Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aurelianus

  1. Why is it that the name of Alexander has reverberated down the ages so that today most will know a bit about him? As far as i can see he did nothing that someone else hasn't done better: He did not create a new and revolutionary fighting force, or better tactics, and yet who of the uneducated many will have heard the name Phillip of Macedon? Sure, he was an able general, but there have been many better; who has heard of Graham, Mallbourgh (sp?), Julian, or Aurelian? Was it the shear amount of land conqoured by him? if so why is peoples knowladge of Genghis Khan so sketchy? He displayed an idiotic amount of insanely brave things showing an almost suicidal need to prove himself on the feild, whilst Achillies is not nearly so well known, but since when is bravery a qualification for greatness? He had his head pumped full of ethical issues by Aristotle, so could he have been a great govenor/ruler? He never had a chance to rule, he was on campeign too much. I supose there was his attitude of tollerance to other cultures, but on the whole, so did the romans. I suspect that the reason that Alexander is the one singled out is that he was the first european to acheive things on such a scale; he set a high water mark for others to try and surpass. From the outside his achievements do look titanic. I would welcome your thoughts on the area; im sure im misguided in some areas.
  2. Aurelianus

    The curse of the east

    Every roman general who planed or led a campaign of conquest beyond the eastern Mediterranean either failed, or had short lived success. I use the word curse rather loosely. Both Caesar and Aurelian (i think there was another, but I cant remember who) were assassinated just before they set off, Crassus and others failed miserably, Pompey and Augustus didn
  3. Aurelianus

    IV or IIII ?

    I'm not sure of the corectness of this, but i belive that IV was a later, Papal invention. But i may be completely wrong.
  4. Aurelianus

    Lepidus, Triumvir

    After a fast rise under caesar, and then part in the triumvirate, he is quickly sidelined by Octavian. Why did he let this happen, and what is everyones perception of him as a man, general and politician?
  5. Aurelianus

    The fabled oak wreath!

    Metal I suspect. This page contains a pretty encompassing description of everything you asked, V.T.C.
  6. Aurelianus

    Destruction of the Library in Alexandria

    IMO early christians were responsible for the loss of many great philosophical works, and that christian mobs were unbelievably hypocritical. I don
  7. Aurelianus

    A Poll on the Best Roman Generals

    How about Augustus. The guy was useless, but he had the sense to realise it, more than many a bad general could do. I would have to put Scipio and Sertorius at the top though. How about Aurelian, Corbulo, Theodosius I, Scipio Aemilianus and Sulla - just afew that havent been mentioned.
  8. Aurelianus

    Scipio Africanus , a bad Politician ?

    Considering the times he was in, I would presume that his first interest was to beat the Carthaginians, as that, by the time scipio was elected consul seemed to be far more important than the cursus honorum, and aquiring of personal glory. something demonstrated by the multiple elections by the senate of Fabius and Marcellus as consuls, because of their competance. However, rather cynicaly I cant help thinking that all the prestige he was aquiring must have been at the back of his mind, and that during most of his career he would have been very 'happy' about that. I dont think he did fail, he just acieved it all at a younger age, and by the time he gained his second consulship there wasnt realy anything left for him to achieve within the system... In Rome the political rivalrys were huge, it was part of their culture and nature to want to achieve more and better things than anyone else. This had a tendancy to cause mistrust and dislike of all who outshon their peers, and the political shunning of them; this hapened on multiple occasions, but the only one that sprigs to mind imediatly is Pompey. I dont think the idea would ever evan have occered to him, and even if it had he probably would have dismised it. this is not from any favorable opinion of his moral values, but simply because to march on rome was unthinkable for a roman general, and the notion of a single man in power for any great length of time still went against the grain. When Sulla marched against Rome, even his supporters in the senate were shocked, and that was over a hundred years later. And nor do i think he would have been able to, even if he had wished to. Back then, the army was still a levy (mostly) of landed citizens, who would have nothing to gain from installing Scipio as Dictator, and would have been repulsed by the idea anyway. Even his popularity with the citizens wouldnt have held if he had done such a thing; look what hapened to Gracchus. Although his main opposition was in the senate, when it was said he wished to become king, those that belived it turned against him.
  9. Aurelianus

