Nerva
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Nerva
-
-
I always looked at the Exarchates as a sort of Governor who ruled the corresponding lands in the name of the Emperor.
-
Subjective history varies not only from person to person but also over time. The Founding Fathers of our republic placed great emphasis on the positive aspects of Roman history and you'd be hard pressed to find a FF who could not read/write/speak Latin. I would imagine Napoleon's France, the Prussians, and other expansionist regimes saw much that was positive in Rome of the Principate. I would also imagine that in the post WWII era, with the collapse of European and the Japanese empires, Rome fell out of fashion. And there is no denying the attraction of the intimacy of the Classical Hellenic city state (doomed to ultimate failure that they were).
Excellent point. Understanding how to govern an Empire was essential knowledge in the days of European colonialism. Now that those days have past, so too has the need for learning about the Romans from the perspective of Empire building or controlling an Empire. I think the lack of interest sells Roman History short though and I do think it should be a separate entity from some generic Mediterranean History.
-
I think I would like to live in Roman Carthage. It was a big city with all the entertainment a big city could offer, but not quite as huge and intimidating as Rome. Also with the great port there, you could travel anywhere in the Roman world.
-
I was just reading up on Constans II and in the year 663, he visited the city of Rome. Apparently, he stripped many of the city's buildings of their precious metals (including the Pantheon) and took it all back to Constantinople. That certainly didn't help with the deterioration of the city.
-
I guess I see your points on the Germans. Here is my question that I cannot answer through my research. Maybe you guys can recommend some articles or books. How did Rome get to a state where the army was mostly composed of foreigners? Was it all bad policy, or was it something more? Was it the fact that she was invaded over and over again in such a short time span? I agree that the Germans infiltrated and killed the system from within, but how did it get to this point? Was it like the Southern United States during the Civil War? Southern 'gentlemen' just did not want to fight? I know there are many factors that led to the downfall of Rome, but what do you guys think?
I think manpower was certainly an issue. Between wars and plagues causing troop shortages, there was a need for warm bodies to fill the ranks of the Roman army. It was more than that though. Loyalty was always an issue with the troops. They were constantly naming new Emperors to the throne and maybe by bringing in foreigners into the ranks, they wouldn't have the understanding or the desire to use the military as a political machine (much to the chagrin of the Roman leadership, the barbarians quickly realized that the political power within the Empire lay with its soldiers. They became political players rather quickly once their chieftains rose to the ranks of General and Magister Militum). Which brings me to the next point, Roman arrogance. They felt that they were simply better than the Barbarians and they misjudged how clever and crafty their leadership really was. They always felt that they could control the barbarians. They had a false sense of security. The Eastern Empire finally realized this and once they sent Theodoric the Great over to Italy, they really cut down on the % of foreign troops vs native Romans (Yes Belisarius used Huns in the conquest of Carthage, but the process had begun to reromanize the military).
I think the "not wanting to fight" syndrome really started to take root in the 5th century. You know the stories of men cutting their thumbs off so they couldn't hold a sword. A lot of that can be tied into the horrendous taxation levied on the Roman citizenry. The Imperial leadership was crushing the populace with taxes and all they brought was war and destruction to the heartland. For some, barbarian rule was more desirable than Roman rule. Roman governance was not living up to its end of the bargain.
-
If the Western Roman Empire had somehow not collapsed in the 5th century and survived to this day alongside the Eastern Empire, I think it would have looked a lot more like Constantinople than traditional Rome. I don't think they would have pushed the borders much beyond where they are now. If the Empire remained strong, they would have crushed the Arab tribes riding out of the Arabian Peninsula and either assimilated or subjugated the Germanic tribes causing trouble on the northern frontiers. With solid trade all throughout the Empire, cities like Carthage, Alexandria, and Antioch would still be major cities. Hard to tell what cities like London and Paris would look like. They were not on the major trade routes, but I think at least one or two cites of Hispania and Gaul would have blossomed in size (especially if they were spared the barbarian invasions). I think the city of Rome would still have been a major seat of power in Italy, but I think it would have been more like a second city to Constantinople, somewhat like Nanjing in China vs. the current capital of Beijing. Rome would always have a special place and would certainly be a tourist attraction since its ancient non religious structures would be preserved. I would think the Circus Maximus and the Colosseum would still be in place and in use as well (Colosseum would be used for animal hunts or bull fighting, but not gladiatorial games) as the numerous baths, but most of the old pagan buildings would be gone or converted into churches. St. Peter's would be there and it would probably rival Hagia Sohpia. What it would look like? Who knows?
