Tobias

It is a rather difficult decision. Although politically, i am a conservative, i have no support whatsoever for the actions of the Optimates in the late republic. But rather then allow my vote to be governed by one group of ultra-conservatives in history, i will look at this in an unbiased way. I'm populares

That is very good, but it says that it can only offer the music services to the United States! How does that work?

So how did the many deaths of the Catalunian field occur, did they just start falling down on cue

That is a very interesting paper Cato; most enlightening. By the way, the discussion of the Gracchan corn dole must have been straying a tad off course to be talking about the Byzantine economy

Perhaps the retreat of the Parthian cavalry was actually the usage of one of the oldest tactics in the book?; the false retreat, raising enough confidence in the enemy to cause them to charge, abruptly turn around, surround them and slaughter them. I've seen it in so many battles throughout history that one would think that Generals would know better.

As far as Augustus being called the "Restorer of the republic" is concerned, i can only agree with PP in that it was rather clever of Augustus to make it seem as if all he was in the Roman Empire was the "Princeps", whereas he was really the big man, the head bloke. I believe that is where the term "Principate" comes from; the state of government at the time of Augustus.

Although half of my points were apparently ignored, i'm glad we sorted that out sir

Has anyone read any of Quintus Ennius' works? Although only fragments of his works survive, what i've read (a part of his "Annals") is very good and interesting poetry.

I've read the Masters of Rome series, and am not ashamed to admit that i quote McCullough often in this website, especially in recent debates, because of the high esteem i hold of her books. Extortion: The illegal exaction of money by force, threats, importunity. (Definition from the Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary) I'll quote one of my own earlier posts: And as i mentioned above and as you said, armed force was used to collect the debts owed! If you were offered a loan with 48% interest, would you take it? Well, if you had an army threatening to billet itself in your city and you didn't have the money yourself to bribe it away, and a "benevolent" person was offering this loan, yes you probably would. Not extortion eh

Superior training is certainly what tells, along with professionality. A thing i would also suggest; the Roman Work Ethic. They were used to strenuous physical activity, and it was bred into the people. I am not suggesting they were physically bigger etc., just that they had a physical history of hard labour matching if not overtaking most other peoples. This is shown in the long hard marches undertaken, the huge amounts of fortifications erected and their stamina in all areas. For example; Caesar's campaign in Gaul. He moved his legions so fast that Vercongetorix himself admitted that the Gauls could never hope to match the Romans in speed. The Roman Work Ethic, i believe, is part of what made the Romans better. I am not suggesting that other peoples did not work as hard or harder, however, just that the Romans possessed a strong work ethic that translated to stamina etc.

Ah ok, fair enough. As i said, it was just a thought From what i grasped, this teacher was a bit of a perfectionist, which is why he probably insisted on the usage of that title.

Ah, thanks for that clarification. One hears these things bandied about, you know I suppose, though, if Napoleon did aim a cannon at the Sphinx, the nose would be hard miss Interesting though, do you mean that the Christians saw the Sphinx as a pagan symbol and sought to disfigure it by ridding it of it's nose, or that the nose was a pagan symbol.....

G'day All This is just a kind of nit-picking suggestion; Over the years, i've developed a huge interest in the "Byzantine Empire". I got the opportunity to speak to a teacher eminent in the subject, and when i did, i immediately got my head bitten off for calling it the "Byzantine" Empire. This person said that the term "Byzantine" was a relativelymodern term, used to distinguish the later, greek-speaking empire from the earlier, latin speaking empire and that it should be at all times called the "Roman Empire" or the "Basileia Romaion"( Which is the greek for "Imperium Romanorum"). I was converted to this, and remembering this website's liking of ancient or at least non modern terms for it's forum headings, i wondered what you people and admin would think if i suggested that "Basileia Romaion" was incorporated into the Postilla Historia Romanorum title or description somehow, instead of Byzantine. I know it's a greek term, so i was thinking of not bothering, but i decided to anyway. So, what do people think? Yes it's nit-picking, but it's a thought....

I was motivated by curiosity- i always heard about this "Roman Empire" when i was younger, and i longed to find out what it was. Well, as is the case with many, once i started, i couldn't stop. I come across this site whilst researching online, and i liked what i saw enough to join the site. I love all aspects of the history of Rome, with the exception of a deep interest in Religion. My main area of study is the Eastern or Byzantine Empire. That is my forte, and the area i know most about and am most strongly dedicated to. (Although i can never manage to keep out of the Civil Wars of the Republic)

My favourite superhero...I always liked Super Mario, but after seeing him in about 50 000 things i got sick of him. My favourite superhero now would be the Doctor, out of "Doctor Who"

I assume you mean Prime, Germanicus? If so, that is worth a thanksgiving, because that is a channel of which we are just inside the broadcast range

Certainly, that is correct. But read my post above; as i said, the Empire lost it's major recruiting ground for soldiers and it's heavy cavalry, and came to start relying on European armies too heavily. As it couldn't effectively guard it's own frontiers, territory was lost to advancing peoples (although Alexius, John and Manuel Comneni held things together for a while), and thus came instability amoung the various factions of the Empire. Action was demanded, and when it didn't come, Emperors were deposed. This continuing civil war and disunity made it absurdly easy to gain against the Byzantines, in terms of land, trade and economy. As you said, the advent of the Fourth Crusade was what effectively destroyed the Byzantine Empire, but it was the loss of Asia Minor that was the first fatal blow.

