tflex

Rome did not fall right away after the Battle of Adrianople but it didn't take too long after that. I still think the Battle of Adrianople was a major turining point in history because the empire was severly weakened after suffering a humiliating defeat to the barbarians, and thereafter could not ragain it's power permanently. Theodosius temporarily fixed things but it was too late, the eastern empire was already suffering from constant barabrian invasions into roman territory thanks to the Battle of Adrianople.

I guess, i'm just not a big fan of globalism and imposing a standard on politics, culture, economics. I think eventually European birth rates will drop to the same leve as Japan. Immigration from Asia will replace new births.

Another Caesar admirer. I salute and welcome you. HAIL CAESAR!!!!

What's the casualty figure for the Battle of Chalons according to modern historians or archaeologists? I think in terms of impact on history in the western civilization, the Battle of Adrianople has to rank among the highest and if you take the proportion of casualities to the total number of combatants it' has to be way up there.

I think the estimate was 95,000 but could be up to 110,000 according to wikipedia for the Battle of Leipzig.

I opened this same topic in the Hora Postilla Thermae. Please post there. Thanks

I am interested to know which battles where the largest and bloodiest, starting from the evolution of warfare and ending just before the industrial age. To be more specific, which battles had the greatest number of participants and which battles had the most casualities and why? Also which battles outcome had the most impact on history etc. Can you please provide some data and figures on each specific battle and also if you can expand on the subject.

I'de like to know which battles where the largest and bloodiest, starting from the evolution of warfare and ending just before the industrial age. To be more specific, which battles had the greatest number of participants and which battles had the most casualities and why? Also which battles outcome had the most impact on history etc. Can you please provide some data and figures on each specific battle and also if you can expand on the subject. Ooops. I posted this topic in the wrong place. Please ignore it. I will open the same topic in the Hora Postilla Thermae.

I have made many arguments to confirm Caesar's greatness, and I will do so again when I finish work. I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caesar is the greatest once and for all.

I can help you, if you want good advice don't take Cato's post seriously , he gets emotional whenever you mention Caesar. Has something to do with a dictatorship complex or maybe more personal then that, more like an love complex if there is such a thing. Anyway to guarantee yourself an "A" just go to the "Greatest Roman Figure" thread, look at my posts and take all the info you need. To avoid getting an "F" grade please avoid Cato's posts. Caesar has no bad points, you can take my word for it. HAIL CAESAR!!!

Just wondering, is there any effort to try and contact well known Roman historians and authors to join this forum. Do you already have such members? If not, I think it would be a great idea to contact as many historians and authors as possible and try and get them to join up this excellent Forum.

Agreed, what matters is Gaul was devestated by Caesar and incorporated into the empire. Thats the point I was trying to make earlier, we should only take the overview and consequences of a situation not the little details.

According to Plutarch, the 3 million figure applies only to the Gauls who died in the battlefield, thats independant from the other 1 million that were sold into slavery. Phil, where did you read the confirming estimates? Check this http://www.answers.com/topic/demographics-of-france (This could be inaccurate too) just gives you an idea of Gaul's population around 50 BC.

I think Romans living around the late republic and early principate period did not notice the change of an era right away, but I also think it didn't take them that long to become aware that change had taken place. Maybe it took them a decade or two to see political and cultural change. It's kind of like the World War 2 generation must have noticed the end of their era occur sometime in the 60's when everything went crazy in their eyes.

May all the gods (Roman or non-Roman) bless this sacred forum and it's loyal members.

Livy's history reflects his admiration for the civilization of the early republic, and he believed history should be applied in daily life. I think he was a romantic but not a scientific historian. His sources were mainly writings of previous authors, yet he does not attempt to critique them but rather adds his own suporting view. Livy's accuracy is definately questionable, he ignored certain sources that did not align with his political and patriotic views, yet he chose to write about the things that he himself was enthusiastic about. It seems to me his historical accounts were personal and his emotions and patriotic duty must have interfered with his writings. A good example of this, is his attempt to sugar coat the sack of Rome by the Gauls by giving it a typical hollywood ending. When writing about a time period that lacks historical data, the reader cannot disprove the authors findings, so I think most ancient historians take advantage of the situation and through their writings they apply their own personal convictions. Thats why, one must examine the authors background to judge their work accordingly. We know Livy was a native of Padua on the Po River in northern Italy which was Roman territory at the time, he was alive around 59 BC - 17 AD, we know he was an admirer of the republic because he often questioned the new system that replaced it, we also know his views did not affect his relationship with Augustus but rather influenced the future emperor Claudius. So we can assume that Livy was a Roman patriot and that he probably sympathized with the republic system. I think in this case genetic fallacy is justified and it supports the idea that Livy attempted to turn a humilaiting defeat to Rome by the Gauls into a triumphant victory for Marcus Furius Camillus. Herodotus and Plutarch are good examples of inaccuracy and exaguration. For example, Plutarch estimated Caesar and his army slaughtered 3 million in the battlefileds during their campaign in Gaul, and Herodotus when commenting on the 300 spartans heroic stand at the battle of thermopylae, estimated the opposing persian forces at 3.4 million. The point I'm trying to make is that most ancient historians were not technical but romantic authors. They had little to none first hand data and evidence to work with, so they added a lot of fiction to their work. In the case of Livy we can accurately conclude that the Gauls besieged Rome but the rest of the story cannot be proven, with Plutarch we know Caesar defeated the Gauls but the numbers can be disproved if you consider the Gauls population at the time, and with Herodotus the Spartans were severly outnumbered but still made a heroic stand against the Persian army, but his figure of 3.4 million Persians is not only ridicolous but pure propoganda. We should only rely on the overview of their account but not the details unless there is archaelogical evidence or numerous sources to support their claims. These 3 historians are highly regarded and my favorite read is Herodotus, he is unique in the way he sheds light on the way ancients use to think and behave, but if you are reading his work for accuracy you have to approach it with strict reservations.