I don't think they would have discovered North and South America simply because there was no need to search out new trade routes. They could get all they needed from Europe-Asia trade. The discovery of the Americas came about after the fall of Constantinople when there was a hostile power along the trade routes in the form of the Ottoman Empire. It would be politically impossible to discover the Americas also because the powers that be in Constantinople would not want competition for the best trade route to Asia. I think it's certainly possible that the Romans would have discovered gunpowder if they continued to trade with Asia, but as far as industrialization, that would depend on whether they gave up the slave trade. It was such a part of their society, but who knows, maybe some Patriarch would have championed the idea of freeing the slaves and it would have gained the support of the government and the people. I don't think the concept of "The Pope" would have ever formed. There would be a Patriarch of Rome, but more theological authority would have come from the Patriarch of Constantinople. Of course all that is just my opinion and imagination, so it's all open to interpretation, but it was a fun exercise.
-
The Germanics... specifically the Goths. While the Germanic people were held at bay for the better part of 4 centuries, it was ultimately the Germanics who toppled Roman the Roman administrative and authoritative presence in the West. The Goths were among the first to successfully invade Roman borders (the Thervingi sacked Byzantium in 263) and maintain a presence in former Roman territory (the Greuthungi in Dacia even after their defeat at Naissus in 271).
The Goths opened the door for later invasions of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Vandals, etc. While there were clearly more dangerous foes through the history of Rome: Carthage, Macedonia, Antiochus of Syria, Mithridates, Parthia, Persia, etc., Rome either conquered, or recovered from defeats to each of these in one way or another. Ultimately, Germania Magna was never held for any significant period of time (despite the attempts of Augustus and Marcus Aurelius) and it was the Germanics that ended the western empire regardless of all the other factors involved in "the fall".
If we look specifically at external enemies and leave aside the Romans themselves as the worst enemies of the Empire, I have to agree that it was the Germanic tribes who were the worst enemy of the Romans. By infiltrating the Empire and becoming part of the military structure yet not really loyal to the Empire in their hearts they almost cooked the Empire from within, rather than smashing the gates down. Now you can argue it was bad Roman policy that led to this, but having the ability to learn your enemy's strengths and more importantly his weakness gave them a considerable advantage that other enemies didn't have over the Romans. With the legions stationed mainily on the borders, once you got past them, you could really run roughshod over the softly defended underbelly of the Empire.
-
I see three things that could have stopped Atilla.
1) He was stopped militarily.
I find this highly unlikely as Aetius did not have the numbers he had at Chalons since the Visigoths had returned to their territory in southern Gaul once the main threat from the Huns had been stopped. The defenses of Ravenna were also formidable, but even that was not enough to keep Emperor Valentinan III from fleeing to Rome for safety. There are some stories that Aetius harrassed the Huns with a shadow force and that might have slowed them, but I don't believe it would have been enough to really stop Atilla if he wished to Sack Rome. Look at what the Huns did to Aquileia. Which brings me to my next possibility.
2) They were paid a ransom to leave Italy.
If it was money they were after, why raze Aquileia completely to the ground? In my opinion, they were out for blood after the Romans had the audacity to challange him in Gaul. I think it was his intent to make Rome look exactly like Aquileia.
3) There was a plague that broke out within his army.
This to me seems like the most likely answer. There wasn't the military might to stop him and all the gold in the world couldn't save the cities of Italy in front of him. Pope Leo I may have met with him and discussed various topics including the plague in Italy and the Hun troops, who knows, but no words were enough to stop the Huns up to that point. It seems logical to me that the plague was the deciding factor in halting the Huns from running over Rome.
-
I'm sure a big problem was that many of the buildings were being used as quarry's without much regulation on what the people could take from abandoned buildings and ruins. It was still quite a while before one of the Popes (hundreds of years after the fall) made some laws to protect the public monuments and buildings.