So you are saying that the extortion methods i mentioned that were used by Appius Cladius were respectable, mate Begging your pardon, but if you are referring to Octavian, soon to become Augustus, you are dead wrong. Cicero became governor of Cilicia in 51 BC; before Caesar marched on Rome, and when Octavius was a young boy. It was during this governorship that he wrote his intial letters on the subject of Cilicia's condition under the previous governor, Appius Cladius. Perhaps the letters you are referring to are later ones. Not surprising. As was mentioned, Brutus, with his front of 'Matinius et Scaptius' covered himself very well and ensured that virtually no evidence alluding to his activities came to light. I'll quote a paper i found on the subject; As i said before, Brutus and the conspirators deserve no thanks. Most of the conspirators were motivated out of jealousy; Brutus out of what he thought was in the interest of the common good. However, neither he nor any of the other murderers gave mature foresight to the lasting effects of the low murder, or of the peril of the power vacuum their actions would cause. Whilst researching Cicero about his letters, I found that he commented that the lack of planning following the assassination was disastrous. It successfully destroyed any potential to restore the Republic, as Julius Caesar had known, and led directly to a two-part civil war; that of Antony and Octavius against the murderers, then the two men against each other. Once again, I can't see this argument getting anywhere; i'll let this particular aspect be.

I'm a fan of Star Wars, but i haven't actually seen the cartoon versions yet, so i don't know what they're like. I certainly agree that Episode II could have done with a little more action and plot instead of focusing almost entirely on only a few things. War of the Worlds; absolutely brilliant. Batman begins; I'm not too much of a fan of Batman, although i have seen the early 60's and 70's "Zap" "Pow" batman series, and Batman Begins was far better then that, which is a good indication

Control of Asia Minor was the mainstay of the Byzantine economy; as was mentioned, it was the "breadbasket" of the Empire. Asia Minor was where the richest landowners come from, where most of the Empire's soldiers and horses came from and where many of the Emperors came from. As well; having control of Asia minor and the Golden Horn meant that it was impossible for rich goods from China to pass into Europe without passing through Byzantine territory, from which they could tax the merchants and the goods. These goods had to pass through Byzantine territory, because the alternatives was going through land hostile to Christians or Westerners and engulfed in war, which was the Holy Land, or going north-west from China into unmapped territory. When the Byzantines were defeated at Manzikert, and the subesquent loss of most of Asia Minor, that heralded the beginning of the end of the Empire. It had lost it's main recruiting ground for soldiers, it's main horse breeding areas (Loss of the famous Byzantine Cataphracti subsequent) and much of it's right to tax incoming goods. With the loss of soldiers came loss of land; with the loss of land came economic instability; with economic instability came the fall. The low percentage of gold in the Byzantine's coins from it's loss of trade profits prompted Venice to mint it's own pure gold coin, and this signalled the Byzantine's loss of trade to Venice. Thus, more instability resulted; coups occurred, the 4th crusade took the city and that was that. The Empire would not recover. Thus, possession of Asia Minor was essential to the Byzantine economy and survival. This is obvious in that the empire, in it's long history, experienced many disasters (i.e. the loss of Egypt, North Africa, Italy, the loss of territory in the Balkans, constant warring and defeats), yet continued to survive because it kept possession of Asia Minor, it's main source of funds and soldiers. Without it, the Empire soon foundered.

I'll say this Ursus; that is perhaps one of the best brief histories of Egypt i've read. I've attempted to do this myself: but i scrapped it because the versions i did were either too comprehensive or too brief or too lacking facts. Looking at Alexandria has always fascinated me; especially during the Roman times. For a city to be rather indifferent to the needs of the country if it wasn't in the interests of the greeks or Macedonians and be the power behind the throne seems very interesting, as well as the city being a combined multicultural place (i.e. the combined gods of Macedon, Greece and Egypt). I love ancient Egypt almost as much as Ancient Rome, and that history is a very good one. A question slightly off track; is it true that one of Napoleon's cannon blew the nose of the Sphinx?

That's the thing; they were apparently working hand in glove with each other, and the fact that Brutus was married to a young lady named Claudia, daughter of Appius Cladius, governor of Cilicia might signal a closer relationship then usual.

That's rather interesting Flavous Valerius Constantinus; a great view of Novum Comum. It is somewhat after the time period i am speaking of, however. I was speaking of the time before Caesar granted the colony citizenship whilst he was dictator; before Caesar marched on Rome and during the Gallic Wars. That is a very comprehensive account however FVC; they say one learns something new every day

I understand that although Gaius Marius inflicted that utterly crushing defeat on them, around 6000 of them survived, and settled with a tribe called the Atuatuci, around where modern day Belgium is. Kind of unfortunate-they ended up very close to where they began, but minus their numbers.

I honestly cannot see any truth in this. The only possible explanation about it not coming to light before now was that they kept it absolutely from everyone, not the easiest task in a city that delighted hugely in the scandals of Rome. As Cato said, it just doesn't fit the character of Octavian to have incestuous relations.