DanM

One of the big ideas I struggle to wrap my mind around is the issue of the monphysite movement in Syria and Egypt. Why did it happen? What were the root causes? Who really benefited from the rift and why? I am not an academic so please forgive me if this question seems like its coming from left field. Now the pat answer I hear has to do with religous dispute being the only way for latent Syrian and Egyptian nationalism to bubble to the surface, but this answer seems a bit too convenient to me. It just seems like the sort of answer where people try to wrap up incredibly complex issues in a nice, concise little bow. It just doesn't smell right for some reason I really can't put my finger on. Right now my thoughts on the matter are contradictary and disjointed so any guidance or suggestions would be welcomed. My first thought was to see the popularity of this schism as some manifestation of anti-clerical feelings. After all, that seems to be a big factor in the spread of many dualist and monarchist christian "heresies" that spread so quickly through the poor in various parts of the empire. Then I remember the monophysite movement seemed to be advocated by the religous establishments of Alexandria and Antioch so it doesn't really seem like the product of an anti-clerical movement. Next I thought about the movement as an expression of class issues. The Hellenistic ruling elite who comprised so much of the land owning upper class were very hard on their tennant farmers and the tax collectors were a big source of discontent as well. Maybe the orthodox religion came to be associated increasingly with a Hellenistic dominated Empire and the movement away from Orthodoxy was some sort of rejection against an oppressive and distant ruler? Then I keep coming back to the issue of how the Monophysite movement was advanced by the religous heirarchy of the eastern patricarchies. I mean, how could Bishops and Patriarchs be openly advocating a movement that would somehow undermine the authority of the Emperor? Such a person would be too easy of a target for an unhappy Emperor. Then I remembered something about the Blues and Greens in Constantinople. Supposedly the Blues were Orthodox and comprised more of land owners while the Greens were more Monophysite and centered more on the commercial classes like traders and factory owners. What are the implications of such a line of division? What does it say about the appeal of the different expressions of Christianity? I would be lying if I said I had a firm handle on these questions. The closest I can come to answering this question is to consider the whole issue about how earlier Roman society looked at virtue as an upper class thing and kept pretty low expectations on the common man with respect to virtuous living. I remember the author who talked about this point also talked about how Christianity and stoicism both had a democratizing influence on the subject of virtue in the Roman culture and this was very distressing to the establishment. Somehow or another the virtuous life of a person of lesser station deminished a person from the upper classes by bluring this key point of distinction. Is it possible that the Orthodox/ Monophysite conflict of the later Roman Empire somehow rehashed this issue either through an issue of style or one of substance on the part of the Churches of the day? Is it possible there is some deep cultural or social element specific to the Egyptian and Syrian people that made monphysite theology more acceptable? Could this have been something as straightforward as the patriarchies of Antioch and Alexandria trying to assert their independence from the patriarchy of Constantinople? I suppose its highly possible that all of my questions and theories are totally off the mark. If so, thats all the more reason for me to be asking for help on this very confusing concept. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

And Belesaurius was a pretty special general too. Since Justinian is often called the last Roman Emperor, I think a case could be made that his general was Roman and not Byzantine. For those who lament the inability of the Romans to fully utilize cavilry, Belesaurius is a good example to the contrary. He beat armies several times the size of his own army by using guile and bravery. He repeatedly defeated the Persian armies of the time. He reconquered Vandal north Africa. He reconquered much of Italy including Rome and would have almost certainly conquered the rest of the Italian Gothic kingdom if Justinian had given him the proper resources and given him a clear chain of command (instead of dividing command between Belesaurius and Narses). Even in later life when he was recalled from retirement, he defended Constantinople from a barbarian invasion using little more than his personal retainers and a few poorly armed conscripts. He did this primarily by waging a brilliant guerilla campaign. I think its hard to find a general of any era who demonstrated the ability to use such a broad array of different tactics to fit the situation in front of him. He could beat you so many different ways and that ability puts him on a very short list. Its hard to find a Roman general who could consistently do so much with so little as did Belesaurius. That being said, Scippio Africanus and Julius Ceasar were also exceptional leaders of men. I guess I have to come back to my original point of saying that its difficult to compare men of different times who lead armies comprised of different elements against different enemies. So much of the subjective has to enter the comparison that I think its better to just say they were all the greatest Roman generals of their respective times and leave it at that.

