Tobias

I have followed your opinions and i agree. the disinherited sons of rulers would constantly continue to vie for position, and each would have their own followings. I'm afraid such an idea should take it's place with communism (please don't start an argument about communism); it's a good idea in theory, it's just that people don't work with it properly.

Just out of curiosity, and not wanting any names mentioned, have any other people been given the "Damnatio" status apart from Spartacus?

I don't know about emperors, but senators that were given jobs that entailed Imperium were entitled to lictors with the bundles of sticks called fasces, which had axes in them. These were born by lictors, which increased in number with the importance of the job. Proconsular governors were given the ivory curule rod of imperium, and usually a ceremonial sash that none but the person owning the imperium could remove. Those of imperium that were entitled to a triumph had their fasces wreathed in laurel leaves, and were usually not allowed to cross the sacred boundary into rome until the day of their triumph. As far as the gladiators are concerned, i believe that it was not uncommon for gladiators to be trained to enter military service. They were usually ex-soldiers anyway. I believe Caesar had his own school for gladiators that could be employed in battle if necessary.

I wish you good luck times 3 Zeke! A question; How far into the empire are you writing? Will you stop at the fall of the west, or will you keep going on into the Byzantines?

Have any of you people tried Haggis? I was surprised how nice it tasted, until the person i was dining with told me what it was

I'm another patrician, scoring 87%. It's a good thing it is meant for fun

I agree we must never forget. Today (The 11th of the 11th) we held our remembrance day. 60 000 Australians died in the futile campaign of Gallipoli, and at the trenches on the Western Front. along with many others from Britain and it's empire. We Shall remember them.

I think it is fair to say that Heraclius was far from a fool; He sacked the innermost areas of the Persian Empire and saved the empire from potential conquest by the Persians. Heraclius would have realised that the people were becoming more and more aware of their greek heritage; after all, a "Roman" Empire was more of an ideal then a race then, and Heraclius merely accepted that latin was no longer the dominant language, they weren't located in Italian Rome and the people considered themselves different entities from the original Romans. Heraclius also was the last Emperor to come from the latin west but the first to adapt the title "Basileus" over "imperator". However, the people still considered themsellves Roman; a fact proven by the discovery that some peoples in Greece by the 20th century were still calling themselves "Rhoamaoi" (Roman).

Yep, that was the name used for Jupiter to describe it as being "the one god that was all gods" I would agree that the Huns, the mongols or others that came from the steppes would follow your suggestions as well Ursus

That's right. We are a lot closer than most think (Just look up the history of the ANZACs in basically every war since the Boer War lol), and we are also good mates with America and Britain (We Hope ) Anyway, as i said before, i was born in this small rural community, i live on a farm 155kms from the nearest major town and my home state is New South Wales, and i live in one of the best countries in the world; Australia!

G'day All Diocletian, realising the necessity for regional-based commanders, separated the Empire into two regions; East and West. Each of these regions was administered by an Augustus. The legal pretences of the Principate were done away with and citizens became subject of the Emperor, who was their lord. Diocletian also set up a regular means for succession, the Tetrarchy, involving two more junior Emperors, the Caesars. This worked once only, on Diocletian's retirement. Why was this the case? Was there something in the form of the Tetrarchy that did no appeal to the potential rulers, or was the competition for the throne so close that they didn't care how they affected the empire by civil warring for it? What are your opinions?

I believe that instead of a Warrior Code, the Roman soldiers were stongly "empowered" by their sense of professionalism; being seen as the best soldiers in the known world, and possessing the best armour, weapons etc. would have gone a long way towards keeping soldiers morale high. The desire to not want to let down such a great power, as well as being strenuously trained and put in a professional, expert soldier frame of mind would have added to "empowering" the soldiers. Many people took the legions as a career path, whilst others merely served the compulsory time. But at any rate, all of Rome's soldiers were highly motivated, professional, expert and an extremely powerful weapon in the right hands.

I think anybody could; i have yet to meet someone who believes Cato and the other Optimates were in the right in their handling of Caesar

Mate, i'm afraid that's going a little too far And another chap i didn't mention before: Constantine XI Palaeologus; he seemed a very brave chap whom i believe could have gone a long way towards rebuilding the Byzantine Empire if he'd managed to defeat Mehmet II (not impossible).

