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
-
-
Cool, can I have a source on that last post please?
Sorry - it was Goldsborough (5 miles or so up the coast) not Scarborough.
-
A sad little story: In the early 5th century, the chain of Roman signal stations along the north eastern (Yorkshire) coast of Britain were sacked and burnt, possibly by Pictish raiders. Archaeological investigation of the one at Scarborough discovered, in the charcoal layer, the skeleton of a man who had sustained serious head wounds. Lying across his body was the skeleton of a large, thick set dog. The interpretation of this is that the dog died protecting his master, one of the watchmen who garrisoned the station.
-
I understand that Roman material culture persisted until the Lombard invasions of the 7th century. Had Justinian not devastated and weakened Italy in his attempt at reconquest, the Gothic rulers might have been better placed to prevent the ensuing Lombard invasion, and with it the final destruction of a recognisably Roman culture.
The Citizens of Neapolis welcomed the East Roman reconquest because of their Greek heritage. This suggests to me that Greek was still spoken by the Neapolitans even after seven hundred years of Roman rule.
-
Politically, Justinian's reconquests were a success, albeit not a great one. A look at the map for 550 shows the Empire's fortunes apparantly restored, its boundaries including much of what was lost with the exceptions of Gaul , Britain and half of Spain.
Culturally it was a disaster. Many of the classical cities of Italy and coastal Spain were devastated by the wars, never to recover. Had Justinian not interfered with the West, the Gothic rulers of Italy, by now Latin speaking and fast coming round to the idea of being Romans themselves, would have been far better placed to resist the subsequent Lombard invasion, and with it the final destruction of a Roman way of life in Italy.
I am charmed by the idea that had Belisarius sided with the Goths, the Western Empire would have been ressurected. This might even have happened anyway, but for Justinian's interfering.
-
I think that Venice arose in the 5th century, and was founded by refugees from Aquilea after the Huns sacked that city. According to the recent BBC book on Venice, as late as 850 the Venetians regarded themselves as Byzantine subjects. However, in 880, when they pillaged the rival port of Commachio (Also, I think, a Byzantine dependency) they were clearly acting independently.
In one of those strange quirks of mediaeval history, I think the Doge of Venice was still 'officially' a Byzantine governor right up until the fall of Constantinople. I believe they sent ships to aid the city in 1453. But revenue from Venice to the Empire stopped coming through round about 920. (Sorry - forgotten which book I read that bit in!!)
-
If it was on the poll, I'd have gone for Strasbourg!
-
definitely an engineer. Well paid, but not close enough to politics to get me murdered.
-
I believe the similarity was, and continues, to be very close. Until recent years, the US picked wars with other, weaker powers and on victory annexed territory in a very Roman way: for example, the Spanish American war and the annexation of Puerto Rico. More recently, pressuring rival powers such as Britain, France and Belgium to give up their colonies in the name of freedom, yet steadfastly keeping their own colonial acquisitions ( the American midwest from the native Americans, for instance ) also has its ancient parallels.
To me, George W. has much in common with some of the mid - third century Emperors such as Decius, assuming power by less than democratic means and keeping his citizens focused on 'The War Against...' whoever the present focus of exteral danger is at that moment, whilst at home there are internal crises which dont make the news. (to be fair to Decius, though, this process had been the norm since the accession of Augustus) Clinton, on the other hand, was more of a Hadrian, or even a Marcus Aurelius... in my humble opinion!
On the positive side, there are the many things about America which make it and its culture very admirable, and something that people from all over the world aspire towards becoming part of. They are just too numerous to mention here.
I think America has already learnt a lot from Rome; by my estimate, I believe - or rather hope - it has now reached its 'Augustan maximum' in terms of territory, and is now merely exercising influence to prevent other powers overtaking it, much as Rome did with Parthia. The US must, however, beware of an modern equivalent to the rise of Persia in the 3rd century...
-
Medieval Christiniaty was mostly a farce.
Absolutely. Although individual christians were and are compassionate, I believe that even by the third century it was by no means a foregone conclusion that someone who was a christian was by definition compassionate. By Constantine's time, of course, they were able to be 'bought' by the emperor in order to manufacture a new state religion which then became the mediaeval church, and far from making it fall, it actually perpetuated the Roman state long past its sell - by date - the cost being the death of the classical world.
-
England -North, in Cumbria
-
I think most Christian holidays are pagan, are they not? Could this be related to Moonmaiden's topic on 'Council of Nicaea' and the apparant amalgamation of paganism and Christianity in the fourth century?
-
I always understood the Celts to be a linguistic, not a racial grouping. They appeared to differ in appearance in various geographical locations. For example, the Celtic -speaking Belgae are described as being tall and blonde haired - pretty similar to their neighbouring Germans, in fact, whereas the Ligurians and Celtiberians looked then much the same as they do now - raven haired and brown eyed. I figure that members of different races actually spoke Celtic, and so were by definition celts.
-
According to Colin McEvedy in 'The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History,' Mithradates and the inhabitants of Bithynia and Pontus belonged to the 'Thraco - phrygian' branch of the Indo European group. This makes them closely related to the Phrygians, Cimmerians and Armenians, and distantly related to the Greeks. Culturally, however, I believe they adopted the trappings of Hellenism, mainly due to close contact.