Sorry, but I do not think I was clear. As I remember, it was speculated that he felt some personal connection. It wasn't just the favor that the Gods had towards the Emperors. I think he felt like they had chosed him personally as opposed to backing the position he held. Understand the difference? Where it could be potentially meaningful in plot development is to find out if this dynamic affected his decision making at crucial points of his life. I am sure there is a lot of stuff out there on the subject if you are willing to dig for it.

I agree that Ceasar was a brilliant general, but I still think that an assessments of military leaders from 2,000 years ago is usually based more on their reputations than any sort of analytical view of their military leadership. For example, people remember Ceasar's nephew Octavian a lot more than they remember his right hand man who ran the army for him (I believe his name was Agrippa). So, if you were to ask the casual observer who was a better general, I thnk many would pick Octavian over Agrippa even though Agrippa led Octavian's armies. See what I mean? Simply put, most people will insist that Ceasar was better even when they have little to no knowledge of Scippio Africanus. They could not tell you the name of any of his battles other than Zama and could not give you any descriptive account of how and why he won his battles. Therefore, its hard for me to see how they can give an informed opinion about the merits of Ceasar over Scippio if they don't know enough about Scippio Africanus to make an informed decision. It might be a more direct question to say what is your favorite Roman personality who fought in the Roman Army. Then people can talk about Ceasar, Pompey or Mark Anthony because they know these guys from the movies or college history classes. I do not mean to take anything away from Ceasar, but a comparison has to be rooted in a strong knowledge of all major the generals. Not just the ones who got the most press in ancient times or in Hollywood movies.

Another thing. I may have this wrong, because I am going strictly off memory on this one but I think he also voluntarily submitted to the Imperial senate. At that time, I believe the Senate in Constantinople had no real power and was more of a ceremonial entity than anything else. When Julian became Emperor, however, I believe he made a big show of consulting them and seeking their approval as part of his attempt to revive the old ways. His self-indulgence, as I remember it, seemed to be limited to his writing and his issues of policy. I remember reading somehwere that he could stay up all night writing on some work about philosophy. While he could write incredible volumes of material, the writing seemed a bit unfocused and more slanted than objective. His personal life, however, was as close to ascetic as any of the Emperors in his period. He operated with a greatly reduced household staff and ate very sparingly. As you said, he shared the hardships of his men and demostrated real bravery on the battlefield while not really being the square-jawed hero of a 50s movie. Also, I am fairly sure that he had some belief that the Gods were on his side or something. I don't remember much about this point, but I do believe he saw himself as favored by the old Roman Gods in some way. Sorry I don't remember more, but I hope this helps a bit. If I can get my hands on the book where I originally read this stuff, I will post it here so you can verify if you want.

Most definitely and its an easy book to find. I bought my copy on Amazon.

I guess I wanted to look for the reasons the later Roman Empire fell and failed to really come back under Justinian. I suppose I want to learn enough about these reasons to imagine a real scenario where it could have survived the Islamic invasions of Syria, Egypt and the other North African provinces. That means a study of the economic, social and religous ascpects much more than the military ones. The original islamic armies to hit Syria were more raiders than invaders, but the disaffection of the Syrian people towards Roman Imperial policy did much to enable the conquest of Syria and other Roman provinces possible. The monophysite church was part of the reason. The intense persecution of other heretical Christian movements in Syria was part of it. The corrupt Roman beaurocracy was part of it. The excessive taxation that fell disproportionately on the average men and women was part of it. The recent devestation resulting from the protracted wars with Persia was part of it. And I am sure there are several other components I have not even grasped yet that were also material to creating an Eastern Roman Empire that welcomed and facilitated an Islamic invasion. Also, for each of the general points I mention here, there are so many detailed questions under each one that are necissary to understanding what was happening. Also I wanted to look at the state of the Western Roman Empire at the time of Justinian too. By now it had been carved up by a group of Germanic hosts, but they were just a thin military/leadership caste. The Roman church, governmental beaurocracy and economic system continued after the conquest. Most of these people still looked at themselves as Roman and the Emperor had great presitige. For a while, the Germanic kings would still pay lip service to the Roman Emperor and I believe this is telling as to the attitudes of the Roman populations under their rule.