You know, that's something i've always wanted to clear up; i've seen several arguments that Caesar was homosexual or at least bi, and my English teacher was convinced he was homosexual. Was he? From things i've read, it just seems like political rumour-mongering that he was homosexual, and as was said above, showing deep affection to your fellow man did not make you homosexual in today's sense. One author in particular (Colleen McCullough) seems to want to prove that Caesar was not homosexual or incapable of fathering children.

I think that it is good to see so many people registering so as to be able to post on the site, even if they only do so to have the homework done for them or start an aimless topic. As Primus Pilus said, it is good to encourage an interest in history; for if we didn't learn from the past, where would we be? But it must be said that there are many inactive persons on the site. I suppose it could stem from a bit of intimidation; many of the people i've seen on this website have incredible amounts of knowledge that far surpass my own, and i've learnt a lot here, and people who register mainly to read the posts may not feel confident posting in this situation, in this most august company

Yes, those northern city states of Italy are very interesting study. Many cities in mediaeval times in northern italy and later on the renaissance were powerhouses; Venice and Genoa were the two masters of trade, Milan, Florence, Capua, Verona etc. were basically completely independent and they were the centres of the Renaissance when the exodus of the Byzantine elite from Constantinople after 1453 did much to begin it; Constantinople having preserved the light of learning throughout the middle ages. The Christian fleet at Lepanto was composed of ships of Genoa, Venice, Spain and other cities such as Naples, and it was a remarkable feat that they remained together long enough to defeat the Turks. But i'm wondering from the topic. It's just the period of the Italian city states to the renaissance is very interesting.

The Venetians took their name from an ancient tribe that inhabited the area around where Venice is located; the Veneti. After the sacking of Aquileia and other cities around the area (such as Ravenna), refugees from everywhere inhabited the islands in the swamps. I believe that by the time Emperor Basil II had recovered Croatia, Venice was completely independent from the Byzantines. And it was thanks to the treachery of the Venetians that Constantinople fell to the 4th Crusade. I don't know if any Venetian ships came to Constantinople's aid against Mehmet; Apart from the ill-feeling generated by Venice taking Constantinople's trade and contributing significantly to it's downfall, one of The Byzantine's closest allies was Genoa; also the mortal enemy of Venice.

Those are really good pictures Tiberius Sylvestius. I'd agree that it looks like the coin casting methods are getting worse as they go along, but that is probably reflective of the times; both loss of technology and richness of the government affecting these coins.

Aww, only one? I'd love to see almost all of the Emperors, but the main ones that come to mind would be the usual suspects; Augustus, Vespasianus, Trajan, Aurelian the "Restorer of the World", Constantine and young Romulus Augustulus As far as others go, i'd like to see Justinian, Heraclius, and many other Byzantine Emperors. Ah dear, it's just far too difficult to make descisions on what you want to see in history

Emperor Alexius I Comnenus is a very interesting subject, and i'm glad you started it FLavius Valerius Constantinus! I don't have a History Channel (More's the pity), but i have studied quite a bit on Alexius Comnenus. He was a rather good ruler. One must consider the unfortunate position his empire was in; From 1042 to 1068 a plethora of weak, pathetic rulers completely stuffed the Byzantine Army. To continue to maintain the empire without further economic instability, these rulers caused active units on the frontiers of Turkey etc to be disbanded, while inactive units closer to Constantinople (being more of a political threat to rulers) continued to function. This led to a huge Byzantine army led by Emperor Romanus Diogenes , but mostly made up of mercenaries, being totally beaten by the Seljuk Turks at the small fortified town of Manzikert. Over the next two decades, these Turks conquered almost the entirety of Anatolia; the Byzantines could not afford or field an army to deflect them. In 1097 the army of the First Crusade crossed from Constantinople to Asia Minor. By 1098 it had fought its way through the Turkish territory to Syria and Edessa. A small Byzantine army was detached to accompany the First Crusade; it occupied as much of Asia Minor as it could safely garrison, and the newly wrought Crusader states on former Roman territory promised to acknowledge the Emperor as their overlord. Alexius' son and Emperor, John II made even more gains in Asia Minor. His grandson Manuel I forced the Crusaders to keep their word and re-established the Empire's complete dominance in the Balkans in 1159. However that is slightly moving from Alexius, but it shows that he and some of his descendants were quite capable of efficient and stable government. The problem is that Alexius was not particularly inspired in his rebuilding of the Byzantine Empire; he only attempted to rebuild it, when it also needed restructuring. However, he caused a terrible threat to be warded off, but could also be held indirectly responsible for strating the horrific crusades. Yeah, so Alexius I Comnenus; uninspired, but capable and reasonably efficient nonetheless, which was what the Byzantines would lack for many years after the death of Manuel Comnenus.