The Emperor Majorian 457-461 attempted to halt the tearing down of monuments as stone quarries. Once he was killed, I'm sure the practice picked up in earnest.
-
I've been doing some reading and research lately on the Carolingian Empire, presently focusing on the Reign of Charlesmagne. From what I gather Charles The Great likely saw himself and his people as the inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Any thoughts? Or any other candidates as inheritors?
Cheers
Alex
All of the barbarian kingdoms were in their own way inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Many kept Roman laws alive and the religion of the former Roman subjects remained mainly the same. In some cases the rulers were Arian like the Visigoths, but in other cases like Clovis, they converted to Catholicism. What they were unable to duplicate for the most part were the ability to unite all of Europe under one rule or to create an economy like the Romans had.
Whatever ways they were able to keep old Roman traditions alive, the fact remains that the glory days of the Roman Empire were gone. Those times were now only tales and legends to the people living in the lands once ruled by the Caesars and would never resurface again.
-
I saw a piece on History Channel International the other day called "The Roman Empire in North Africa." I immediately thought of this thread.
Anyway, they are running it again Sat, 8/12/07 at 4pm and again at 11pm Eastern (USA).
From their website: http://www.historyinternational.com
Journey back in time to the fertile territories of Northern Africa, which inevitably became part of the Roman Empire after the Punic Wars. Using stylish period reconstructions, location photography, groundbreaking 3D graphics and animation, and commentary by leading authorities, we take viewers on a tour of what remains of the major Roman cities in the region, including the underground city of Bulla Regia, the city of Dougga, and the Colosseum of El Jem, and cover many aspects of Roman life in the colonies.They go into a lot of detail about sites other than ancient Carthage using excavations at some of the smaller towns south of that great city. Hope some of you are able to see this. Do you get Hist. Int in Europe?
-
I think Augustus was the best Emperor because he was able to bring Rome out of a time of Civil War and set things up for the glory days of the Empire that would follow. He was also able to walk the fine line between being a king like figure and staying more down to earth with the rest of the Empire, hence the term "Princeps." He was still one of the citizens of Rome even as ruler. It's really a tough call. There were many great Emperors for different reasons, but given what needed to be accomplished and what he was able to do, I'd have to go with Augustus.
The worst Emperor in my opinion was Honorius. He was either unable or unwilling to govern, when the desperate times called for a stong leader. If the Western Empire had a strong leader, they could well have avoided the sacking of Rome, which was a huge morale loss to the Empire as a whole. I can't say enough bad things about Honorius. Valentinian III is a close second. I don't think it's coincidence that these two Emperors basically led to the sacking of Rome twice in the 5th century. They sucked as rulers.
-
Two elderly guards, engrossed in discussion with each other, ignore the unruly crowd. A stray dog wanders in and curls up in the atrium. Surveying the chaos, Barone ventures a prediction: "The next eruption of Vesuvius will save Pompeii!"
Well, I can vouch for the dogs, that's for sure. Here's a pic I took of one of the excavated villas in Pompeii.
-
Does anyone know of any relation between the Scythians and the Sarmatians? They seem to have come from the same region, no? Did the Scythians evolve into the Sarmatians?
-
This might even be a topic for another thread, but I have heard that even Constantinople fell into decay towards the end of the Byzantine era. The Hippodrome stopped getting repaired and fell into disuse and the aqueducts no longer worked. The cisterns still had water in them, but they were not fed by aqueducts (most likely rainwater) and subsistence farming was taking place within the walls of the city. Anybody have any info on that? I don't know why I'm so intrigued by ruins. I should be more interested in the glory of the civilization. I guess for me it's all about putting the pieces together from what it once was to what it is now.
-
In the Holy Roman Empire becoming Rex Romanorum or "King of the Romans" meant traveling to Rome to be crowned by the Pope. This process had nothing to do with the Emperor in Constantinople.
-
I think it must have been pretty depressing for the inhabitants of Rome after the fall of the Western Empire to be surrounded by architecture from an advanced civilization but for it to be beyond their means to build anything as grand. Some of the ruins today have a decent amount of material still left on them, but others like the Circus Maximus have barely anything left. I wonder when the quarrying started (of the Circus) and what it looked like in say the 6th century.
