Northern Neil
-
Posts
1,331 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Northern Neil
-
-
idahojeri
Phil, great questions. Were the scholars influenced by what they wanted to find? Biblical scholarship is pretty well divided into pro-God and anti-God types. If there was even the smallest proof that the mystery religons created/influenced Christianity the anti-God squad would be proclaiming it from the rooftops.
Blessings,
Far from being 'anti - god', many people, including myself, are very 'pro - god' indeed, although we still agree with the view that post - Nicean Christianity borrowed heavily from paganism. Anyone with an objective and unbiased reading of the late Roman period would realise this, and understand fully the political reasons why it happened. Far from being anti - god, we feel it would be nice to know what the early Christians and Jesus himself actually said, rather than having to settle for the revisions of Constantine, Athanasius and others.
It must also be said that the vast majority of christian writings on the history of their religion come from those who write history the best - in other words, the winners.
It seems to me that if early christians were somehow transported forward into the time of Theodosius, they too would have been persecuted, much like the remainder of the pagans at that time. And probably for being pagans.
-
I think that one thing universal citizenship did was to give the auxilia parity of esteem with the legions. There was now no social difference between the two... probably another reason why Gibbon regarded this period as the start of the 'decline'.
-
I can't find any of the Rome stuff, are you sure it's the correct link?
One great mystery of Europe is Stone Henge in Britain. Did the European Cro-Magnon evolve to the point where he could build monumental structures - that seems unlikely. Or did people from one of the original Mediterranean countries, or even Egypt build it?[/i]
...Furthermore, humans who were modern in every way (people like us) were fully evolved by 150'000 BC. 'Cro - Magnon man' as a concept died out in the mid 20th century - it is now better regarded as one of the many prehistoric cultures of modern humanity. The author seems to be confused between evolution of cultures and evolution of mankind itself.
-
It was here that the Christians were persecuted.
I believe this idea is unsupported by any known facts. In many ways, this view shows the relevance of the opening post.
...Absolutely - this applies as well to the alleged extent and purposes of the other 'persecutions' (see other posts in relevent section). I seem to remember someone on another topic saying that most gladiator fights in the arenas actually didn't end in death. Our whole period of interest, it seems to me, is coloured by assumptions which are untrue, largely on account of hollywood films it seems, although theodosius 'the great' probably exaggerated the 'persecution' stories.
-
Although, in fairness, Julian's "paganism" was suspiciously like Christianity in some respects.
... and Christianity also was suspiciously similar to the worship of dionysius and Mithras. Depictions of Dionysius being crucified are contemporary with early christianity (early 2nd century).
-
Theodosius. He destroyed classical culture and set in motion the destruction of the Western empire.
-
Just a little addition to this... According to Colin McEvedy's 'Atlas of Mediaeval History' (Penguin) the Slavs got as far as Crete. According to another book I read - unfortunately I've forgotten what the actual book was - there are seven places in Crete today who'se names have Slavic origins.
-
Time to explode a myth. Leather is hopeless as armour. Such items were decorative or to show status. If you wanted real protection, then you'd adopt metal like everyone else.
Unfortunately, leather has very little resistance to sharp implements and won't do much against the blunt ones.
Hmm... I was once active in battle re - enactment (Anglo-Norman, not Roman) and at times we conducted research into this. I can state categorically, and with first hand knowledge, that it was very difficult indeed to cut through thick, hardened leather (about 6mm thickness) with a sword or dagger. This can be tested: Try getting a piece of conveyor belt leather and stabbing it wih a large, sturdy kitchen knife, with a mediumly soft object behind the leather. What will happen is that the knife will slide off, causing an unsightly yet superficial graze. It was actually more effective than mail at stopping a spear thrust, although the spear did protrude enough to wound. Against blunt weapons, it absorbed just as effectively as mail, depending to a degree on the garment underneath.
Our conclusions were that it was just as effective as mail, the only problem being it had to be thrown away after a battle or practice.
-
Absolutely. Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) says that in 406 the Empire 'was at last going somewhere' for the first time in years. Then they blew it. A second chance at revival apparantly came in the mid 5th century, but Marjorian wasted the Empire's strength on a fruitless campaign against the Vandals.
-
One of the best I've seen!
-
The huns. According to Peter Heather - and I agree with him - were it not for the Huns, the whole volkwanderung would not have taken place, and Germans of whatever name would not have sought sanctuary in Roman lands.