I would have to say Justinian. The work that was done on the legal code under his time had a big influence.

Nicely said primuspilus. By Scippio's use of an indirect strategy and his grasp of logistics a vital component of war, Scippio Africanus displayed an unusually modern view of warfare. One other interesting thing about Scippio Africanus was his lack of political ambition. He was a soldier first where Julius Ceasar was a hybrid politician/soldier. Scippio's aim was military success, but Ceasar's aim was power for himself. Its undeniable that Ceasar is the more famous, but I think its hard for a casual observer of history to say how much of Ceasar's fame is due to his political career and how much is due to his military career. If Ceasar had wished to settle down to a quiet life after his campaigns in Gaul, does anyone really think his fame would be so great?

Ahhh. I would not call it pro-Christian propaganda. Its a story about his modern travels with a constant comparison back to the accounts of John Moschos in his 1,500 year old book. Where possible, he would visit the same places. He would talk about the place as John Moschos described it and then talk about the place as he described it in 1992. For example, he might talk about how some historic monastary once had 900 people and now it had to 70+ year old monks. There was also a lot of commentary about the monastic movement as part of the culture of pre-islamic middle eastern christianity. Nothing was evangelical in nature. He certainly was not trying to convert anyone. It was just a historically based comparison of the world described in this 1,500 year old book as compared to the world as seen by this author in 1992. He talked about the raw deal the Christians had gotten in Turkey (genocides, forced migrations, etc for millions within the past 100 years) and the raw deal the Coptic Christains were getting in Egypt, but he also talked about the bad things done by Lebanese Christians during their civil war. He also talked about the story of a woman who was a Palistinian refugee and Christian who said she was treated better by Palistinian Muslims than by her Lebanese Christian relatives. To me, he seemed to be connected to both Christian and Muslim people he met along the way but he did not close his eyes to the bad acts of any group. If there is any bigotry or bias in the man, I certainly did not see it when I read his book.

Thanks primuspilus. I always thought the consolidation of the church into more orthodox guidelines had a lot to do with the sponsorship it received from the state and not as much from the church leadership's feeling of losing touch with the masses over leadership differences. For example, the Gnostics and other heretical groups lumped together under the term Manichee by the midevil orthodox church were more or less persecuted out of existence by the state. I always assumed it was due more to their rejection of material possessions, strongly ascetic life, etc that caused the state to move against them because these things would lead to a weaker state if the religion were practiced to widely. Is this incorrect? I mean, if people stop making babies and leave the farms, then tax revenues go down and the pool of available soldiers shrinks over time.