-
Did not the kings of Europe seek the sanction of the Emperor at Constantinople upon ascending their thrones?
I don't know. What time period are you talking about?
-
When do you feel that this was the case?
From the selection I posted:
The Byzantines' failure to protect the Pope from the Lombards forced the Pope to search for help elsewhere. The man who answered his call was Pepin II of Aquitaine, whom he had named "Patrician", a title that caused a serious conflict. In 772, Rome ceased commemorating the emperor that first ruled from Constantinople, and in 800 Charlemagne was crowned Roman emperor by the Pope himself, officially rejecting the Eastern Roman Empire as true Romans. According to the Frankish interpretation of events, the papacy appropriately "transferred Roman imperial authority from the Greeks to the Germans, in the name of His Greatness, Charles".[41] From then on, a war of names about the New Rome revolved around Roman imperial rights. Unable to deny that an emperor did exist in Constantinople, they sufficed in renouncing him as a successor of Roman heritage on the grounds that Greeks have nothing to do with the Roman legacy. Pope Nicholas I wrote to Emperor Michael III, "You ceased to be called 'Emperor of the Romans', since the Romans whom you claim to be Emperor of, are in fact according to you barbarians."[42]Henceforth, the emperor in the East was known and referred to in the West as Emperor of the Greeks and their land as Greek Empire, reserving both "Roman" titles for the Frankish king. The interests of both sides were nominal rather than actual. No land areas were ever claimed, but the insult the Byzantines took on the accusation demonstrates how close at heart the Roman name (ρωμαίος) had become to them. In fact, Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, a delegate of the Frankish court, was briefly imprisoned in Constantinople for not referring to the Roman emperor by his appropriate title.[43] and in reprisal for his king, Otto I, claiming the "Roman" title by styling himself as Holy Roman Emperor.
It was for political reasons that the Latin West changed how they referred to the Eastern Roman Empire. It was a matter of necessity that the Popes threw in their lot with Pepin and later Charlemagne. The Lombards were still around since the Gothic Wars and Rome could not defend herself against them. The Eastern Empire lacked either the will or the ability to defend Italy from the Lombards at this point. Some of the turn to the Franks as defenders of Rome was the ego of the church who didn't like some of the principles of the Orthodox church in Constantinople. They simply traded one master for another though with the switch to the Holy Roman Empire.
-
If you were to ask a person living in the Byzantine Empire (at its height), they would call themselves Romioi or Romans.
If you were to ask someone living in the West what that Empire in Constantinople was, they'd say "The Greek Empire."
If you were to ask a modern day Greek what they called themselves, they'd say Hellenes.
As several folks have mentioned, this has a lot to do with 20th Century Greek nationalism. Greeks today associate with classical Athens, Sparta, etc as part of their cultural heritage. It's a shame in some ways because of so much of the groundwork for their current society was laid down by the Eastern Roman Empire.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Greeks
It's actually a complicated issue, but if I had to pick one, I'd say they called themselves Romioi. Hellenes is more modern in origin.
-
Anyone else think General Belisarius is worth a vote?
You've certainly made a convincing case for him.
It raises the question how tough these super tribes were if Belisarius could defeat not only the Vandals but the Ostrogoths with such small forces of his own. But I digress.
-
Roman Carthage must have been a pretty impressive city. Its population peaked at 500,000. It was also very famous for its harbor which was circular and contained docks for both military and civilian ships.
-
Heraclius is an interesting suggestion. He did rise to power from the reconquered Carthage (though Armenian by descent). Still I picked Boethius. He was classically trained and a learned scholar and after his age, schooling in the West descended into a pitiful state. He was a philosopher and a consul of Rome. Such a great mind was lost when he was executed. He could have given more to the world.
-
I'm interested in Rome because they layed a lot of the groundwork for Western society and thought. Rome resonates all around us in the Western world even today. There's so much to learn about why they succeeded and why they failed and apply that knowledge to today. What made them tick? Why do we use some aspects of their society and not others? Basically, I answered a little bit of everything.
Cave of Romulus and Remus discovered
in Archaeological News: Rome
Posted
Yeah, saw this on the news today. Your comment pretty much sums it up for me as well.