coolgolfer

I have to disagree with you. In order to film and create an excellent, and I mean an excellent miniseries like Rome, you need a time-frame to make sure you film a full year's worth of episodes. I disagree also, that this years season will make or break the show. Rome the series is excellent for people who want to have an idea as how the Roman's lived. It also allows us the audience to get involved in a way as if we are part of the roman lfestyle, politics and so forth. One issue that I always felt hurt HBO is the timespan is usually very long especially for a TV show. It really has to have a superb following such as Sopranos to pull it off. Some complaints from friensds who watch other HBO series, say it so long they forget all about it or what happened and hard for them to get back in. I understand it takes a long itme to produce these shows but too bad they could not speed it up a bit. I do beleive though this season is a make it or break it...by third or fourth episode if it does not pick up to what they want, probbaly be last season, I hope not.

I don't consider both of them the worst. I just fee that Mark Anthony let his weakness for lust, lust of a woman from Eygyt. Queen Cleopatra, who used her beauty and lust to lure a man who could have been ruler of the empire. But Mark Anthony plundered that his chances. Anthony could not control himself. Queen Cleopatra had Mark Anthony wrapped around her finger. Pompei on the other hand was an old man who tried to stop Ceasar from achieving greatness. Pompeii was living in the past. He allowed the Senate to preach and brain wash him into believing that Ceasar was againt the republic and that Ceasar had to be stopped at all cost. ....why do u consider Antoni & Pompeii as the worst figures of Rome? As for my self,Caligula I belive turned in to be another Henry-VIII....!

I somewhat agree with you and Ginnis. The politics of the byzantines was indeed both fascinating and and engaging. Even though it may have not felt like the pagan Rome, but to me the values and culture of the Byzantine empire from 395AD to 527AD during the reign of Emperor Justinianstarted to change. The reign of Justinian was defintely interesting because in my mind it marked the final end of the Roman empire, and the establishment of the new Byzantine empire. But even though Emperor Justinian was committed to the idea of a Roman empire, Justinian did recognized that his realms were basically Greek and that the imperial administration would be more effective. Once the government stopped forcing the use of the Latin language and Roman institutions upon its people, the Eastern empire rapidly became more Byzantine in its customs and outlook

I have to say that after reading your response to my question, now I do understand why you find the Byzantine period very interesting. Your are right about events and how they viewed and protrayed themselves compared to other cultues or societies. I like both periods, but I find myself continues drwan back to the Roman Empire. I have too get myself to read more about the Byzantine period. I've been so busy ready about the roman empire.

I have to say that for me to list an individual who I believe was the worst roman figure is very hard. After reading many articles about important people who played a role in the Roman republic or empire, I've have decided to list only about 5 people that I feel were terrible. Late Republic: Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Mark Anthony 1st Century AD - Nero Second Century AD - Commodus Third Century AD - Theodosius fourth Century AD - Honorious

More Fascinating how??? Why would you say that the Byzantine period was more fascinating then any other the periods?? You may be right about the fact that there was alot of choas in the late republic, but would you agree that the dominate was more interesting and also had choas and intrigue more so then the time-frame of the late republic?

That's a good question. But what your seeing is a portrait of Livia at the time it was created. Livia back in her younger years was never really in the spot light as Augustus was. Livia in her older years is when she became more in the spot light. unfortunately it was a time when she was an older women. Even so, if you really think about it for a moment. Roman Culture or society was a very male driven society and culture.

You really can't compare the Roman empire to Alexander the Great's empire. Alexander's empire was really focused on one personalilty and that was Alexander himself. Once Alexander died, his empire collapsed into fiefdoms or divided up by his loyal generals to rules amongst themselves. Plus they fought each other too. The Roman empire eventhough it expanded enormously lasted a very long, long time.