-
I agree with all the above points. Adrianople was a turning point also in that it marked the end for the old - style mediterranean heavy armoured infantryman. Henceforth, we are well and truly into the cavalry age. Just one aside, from an earlier post on this topic: I think Theodosius earned the title 'The Great' in a similar way that Constantine did. He was a great patron of the Church, yet had too much blood on his hands to be made a saint. Unlike Constantine, however, he brought no great benefits to the Empire, and his two sons were even more lacking in merit.
-
If the Empire had ended - as so nearly was the case - in about 270, then it could be argued that the adoption of Britons and Gauls into the army was the use of 'barbarian' troops. Earlier still, the use of provincial Italians rather than 'Real' Romans could have been regarded as such, if the Roman state had been vanquished in republican times. The Romans did not 'start' to use barbarians in its army in the third century - it always had used them, and due to manpower shortages that were always present. They simply ceased to be regarded as such as the Empire expanded, and they became Romanised. Perhaps if the Romans had viewed the immigrant Germans as Romans, just as they had other subject peoples prior to the 4th century, the debate as to wether or not 'Barbarian' troops caused the fall would not even be raised.
As early as Claudian times, Batavian (German) auxilliaries were used in the British campaign. Were these not Barbarians, by every definition of the word, just as Visigoths and Asding Vandals were? Again, Hamatic (Syrian) archers are to be found on Hadrians Wall in Severan times. Were they not, depending on fluctuations of the eastern frontier, sometimes barbarians, sometimes Roman provincials? The Illyrians, in the first century BC were regarded as subject, barbarian people - yet almost all the emperors of the late third century - including Constantine - were Illyrian. Was not Belisarius (Slavic for beautiful king) a Barbarian mercenary, or was he a newly promoted Roman patrician who was the saviour of the Empire in the sixth century? He certainly regarded himself as a bona fide Roman, as did Aetius, Stilicho and Valentinian I, all fanatical Romani, yet of Barbarian descent. All these characters defended the Empire with their lives, rather than took from it, and regarded themselves as Roman Soldiers. I am not saying that these ideas should demolish previously held theories, and they are certainly not my original theories - but they certainly deserve looking at more closely.
-
Given that the Roman Empire, at least politically (if not culturally) carried on until 1453, I think the question is already answered.
-
Once again, we have a view that things after the third century are a debased and inferior thing than the equivalent that went before the third century. This has been the view ever since Gibbon, with respect to all things Roman, and it needs to be looked at with more analysis. Generally, people seem to simply 'not like' the late Roman army and its soldiers very much. Whilst they no longer wore Lorica Segmentata, gallic helmets or short haircuts, They had adapted, by 275, to meet the Persians on equal terms once again, and to defeat the Barbarians more often than not - something the Augustan style legions had consistantly failed to due throughout the third century. The changes and adaptations in the Roman army did not bring about the fall of Rome, they gave the Western Empire another 200 years of extended life!
-
I'm not sure this is the right place for this subject - but as it discusses stuff outside the empire, maybe so. A while ago I bought a greatl little book by the '40's archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, called 'Rome Beyond The frontiers.' In it, he discusses Roman trading installations and docks in Iran and India, similar things way North of the Danube and again similar sites along the East coast of Africa. Whilst not built perhaps at the behest of the state, many of them were built by traders from within the Empire who were, by definition, Romans and acting as agents for the Empire. Apart from that little book, with its tantalising descriptions of a few odd sites, is there anything available on this subject which is more modern and comprehensive?
-
I would say that the senator Symmachus was. He managed to carve himself a niche throughout several mid to late 4th century regimes, and survive.
-
I'm not sure why there is such a rush of defense for Christianity in this thread. Nobody seems to have blamed it for the fall of Rome, but simply pointed it out as a single contributor among many.
I don't think it is so much defending christianity, so much as dismissing its alleged importance - at least, in my view. The fall of the west came 150 years after the Empire granted Christianity equal status with the existing religion - as much time as separates us from the start of the American Civil War. The eastern part survived in recognisably Roman from until about 650, and continued as a political force until 1453 - despite its total conversion to Christianity. I have come round to the view expressed by another person (PP, I think) on this topic - that the Empire had reached a stage where any number of middle eastern (or otherwise) cults could have materialised into a massive politically backed state religion by the 4th century, and this debate would be exactly the same, but with a different religion being blamed.
I entirely agree with you, Primus Pilus, on the subject of Paganism V Christianity. Subject for another thread, perhaps!
-
PP, I stand corrected on the flat earth business - I have researched a bit and it turns out that some Christian theorists opposed the spherical earth theory, but it was never declared a heresy. Whilst admitting that changes in architectural style was not a result of Christianisation, I felt compelled to summarise what I believed to be the main features of the classical world, and this was simply in my mental list.