Phil, I sent you a private message.

As Phil started the statement with "But I don't think" he seems to already know it's his personal opinion, it's no cheaper than anyone elses opinion is it ??? Sorry, you are right. It's just that in another thread he did not use the word "think" for the same remark. Anyhow, I'm sorry I guess I took the cheap shot this time. Hail Caesar!!!!

Why is it illogical, all people natuarally have feelings and emotions that influence their thinking and decisions. It is very difficult to be objective when writing an account on the life of an influential figure. If you are writing a resume or a list of achievements on an individual, then that's completely different. But anything alse involves objective and subjective thought, whether conciously or unconsiously your personal feelings will creep into your writing. Thats why the more sources you have the better and a good example of this is today's media newspapers, radio and teleivision. Read the New York times then read the New York Post, watch Fox news then watch CNN, they both report the same events but in a completely different light.

My point is there is no way to know if historians from two thousand years practised good methods. We can only assume. Assumptions cannot be relied on entirely. If Hitler had a son, wouldn't you think that his son is more likely to sympathise with his fathers facist ideas. It is also possible that his son may despise his father and his agenda, but even though thats possible, it's less likely for the simple reason that we know people in general form their beliefs according to where they come from. It is the same with historians.

I haven't read the Diary of Anne Frank, but wasn't she writing about her own life and experiences under the Nazi regime? I would see no reason why that would be inaccurate. On the other hand, if she was writing an account on the life of Adolf Hitler, I would think it would be highly unreliable for obvious reasons. Also, tyranny was present and very much alive in the republic era. You hear about it more after the fall of the republic because it is usually associated with emperors who are very well documented. But tyranny existed with the supporters of the republic too, you can believe in such a system and be tyranincal at the same time. I understand the meaning of tyranny in today's world, but what was the definition of tyranny in the Roman world? I would think, what we call tyranny now was normal and maybe even a good thing in the ancient Roman world. After all didn't all Romans indulge in watching violence, does that mean all Romans are tyrannical?

Again Phil, thats your own personal opinion not a historical fact, it's called a cheap shot.

Historians who live and write about their own time are somewhat bias but more accurate. As already mentioned they can't make things up or twist facts simply because their audience will read their work and judge it for it's accuracy. But historians who write about the past cannot be trusted, there is no audience to keep them in check or judge their work, so I think their writing is filled with bias and wildly inaccurate. If a historian is writing about the fall of the republic 100 years later, we can accurately rely that the fall of the republic indeed did occur and group A supported it yet group B opposed it. These facts are harder to alter because it is the larger picture that people are usually more familiar with, but when the historian writes about individuals, inside politics or conflicts, I think it's easier for the historian to invent and twist facts depending on his bias. In that case you can't prove or disprove what they are writing because of lack of evidence. A good example would be, if forum member Porcius Cato was a historian writing about the fall of the republic and it's relation with Julius Caesar, we can be sure that Caesar will be portrayed as a worthless degenerate who did more harm than good to Rome. Keeping in mind that Cato is a fierce defender of the republic and Caesar basher of the month, the only thing I would consider accurate in his writing is that the republic did fall but everything else would be mere speculation. Note: Sorry Cato, but I could not resist using you as an example.

This is my personal opinion, I think he became so successful that they were all jealous of him, he got most of the credit in Gaul. Plus you have to remember that Caesar loved power and towards the end he was the undisputed leader of Rome not the worthless senate who was filled with petty scoundrels in the late republic. This didn't sit well with some of his friends and some senators.