What you mean when you say "Though the eastern empire stayed around I dont think it was really roman because if it was it would have defended it city surely?" defended what city? are you refering to Rome itself? The city fell because the political landscape had changed dramactically or for many other reasons that has been disscussed in this forum and many other forums. From the time the empire was split for administration purposes due to Diocletion's many reforms, the western and eastern parts of the empire up until 395AD pretty much worked together pretty well except when the empire was united under Constantine the Great and even under Theodosious. But the after Emperor Theodosious died and the empire was effectively/officially split into two and ruled by his two sons, the empire began to play politics against one another thanks to the son's advisors that were responsible to be gaurdians to Theodosius's sons per Theodosiu wish. Arcadius was eighteen when he assumed the throne in the east. We do not know whether or not he was ready for the responsibilities. Granted the concept of assigning guardians was good but Arcadius's advisor who was Rufinus and Honoriius's advosor was Stilicho who really didn't like oneanother. Stilicho at times tried to help the east out militarily, but Rufinus convinced Arcadius to refuse support. Basically Rufinus was power hungry and so forth. The eastern roman empire was a mixture of roman and greek, more greek then roman, but around the time-frame of when the Western Roman Empire existed the population identified themselves more with roman ideas and customs and so forth. The reign of Justinian was an extremely significant period. It marked the final end of the Roman empire; the establishment of the new, Byzantine empire. The empire was united under the Eastern emperor in theory, Justinian tried to make it so in fact. His armies invaded the Vandal, Ostrogothic, and Visigothic kingdoms in turn, and, in a series of bitter wars (540-554), reconquered much of the Mediterranean lands of the West. At the time, it seemed as if he had very little choice in the matter. In theory at least, the Germanic kings ruled as viceroys of the Eastern emperors. There was a difficult problem in that the Germans were Arians, practicing and preaching a form of Christianity considered heretical by the established Roman Church. The Vandals were the most zealous of the Arians and were quick to seize orthodox churches in order to convert them into Arian places of worship. The Vandals were so few in number that they resorted to terror in order to keep their subjects in order. The Vandalic kingdom became a police state in which orthodox Christians were striped of property, rights, and even freedom and life. When a delegation of orthodox Christians from Africa appealed to Justinian to fulfill his role as defender of the faith, he decided that the time had come to resolve the peculiar situation and bring the West back under real Roman control. Although Justinian was committed to the idea of a Roman empire, Justinian recognized that his realms were basically Greek and that the imperial administration would be more effective, if the fact were recognized. Once the government stopped forcing the use of the Latin language and Roman institutions upon its people, the Eastern empire rapidly became more Eastern in its customs and outlook Therefore , when Justinian died in 565 and new invaders entered the west, the eastern empire did very little to stop them. Neither westerners nor easterners had any further interest in restoring the empire.

I would have to say that will all the pickering about Ceasar that i have read through out this forum disscussion, I would have to say that everyone made alot of good points about Ceasar's successes and about his failures. But I will have to say that Tobias statement below is on target. It all comes down to Jealousy. Which of course is all know as greed/ambition whcih all plays a big part in the murder of Ceasar. I truly believe that if Ceasar wasn't murdered, Ceasar career and leadership would have been just as great as Octavian's was politically and militarily. There is one question that has puzzled me for a long time. As many would have heard in many readings, there have been discussions about Ceasar's next military campaign. From my understanding ceasar was planning a campaign again the Parthian's right around the time of his asasination. What I would like to know if whether Ceasar would have been successful on conguering the Parthian's/Parthian empire as he did Gual and many other previous campaigns? any thoughts? Precisely. I believe it is the case with most of Caesar's roman enemies; from Pompey and the Boni to the conspirators in his murder; when they looked at Caesar, they saw someone who was great in almost every way, a person who was better than them in almost every way. Antonius housed ambitions from his early days in service with Caesar in gaul to be as great as Caesar, but he would never be able to come close to achieving that. This is similar for many; they wished to be able to build up their own personal standing in Roman society and history, and they were envious of Caesar for having the unparalleled ability to have built up a dignitas that made their own pale into insignificance in comparison. That is probably the majority of the motivation for these peoples turning on Caesar; that old, little black monster called Jealousy.

I would have to say that I would go with either one of these names Publius Aelius Hadrianus Flavius Petronius Maximus

I think this is important really. While it is true both existed after seperation for some time, its clear that there was a steady decline in the west while the east maintained. If the empire could be maintained as a whole, with the whole empire's resources allocated as needed and efficiently, under an efficient ruler, I do not think the empire would have fallen. Of course, that is a lot of 'if' in there, but if we are speaking of possibilities then this one I think is key. Your point does have some merit. But I just not sure that after Theodusious died in 395AD the empire could have remained whole. Eventhough Rome still had a very able general named Stilicho. I'm not sure if he would have been able to hold the empire togther.

