sonic

To a small degree I would agree, however the main reason for Armenian political alignment was not cultural but survival. In this context alignment with Rome could be crucial. Through most of its history Armenia had to contend with neighbours on both sides that could quite easily conquer them. As a result, whatever their cultural biases, they had to play a game of balancing the two powers, otherwise they faced the risk of being absorbed. Interestingly, later on this policy failed and Armenia was finally divided between Persia and Rome, with Rome gaining the 'Armenian' provinces and Persia 'Persarmenia'.

You can order an english copy of "A re-examination of why Stilicho abandoned his pursuit of alaric in 397" by Emma Burrell from HERE; please don't be scared by the french: after clicking on the "order a copy" button, you will find the appropiate English instructions. Many Thanks!

Hi all. I have a slight problem, in that I need an article for my research. Normally I would use the inter-library loan facilities, but at present these are running c.6 months in arrears, so if I ordered now I might get it in April next year! I know this might be giving the game away, but here goes: E. Burrell, 'A re-examination of why Stilicho abandoned his pursuit of Alaric in 397', Historia 53 (2004) 251-6. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance Ian

I think the first eunuch to achieve real political power was Eutropius, who in effect ruled the eastern half of the Empire from AD 395 to 400 (the emperor being Arcadius). He entered service in the palace after being recommended by the general Abundantius. Interestingly, once he had achieved power he turned against Abundantius and had him disgraced! He rose to be praepositus sacri cubiculi (usually translated as 'Grand Chamberlain') and took over control of the emperor after the fall of Rufinus in 395. He was the first (and only) eunuch to be made a consul (AD 400), which hardened opinion against him and led in no small part to his downfall. As to why the procedure was undertaken, you'd need to ask someone with a greater background knowledge in Eastern religious and political procedures, as I believe they first appeared in Persia. (?)

But weren't both the Baylonians and the Egyptians famed for their archery?

Absolutely brilliant! I just wish we could get the whole program over here in the UK, rather than just a half-hour 'best of'.

In that case, you might like to look at other universities. For example, the Welsh universities offer a different mix of courses. This is especially the case in the first year and allows you to change tack in the second and third year. For example, I applied to do Ancient and Mediaeval History. In my first year I took 'History' (476 to 1990), Archaeology (a form of 'Principles and Application') and Ancient History (Homer to the Fall of the West). At the end of my first year I could then have gone on to do any of these subjects - and in fact my personal tutor was worried in case I dropped Ancient History for Archaeology! I would still say, though, that I would recommend choosing the direction that you want to go first and then base your choice of university on what YOU want to do, rather then choosing the university and taking a course that they offer in the hope that it works out and you find it interesting! There's little worse than finding yourself at university, committed for three years to a course you're not really interested in! It could make all the hard work and financial sacrifice seem like a waste. But then, what do I know: I'm a little old bloke whose time at Uni is long gone!!

We can't see the d%*? thing in England, so I don't know which one it is!!

There is one thing that you need to learn Latin: a good working knowledge of English. I took a Latin course at University and found that the main difficulty for me - and othrs doing the course - was learning the structure of English at the same time as the structure of Latin. Without knowing English, Latin is extremely hard!!

Hi all Now that I've received the proof draft and know what is defintely going to be in it, I thought that I'd give a little more information about the book. It's a complete account of the life of Belisarius, using Procopius as the main source (obviously!) but using other sources to either complement or contradict his story. It also attempts to include up-to-date sources and opinions about the armies that he both used and fought against, although it should be noted that much of the evidence is fragmentary and open to interpretation. I have analysed his African and Italian campaigns in some detail and sent in numerous maps and drawings to the editor in the hope that they would be included. Thankfully, my editor has now confirmed that it will contain 27 maps, 18 tactical battle diagrams, 15 other b/w line drawings and 33 plates in the plate section (including 6 specially-commissioned drawings of troop types). It is now possible to follow the course of his Italian campaign and understand what he was doing! I have also found out where Narnia is! On a final note, I know that some of my interpretations are going to be questioned by readers with an extensive background in the period. However, I would like to point out that none of the opinions expressed are included merely to cause controversy. They are all vital to the story and reflect my sincere opinions about Belisarius and his life. Ian

