Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About alekandros

  • Rank
  1. alekandros

    Counting To Ruin

    Math as a reason for the fall of the western empire is difficult to grasp. Do not forget that you are translating C into 100 to the zeroes are not important to roman numerals in that sense. As for the base form 0, I'm not knowledgable on roman math styles, but I suspect that there was a representation for 0, be it numaric or written (ie, none, zero, nothing...). One of the discussions we had throughout my courses in college was advancements of Rome. For the most part it always came down to one thing. The Romans, for the most part, used knowledge that was already around, but used it to its maximum affect. The arch, what a wonderful thing, what happens when we increase its size....now what happens when we make many arches along the same path and connect them? See what I'm getting at? Romans used math, writing, poltics, warfare ideas that were already around, but used them to maximization. One other thing on the Romans and numbers. I would never say the Romans didn't know how to use numbers or math. They could be maticulous book keepers, and the goverment definitely knew how to use numbers to determine taxation, grain prices.....granted it took Justinian in the Eastern Empire to correct the system, but that was centuries of decline in proper management. I was recently at the aqueduct at Pont de Gard in France, and it befuddled me to no end the precise use of mathmatics to achieve the (It think) 1 inch drop per mile span over a river valley. There was one other thing I read here....give me a minute. Ah, yes, the idea of electricity and romans. Why not? Are you saying that someone invented electricity? It's always been around, it only came down to understanding what it was, how to harness it and or create it. Keep in mind Romans probably still thought that lightening was a thing Zeus was throwing down at them, so. As to the reasons for the fall of the western empire, goodness take your pick.... Barbarians, God's (Christian"s) wrath, inbreeding, lack of proper leadership, weather, lead pipes... it just keeps going. I like to simply think that it was a multitude of incredibly bad things happening all at the same time. Not a silver bullet of one thing only.
  2. alekandros


    As was said, depends on the definition of "won" In open confrontation in battle, eventually he would have been defeated. In his last battle, even if he had defeated Crassus, his forces would have been depleted and Pompey was right on his heels coming from Spain. I have no hesitance in saying that Pompey would have destroyed Sparticus's army. Now, had Sparticus and his people taken their victory when they had it and gone off to the further regions, prehaps you could say they won. At the time that Sparticus's rebellion occured, things were already stewing in Rome and Sparticus quite possibly could have been forgotten until a time later then things had settled down.
  3. alekandros


    I'd have to agree with all that's been said about Brutus being of the acedemic minded rather than the battle field. He was very good with book knowledge, but not very quick with real world situations being easily led one way or another. I am surprised that no one when discussing Caesar and Brutus has mentioned Caesar's affair with Brutus's mother Servilia Caepio. One might consider that an important nudging factor. Then there was the breaking of the marriage contract between Servilius Caepio, Brutus's adoptive father, and Caesar's daughter, Julia, at the behest of Caesar so that he could marry her to Pompey. Not that I particular think that this was a nudging factor, but fuel enough to the fire for Brutus not to regard Caesar so highly. Of all that I've had to read on Brutus, to call him the "noblest Roman of them all" does not sit well with me. I've always gotten a sense of weakness and pettiness from him. Image what may have occured had Caesar not shown Brutus mercy at Pharsalus, and instead put Brutus to death as was his right as the victor. Not that I think Caesar could have avoided assasination, it would just been an interesting alteration to the timing of the assasination and what could have been done or not done during that time.
  4. alekandros

    Favourite Mythical Beast / Monster

    I would have to say....Chiron the Centaur.
  5. alekandros

    Was Caligula Mad?

    really new here, but love the topics. As for my first post here, hm. Caligula mad....all that has been said, is what really need be said about him. I read a book a year ago that pushed my previous thinking about Caligula, due to class studies. Most of my courses leaned towards the notion that he was, well, mad, insane, crazy. The book made me realize, well maybe there was a different way of looking at him. The reformist that is misunderstood, and has been said, the craziness was all an act. From all that I've read, now, I can't say for sure where he landed on the crazy scale when it comes to Roman Emperors. As it said in that book (a quote that stuck in my head about Caligula) "power corrupts, absolute power...well, that's more fun."