek Cities did, they brought in outside influences to further thier own power and prestige for the immidieate future, never really thinking of the long-term consequences or possibilites. When the Greeks finally realized it was a mistake to bring Rome into the picture, (which they did against agreesive Macedonia in the very late 3rd Century BC and very early 2nd Century BC), they tried to reassert thier independance, the difference was Rome was not like other powers they had faced before and when Greece rose up, Rome made an example out Corinth in 146BC.

*dons flak vest and helmet* Now I simply wish to make an observation. Correct me of course if I am wrong, but, it would appear a good and possibly logical answer to the question, 'Why did the Republican Era see more territorial gain than that of the Principate or Dominate etc.?', is due to the very nature of the Consul system. Each year you had a set of new leaders who ran the army, now each one knew they had one year and only one year, (or had to wait another 10 before another chance), to make some great acheivment or to conqeor some large enemy or land. Therefore, the drive to acquire was so much stronger during this period than that of the Principate since, the Emperor would be secure in his position and could therefore take land at his leaisure. If this is a logical view, then it gives us an excellent possible answer as to why the Republican Era saw the greatest expanse in Roman territory than anything compared in the Pricipate, Dominate, etc. This being said, then we only see, (from my point of view, I could be wrong), a time when those in power are murdered and knocked off happen more often in the Imperial days than those of the Republic because, if you are a successful general and you want that chance at complete power, the only way you will most likely acquire it is through an ursurpation, when in the Republic, you could be peacefully and democratically be given supreme command, though again for only a year, but you would still have that chance.

I'm tempted to say it initially meant the latter... There are parallels in other Indo-European cultures. In some Germanic tribes, if one threw down one's shield and cowardly ran away in battle, they were no longer entitled to sit on the popular assemblies of the tribe. Clearly the true mark of an individual was his capacity to wage war for the community. Parallels in Bronze Age cultures as well and into Hellenic times as in the way of the Macedonians...