The strategy behind the Gallipoli campaign was sound. A strike at the Dardanelles would put Turkey under immense pressure. It might also have opened up the Black Sea, meaning an increase in possibilities to support the Russians. The implementation of the campaign was a disaster. The British sent in a fleet that was badly damaged, so giving the Turks an idea of what they planned. Further, the landings were not at the right place, causing delay and confusion. Finally, even when the landings occurred the British had a small chance: the commander in place could have ordered an expansion of the beachhead and actually cut the southern end of the Dardanelles off from Istanbul, so allowing the British more room and the chance to bring in reinforcements. He refused to move, instead fortifying the landing place. Later, the troops would not be able to break out from these positions. The performance of the ANZACS, British, French and Turkish troops during the campaign were exemplary and showed that, despite the fact that the upper echelons were poor, the actual troops were willing to face anything to win. Finally, is war necessary? The question is almost impossible to answer, since it relies on analysing all of the possible causes of war. Generally, as has already been said, it is plausible to claim that all wars are pointless, since a war of defence simply means that the aggressors should not have gone to war. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that ALL wars are pointless. However, I don't think that the Allies in the Second World War would agree. Their war of defence was fully justified and, without it, the Nazis would have dominated Western civilization for the foreseeable future. One last point about WWI. It is accepted that all of the countries involved simply reacted 'domino' fashion to the death of the Austrian Archduke, but that this was only the ignition point and that war was the result of increased international tension in the decades leading up to 1914. However, this does not take into account the British attitude. Up to the last minute it was dubious whether the British would actually become involved in the war. It was only when the Germans invaded neutral Belgium - whose frontiers had been guaranteed by Britain in the 1830's - that Britain's hand was forced. Was war necessary to defend Belgium? Or was it the fault of the Austrians/Germans as they declared war in the first place and so it was unnecessary? That is a circular question that defies conclusion.

One emperor I think has had too much of a good press is Marcus Aurelius. I believe that his reputation is based on the fact that his 'Meditations' has survived. Without this book, he looks simply like another Emperor fighting the barbarians. Other Emperors, such as Claudius, also wrote books and, had they too survived, the reputation of those emperors would have been greatly changed.

I've got to admit that I've a great deal of sympathy for Claudius. I think his reign also had been the subject of bias in the ancient sources, who tend to portray him as a weak individual dominated by women.

Until I went to University I tended to be a bit naive and accept the view of historians at face value - especially when it came to influential and powerful individuals. Since then I've become a little more cynical. I've recently had to read Lord Mahon's 'Belisarius: The Last Great General of the Roman Empire', as well as Liddell Hart's 'Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon'. When reading these I found myself wondering just how much of their respective analyses are based on their reliance and acceptance of a major, single source (ie. Procopius and Polybius respectively). I've also come to the (obvious) conclusion that our modern perspectives on many historical figures are heavily biased, either for or against, by our uncritical reading of the sources. (For example, for the period after Rome, our images of Richard III and MacBeth - both images really being 'based' upon Shakespeare rather than actual historical texts.) Therefore, my question is this: "Which historical individual(s), with the emphasis being on Rome, do you think have been praised or maligned too much?" I'll start off with Constantine I. I think the only reason he is given the title 'The Great' is due to his promotion of Christianity. It is always forgotten that he was actually a rebel who, although successful, merely began another round of civil wars that the Empire could have done without. However, I am open to persuasion!!