Very detailed chronology of events. While its impressive, it paints a picture that is a little different from the impression I have gotten while reading about Julian. I am no expert on Julian and I am no writer so please feel free to dismiss anything I say here. Still, on the off chance that something might be useful, here goes. I agree with the chronology of events 100%. Its just a matter of the minor details where I remember it differently. I think I remember reading somewhere that he was not very attractive. I think some of his features were a little out of proportion and he was a bit paunchy. While he was an intellectual, he was also a dreamer who had a tendency to focus on the ideals more than what was practical. Yet, at the same time he could be very effecient and effective when he set his mind to it. He was a prodigous writer who has been characterized as a bit unfocused and self-indulgent. From what I read he sounded a bit bi-polar. He was an ascetic who greatly reduced his attending staff once he became Emperor. He lived a great deal of his early life in fear of his cousin the Emperor and seemed to make a real effort to keep a low profile for much of his early life. When you roll it all up, you have a brilliant, remarkable man, but I wouldn't really think of a Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Collin Farrel type playing him in the screenplay. He is not the commanding hero who leads through charisma or force of will. Maybe he would be more of a Will Farrel without the jokes. If you have ever seen Will Farrel do an interview then you know what I am talking about. You have someone who is a mass of contradictions. You have someone who is great despite his weaknesses and certainly different because of his excentricities. You have someone whose ability is undeniable, but whose rise to the throne is due more to cirmcustances beyond his control than anything else. You have a man who is a nonconformist and never really comfortable within his own skin while simultaneously being certain he knows how to lead his people to a better life (Paganism). I am not a writer, but to me thats a heck of a lot more interesting material for a character than another card board cutout hero type. You know what I mean? Too many people treat greatness as some absolute and fail to see all of the frailty and weakness that come together in the weird alchemy of greatness. To me, Julian the Apostate is the sort of character who could be original and keep the readers from anticipating too much before it actually happens. Good luck with the book.

I don't really think Hannibal had enough men to encircle Rome and effectively cut off supplies entering the city. Think about it. Its not just a matter of battering rams, siege towers and sappers. Its also a matter of having enough men to cut off all ways of moving in and out of the city. The whole point of a siege is to starve your opponent into submission. That only works if you can control access to the city and this can only be accomplished if you have sufficient manpower. As for saying Hannibal's ultimate defeat was inevitable, all I can say is that minds much better than my own would disagree with you. Like I said, read up on Scippio. See what was involved in his Spanish campaigns to deprive Hannibal of future reinforcements. Also read a little about the peace party in the Carthagenian Senate that actually opposed Hannibal during the war. Hannibal was not driven out of Italy. He was forced to leave Italy when Scippio threatened Carthage itself. Scippio's success would have been much less likely if the Carthagenian Senate had done a better job of supporting Hannibal with men, materials and creating foreign alliances.

I will try to focus my comments a bit for the sake of brevity and just hit some high points. To me it was an interesting fact to note that one of the largest and most prestigous universities for the study of law in the latter Roman Empire was established in Lebannon. I think it was Byblos, but don't hold me to it. He was also big into ancient religous music and I think I remember him talking about some church in Syria that he believes still uses an early form of hymns that led to gregorian chants. Also he talked a lot about the explosion of monastaries in the deserts of Egypt and Palistine. There were hundreds of monastaries in those deserts each of which might contain several hundred monks or nuns. While he did not talk abot the staggering impact this must have had on late Roman finances and birth rates, it certainly inspired a line of thought along those lines for me. Imagine the finances that were diverted to build all of those monastaries instead of building infrastruture, paying armies and growing the economy. Think about those thousands upon thousands of men and women in the monastaries and the strongly ascetic flavor of the early Christian church. Those things must have done a lot to lower birth rates. Think about the massive amounts of wealth the could no longer be taxed as huge estates came into the hands of the church. Anyway, back to the book. I suppose the best feature of the author is his ability to humanize events and people. He really made me feel like I was reading about people instead of dry historical facts and in that way he sort of made the whole subject come to life. If you want to get a feel for the Christian church in the late Roman Middle East, then this book is a good start.

