Neos Dionysos

Generation? LoL, sure... the 'new generation'. Like you, Cato, phil25, Pertinax, Divi Filius, Sextus Roscius, Andrew Dalby, others, and myself...

The Spartans were never a part of the Delian League. The Delian League came about after the failed 'March of the Ten Thousand' which was led by a Spartan commander and they lost credibilty. Sparta relienquished control to Athens who then took the lead against Persia and set up the league. The problems were that no matter who was in charge, each city-state acted for itself. I don't think a true pan-hellenic empire or state could have been created and headed by any of the Greek city-states. They were too focused on particularism, meaning just thier own communities and individual cities. What effort did the Spartans make to be paramount in trade, in art, or in philosophy? Seems to me that they were pretty content with their mediocrity in these domains. Look at the bright side, while they did not excell in any of these areas, they did at least allow these fine abilities to exist because they refrained from leveling and destroying Athens when they defeated her. We could have lost a lot of what we now know and have.

Thanks Clodius, yes we always welcome additions. The main 'history' site, which begins with the Kings of Rome and is currently through Hadrian, is being written in order with the intention of being a single continuing story. (and I really need to rewrite the early parts, this thing has grown far beyond my original intentions). That doesn't mean someone couldn't submit an article about Constantine, it just wouldn't be linked into that part of the 'story', but would still be readily available on the site. There are some sections that I compiled as fairly generic overviews but still provide decent information... the provinces for instance... and others that go into far more detail, 'The Punic Wars' section for example. My coverage on some topics is cursory and really just a placeholder. As an example of this, the 'Roman medicine' section is laughable in its overall content to anyone who is educated in the field, but can serve as a quick introduction to a complete laymen. What I am saying is... feel free to submit your own articles even if the subject exists. I take no offense to being corrected or challenged, and welcome any addition that improves the quality of the information provided. Awesome! Thanks for the chances to write in the articles Primus! I shall get to work on it right away, I can see where my weekend will be spent. So you mean like, "The Roman defeat at Adrianople: another perspective." or... "Roman Dominate: Unintended consequences." or "The 3rd Century Crisis: Not as terrible for Roma as once thought." etc? Like these?

Makes you wonder: Religion was designed to provide peace and worship but seems like just the opposite occurs. Perhaps Rome had a even more serious religious problems than we think and many of think they were many, but at the level of these modern conflicts? Religion was not a major problem until the turn of the millienuem from 1bc-1ad... but evne then did not come into a HUGE issue until Christianity spread. The reasons for this, IMO, is because when you have polythesist relgions it is much easier to accept a different cultures Gods, because they are usually the same, just with different names and it is not too hard to incorporate new gods, but when you have Monothesist releigions with only one god, and one faith, etc. then they see thier ideals and beleifs as the only TRUE one and the others as false or heretics etc. This is what leads to the problems...

I knew that... war and politics were inseperable and a part of the life of the culture. It is interesting to see just how rich some became, I recall coming across how a Metic was granted citizenship because he had payed/was paying for naval campaigns for an entire year. Which I wonder is if because he was doing this, or if he told him, "Hey, if I you don't make me a citizen, I ain't signing no more checks.". LoL

I like how they just copied an old webpage and made no reference to it... http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/glossary.html I hate wikipedia...

It's a Bad link, it says BBC News Link not Found

No, it was a by product. The Syrian Wars, (of which I think were 4 or 5), started with Ptolemy II and Antiochos I back in the very early part of the 3rd Century bc. That is a good point to note, and they did not get very far at all, mainly due to Philip's involvement and alliance with Carthage against Rome, which, brought on Rome's wrath and culminated in Philip's kingdom losing to Rome and also then drawing in Antiochos III into a conflict with Rome soon after.

Hell yes it does! Nice post Ursus, I've never come across that... hmmm... makes the Republic look more what it did and was, rather than what some may claim it to be by name.

Within the last couple months there has been a large influx of debates and discussions... (I used to simply read the forums before I joined), and with the ever increasing ones I wonder if in a short time we'll hit that 30,000 mark.

The same can be said of the Greeks. A few Gods of the Greeks were before the Greeks and incorporated. Dionysos and Apollo in this regard. In regard to Dionysos, (of which people generally think a God of wine etc, he had other forms as well, including a traveller to the far lands of the East and a conqueor like Heracles,), he is shown Linear B tablets of the Minioans and so he was well established and known before the arrival of 'the Greeks'. Another example is of Apollo, who is said to have come down with the Indo-Europeans during the early Dark Ages of Greece and came along with the Dorians and the 'Sons of Heracles' to reclaim thier ancestral lands, Apollo was said to accompany them and when he arrived at Delphi, which was a shrine and temple to the Earth Goddess Gaia and her Daughter Snakes, Apollo slayed the snakes and defeated the goddess and took the site for his own. Arcahic Greece has shown to be filled with many female deities and suddenly they vanish, this may be an explanation, of course these are the myths of the return of the Dorians.

