Princeps

Which was the best Roman Dynasty? Whichwas the worst? Which was your favourite or least favourite? I'd say the best, my favourite, was the Antonine dynasty. It had at least two truly great Emperors, Trajan and Hadrian. Trajan was a great General and conquored new territories for the glory of Rome. He left us Trajan's column, and I think he instigated military reforms. Hadrian was one of my favourite Emperors of the entire Roman age. Although his policies were controversial and possibly too severe, he made a good decision in ordering that the Empire be expanded no further. He left Hadrian's wall, which is the nearest Roman monument to where I live. He was not a hypocrite when it came to his sexual practices, and he also lived as the soldiers on campaign lived when he was with them (ate the same food, did not wear jewels or ostentatious clothing). It is a measure of how great he was that the legions accepted a harsher regime under him, and he was able to spend most of his reign touring the provinces without fear of a coup. The Antonines also included Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. I don't know much about either of these two (apart from the Aurelius character in the film "Gladiator"), but they were apparently both capable and enlightened. Together these four Emperors brought 80 years of peace and stability. The only grey mark against this Dynasty was Commodus, whose flaws and vices were numerous. I'm not sure which was the worst. An obvious candidate would be the Julio-Claudian (sp?) Dynasty, due to all the tyrants, but their flair and notoriety saves them.

Congratulations! Longbow's prize looks great, in fact I'm sure they'll all be interesting material. And merry christmas to all the members.

Due to the Romans being more cultured and learned than the various Celtic cultures I'd imagine that the Roman historians are the best place to start. If in doubt, I always turn to Tacitus. http://www.athenapub.com/boudicca.htm

The Gladius of course! I perticularly like one a quote attributed to a general whare he describes how the legions' stabbing motion was far superior to the slicing technique employed by most barbarian tribes. Makes sense to me. After that, the falx. Used by the Dacians, it prompted a re-design of legionarries helmets http://www.sabii-de-toledo.ro/Catalog/Fabr...omania/falx.jpg edit/also, the war hammer is a good one http://www.windlass.com/foot_soldiers_war_hammer.jpg

Thanks for clearing that up Cato. The battle of Pharsalus was an interesting read. I will read the Alesia entry later to see if it corresponds to what I have have learned about it. I have more questions regarding tonights episode of Rome. The first might interest conspiracy theorists (although I am all for re-evaluating history as new evidence comes to light, I don't generally go in for conspiracy type stuff, but...) -We saw in tonights episode that Egypt's boy King had Pompey murdered without the knowledge or permission of Caesar, Is this correct? Is this what the ancient sources tell us? Personally I have a hard time believing that Caesar was angry or dissappointed by this. His dirty work had essentially been done for him, as Pompey could not be allowed the same mercy as some of his Luitenants. It provided Caesar with a scapegoat. This leads me to wonder whether Caesar had instigated the murder. More questions to follow. I was again sad that there were no epic battles in tonights episode.

I'd have to agree, there's no myth to be dispelled here. Just type "vindolanda" into google for starters. In fact- http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/exhibition/index.shtml

My favourites are the classics, like Tacitus' annals, and Caesar's writing on his various campaigns are very enjoyable. The fact that they are ancient makes them seem more authentic. Of the modern sources I enjoyed Gibbon's views on the decline of the Empire. I've also read a lot of Readers digest books (picked up a whole bunch from oxfam), my favourites were "The Collosseum" and "Ancient Empires". I'd reccomend both of these.

I'll pick the Collosus of Rhodes for mine(it was one of the seven wonders after all ).

There are so many to choose from, I'd say- Tacitus' lost works (The Germanic wars, Nero etc) The Collosus, or the statue of Nero from the Golden house Constantine's sarcophagus, complete with 12 apostles - http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/Diggings...7sPorphyry.html

I'm not the type of person who feels innappropriate grief whenever I hear about the death of some random celebrity or other, but I was a bit gutted this morning when I found some bad news (to me at least). I had taken it upon myself to seek out another Roman history expert to answer our questions (not on behalf of, or with permission from, the board admin. Merely testing the waters etc), when I found this article on the death of Keith Hopkins, respected Professor of Roman history at Cambridge university. It seems he died a couple of years ago, aged 69. I'm gutted, despite the fact that it happened a while ago. He was, without doubt, my favourite historian (as mentioned in the "Your favourite historian" thread a few months back) http://education.guardian.co.uk/obituary/s...1180272,00.html Very sad news to me EDIT - Another article giving a more personal insight into his life and career- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...7/ixportal.html

Err, I am somewhat of an amateur artist (I think I have showed my stuff in after hours). I always laugh whan I see something like this. Much like the "The Pharoahs were aliens. Look at the statues! They are aliens!" Art is not a science. In fact, it's more of an art. The outcome depends entirely on the ability and whim of the artist. This head having a Romanesque hairstyle is pure coincidence imo. Stranger things have happened. edit / that statement I wrote seems rather absolute, and I could be very wrong (in particular, the lack of facial hair in south american tribes is a definate stumbling block). The analogy to the alien Pharoahs is a bit out of place too, since that scenario is plainly impossible, but stil, I think it's coincidence.