Option 7 is debateable. But, in 1453when Constanple was toppled by the ottomans it effectively ended the Byzantiun empire. Personally I would have to go with option number 4 when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial trappings to Constantinople

I know I am doing this wrong but I can't figure out how to answer the question. Excuse me. If someone could give me a quick tutorial on wheree and how to reply that would be much appreciated. Dov You can either hit th eoption reply on the message that you want to answer too, or you can hit the option on the very top of the page called new reply. It' up to you.

So was Caesar lying when he said he marched on Rome for the sake of his dignitas? If there was a matter of principle, what was the principle? And how exactly was he "being treated by the Senate"? Perhaps you'd enlighten us as to the measures that were passed that did NOT have the support of the triumvirate? And a system with no mechanism of accession provided a better means for governing lots of land??? That makes no sense to me. As the number of provinces grew, Latin rights could have been extended indefinitely without the need for monarchy. Look, I'm not saying that Ceasar is lying. I never said that. All I'm saying is that I personally don't feel and believe that you opinion regarding Ceasar's reasoning for not giving up his governorship was the sole reason. Im not disputing that Ceasar wasn't a very egotistic person. Yes he was. Why Ceasar crossed the Rubincon river is a matter of opinion. I personally happen to feel differently, that's just me. The ambitions of men that were in power at the time or time-frame in my mind were driven by power and of course power makes a man generate a ego. Think about it, were the competition between Marius and Sulla similiar to a certain extent. Didn't Marcus Crassus have an ego as well. The republican form of government in my mind was not suffice to handle the complex and every growing role Rome was playing in the surrounding areas as her influence grew. I do admit the imperial form of government had it's own issues such as succession and so forth. Now, To answer your question on whether government with a mechanism of no accession provided a better means of governing lots of land was any better, the answer is yes. It make sense to me, if it doesn't make sense to you, well that's your own opinion. I never said that the imperial form of government was 100% any better, it had it's issues. But it was expected over-time that as Rome a city-state became more and more less of a city-state it's form of government would change/evolve into something different whcih it did. We could have a never ending disscusion and ask folks which form of government that like and prefer and which government was better for Rome?

I would have personally go with the date of 454AD when Aetius was assasinated by Valentinian III. Evenhtough there were different rulers between 455Ad to 476AD In my mind, the Roman Empire as we knew it politically, militarirly really ended in 454AD. After all by the time Valentinian was emperor it was really Aetius who was known as the last Roman of the Romans that really brought hope to what was left of the western roman empire.

Give me a break. So what that Ceasar had an ego. So did Pompey, Cato, Marcus Licinius Crassus and many other romans whether they were from Ceasar's past, present and future. Ceasar refused to give up his governorship for other reasons not his ego. It was a matter of principle and the way he was being treated by the Senate and Pompey. In my opinion Cato and especially Pompey and Crassus had the biggest egos during the republic. That's why Crassus was killed and half his army of 40,000 men were litterly wiped out at the battle of Carrhae against the Parthians, with the remaining 10,000 Romans being taken as prisioners and another 10,000 were able to escape back into Roman territoy. Anyways Crassus could be a whole new topic to discuss later. Anyways, I really don't feel that Cato destroyed the republic. The republic was being destroyed way before Cato was even born. The republic form of government in my opinion was really never an effective form of government. The republican form of government was a government that was meant to rule only a city not a nations. It was logical for the Roman form of government to evolve based on the changes and growth Rome was experiencing as they were acquiring more land to rule over.

I will somewhat agree with you that Hannibal fought for the wrong side. Hannibal in my opinion was a great commander, in the sense that he brought the find right into Rome's back-yard. Yes, he was in Italy for a good 14 years, and yes he gave the Romans a run for thier money. But if you think about, it was inevitable that Rome and Carthage could have avoided one another. You had two super powers trying to compete for control and influence over southern Italy and Sicily. Not too mention the fact that Carthage and Rome, were litterly distance wise both located near one another. The Punic wars could have gone either way strategy wise. In the first punic war Carthage in my opinion had a better advantage compared to their situation during the second punic war. But, Carthage was a city state that was not in my opionion as united as Rome politically and militarly was. Not to mention that Cathage's allies were not as reliable as Rome's allies were. Anyways my point is, What hurt Hannibal during the second punic war in my opinion was that he didn't have the support mechanism from Carthage as the Romans had from Rome. Carthagian politics in my mind doomed his expedition in Italy from the start. If Hannibal had the political and military support that he needed, Hannibal could have achieved his knock out punch against Rome to win the war for Carthage. And further more he could have graetly altered the course of the war in Carthage's favor. Now being that Romans were studburn and known for recovering, Hannibal's knock-out punch may or may not have been long lasting, but long enough to greatly strengthen Cathage's position in the area in preparation for another conflict with Rome.