I don;t think they were so horribly overrated, I simply think they were poorly led and divided. Had the Romans fought the Vandals under Gaesaric, they would have lost, (as they did in reality), and the same for the Goths if they were under Theodoric the Great. Perhaps if Belisarius was given adequte supplies and troops he still would have performed his victories, but given what he had, I don;t think he would have accomplished what he did against these germanic peoples' best leaders, those whom he did face were second rate at best and even incompetant... I just think it is unfair to say they are so overrated when they were fought being led by poor leaders and in some cases the barbarians being divided.

Well, I think it is almost even, but if they do seem to focus too much on the defeats it may be because Rome had so many victories and accomplished SO much and took so much land, that a defeat is something that would be to the opposite of what you would expect and so therefore is very interesting and compelling to learn and preach about, perhaps because of their significance or the reprecussions of what happened due to the loss. But I'd like to add, that one of my favorite victories and I ask how many here know about it, but the battle of "Ad Salices", mainly given the situations, the units envovled and what happened because of it. So... who here knows about it w/o looking it up? Just curious... This is kinda like when frankq, commented on the Sack of Corinth in 146 BC, lol... I again thank him for posting that because... I didn't know it happened...

Is that suppose to be a serious comment? I just think the Cleopatra thing is getting blown out of proportion. He was seduced, if he refused her he wouldn't be a real man. Each used the other to further their own ends. Kleopatra knew that w/o a Roman 'strongman' she would not sit on the throne long... but she was not at her best with Caesar... she was young and inexperienced, (in terms of political manipulation). When it came to Antony, I think she knew exactly what she was doing from the start, though it is said that he was truely in love with her and vice versa, so perhaps they started out to play each other off but ended up really into each other, my point is though, Kleopatra NEEDED another Roman 'Strongman' to safeguard herself and her kingdom, she did what any 'true' Hellenistic monarch would have/should have done. (I point out to such people as Oylmpius, Adea Eurydike, Berenike, etc). Besides, Roman elite hated Kleopatra, but pitied Antony, not giving him blame simply he has fallen under the 'Eastern Oriental's' spell. One wonders what would have happened had Antony won Actium, I would not put it past them that he would have been Emperor and she Empress with equal ruling status, but who knows.

This is nothing, and I would say that while a bit of hositility in the air, everyone on this forum is quite civil and curtious... rarely is the line approached and even less crossed. Now history conferences are bad, you have men and women who are of all ages and are, (violently sometimes), arguing over the most minor of details, not even if a man like Caesar is good or bad. While entertaining from a spectators view, it is kinda frightening knowing these are people who are professors and full-flegded historians.

You know, considering the "3rd Century Crisis", Rome proved pretty damn reslieant and adaptable. So many claiments to the throne, insecure borders, new threats on every front of the Roman world and still Rome not only came out of the crisis intact, one might argue she was now more defienant than ever to keep her dominance in the world. Whether it was still fully possible is debatable, (I think it was), but you can't argue that until the late 4th Century, Rome was acting like she did in the Republician days of brutality and lethality in securing herself and truely punishing those who opposed her.

Yes your correct there but i thought were were talking about why 1234567890 came into use instead of I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X etc. Roman numerals are also as accurate as Arabic numerals. They are, it's just easier to right 40 isntead of XL. Then again, perhaps we say that only because we grew up with the Arabic form and had we learned the Roman system, that would be much easier. Though perhaps a better explaination is, while numerals are easier in lower forms, the Arabic is easier in much larger scientific forms... at least... from my viewpoint. I could be wrong.

The Roman state as a whole was suffering from Barbarian incursions for almost 150 years at this point. That was damaging and the attrition of professional soldiers within the army, (as in NCO's who are the key to any professional army), was very high, this hurt and weakened them. But Rome had also been suffering from civil wars from almost as long, it was not uncommon in the 3rd Century for there to be multiple ursupers at once, surely this played a major part in tearing away manpower and resources of the empire... Also, the Western Army after Adrianople was still strong and vibrant, and, part of it's units had been units from the Eastern Army that were transferred over during the early 370's. Adrianople was diasterious for the Eastern Army, not the Roman Empire, the army would be replenished and be back on it's feet. Rome not being the dominate force, in the world was a notion that was already in decline for almost a century at this point. Perhaps what started this cycle of Rome no longer being 'on top' was her acceptance of the fact she cannot hold all of her land and so has to accept losses. The first major example being Dacia, which was abandoned by Aureilan in the 270's. This was the first, of furture many such events where the Romans were already sub-consciously accpeting they were not the dominate force in the world they had once been. So by this logic then, one would assume the East was lost... and again... it endured another 1000 years. The West had far more barbarian incursions and 'invasions' than the East ever had, the Goths were not an invasion they were an inner rebellion, the Huns were the only major invasion into Eastern lands, the West suffered much more, but were able to hold thier own quite well. The differences happened after 394AD when the battle of the Frigidus River destroyed the Western Roman Army, that's when Rome could no longer protect herself, that was the turning point from a military standpoint. Worst of all, is that the battle is TERRIBLY underrated. It is shown as just some battle between Romans... the East vs West. Yet, the implications were disasterous. The Western Army, which until this point was strong, vibrant and had not suffered any setbacks, suddenly found it itself torn apart. This then forced Rome to rely on only one field army in the West to properly protect the empire, (that being in Italia), while the rest of the west was protected by 'allies' as in the Visigoths and the Franks. Rome had no more troops to spare, the west was were the 'onslaught' came, NOT the east. If it had been the other way around, then the EAST would have fell and the West would have endured, but it did not. The defeat of Adrianople was bad, but was something Rome could bounce back from... it had ALWAYS bounced back from defeats, but another major defeat not even 20 years later and this time to the Western Army, was something they could not recover from so long as the pressure of outside threat, (and from the inside of the empire) continued not giving the army the time it needed to recover properly.