Hey Ursus, I have a question for you. In your last paragraph you talked about how old guard religions are replaced with more charismatic ones. Would you attribute this to some sort of anti-clerical dynamic? When you look at the spread of heretical Christian sects over the past 2 thousand years, its often among a population that feels the old guard is unresponsive to their needs. Ditto for the protestant movements. Since this is sort of a reoccuring theme in history, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the causes of this reoccuring shift in religous affiliation. Its true that the Catholic/Orthodox schism was more political and maybe the monophysites were also more politically inspired, but I still think that often there is a sociological explanation for the religous shifts. While any theoretical discussion on the topic of sociology is totally out of my depth, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on it. Also, on the subjecct of the spread of the church within the Roman Empire, I have a theory of my own. If you look at the behavior of the aristocrats in earlier Rome, there was a lot of meaning placed on the presitige that came from public gifts. They would give all sorts of gifts to their city to enrich it and improve the lives of its citizens. Through this giving, they increased their place in society. As the church gained wealth, it replaced this civic giving with a sense of charity based on caring for the poor that was totally alien to the pre-christian Romans. I remember Julian the apostate's attempt to reform the pagan religion into an effective alternative to the Christian religion led him to set policies for pagan charities for the poor and infirmed. This implies that Christian charity towards the poor was one of the ways that the Christian church was gaining converts and influence. Just maybe the Christian church gained a more dominant role because of the gained prestige it received on the local level through its dominance in the role of giving. If so, then maybe it spread by assuming and altering a very Roman social practice. Also, if we go back to my earlier comment about how new religions often spread by being more responsive to the plight of the less fortunate, then we can assume the charity programs of the early Christian church did much to win new converts as well.

This is kinda like picking the greatest basketball player of all time. How do you compare a center to a point guard? I suppose I would say its a tie between Julius Ceasar and Scippio Africanus. If we can include the later Roman Empire then I would include Belesaurius as well. People can have a sentimental preference, but all 3 were giants who dominated their time. Who is to say how Ceasar would have performed in the 6th century? Who is to say how Belesaurius would have performed in Republican times? TonyGee, I gotta disagree with you assessment of Hannibal. I think that if he could have taken Rome, then he would have done it. Don't forget that Hannibal's army had no real capacity for siege. They lacked the engineers and the manpower needed to pull it off. That's why Hannibal did not try to siege Rome. As for Scippio, I would like to again suggest you read Liddell Hart's book on the man. The title is a little over the top, but its a first rate book that could do much to improve your view of the man. One last thing. I think the Carthagenian Senate did more to defeat Hannibal than the Roman Republic and there is also a very big difference in that distinction as well. If Carthage would have done more to actively support and reinforce Hannibal, then Rome may not have won the second Punic War.

Thanks for the welcome primuspilus. As for your question, I have a theory. I think financial types are more likely to have introverted tendencies. Not all of course, but I think its a stronger subsection of financial types than other professions. As such, its more likely to have people that are happy spending hours reading a history book even if their husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend thinks its the most boring thing in the world.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in the middle of this conversation, but I have a few comments. First, I would like to suggest a couple of books that might be interesting to you. Hannibal is one of my all-time favorite historical figures and my favorite book about Hannibal is the one written by Theodore Ayrault Dodge. Also, Liddell Hart's "Scipio Africanus" is a good book to cover the subject of what the Roman army could do under an imaginative and agressive general. Don't forget, this is the guy who finally beat Hannibal in North Africa. Lets compare the legion to the armies it faced. To say that the Republican troops only faced painted savages is a bit misleading. Don't forget that the Romans were considered to be country bumpkins until they conquered the Mediteranian world. If you look at what Hannibal did at Lake Trasimeno or Cannae, its more an issue of generalship than one of the tactical merits of one formation over another. I think that if anything, the biggest weakness of the Army of the Republic was its method of selecting military leaders. Until Scippio Africanus, the best general the Romans could field against Hannibal was the one who refused to fight him (I think his name was Fabian or something like that). Also, I think your negative view of the Roman legion is a bit undeserved. Its not just a matter of cavilry vs infantry. Compare the legion to the phalanx. The phalanx was all about the initial shock. When it worked, it was an irresistable force that swept away the opposing army. When it didn't, it was a big, unwieldy mass of troops. On the battlefield, the Roman army was anything but slow and cumbersome. Their more open battle order allowed them to be much more nimble on the field than an opposing army in phalanx formation. To say that a horse can carry a man from point A to point B is one thing, but to say the Roman legion was unwieldy on the battlefield is a totally different thing. As for the reasons for decay within the Roman Empire, I think thats a much deeper subject than immigration. There were a lot of social and economic issues going on within the Empire that did much to enable the germanic invasions. Think of the Roman Empire like the human body. If its weakened, then opportunistic diseases and parasites are given the opportunity to flourish. If the body remains strong, however, then these things are less likely to take hold.