Salve, S. You presented it as a parallel between US and the Roman Repubic.; that is misleading, if we agree that it is a characteristic of all humans; therefore, it doesn't made any more similar both Republics than the mere fact of being human. I do take your point: if all societies go through the same process, there is no parallel between the US and Rome. I understand completely your point of view! How else could we both agree with Caldrail? However, for the sake of argument, I would suggest that there is a parallel if the US purposely adopted adapted Roman political systems - as is suggested by their implementation of a 'Senate'. Although the rise and dominance of the rich and powerful is a characteristic of most - actually, I can't think of an exception off-hand! - political systems, I would suggest that it is interesting to note that the US adopted a system of government that seems to have since followed the traditional route. Furthermore, if any country was to avoid this my bets would have been on the US. They had a completely clean canvas on which to paint their constitution, with the ability to pick and choose from what they thought would be politically useful without having to convince a population embedded within an existing political structure. (The population of the US at that time was not really included within the political structure of the UK.) They could also have seen the downfalls inherent and so made it clear that these were to be avoided. For whatever reason, they appear - on the surface at least - to have modelled some of their institutions on Rome. As the most successful Imperial system of which they had knowledge, I am not surprised that Rome was tempting as a model. However, I would be interested to learn from an 'expert' whether there were any provisions in the original Constitution to ensure that the political system was never dominated by powerful individuals! I would suspect not: after all, they were a group of men united behind an ideal who believed in what they were doing and who probably also believed that future generations would adhere to the principles of the Constitution. As corroboration, I believe that after Roosevelt there was an amendment to ensure that no succeeding President would be able to take office for more than three successive terms of office, as nobody had believed that to be possible beforehand. However, that did not take into account 'dynasties' such as the Clintons and the Bushes. In fact, you're statement earlier about the 'common' Presidents such as Lincoln actually help to prove the parallel, since the Romans too pointed to the 'common' leaders who left their ploughs to help the Republic in times of trouble before returning to their farms. Not offhand, but I can name a couple who included those phrases without ever really intending to adhere to them!

The comparison between ancient and modern is popular in some circumstances, not others. When looking at snapshots of social history and organisation these comparisons are very popular, because its easy. For instance, I regularly read that one roman military unit or rank is equivalent to one of ours in the modern day. Such comparisons rely on coincidence, not in form or function, and for that reason, they are fundamentally flawed. However, human social dynamics have not changed at all. People organise themselves into communities because we're social animals, and we gain survival advantages from doing this. Now if you apply a microscope on such things you simply focus on the differences, but if you stand back back and take in a broader picture, there are similarities of cultural development. Societies are not static - they change with time and circumstance - and whilst these changes cannot be charted exactly there are certain developments that reoccur over time. The thing is, we look at ourselves as something apart from nature, which believe is wrong. We are animals (whether we like it or not) and therefore obey instinctive guidelines for behaviour honed by evolution. The organic quality of the universe manifests itself time and again in all manner of ways, and the trick is not to compare two isolated cultures but to compare them all and if you consider the generic progress and decline - the similarities emerge. Its as if cultures have a birth, growth, maturity, and death, with their 'lives' altered by the events surrounding them. This view isn't popular with some people, especially those with detailed knowledge of a particular culture or two, but social behaviour is part of humanity - its encoded by genetics, instinct, and educational inheritance- thus we ultimately tend to do the same things over and over. Specifically then, you will find some huge differences between the US and Rome. Generically, you will see underlying it are the same behavioural developments that are part of mankind. Caldrail, I Agree!! Damn you and your eloquence!! The differences between the US and Rome are vast. But some of the similarities are intriguing and makes me wonder whether the US will follow roughly the same pattern of development as Rome or whether they will diverge - and if so, in what way.