I will somewhat agree with you that Hannibal fought for the wrong side. But come on, shake his hand and then kill him again.

There are many people I'd like to meet. But I would have to say based on the time-frame of th empire and what life was at that time, I would love to meet and talk with the following people. They are: Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major - Who was around the time of Hannibal and Carthage. LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA - during the time of his conflict with Marius and Rome's dictator Gaius Julius Caesar - To learn and Understand from Ceasar his account of his Gual and Britain campaigns Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus - Just to be able travel around the empire with him to learn and see first hand the many lands Rome ruled and the culture back in those days. Flavius Valerius Constantinus - To talk with him to learn and have a better understanding on what he felt the role of christianity played in the empire and what his thoughts were at the time. Finally, the last person I would love to meet is Flavius Aetius

Flavius Aetius's final legacy has been similar to that of Stilicho. Both men were the best Roman generals of their time, and both were killed by jealous emperors. A

I would have to say that one of my many favorites is Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus. Hadrian was a very excellent leader who commanded a great following of people who admired him. Plus, he was of the only emperor who took time spending most of his reign travel around the empire meeting people and learning and undertsanding the needs of the people, army and so forth.

I don't agree with your statement. People will always have different ideas and thoughts, but I truly believe whether wealthy or not weathly, or whether lived in border province or quetier province the PAX romana was something that the entire empire experienced. The PAX Romana was a time generaly belived to last from 27BC to 180AD to describe the economic growth, growth in roman litature, langaue and so forth.

Again, if are speaking of Adrianople, it was in 378AD. Secondly as I already stated the Eastern Army was not that large and 1/4 of it was already in the West. Valens was not seriously outnumbered, the Goths were around 40,000, compared to his 22-25,000. Initial intelligence said only 10,000 Goths, and this may well have been right; however, Valens waited over a month to attack when he was finally forced too because Fritigern threatened his supply line to Constantinople, he had waited for Graitan long enough, his nephew had sent a very small force to assist which Zosimus states was over very poor qaulity and Gratian decieded to instead pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them instead of going to his uncle's aid, many in the Western Court actually semed not to care much of what was happening in the East except for one of the top genrals, Sebatianus. The Goths, continually delayed action and continued to sent evnoys to 'talk peace' the entire time this happened, the Roman Army was out all day in the hot sun in their armor and this exhausted them and while he delayed this allowed him to recall other allies to his aid, amongst them the Hunnic and Alan horseman they had hired weeks earlier. Thus, once the Roman infantry, (already tired and hot and dehydrated), had committed itself, they were quickly attacked from the flanks and rear by the "Gothic" cavalry. Rome always recovered from her defeats and even diastrous ones, (like Cannae and Carrhae which were MUCH more costly than Adrianople combined), so to say she never recovered but was able to subdue the Goths during the 390's, (with Stilicho in command), and then later on defeat Attila is not a just sense. A further addition that hurt Rome more than Adrianople was the battle of the River Fridigus in 394ad, when Theodosius crushed his rival in the West and effectively destroyed a large portion of the Western Army... this damaged the Roman state much more than Adrianople did. You know, why are you reminding me of when the battle of Andronople took place. If you read my first two lines listed at above, I admitted that I listed the date wrong and said it was in 378AD. My opionion obvious is not the same as yours. I've read many different versions/opinions how much of an impact the batttle played on Roman Military. Again, I see things a little different on what impact the battle at Andrianople played on the Roman empire/Army. I do agree with 80% of your assescement. But I think, the idea of saying the West didn't care what happened in the east is ridiculous. Emperor Gratian may had his own reason to pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them. We will never know what Gratian's intentions were. Gratian may or may not felt that the Goths were a serious threat at the time, until after the battle. I don't see the relevence on comparing the battle of Cannae and Carrhae to the Battle of Andrianople. Yes, those battles were just as worsed or costly, but the Roman didn't have the recruitment issue they had dureing the 370's AD compared to the time of Carthage/Hannibal. The Roman's at that time period were very agressive and proud people very united. Their strength was for glory of Rome, and of course Greed is what drove them to find to fight the Carthagian's. Greed for power, and to wealth is waht drove them. The Roman's wanted to be the dominate power in the area. Now, before you respond and accuse me of saying the Roman's were not just as proud as their predecessor were during the time Hannibal, I'm not saying that. I just feel that the Roman's were not united as they were back in the time of Carthage. The Roman Empire's split into quasi halfs in my mind, weakened the Roman Army. They were not united. It just seems that someone is playing politics over one another. East cared about itself and who cares if Rome is being threaten more then Constanople. As long as the enemy was focused on Rome, and Constanople was left alone, who cares . Rome felt the saem way towards their couter-parts in Constanople.

