DanM

Sorry, but I do not know of any direct evidence. Most of it is arrived at through deductive reasoning. We know that Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria and Africa were heavily populated while areas such as Thrace and Pannonia were much more sparsely populated. Most of the work I have seen along these lines looks at the distribution of cities within a province to estimate population density. If anyone out there has anything more precise, I would love to read it myself.

Of course the implosion of the imperial authority in the west gave the germans more leeway. No one would ever argue that point. But the germans were a thinly spread ruling class in a much larger sea of latin culture, language and religion. They could not impose their will on the population with nearly the same force as the previous Roman emperors. Thats why the Gothic leaders in Italy and Spain made an effort to accomodate and work with the church instead of imposing their will upon it. In areas such as Gaul where the population differences were not so drastic, they could behave with a little less caution.

Augustus of course. His era was one of stability, prosperity and security. For that matter, why stop at just one serving girl? Afterall, this scenario is only limited by our imaginations. Right?

Thanks guys! Your responses were great and very much appreciated.

I would agree. The biggest result of the fall of the Roman Empire in the west was the political vacum in created and the opportunity for the church of Rome to assert political authority. Obviously the political independence led to an independence with respect to matters of dosctrine as well. If the Empire had held together somehow, then it is highly unlikely the church of Rome could have had any serious independence on issues of doctrine. So there is a strong possibility that any scenario where the western empire survived would also have to include a very different Christian church in western and central Europe. Since the Franks were Catholics, I do not think there were many issues related to theology in Gaul, but the Vandals in North Africa seriously persecuted the Catholics of their provinces. The Arians of Gothic Italy, Illyria and Spain, on the other hand, treated their Catholic subjects with respect and consideration.

With respect to Constantine and his sons, they were all absolute monarchs who ruled with an iron hand. I think Julian made some attempts to revive the role of the Senate, but thats the only guy I know who tried to reverse anything back towards anything resembling Republican form of government.

I was reading a book that constantly kept coming back to the claim that the purchase of oils for the gymnasiums and public baths was often the largest single expense incurred by any city. Maybe its just me, but I am struggling to understand what they did with all of that oil. I am not a perv and not trying to go down that road. I am just looking for someone to describe the legitimate historical uses of oil in such a context so I can better understand how much of this stuff was actually consumed by a city in a given year and also so I can understand why it was such a politically important item that it justified so much funding and attention by the civic politicians. Thanks.

I guess a being a senator is not for me. Nonesense. The rank of senator had no inherent risk associated with it. An ambitious senator on the other hand would face all sorts of risks. No one went around killing wealthy people who did not challenge their authority or their agenda. Most tyrants of the era wanted the legitimacy of the Senate's approval and would welcome Senators who did not make waves.

Correction. Being a politically active senator was risky. Being a pleasure loving, self-indulgent senator who would go with the flow........not so much. If you were an easy going guy who made it clear that you had no serious aspirations, grudges, etc, then why would anyone go to the time, expense and risk of assasinating you? If I lived back in that time, I would spend most of my time in my villa, do the minimum that was required of me and try to get along with everyone. I would have been the guy who put the word "idle" in the term "idle rich". lol ....and I would have left all of the power grabbing self-gratification to those who felt they came up a little short in one form of measurement or another and felt a need to compensate for something.

At the risk of bringing up a guy who is more Byzantine than Roman, I would pick Heraclius. He brought the Empire back from the brink against the Persians. He was brave and heroic. And in the end, all of his dreams of restoring the empire disappeared before his eyes as the Muslims advanced against his armies. In this story you have drama, action and tragedy. Thats not a bad combination. Also, a story about Julian could be very good. If it were written well, there could be a really nice sense of ironic humor in many places as well as the obligatory action scenes.

Yeah, its one of those aspirations that sort of stands the test of time. Tell me what era isn't a good time to have a pretty girl feeding you grapes.

I said other because I would like to see more study on the people of North Africa both as they became more Romanized and then later as they became less Romanized. Its sad, but I think this area of Roman studies gets entirely too little attention. What made this people distinctive from other Romans in terms of art and economic activity? What drove their intense religous passions? Why were they able to rise up to such a level of economic prosperity and then never really recover after the Vandal invasion? I feel there is such a large body of study here and I wish there were more books available that really explored the culture and the history of the North African people before, during & after the Roman years.

.......and I love having pretty women feed me grapes so I guess there is something for all of us in this thread. lol

Have you ever run accross any good descriptions of Amalansutha? I have run accross several that all say about the same thing. She was the well-educated, intelligent daughter of the great Visigothic King who made an ultimiately doomed attempt to retain power while regent and later queen of the Goths. I wish there was something that did a better job of describing her life, her personality in detail, her reasons behind the choices she made, etc. I guess what I am looking for is some sort of biographical work dedicated to her life. Any ideas where I could look for such a thing?

My pick is a Byzantine and so he is probably a little bit of a reach, but I am going to go with Manuel Comenius. He may not have been the greatest and he may have not ruled the Empire at its most powerful period, but the man most definitely knew how to have a good time. If you are just talking about a guy who would be fun to hang out and party with, then I think you guys will be hard pressed to find a better one. He liked music, alchohol and parties. He could hunt, practice medicine and talk on a wide range of topics. His charisma was well known and his generosity was equally famous. So if its a matter of having a good time and enjoying your expereince with a Roman (or Byzantine) Emperor, then I think he is the clear choice.