That is debatable imo. Whilst he was a poor charioteer, opinion is split as to his musical merits. 'Vitellius, the last of the three Emperors who briefly succeeded him during 68-69, was accustomed to applaud his skill in music - "Now sing me one of the Master's songs" he would say'

My sig is explained here- http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2645 I like your sig a lot, Justinian is one of my favourite Emperors by far. I think he's highly underrated, possibly because he was Eastern, or maybe because of his place in history (toward's the back end of the Empire). edit/my avatar is Caligula. I admire his style, he really did have a lot.

Well just watched today's episode. I missed the first 10 mins, so I'm not sure why they were shipwrecked, but building a raft from corpses was quite amusing and innovative (though highly improbable imo). I was extremely dissapointed that there was no battle scene between Pompey and Caesar's armies, I have been waiting for that since the series started, but I suppose the budget didn't stretch that far. I have a few questions about the accuracy of some of the dialogue and plot though- -When Pompei is explaining his defeat to Caesar, he says his cavalry were routed by a unit of cohorts, and then Caesar's cavalry rolled down his battle line. I always thought that Caesar feigned a retreat in the centre of his line, then surrounded Pompey's legions when the persued. Is this correct? -At one point one of Caesar's advisor's tells him that Pompey's men outnumber him 3, even 5 to 1. I was under the impression the ratio was around 2 to 1. -When Pompey is discussing the 13th legions seige of Vercengetorix's hill town (I always forget the name of that battle), he says the 13th were outnumbered 2 to1. Again, I was under the impression that Caesar's army was eventually outnumbered at least 6 to 1 (When the Galic tribes laid seige to Caesar's own seige lines), possibly as much as 10 to 1. Is this correct? I just noticed how smoking hot the actress that plays Octavia is, I hope she gets smoe more tv work soon. I was also impressed with the ending of tonight's episode (the beheading of Pompey), and much amused by the description of Pompey as a Dacian catamite! Harsh. Ratings are high, Rome is beating everything else atm (though I am slightly bemused by the fact that BBC2 has Rome going up against BBC1's "Life in the undergrowth". I always watch anything by David Attenborough, I assume his ratings are high, I think this is a mistake by the BBC to be playing 2 quality shows against each other). Does Attenborough ever appear on American / Aussie tv?

I voted for architecture (mainly cement). Whilst European law is based mainly on Roman law, I live in the UK, our legal system is the work of kings (and one in particular), then parlaiment.

Yep, my names (both of 'em) are definately linked to Irish Gaelic, as well as Nordic. Check out your origins here- http://www.ancestorhunt.com/family-coat-of-arms.htm Thanks to Longbow for providing that link, my dad will love that.

Celts, due to my heritaige.

It was a definate advantage to be Christian, so many citizens looking for advancement would have definately converted, both quickly and over time. However Constantine did not make the mistake of forcing his religion on anyone (I think it's debatable that Constantine believed Christianity to be superior, his vision of the burning cross was just a tool to help him defeat Maxentius, though witnessing so many martyrdoms would have given him a healthy respect for Christians and their fanaticism). No, the bulk of his soldiers would not have immediately converted. Good post Ursus, I'll most likely re-read that one tommorow.

And Opera, fine clothes, fast cars, and olive-oil skinned beauties. Sites and monuments of extreme historical importance and aesthetic appeal, WW2 facism, football (soccer) too.

Yes, I posted that original thread requesting for it to be toned down. It was around 60 seconds I think, and one of the admin kindly lowered it (or maybe even axed it). I dislike flood control, it is an annoying feature that adversley effects all users by wasting their time.

Taj mahal(sp)? p.s, do you mean parthenon? I think Pantheon means some sort of covenant.

Thanks Bryan. That's pretty much what I thought, though I do think there was something wrong internally, as the Roman army should have been able to defeat the Germanic tribes if they weren't stretched so thinly.

Civilisation as we know it will have begun it's final death throes. The ice caps will be in a terminal state of decline, much of the land mass will be below sea level. Many critical plant and animal species will have been decimated leading to a break down in the eco-system, food chain etc. Chemical polution will have reached toxic levels in many places. We will all be screwed.

Aye, it was a good episode again (though I will have to catch the repeat, as I kept flicking over to "life in the undergrowth" when the action slowed. I have no idea why they chose to run this at the same time as Rome ). It was good to see Octavian's character develop and show his intelligence. I'm kind of hoping a future series will flash forward a few decades, so we can see him as Augustus. The plot this week centred around the personal issues of the two main characters and not the main event (for me) of Caesar and Pompey, I hope next time the action between these two intensifies.

My question - What were the three main causes of the fall of the Western Empire? Was it due to exterior pressures (e.g encroaching civilisations etc), or was it from within? (e.g social, political, economic issues etc). Thanks.