    Roman Imperialism

    i would refer you to this thread
  10. Aurelianus

    Roman Imperialism

    In my opinion it was the Senate who prompted the rise of Imerialism, indirectly anyway. Had the Senate been a little more people friendly, and at least listened to people like Gracchus, then soldiers would not have been indebted to their general, and remained loyal to the state. The Emperors always made a point of making it known that they were the soldiers paymaster, and rewarder, if the Senate had done the same, it would be far less likely that an army would be willing to follow its general to Rome. That coupled with soldiers being drawn from the unlanded poor.
  11. Aurelianus

    The curse of the east

    I think that it was more likely internal instability within Rome than anything. there was very rarely an imperial succession that was without doubt, and especialy towards the later empire there was large amounts of civil war. An invasion would have needed huge resources, and would have required internal and external peace every where else in the empire, as this usualy occered after a strong monarch had been ruling for a long time, and if they have been ruling for a long time they are unlikely to want millitary glory, or near death... conditions were never right, but if they had been, then do you think it would have been possible? If Caesar had lived, if Julian had planed better, if Aurelian hadn't been killed... I must just say that im not entirely serious about the curse, and should have put it in inverted commas.
  12. Aurelianus

    Imperial Birthday

    I generaly agree with the notion that Tiberius wasnt all that bad, whilst not particularly inspired or gifted, he was an able, solid ruler who provided stability for the empire. On the subject of birthdays, is their any evidence to suggest how romans celebrated them, or if they did?
  13. Aurelianus

    The 'Idea' of Jesus in Plato?

    Christianity was never followed by its founder, christ, and yet it is based on his teachings, so you must draw the conclusion that it came from previous religions (jewdaism). The core of the religion is the bible, and that is half Jewish, and the new testiment was not completed within a life-time of christ. In the original quote the word "invented" is used to describe a personality (i can only understand this as the personality of Jesus, correct me if i'm wrong) but as i undersatnd and belive (although im no christian), Jesus existed and even if he didnt perform miracles, he did have a "winning" personality. Christianity was Judaeism changed by Jesus, and changed again by the writers of the bible, not something invented in a lifetime.
  14. Aurelianus

    The Horatii and the Curatii brothers

    Like I said, its a heroic "ideal". do writers today make stories on commonplace and uninteresting people on a regular basis? I'm not saying this single combat deciding of disputes didn't take place, but they were exagerated and multiplyed in their telling for greater effect. I agree, it is more sensable, and probably did hapen. but I doubt that it would have been fought over an entire teritory. The Albans, once they have lost the single comat would have had a choice - lose everything or fight and possibly lose everything/gain rome. Human nature dictates they would choose the later, which leads to my saying that it is not due to the Horatii brothers that saved Rome.
  15. Aurelianus

    A new Dark Age

    i suspect that if you asked a roman a similar question in say 350, he would have found it dificult to belive that aqueducts, baths and all other engineering would be lost for centuries...
  16. Aurelianus

    Who Bathed?