Artistic depiction and appreciation of the human form was far from the only thing lost with classical culture. Indeed, it became reviled as a cause of sin. You acknowledge that feudal europe was religeously intolerant, and it must be said that the destruction of the Cathars and the presence of the Inquisition ( the mediaeval KGB) was entirely implemented by the Catholic church, a situation the disparate and politically weak pagans could never have facilitated. Scientific enquiry was snuffed out, because its findings often opposed the existing dogma. People who used herbal medicines and ritualistic prayers were burnt as witches. Astrologers (despite the three magi in the bible) likewise. In ancient Greece and Rome there were many people who were practicing atheists. Anyone expressing such sentiments after the 5th century would be on very dangerous ground indeed.
Again the constraints of space do not permit me to continue, but the fact that the west endured what is often called a 'dark age' suggests that, in the eyes of many, the loss of the classical world meant a narrowing of thought, the growth of suspicion and an end to widespread long-distance travel - with resulting stagnation of culture. But I do concede that this process was not nearly as profound in the east.
Perseveriantus, you may not be an academic, but your analysis is very shrewd and I agree with most of your points. However, the elimination of the Druids was conducted because they were a focus of political dissent, not because their religion was deemed unpalatable. The naming of Aquae Sulis (Bath) and the dedication of Coventina's Well (Hadrians Wall) suggest the Romans were anxious to please the Celtic gods. Again, Pompey's destruction of Jewish holy places was not part of a systematic dismantling of a religion; he wanted cash, and he seized it from political and military opponants.
Once Christianity and Government became irrevocably fused, however, Paganism was systematically dismantled in the most brutal way, for a period beginning with Theodosius and ending with Justinian. Subsequent examples of Christian/political purging and extermination of cultures are a matter of record and run right up to the beginning of the 20th century.
But I digress: Many things were lost with the end of the classical world - otherwise there would not have been a Dark Age with subsequent Rennaissance. Hardly revisionist!
-
Definately! Christianity ruined Rome. It made them worship an imaginary friend instead of standing by their state. In the end, abandoning the roman gods/goddesses is what collapsed rome. They were strong when they practiced roman paganism, but declined once more christians were converted than they could feed to the lions....... It was all downhill from there.
I refer you to my last - but - one entry on this site. What I think you are bemoaning is the death of classical culture rather than the death of the Roman state, which took centuries to occur after the adoption of Christianity. Just as an aside: The christian persecutions lasted for three brief periods of about 18 months each, during which time few were fed to the lions (films such as the Robe and Quo Vadis enflame this superstition).
One thing I agree with you entirely - the attiude to paganism once Christianity took root. For a total period of 5 years Christians were persecuted specifically for being Christian. The dismantling of paganism was brutal, and arguably only ended with the last witch trials of the 18th century.
-
Well, that falls on how you define ''classical culture'', because hellenic culture lives on even in the Christianity and it had deeply rooted itself on the Islamic world.
Given the lack of space for such an immense subject, I would summarise the Classical World which Christianity helped to dismantle thus:
Achitecturally: Peristyle houses with collonades, Porticoed temples, Theatres, amphitheatres and Stadia.
Artistically: realistic portraits of the human form.
Spiritualistic: Polytheism with varying degrees of tolerance for one religion by another. Philosophy and rudimentary science flourished in tandem with this.
Socially: Cities in which there were public buildings. Political units which had standing armies. A degree of social mobility within the free part of the population.
This very sketchy repesentation is the best I can do given the space available: What is pretty certain to me is that most of the above had radically changed by 500. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in about 200BC; by 500 it was heresy to suggest it was anything other than flat. In the 1st century women officiated as christian bishops; they were evil seducers of men by the middle of the millenium. In the 5th century, the female philosopher Hypatia was lynched by a mob of 'christian' zealots. Local officials did nothing.
In particular for me, the classical world's tolerance of multi - faith societies, the openness to scientific enquiry and the unashamed appreciation of the human form are among the saddest of the many casualties. The onset of the Christian era dispensed with these very positive attributes, heralding in an age of superstition, fear, guilt and repression of women which certainly lasted until the renaissance. In as much as spirituality and science still appear to be at odds - as opposed to working hand in hand - the dark age is still with us.
Chrstian and Islamic culture may well have in their make - up remnants of classical culture, just as many European countries speak a language derived from Latin. That does not mean that the parent culture endured.
-
I chose Late Empire. My personal view is that the Army was more flexible in this period. The Legions fared better against the Persians as they now had effective cavalry to guard their flanks. Illyrian mounted infantry had the capacity to rapidly assemble a force just where the enemy didn't want it, and field armies did not degenerate due to being tied to a fortification for generations.
Dogs And Stirrups
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted
The Roman period (even excluding its later Byzantine phase) was such an immense length of time that I believe it would be foolhardy to categorically say that the 'Romans never used dogs in war'. The anecdote about the dog found at the signal station refers to findings of archaeologists using scientific methods, so I assume they would have checked out all variables before coming to the definite conclusion that the dog was part of the staff of the installation. I am happy to pursue this particular lead further; I would assume that archaeologists would have taken into consideration such factors as morphology of the skeletons, associated finds, breed of dog etc. etc. before arriving at their conclusion.