You might also want to look for something called Dumbarton Oaks. I know very little about this organization, but I have run accross it from time to time in the bibliographies of some of the books I have read. This is just a guess, but it seems to be some sort of organization that sponsors papers on very specific historical information. For example, I saw a reference once to the military armor, weapons and other gear worn by heavy Roman cavilry along the Persian frontier during the later Roman Empire. Maybe they have written something about your area of interest as well? Sorry I cannot offer more information about these guys. Just a shot in the dark I suppose.

One of the biggest itches in the back of my mind when it comes to the later Roman Empire is the issue of religion and the role it played in Imperial policy. Such a question as religion in the eastern Roman Empire cannot be answered without at least considering the gnostic sects that were so popular in the early years of the Christian church. First, let me explain the title. All gnostics were not Manichee. All gnostics were not dualists either, but most gnostics were branded Manichee by the more traditional forms of the church. As such, the author puts a variety of dualists, monarchists and others under the same umbrella as they were lumped together by the church of the time. While the subject matter may seem a little dry to some, the Runciman has a very enjoyable and engaging writing style. I know I said the same thing about Dalrymple too, but it really is an accurate comment about both authors. To me, the second chapter was the most enjoyable since it covered the gnostic role in the early church and the likely origins of much of its doctrine. While I knew a little about the gnostics, I really had no idea of what they believed or the diversity of beliefs among different agnostic sects. Some of these sects believed the Old Testament God was a different entity from the New Testament God. They thought the Old Testament God was the bad one and the New Testament God was the good one. Many sects believed Jesus and Mary were only angels. Some thought Jesus came out of Mary's ear. Still trying to get my mind around what they meant on that one. There was also some concept of the word of God as a distinct element that could somehow make their sect's church leaders into Christs in their own right. Also, many believed that procreation was bad while others had very liberal views about sex. Trying to keep up with all of the variations of gnostic beliefs is not easy trick. Later chapters talk about the Cathars, Patarenes, Bogomils and Paulicans. What I found most interesting about these chapters was the conditions where these sorts of heretical movements flourished. They were very popular with the poor and with those who felt the Orthodox Church was not responsive to their plight. Specifically the anti-clericalical dynamic is one that I think is meaningful and can give color to several different historical periods. I wish I could express myself better, because I do not really think I gave a fair account of this book. I sort of had the feeling like I was pouring a pitcher of water into a tea cup when I read this book. Hopefully a second or third reading will allow me to hold more of this fascinating information.

William Dalrymple retraces the journey of a 6th century author named John Moschos who wrote a book titled "The Spiritual Meadow of John Moschos". The original book was about John's travels through the late Roman empire shortly before the Islamic conquest. As such, it describes a Roman. Christian world shortly before the Islamic movement took hold in the Middle East. While I did not read the original book of John Moschos, Dalrymple refers back to it often as he gives his own accounts during his trip. As he retraces John Moschos' original jounrey, he begins in Greece, travels to Istanbul and then through Asia Minor, Eastern Turkey, Syria, Lebannon, Palestine and finally Egypt. Along the way, Dalrymple comments on how things were in the 6th century when John Moschos made his journey and then talks about how the same places are approximately 1,500 years later. I could go on about any of the specific details of the book if you want, but for now I will just say that Dalrymple's writing style is very enjoyable. Its one of those books where the pages almost turn themselves. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wanted to gain a better understanding of the eastern church from a ground view up.

Hello all. My name is Dan and I am a 34 year old from a small town in the southern part of the USA. I do financial work within the field of healthcare. I am not a historian or any sort of academic. I am just a guy who enjoys history very much and has trouble finding anyone with any comparable interests to talk to about this sort of thing.