-
"The government in India's most lawless state, Bihar, has come up with a new approach to crime. It is paying criminals to surrender and give up their weapons..."
This seems to me to be a move by a government which has truly lost control of a region. A bit like inviting the Visigoths to 'govern' Acquitania when they have acquired it anyway...
-
Hi folks... just thought I'd inform you of this great site, which is focused primarily on Hadrian's Wall, and in particular the fort at Wallsend (SEGEDVNVM). it also has a forum, reached via the home page. The guy who runs it is keen as mustard, and needs a little support...
-
This is a scenario I have often considered, and a smallish area such as Ireland springs to mind (I believe that Julius Agricola was considering this). I think I would try to set up a puppet regime using local chiefs to govern, and giving them financial inducements to become a Roman province. The most powerful chiefs would be approached, and as well as Roman goods and a nice villa each they would be given meaningless titles and preferential trade status. It is believed that the Fishbourne villa in the South of England was an example of this.
A vexillation of legionaries - say, three cohorts with an assortment of auxilia (Including some cavalry) would be kept close by, both to lend muscle to the new puppet governor and as a reminder to the rest of the locals to behave. They would be housed in a vexillation fortress at some strategic point close to the chief/governors seat of power. In the meanwhile a legionary fortress just across the water at, say, Stranraer in Scotland would provide both the legionary vexillation and more muscle if it were needed. On the other hand, its lack of presence on the Irish side would reassure ambivalent locals that full scale conquest was not imminent, and perhaps preventable if the line were towed.
If the chief/governor then revolted, embezzled imperial funds or was deposed by anti - Roman elements and killed, that would then be a pretext for full scale invasion. And lets face it, the likelihood of one of those three outcomes is pretty high.
So for the Romans its a win - win situation. The local governor keeps order in the new province and taxes go into imperial coffers, Romans are happy. If the Governor fails in this respect by revolting, 'financial irregularities' or by being deposed and killed, then the Romans are still happy because they then get an excuse to turn a protectorate into a full - blown province. Meanwhile, the legionary vexillation and their auxilliary pals have already mapped out the region, marked down undesirables likely to become dangerous, and had them murdered. Perfect.
-
Circumbendibus.
-
York (EBVRACVM) was apparantly given the status of COLONIA in the late 3rd century. It possesses an impressive set of city walls built in Mediaeval times, some of which incorporate the legionary fortress walls.
Although the legionary fortress walls are well attested, there has always been some debate as to the extent of the colonia and various maps and reconstructions have been drawn up suggesting that other parts of the mediaeval wall circuit overly the walls of the Colonia. ( http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/secrets/roman.htm ). To date, however, this remains speculative, and unless new discoveries have been made of which I am not aware, there is no evidence of structures such as theatres.
The reconstruction on the link is the conventional view; however, there remains little evidence apart from a scattering of buildings to suggest that the area south of the river was anything more than the civil settlement of the Legionary fortress itself. I thus believe that mostly people are looking for something that simply isn't there.
My view is that the Colonia and the Legionary Fortress are in fact one and the same. During the time that York was given the title of 'Colonia' the army was undergoing re-structuring, and the strength of a legion, I believe, was reduced to a thousand. This would suggest to me that suddenly a lot of space in the fortress was freed up for civilian use, and that thereafter it assumed a duel civil and military role.
Has anyone else got any ideas on this?
-
what other than being the last emperor to rule both the East and the West, made Theodosius "Great?"
The fact that he was a supporter of Christianity and Christian historians thusly labelled him as Great for his deeds regarding religion.
...But apart from that, very little.
-
I'm not aware that any Indians or Turks became Roman slaves. The first known Turk to visit the Empire was in early Byzantine times. Must check that -- I think I have the name somewhere.
I remember reading somewhere that the Huns have been established as being a turkic people.
-
It depends. If the Christians made a nuisance of themselves and set out to deliberately flout Roman Law in order to be martyred, then yes, he would have sought elimination of what he saw as a group of criminal fanatics. Later Christian emperors would no doubt state that this was a persecution, and that Augustus executed them simply for their beliefs. They would then use this as a pretext for burning pagans and wrecking their temples.
Hold on a sec... isn't this what happened with the actual persecutions?
-
You mean the Goths... when speaking of Adrianople?