    oh, they had private baths.
  17. Aurelianus

    The Horatii and the Curatii brothers

    Hmm, i doubt that a country/city state would just hand over its teritory because one of its people lost a personal combat. Naturaly it is a myth, or possably legend, but befor ridiculing your statement "If the Horatii brothers had lost this battle Rome would have never existed. So all ancient Roman fans should be thanking them to this day." I will agree with it in kind. even if this alone didnt get them alban teritory, it cast a mould for later Romans to emulate. legends like this and Horatius at the bridge, were created (or exagerated) to give an ideal that should be lived up to, and can be seen in the junior commanders of the republic, and in the case of Metellus a general. All nations need to have these Hheroic ancestors to look up to and emulate, its what formes their culture. Horatius refuses to give up after his brothers have fallen, rome dose not surrender to carthage after her armies have been beaten. its the mentality of rome that made her grate, and this legend (amongst others) illustrated it for them.
  18. I remember a couple of years ago thinking that in the early days of Rome that chariots were used in warfare, and I also vaguely remember reading something on the web referring to an invasion of Britain (one of Caesars I think) that went something like this: ...the Romans, having long ago abandoned the use of chariots for use in war, were at a loss at how to combat the Britons in... I do not recall if it was quoting a contemporary source, and I have tried hard to find the page, but cant. I suspect it was not a brilliant one as I didn't make a note of it, but nevertheless, it still leaves me wandering where I got the idea from and where they did... Perhaps it was referring to the period of myths and legends before and after the founding of Rome. If the Romans had used chariots would they have been compatible with the legion, or were they too specialised for open plains? Can anyone shed any light on my youthful misconceptions that have come to haunt me?
  19. Aurelianus

    If Caesar had lost???

    Caesars victory did a lot for Rome; if Pompey had won, there is no evidence to suggest he would have made himself Dictator (maybe first among the senate, but not in terms of power), so the civil wars would have continued until a monarchy was established, and the sooner that happened the better. After Sulla marched on Rome monarchy was inevitable. Rome was just lucky that Octavian as Caesars successor was an able politician. I don
  20. Aurelianus

    Nero - the pervert?

    No, the passage didn't give any indication of numbers, or of people beeing simultaneously burned and crucified. It only stated that Christians were persecuted and killed. I would have to say, as someone else did that Nero never realy appeared to be in any way perverse, or sadistic. His faults were extravagance, and lack of interest in the governance of an empire. The wanton infliction of pain is something more assosiated with Caligula or Domitian.
  21. Aurelianus

    Augustus was never made 'Emperor for' life...

    I would have to dissagree, Adoption was the way the emperors used of signaling their chosen sucsessor, because, as the son of the emperor their possition would be less likely contested. There was just one way to become emperor: army backing.
  22. Aurelianus


    Thanks, guys. Yeah, I'm familiar with Caesar's accounts of the Britons, Dio Cassius I think might have been quoted... not so contemporary, and I'm not at all familiar with them (something I need to rectify) ahh well ill go and do some googling. I suspect it will remain an enigma, one that will be solved at a completely random and inappropriate moment 30 years from now... edit: wasnt Cassius Dio .
  23. Aurelianus

    Romans afterwards, and forgetfulness

    If that is a modern claim it is obviously imposible. Come to think of it, the best documented genealogy is that of royals and aristocrats, and a Roman magistrate is the most likely candidate for aristocratic post... then I remembered that every place that was once in the empire has been conquered at least once (more than once in everywhere except Turkey), so it is unlikely that any old orders would have survived. However most of the monarchy of Europe will be descended of the neo Roman Aristocracy, through medieval marital diplomacy with Byzantium, and as I believe Alexius I said "we [the aristocracy] are a disgustingly inbred bunch". Only a few of the prominent families of Rome moved to Constantinople, and it is pretty guaranteed that most of the emperors were their (indirect) descendants. An interesting thought, I wonder if anybody has ever tried to trace it back...
  24. Aurelianus

    Did the Carthaginians really have no fleet?

    Hannibal was undeniably a general of genius, but he was not Carthage. Hannibal was merely a member of one of the great families of Carthage, with the City and its empire run by its senate, in (I understand) much the same way as Rome. After the first Punic war Hannibals father, Hamilcar, went to the Iberian Peninsular where he carved out a personal empire, although it was technically still part of Carthage. It was inherited first by his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, then Hannibal. The Carthaginian Senate was, as I understand it in the majority under the control of political rivals of the Barca's, therefore cooperation was limited. A reason why Hannibal never received reinforcements in Italy. His Invasion of Italy was in many ways a personal thing, and he didn
  25. Aurelianus

    Saddam to hang

    No matter what the reasons for invading were, whats done is done, and in the current situation executing Saddam is the best (and only) thing that America (George Bush) can do for the Iraqi's. Well, all they seem capable of doing. Bin Laden is a differant matter entirely... and off topoic, so i wont go there.