Kathleenb

I have read that Romans did not temper their metals; does anyone know if their contemporary enemies, competitors, subjects used the tempering process and why Romans did not? (Any sources on this?) Also, Rome often had numbers in its favor. It definitely had discipline and organization in its favor. How did its technology and weapons compare to its opponents, though? Rome used infantry and swords and fortifications and siegeworks; some opponents used horses and bows. Were there other differences and where did the advantages lay and why/how? (again, sources if you can) I'm looking to use these items as minor points in a paper, but am interested in following up on my own. Thanks.

That was quick! Thanks - especially considering that nearly everyone else wanted to debate the dates rather than discuss my paper! I appreciate your time and thought. I did not condense as much as you would have liked in the final version (although I can see that I could have done so to get down to bare bones to meet the suggested word count), but I think I did a better job of tying things together and explaining why some of the material (that you didn't get) was there. Kathleen (And I didn't think that was harsh, by the way - harsh IMO is more in attitude and tone... critiquing content and style when asked is all fair game!)

Constructive criticism is never irrelevant - feel free to re-post. I'd be interested to see what you have to say. I have to warn you, though, that my prof liked it better than you did according to your PM. This was the final version I submitted. Didn't change much in the opening paragraphs. The question of when the Roman Empire fell assumes both that the Roman Empire did, indeed, fall, and that there was an identifiable event or moment that marked its fall. Certainly there is much room for debate as to the cause of the decay and "fall" of the empire

Thanks! Livy certainly has a lot to say, negative, about the barbarians. hot-headed, ruled by emotion not intellect 5.36, 5.37, 5.49, 27.17, 27.19, 27.29 Lack of culture 5.48, 28.18, 34.24 Lack of material culture 21.60, undisciplined and disorganized 24.48, 28.1, 30.28, 31.34

The concept of "barbarians" went from non-Greek speaking to non-Latin speaking to non-Roman culture as well, and it probably carried with it some negative connotations. I think Romans tended to evaluate others not just on their language (although written language that was very important and worthy of respect by the Romans), but also in terms of their material culture, their social structure, their law, and their military prowess. I am looking for ancient sources which spoke negatively of the "barbarians," either explicitly or just showing negative underlying assumptions/connotations. I thought these would be easy to find, but there are fewer (and they are buried deeper) than I thought. Anyone willing to point me at specific texts? Thanks.

Primus, thanks, saw this after you posted but didn't get back to say a proper thank you and then it drifted down...

Tuesday I was pondering the long paper due next month for my online senior-level college history class when I realized that I had not yet turned in my 4th short paper. Hmm, when was it due, and on what? Due Monday 3/20... better get crackin'! Prompt: When did the Roman Empire 'fall'? Pick one only. 1. 312 CE, when Constantine converted to Christianity 2. 395 CE, when the Eastern and Western Roman Empire separated 3. 410 CE, when Alaric the Visigoth sacked the city of Rome 4. 476 CE, when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial trappings to Constantinople 5. 629 CE, when Emperor Heraclius replaces his Latin title of 'Augustus' with the Greek 'Basileos' (which means 'king') 6. 1203 CE, when Constantinople was sacked by the 4th Crusade 7. 1453 CE, when Constantinople was toppled by the Ottomans 8. 1806 CE, when Francis II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, renounced his imperial title 9. Still exists Supposed to be 500-700 words as a guideline; I'm over, but quality has been more the issue with this prof than strict word count. I'm about 80-90% done I think... still need to verify a few citations, work on some wording, but I think I have the bulk of the content, structure, and organizaiton ... Anyone want to critique it for me? TIA When Did the Roman Empire Tumble? The question of when the Roman Empire fell assumes both that the Roman Empire did, indeed, fall, and that there was an identifiable event or moment that marked its fall. Certainly there is much room for debate as to the cause of the decay and "fall" of the empire

I see many references to this letter or Rescript from Honorius to Britain, and a couple of sites have referred to Zosimus or Gildas as being the source for this letter... but I can't find the reference in any text of Zoximus or Gildas posted online. Can anyone point me to the primary source for this letter? Thanks.

Thanks, Cato and all.

Ah, yes, it's all in the proper wording and definition of the problem/question, isn't it?

Roman territory reached its greatest extent under Trajan. There were losses during the period 235-270 during the civil wars, then Aurelian restored most of the earlier boundaries between 270-275. From looking at a map of the empire in 337, it looks like Rome still (again) possessed most of its territory under Constantine. (If I'm reading it correctly - no key for its color-coding, duh) I don't have a map showing territorial extent for when Theodosian divided the empire in 395; was the Roman Empire still relatively intact? By 450 Britain was gone (no longer under the Empire's control), parts of Gaul and Germany and Africa were gone... by 476 more of Gaul became independent rather than an ally of the empire Anyone care to straighten out for me the details of what therritory was lost when and how and to whom? Or point me to a web site that will do it for me? I'm still working at cramming all the Empire period facts into my brain.... I'm better (a little) at the Republican period... Thanks.