Indeed, but the Goths simply followed a trend. The point I'm making is, when fighting an 'urbanised' rival such as Persia, the old legions were by far more useful troops than Barbarian foederatii, as the legions retained their skill in seigecraft and engineering. German troops - whether Goths at Adrianople or other groups within the Roman Army itself, were notoriously bad at taking walled settlements. This is why, I believe, there was an absence of them in Julian's campaign, and also why the Goths failed to exploit the Adrianople victory.
I am, by the way, referring to the 4th century. By the 5th, things had obviously moved on a pace.
-
According to Ammianus Marcellinus, 'Legions' were still very much in evidence in 360, and it seems quite clear that they took on the Persians as equals in a very protracted and bloody war. Although cavalry was starting to become the senior arm of the army by then, the legions he referred to were still masters of engineering and seige warfare - something German cavalry were not (and incidentally why they failed to exploit their victory at Adrianople in the following decade).
The legions referred to come from Gaul and Pannonia, places which had been Roman for nearly 400 years. No sign of 'Barbarisation' there. It was logistics and a backstab from an angry Christian which finally defeated Julian, not an inferiority in his troops.
-
Roman Syria has turned into Phoenicia. "Mesopotamia" - what is it? It`s not a Roman province. Roman Mesopotamia was completely different etc., etc., etc.
...I believe that Mesopotamia was indeed a province during the time of Trajan, Phil.
-
Also, it should be noted that the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain was land given to them by the Romans... so perhaps to us it would seem 'lost land' but to the Emperor, they were acting as the garrison troops and defenders and still sent him his portion of the taxes... meaning they were the new governors...
..although after a few years the tax revenues no longer made it to Rome. From thence, the Visigoths had a kingdom which was independent in every way that mattered.
-
In 395, the Empire's boundaries were still much the same as in Trajan's time, with the exception of southern Scotland, parts of mesopotamia, the Rhine/Danube angle and Dacia (these were lost by 270). The excellent 'New Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History' by Colin McEvedy (Check Amazon for availability) provides a step by step series of maps in which the shrinkage of the Empire is marked at various intervals. Up until 420 the Empire's boundaries were still roughly equivalent to those in Augustus' day; by 425 the Goths had gained Aquitania; by 440 Northern Spain had been lost to the seuvi, and parts of Africa to the Vandals. The left bank of the Rhine had also been lost. By 460 much of Gaul and Spain had been lost, as well as the Balearics and Sardinia. By 470 the Western Empire comprised Italy and a stretch of southern Gaul. By contrast the east was virtually untouched.
Daily Life In Sixth Century Rome Help Needed
in Postilla Historia Romanorum
Posted · Edited by Northern Neil
I have just finished reading a rather old book (1973) by Peter Llewellyn, called 'Rome in the Dark Ages. He mentions one or two things I didn't know, some of these being:
1) Theodoric allowed more political involvement by the senate than they had enjoyed since the days of the principate.
2) Rome, although governed by the Ostrogoths (with much involvement from the senate) governed Italy, Pannonia, Raetia, parts of Gaul and Sicily - more territory than in the final decades of the Western Empire.
3) The Ostrogoths continued to maintain the City's monuments and fund the games for the mob, even though they considered the games a waste of time and money.
4) Everyday life and material culture in Rome was much the same as in the days of the Empire. This only ended when the Empire re-conquered and wrecked the City, ultimately letting the Lombards conquer a much weakened Italy, thus heralding the start of the middle ages (at least as far as Rome and Italy were concerned) and the rapid demise of Rome.
Would it not have been better if Justinian had not bothered to reconquer in the name of the Empire? It seems to me that by now the Goths were well on the way to becoming Romans themselves, and it would only have been a matter of time before the Western throne was filled again.
I really don't know which theory to go with. Certainly, Peter Heather in his 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' tells a tale of frightened provincials in Pannonia suddenly bereft of support from central government and fleeing to crude hilltop sites to avoid being taken as slaves, clinging onto a past only dimly perceived by themselves. A similar tale emerges in Britain, where the Romano Brits pathetically maintain their crumbling towns, turning hypocausts with mosaic floors into corn drying ovens and using unroofed forum buildings as open markets. By 600 AD, when the historical record re-opens, the Romano Brits have vanished.
I'm not sure it was the same in Italy though, mainly for the reasons stated above. In this period one still comes accross 'real' Romans, and visitors to Rome still describe a vibrant, populous city. Take your pick.