Since we're on the subject, (and forgive me if it has been mentioned), but concerning Troy, I thought it was a good film for one major reason. Brad Pitt's acting as Achilles was outstanding, I think he perfectly grasped the role of the hero. His attitude, his demenor, his arrogance and his passion... that's what made Troy a good movie... IMO.

Not sure, trying to find that out myself... The total Goth strength at the battle was only 50,000, and the total Roman at 40,000. (However others have said that the Romans totaled no more than 30,000 and the Goths were actually less in number around 20,000). The difference was, only around half if not less than half the total Gothic strength was there at the start of the battle, when the cavalry arrived, the Roman units had already been commited and so recalling them was impossible and once the cavalry screen fled and routed leaving the infantry to fend for themselves, the Gothic cavalry encircled and enveloped the Roman lines. The result was around 26,000 Romans dead. (15-16000 if you take the 30,000 total Romans figure). Indeed a high proportion, but more Romans were killed at Cannae and Carrhae for example and around the same at Teutoberg Wald. The difference here though, this battle did not change western civilization or europe for that matter. The battle was a tactical failure and is seen as the end of heavy infantry and the dawn of cavalry as the mainstay of armies. I find fault in this, because, even if it had been infantry who encircled and turned the flanks of the Romans, the results would have been the same. The Romans were outflanked and encircled and were thus destroyed, not because of cavalry, (this just made the job easier), but because they were simply outflanked. Another major issue to remember is that the Goths traditionally were infantry fighters, and not horseman, so the question stands where did the cavalry come from? During the revolt, Gothic tribal leaders collected a large assortment of people to thier banner, which included slaves, other barbarians inside the empire, disgruntled miners, deserting Romans, and most important, Hunnic and Alan forces were added as mercenarcy forces with promise of plunder in Roman lands. This was the cavarly force that struck that day, not Gothic in composition but Alan and Huns, the notion that Valens allowed entry and or engaged 'hundreds of thousands' of Goths is absurd. He allowed in one tribe of Goths, numbering no more than 40-50,000 of which there were around 10,000 of fighting age. The 'Goths' grew in size when the revolt started from as I mentioned getting others to join the rebellion and when frontier forces were pulled from the Danube, the previously denied entry Goths entered and joined en masse. The problem of the battle lay in leadership and tactical means. Valens was not a military man, and to add to it he had five Magister Militums there as well which only complicated matters further. If the battle was so diastorous, (outside the obvious military and tactical sense), then Rome would have collasped, surely at least in the East, yet it did not. Adrianople, is a major disaster for Rome yes, but a turning point in history? I don't think so.

I would argue that up and down the place... as the battle was very significant for the army, it was not so for 'Western Europe' or 'Western Civilization.'

There is many theories on weather Troy exsited or not... although the majority now regard it as pure myth.. there is a possibility of great truth to it. Troy did exist, now if Troy was the same as described by Homer when as in level VIIa of Troy is another matter altogether. Lower foundations, (I think level 5 or 6), show a massive and very large city that fits the descriptions of Homer, but the 7a one is the only settlement on the spot that is around the period of the Illiad, (or rather when it was supposed to have taken place), and there have been found dead soldiers in the streets, some decapatated etc. showing that the site was taken by force. Though, this particularly level of Troy seemed more to be a fort than a city, since you had kitchens and barracks in the walls, etc.

No they could own land, in fact, they could own a lot of land... but they could not vote, could not marry citizens, (at least in Athens since they are the best source we have on them overal), and Aristophanes speaks of them in his plays often, though not in great detail, they are more less background characters.

As in RTW and RTW: Barbarian Invasion... Wait for the mods to come out... like "Rome Total Realism" etc... where they make the game 1000x better than CA or Sega. Activision hasn't own'd CA in a while... Sega bought Creative Assembly from Activision over a year ago...