That's an easy and fallacious parallel, because it applies to most of the humans during most of History. Even today, it's no easy to find any head of state not backed by an army and/or a fortune. Firstly, the connection might be easy but it's not 'fallacious', as it is neither untrue or misleading. I agree that it applies to most humans during the course of history, but those countries did not adopt the political stance of 'equality and freedom for all'. I was simply noting that after the adoption of 'political inclusion' as a reaction against their exclusion from British politics, it is interesting to note that the US adopted a 'Senate' from Rome and have now gone down the same path of excluding the majority of people from the higher echelons of political power, as it is now based on wealth. The main difference between Rome and the US in this matter is that Rome never claimed to be open and equally inclusive. A sign of what might be coming is that we nearly arrived at a point where it was two families (the Bushes and the Clintons) who dominated the Presidency. Although Obama has ensured that this will not happen, the question remains as to whether it is a sign of things to come, with the President coming from an ever-narrower core of rich and powerful individuals. We were asked for possible comparisons and this is one. Slowly the US - despite the hopes of the Founding Fathers - appears to be excluding the vast majority of its population from high political office. Which proves my point. The US began as an 'ideal' democracy and is slowly following the Roman pattern. I would agree that the parallel is an obvious one and is easy to make, but that doesn't make it any the less true. Furthermore, at some point the parallel has to break down, as I can't see the US army following 'George W' across the Rubicon (Mississippi??) and so inaugurating the 'US Empire' on Roman terms. It is intriguing to look and guess at where the system will go from here. Sonic PS. I will never, ever claim that Britain has the 'Best' government in the world. One thing I feel I should point out to those who don't know is that to stand for election as a Member of Parliament all you need to do is register and pay

I can think of one parallel. At the end of the Republic to be Consul of Rome you needed to be very wealthy and have the ability to gain support from a number of disparate political areas: Caesar built huge debts in order to sustain his ambitions and managed to win over enough people to be given control in 'Gaul'. Now, to be President of the US you have to be a multi-millionnaire with the support of one of the two political parties. Even then you spend time asking for donations! High-level politics both at the end of the Roman Republic and in the US in the 21st century is way beyond the vast majority of people. They simply don't have the means to compete, instead having to choose from a limited number of options.

Now That Is BAD!!! I demand a public apology!! You're welcome.

Avoid complacency! I had the same lack of restrictions during my MA and could easily have fallen into the trap of doing nothing for long periods of time, as it would be easy to 'catch up'. It never works like that! Set yourself goals to complete every week and make sure you stick to them. Also, be honest with yourself and set goals that you will have to work to meet, otherwise you could end up with lots of work to do at the end, when you have the least time to complete things. Talking of setting goals, set yourself targets that are just beyond your current expectations. That way, you are spurred into achieving more than you thought you could. When I started university, I would have been happy with a simple pass, as I went as a 'mature' student and didn't have the continuity of study of younger people. I found one individual (now a PhD) who was achieving more than me and set myself the target of catching him. Although I didn't quite manage it, it still pulled me up several grades and helped increase my self confidence to an unexpected level. Other than that, my only advice would be to enjoy yourself and don't be afraid of making mistakes!! (I still remember one blunder in a Latin 'lesson' where I confused the Latin for 'to eat' with 'to give birth' (or somethink like that - I can't remember exactly so no corrections please!!), which led to much hilarity! No-one else remembers it now!!) Good luck and enjoy!

Thanks for the enquiry! I've asked the publishers about this, but am still awaiting a reply. When it comes, i'll let you know. In the meantime, I found this: Belisarius US?. Is that what you were looking for? Cheers! Cool. Thanks a lot. I'm definitely interested in it. Thanks for the interest: I hope you enjoy it!

Thanks for the enquiry! I've asked the publishers about this, but am still awaiting a reply. When it comes, i'll let you know. In the meantime, I found this: Belisarius US?. Is that what you were looking for? Cheers!

Salve, S. First of all, be sure you have the adequate software support for Chinese characters. There are literally tons of books and sites on Sinology; you will better be ready to surf. If you're really a starter, I think HERE is as good as the next one. There's a Chinese member of UNRV (Miguel) that I haven't seen around for some time. I'm sure she will be more than eager to bring useful suggestions if you can contact her. Many thanks for the link: much appreciated.

I want to know more about all cultures - including Rome. Even as a child my main interest was history. It took a really terrible history teacher to destroy my interest. When I was 14 years old he spent a whole year teaching us about the 'Industrial Revolution in Britain', but in such a boring way that I lost interest in history for 10 years. I'll always regret those 10 years, as I'll never get them back and they could have been used to increase my knowledge. As time is going on, though, I'm starting to get interested in Ancient China. Now there is a culture that invented many things we now take for granted - and I know so little about it! Anybody got any advice on cheap books to get me started???