My favorite historian is A.H.M. Jones. Without a doubt. I think his collective works are one of the foundation stones upon which much of our contemporary historical analysis rests. My favorite from the standpoint of writing style is John Julius Norwich. Although he doesn't add a lot from the standpoint of scholarship, he is a very easy and very enjoyable read. I believe his single greatest legacy is the fact that he makes this information more accessable to a wider audience. He was my introduction to the period and I think its safe to say that he helped me open a door to a bigger world with respect to Roman history.

This is pure speculation on my part, because I do not remember the TV show addressing north africa specifically. But I would assume that higher levels of rainfall and cooler temperatures would have made agriculture more productive in areas like modern day Tunisia, Lybia and Algeria. I think there is a lot of historical evidence that would back this up when you look at the many accounts regarding grain production in this region. Of course I know there were many other factors in play other than climate, but once again it may have been an important factor in the agricultural success enjoyed in the region at this time. Is there any chance you could share some links to the information you mentioned here? Anyone passing through this thread might benefit from your references to additional information. Thanks.

My education was in accounting and most of my work experience was in back office stuff related to the issuance of bonds by mortgage companies. The process is called securitization and it does a lot to lower the interest rates on loans and to increase the scope of which loan products can be offered to the public. Now I am a partner in a business that lies within the field of healthcare. My area of responsibility within the business is accounting/finance. I guess that's really not much of a stretch. lol If my writing style did not resemble a business memo, I would try to write historically-based fiction. Since I don't have the writing chops to pull it off, however, I just think of history as my hobby and my personal indulgence. ....and I am probably one of the older guys here at the age of 35.

I agree that climate changes cannot be used in isolation to reason anything. If they can be proven or at least supported as credible possibilities, then these climate fluctuations could be used in combination with things such as: timelines of development in agricultural techniques social pressures such as the rise of great landowners, opressive taxation and overall government corruption as the Imperial administration consolidated political devlopments within the empire and outside of it. I only suggest that climate changes could be a big piece of the puzzle and not the full answer. For example, I remember the TV show that inspired this line of thought talked extensively about the creative ways the English of the 14th & 15th centuries altered their crop selection once the colder, more violent weather patterns made previous staple crops less reliable. If the techniques of agriculture were less able to adapt in the 3rd or 4th century, then it puts a totally different element into the mix of why the west expereinced so much political and religous instability in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Once again, I am not saying this is the whole story. I am just saying it would be a very important piece of the puzzle if it could be proven to have occured. We tend to put off all reasons for the fall of the west on things that can easily be observed from the relatively few historical documents that survived and I believe that is a lazy way to go about things. When we stop looking for explanations other than those that are easy and convenient, we create a huge blind spot in our analysis of the historical period. I guess what I am saying is that its crazy to think that everything we cannot put our hands on easily remained static and had no effect upon the events of history. Thats why all of the speculation on why the Empire failed annoys me when it stays on such as superficial level as talking about generals, emperors, military tactics and equipment, etc. I just think there is a lot more to this thing than the superficial places where we all (myself included) spend most of our time. Maybe the climate theory is useful an maybe its not, but I still believe that many of the keys to the fall of Rome lie off the beaten path.

LMAO.

Your exactly right. I have spent a lot of time thinking along these lines. This is one of several scenarios that could have happened if Justinian had made different choices or had been someone else.

An honest mistake. Sorry.

You'll find them in every Italian city. Thats funny because you will find them in every American city too. lol Whether its true or not, most Americans think of Sicily when they think of the mafia. I think its due to all of the movies about the mafia like "The Godfather" series.

The Celts who were bothering Rome lived in northern Italy for the most part. So why would Ceasar attack the Celts in Belgium or Brittany if the motives were either punitive or self-defense? I think it was naked opportunism. Rome was stronger and there was a great economic benefit for Rome and Ceasar. All it took was an effective leader with the right levels of talent and ambition to lead the way. My point is to say that naked opportunism and conquering a weaker neighbor when it was to your advantage were not necissarily immoral or unjustified in those days. At least not in the eyes of the people of the day. Any talk about things along the line of values gets dicey if you do not first acknowlegdge the differences in values of the people your are talking about as compared to our own.

My whole post was intended to be tongue in cheek. I didn't expect anyone to take any of it seriously. Of course she was trying to get things on more of an "up" tone and my post was intended to be a playful tease directed towards her efforts. Sorry if it didn't come off that way. Actually in my real life I am pretty optimistic. Of course in my real life I don't spend a lot of time talking about the prospect of a city in my country being nuked by a bunch of crazies either. Once again, sorry if you did not understand that my previous post was intended to be a joke. I'm not really up on all the latest ethanol news, but I heard somewhere that the production of ethanol consumes more fuel than it produces. It kinda sounds like an indirect way of subsidizing large corporate farms if that is the case. Then again, I could be wrong. Its not something I spend a lot of time thinking about. I'm more of a renewable energy and energy saving appliances kind of guy. Did you guys hear about the company that is using algae to take pollutants out of smokestack emissions in power plants. I think I saw the news article on the CNN.com website last week, but my memory is a little fuzzy. Supposedly they think they will be doing 100 million in revenue per year fairly soon. Right now I think it works best of natural gas plants for some reason that is beyond my technical understanding, but their real hope is to make it useful with coal powered plants. Supposedly this technology will convert almost all of the harmful gases into harmless elements like oxygen. I don't know much about it, but its the kind of thing that makes me feel hopeful about future greenhouse fas emmissions.