I'm not challenging the so-called intelligence on whether Goths had 10,000 men or 40, 000. Also, I will admit that I inadvertenlty listed the battle by stating 369AD, when it was really 378AD. The defeat of the Eastern Roman Empire's Army was indeed a major blow to the Roman Army. I disagree with you that Valans was not outnumbered. He was outnumbered. Also, what played a big part in the battle was the battle tactics of the Goths. The Goths effectively used their calvary as a potent weapon against the Roman Infrantry solders. Therefore, The Roman army was no longer the deadly machine it had been, discipline and morale were no longer as good, Valens' leadership was bad. The surprising return of the Gothic cavalry was too much to cope with for the Roman army, which was already fully deployed in battle, and hence it collapsed. It was not any effect of heavy Gothic cavalry which changed the battle in the barbarians' favour. Far more it was a breakdown of the Roman army under the surprise arrival of additional Gothic forces (i.e. the cavalry). Once the Roman battle order was disrupted and the Roman cavalry had fled it was largely down to the two infantry forces to battle it out among each other. A struggle of which the Goths won. Rome was never able to recover from this loss. Eventhough they still had a strong military thanks to strong leadership of Theodusius, Stilicho was one of Theodosius's trusted general. Because of him, the romans was able to stay strong. But mentally, the romans ddin't have the military might it used to have. They knew the barbarians knew it too. That's why the romans play better politics then thier eastern couter-parts did. The only way Rome was able to recover was by making political treaties as Theodosius did with the Goths and other tribes. Not to mention the the fact that other emperors did the same in regards to the Huns and visigoths. The Western Roman Empire was able to last longer thanks to the wonderful world of politics. The Western Roman Empire basically ultilized their ability to play one group of barbarians against the other's. Again, if are speaking of Adrianople, it was in 378AD. Secondly as I already stated the Eastern Army was not that large and 1/4 of it was already in the West. Valens was not seriously outnumbered, the Goths were around 40,000, compared to his 22-25,000. Initial intelligence said only 10,000 Goths, and this may well have been right; however, Valens waited over a month to attack when he was finally forced too because Fritigern threatened his supply line to Constantinople, he had waited for Graitan long enough, his nephew had sent a very small force to assist which Zosimus states was over very poor qaulity and Gratian decieded to instead pursue a defeated enemy over the Rhine to further massacre them instead of going to his uncle's aid, many in the Western Court actually semed not to care much of what was happening in the East except for one of the top genrals, Sebatianus. The Goths, continually delayed action and continued to sent evnoys to 'talk peace' the entire time this happened, the Roman Army was out all day in the hot sun in their armor and this exhausted them and while he delayed this allowed him to recall other allies to his aid, amongst them the Hunnic and Alan horseman they had hired weeks earlier. Thus, once the Roman infantry, (already tired and hot and dehydrated), had committed itself, they were quickly attacked from the flanks and rear by the "Gothic" cavalry. Rome always recovered from her defeats and even diastrous ones, (like Cannae and Carrhae which were MUCH more costly than Adrianople combined), so to say she never recovered but was able to subdue the Goths during the 390's, (with Stilicho in command), and then later on defeat Attila is not a just sense. A further addition that hurt Rome more than Adrianople was the battle of the River Fridigus in 394ad, when Theodosius crushed his rival in the West and effectively destroyed a large portion of the Western Army... this damaged the Roman state much more than Adrianople did.