I don't think I can add much to the discussion of the myriad contributing causes of Rome's fall (for those who agree that Rome fell). Perhaps I might add a question though? At what point did the fall of the empire become (more or less) inevitable? When was the "no turning back" point?

Well, OK, so the conquered didn't write their own version, true; would've been nice to hear that version tho! I haven't read the other histories mentioned here (Thanks, Primus Pilus) re: Gaul & Germany, but overall do they concur with Caesar's account, or or there any versions that are more or less anti-Caesar? Wanting to get as much of the "whole" picture as I can...

Am reading The Conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar. What other sources cover Gaul (and "Germany") from Caesar on into the empire? Thanks - looking for the "other side."

One secondary source I have mentions the "free poor" building the first aqueduct built by Augustus. Was that typical for the later aqueducts? What about other public buildings? The public baths charged fees for their use - I've read the fees were small/reasonable. Were those fees used to pay for the original building, or only the ongoing operational expenses? Just curious...

So at what point did the term "Pax Romana" come into use? I've been told it was used by the Romans themselves, but I haven't seen an actual creditiable source saying who/when/how the term originated.

Sheesh, gimme a break! I thought I was impatient! Why would you think I wouldn't return and read? Hmm, I posted on 2/13 and by 2/15 you think I've left for good? Yeah, I come back to read responses, but y'know I have a husband, a job, 6 kids, a house, various projects, friends, church, and one class. While I'd like to devote more time to reading history and surfing the net, a bunch of the aforementioned items precede both of those. Personally, on this and other history forums, I'm grateful for posters who develop questions that stimulate discussion, even if bunny trails, and even if the original poster doesn't contribute much beyond the question. Well, as long as the perpetrator didn't have an army to back up his violations. Then he could pretty much do whatever he wanted and get away with it - usually, of course, in the name of restoring Roman traditions and laws. Again, until someone powerful decided to skip the niceties of trials. Some people would be outraged whenever that happened, but it happened nonetheless.

Marius, Sulla, the Gracchi - although they may have spoken in support of Rome's laws and traditions, they felt free to break them for their own purposes. Were law and tradition more universally accepted and lived up to before the 2nd century BCE? How much of these guys' violations were really self-serving and how much were the violations as altruistic as they might have liked to portray them - end justifying the means, it's OK, we're just breaking the law to reinstate the old Roman traditions. How much did early ignoring or breaking of the laws lead to "bigger and better" violations later?

Thanks very much for the prompt and helpful responses. Looks like a great forum - gotta love activity. Interesting. I had never heard of the Solon connection to the creation of the Senate. Ah, but that's how some of the most interesting discussions get going! Thanks. I'll add it to my "someday" list. I have too much on my "immediate" list to tackle anything else right now.

Kathleen Indiana, US (born in Missouri, also lived in Arizona, New Mexico, and Alabama) 43 (just about qualified for a senior citizen here!!) engineer working for a pharmaceutical manufacturer married, six kids - several of them older than a lot of you guys! member of All Empires and Simaqian hobbies (other than history) - photography, hiking, canoeing, biking, tennis and did somebody say beer??? (Killians, Blue Moon, Amber Bock... ) Nice forum.

Hi, new here. I visit Simaqian and All Empires forums periodically (same screen name). I have a few random questions. By 715 BC, according to Livy (1.17), the Senate existed already existed during the time of the Kings; and, in fact, they gained the authority to ratify choice of King. How did the Senate actually come into being? It seems a rather odd departure from other ancient political entities (other than maybe Greece), and yet the first time we hear of it, it is already full-formed. The Plebeian Assembly gained ground, perhaps not steadily, but in a general trend, during the early and middle Republican days. It is not clear to me, really, how they accomplished this. There were two recorded secessions, but I have not read so far why these were effective at bending the patricians to their will. In various places I have read things implying that the plebeians "forced" the patricians to concede rights to them, or they waited out the patricians, but I have not read the actual mechanisms by which the plebeians were able to win these contests. I just don't get it - seems like the patricians could have put down the plebeians forcefully whenever they seemed to be getting too big for their britches. Rome treated Greece/Macedonia and Asia Minor much differently than they treated other places. Did the Romans consider the Greeks to be closer to their moral/cultural equals, thus entitling them to better treatment? Did the proximity of the Greeks have anything to do with it? Or perhaps the Romans' recently enriched war chests after the Punic Wars? Also, I don't know much about Macedon under Philip V. Was his rule particularly despotic, benevolent, ... ? I ask since some of the Greeks at the time asked for Rome's intervention at home - perhaps they thought Rome's rule would be an improvement. Thanks, and looking forward to meeting y'all!