In Roman times, i can see the people's point of view. Apart from plays, musical recital or strenuous social lives, the only break from working constantly (or playing ) would have been to go to the games. It was THE form of entertainment; Roman time's equivalent of Australian Rugby League, Soccer, American NFL and (as above mentioned) boxing etc. The blood lust of course is an inbuilt hazard of participating in such things. An interesting thing i was looking at the other day though is the suggestion (or rather confirmation) that the modern generation is very desensitized to such violence. As has been said, kids as young as 6-8 years of age are being subjected to games on things like X-Box and PS2 that are full of murder, thievery, destruction etc. Strictly speaking, it was suggested that the upcoming generation seems to be less caring, certainly more inclined to violence and destruction and capable of unseemly acts, as well as being less inclined to work (although that may be irrelevant ) So, today's growing up people, summing up, would probably be able to handle or not empathise with things like the gladiatorial games a lot better then they would say, even 50 to 100 years ago, simply because of the strong desensitization present.

I agree. With the support of the Ostrogoths and the Pope, Belisarius could easily have declared himself the ruler of a reborn Western Empire. With control of the Ostrogoths, he could have conquered many of the surrounding nations (except perhaps the Byzantines), and as was said above, could have been lauded as a great(er) influence on history. I think it's a testament to the sort of judgement Justinian must have had, because through thick and thin, through the manipulations of Theodora and through tempting offers from powerful nations, he stayed loyal to Justinian. If Justinian had given Belisarius his full confidence, instead of Narses, i believe Justinian could have achieved more. It is indicative of the kind of snakepit Constantinople must have been i.e. an Emperor being paranoid to one of his most loyal followers.

An interesting point is that the Ostrogoths offered their allegiance to Belisarius to become their leader. Imagine what could have happened if: I: Belisarius had decided to abandon Justinian and become an Ostrogothic leader? --or-- II: Belisarius had become the leader of the ostrogoths and persuaded them to become loyal Byzantine subjects? But, Belisarius remained loyal to Justinian in every aspect (no matter what Theodora said) and declined, thus causing the unfortunate war to drag on. I don't know that the Byzantines would have had the strength to reconquer the Visigoths in Spain. They were on good terms with them, and had an alliance with them as well as suzerainty over southern spain; why lose all that for the sake of a little more land at (probably) an enormous cost?

That's right. After Justinian's campaigns and the subsequent invasion by the Lombards, by about 605, the Byzantines had managed to keep almost half the country, and to stop a unified Lombard kingdom coming into being. By 717-8, in Italy, the Lombards were acquiring the Empire's territory little by little. In 751 they finally took the Imperial headquarters, Ravenna. Rome was obviously in the Lombard's sights, with no chance of reinforcements from Constantinople. Pope Zachary (who was the de facto ruler of Rome since 741), instead of asking the Emperor of the East for help, sought assistance from the Frankish kindom. Around 751, he blessed the Frank Pepin's elevation from Major-Domo to King of the Franks. Pepin payed Zachary back in 754 by clearing the Lombards out of the Papal state, which nominally remained part of the Byzantine Empire. via http://www.sci.gu.edu.au/~wiseman/Roman/19Maps.html#623 By 925 A.D, much Byzantine territory was lost to the arabs, but in the Italian territory, Byzantine power and influence was far more than it had been for about two centuries, as these territories alone were not able to resist the relentless Arab onslaught . By the time of Basil Bulgaroktonos, and his brilliant recoveries in the Mediterranean, Venice in Italy was fully independent; a nation that would prove rather a terrible problem for the Byzantines later. Later again, the Byzantine's Norman mercenaries revolted in 1040, dissatisfied with how much the Byzantines were paying them. They invaded mainland Italy, where their revolt spread. Sicily was abandoned in 1043. In 1071, the last Byzantine city in Italy fell to the Norman adventurers. The Byzantines would not have control over any part of Italy ever again after this. Sorry for the lecture By the way, great work Ursus, i really enjoyed reading that.