barca

I was actually thinking about the action he took in 74 BC when he was a student at Rhodes. A group of Mithridates' troops attacked Roman allies. He set aside his studies and hastily raised troops from local communities and swiftly defeated the invaders, even though he didn't have the authority to do so,

How would an individual like Julius Caesar perform? In his day he was able to take raw recruits and quickly transform them into an effective fighting force. Was it still possible in the 4th century? When Theodosius used new recruits, many of them turned out to be unreliable.

Here is a link that i picked up on the Historynet forum: http://www.nas.org/documents/Beach_Books.pdf It discusses summer reading lists for college students. The so-called classics make up only a very small percentage of the list, and none of them are true classics in the sense of ancient Greece and Rome.

I read somewhere (it may have been Wikipedia) recently that one of the reasons why the late emperors favored germanic generals was that barbarians were not allowed to become emperors, and therefore could not become usurpers. It didn't really make sense, since as you pointed out, many of the later emperors were ultimatelly of barbarian ancestry, depending on how you define barbarian. Most experts seem to agree that Stilicho was fully romanized despite his Vandal ancestry. I doubt that his beard made him appear any less Roman. Emperors of the early empire were clean-shaven, but the Antonines had beards, and nobody called them barbarians.

I have the kindle downloads on my MAC and my I-Pad. I was unable to copy and paste snippets from the books. Is it possible to do so?

He does make slam against early Christianity on page 38: "Like other religions Christianity profited fromt the Psychic crisis. But Christianity also helped destroy the empire by turning many intelligent and desperately needed romans from a life of political leadership to an ascetic lifestyle focused on the next life. Christianity may also have exacerbated the economic crisis; much of the late empire's private and public wealth gravitated to the Church, which was exempt taxes needed to fund the common defense and whose clergy were exempt from military service." He seems to be echoing the views of Gibbon who as we all know blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome. Otherwise he does seem to infer a superior morality from the Hebrew influence.

Try this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=EAEOAAAAQ...p;q&f=false It's on my list of books to read

You may consider scanning through some of the works of Procopius. He wrote primarily about Justinian's age, but it is my impression that he also gave a lot of background information about the 5th century.

I understand your concern, and I was merely pointing out you can expect controversy when you bring up these subjects, because they tend to be emotionally charged.

Nero did not perceive himself as others did. He was quoted as saying "What an artist dies in me". He considered himself a great thespian. Let's not forget that as a youth he was immersed in the philosophy of Senneca, but that didn't prevent him from eventually becoming a ruthless despot. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. Lord Acton, Historical Essays and Studies. And you're going to be treading on thin ice if you become an apologist for Hitler's regime.

Not necessarily. I received much of my early education in Catholic Schools and our religion teachers frequently would tell stories glorifyng the martyrs (and that's another issue worthy of separate thread), but these teachers were not well versed in the Classics and presented a one-sided story as if all pagans were evil. What I find interesting about the story of Telemachus is that he lived in "Christian" Rome, but there were obviously still strong remnants of pagan culture. Supporters of the Gladiatorial contests probably viewed Honorius' decree of ending the games as a sign of how Christianity had softened the Romans. They no longer could stomach watching such spectacles, which were in keeping with the martial spirit of the traditional pagan Romans. One would think that Christianity would have resulted in a "kinder, gentler" Roman Empire, but in reality there was violence on the part of Christians toward pagans and even against other Christians who had differing beliefs. Not to mention Honorius' shameful execution of Stilicho. The Empire was in such a tentative state under Honorius, that the elimination or continuation of Gladiatrial contests was the least of their concerns.

That was a nice review. Here's a comment from it: "This admiration for the runaway gladiator who, in his bid for freedom, managed to score a series of victories over the Roman legions before succumbing to their vastly superior firepower, is about the only thing Reagan ever shared with Karl Marx." Karl Marx was one of the original admirers of Spartacus, so I find it interesting that Reagan would pick a communist icon in his anti-communist rhetoric. Was he being clever, or did he just not know better?

Having watched Spartacus Blood and Sand, I naturally developed and interest in finding out more about the real Spartacus and I recently ordered this book by Barry Strauss: http://www.amazon.com/Spartacus-War-Barry-...s/dp/1416532056 In his introduction, he mentions that Ronald Reagan cited him as one of his heroes Was he referring to the Kirk Douglas version of Spartacus? With all due respect to Ronald Reagan, I somehow doubt that he was familiar with the details of the real Spartacus as described by Plutarch and other classical writers. If so, was he aware that the Kirk Douglas movie was based on a novel by Howard Fast, who was a Marxist, and the movie itself has Marxist overtones of class struggle?

I hope this helps: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html It seems to me that the scutum was heavy enough without adding too much metal to it. Note that the smaller hoplon which was covered in bronze was at least as heavy as the scutum. The hoplon was only effective in phalanx formation, as it weight made it necessary to hang it over the shoulder, providing unbalanced protection. The scutum could be used both in close order and open order fighting but it was not ideal for open order situations. The scutum was also very heavy, but its rectangular shape allowed the soldier to rest it upright on the ground. Barbarian shields were round or oval, and I would think that they had to be somewhat lighter so that the warriors could wield their large swords. They could only have metal in certain critical spots like the boss.

According to Ward-Perkins the loss of North africa was devastating economically, and it made it much harder for the emperor to finance the military. I found some interesting information online about Majorian: http://www.roman-emperors.org/major.htm It appears that he had considerable success against various enemies including the Vandals, and it is certainly possible that he could have defeated them in their own turf if his fleet had remained intact. Leo was Majorian's contemporary in the East, and he was more successful in freeing himself from his barbarian master. Majorian was Ricimers puppet and Leo was Aspar's puppet. Aspar was a Sarmatian General who was essentially in charge in the east. Asapar underestimated Leo who managed to undermine him through political intrigue and began the process of debarbarizing the leadership of the East. Unfortunatelly Majorian was not underestimated by Ricimer, and we all know what happened there. Sometime after Majorian's execution Leo launched a combined East-West assault on the Vandals which failed because of bad leadership on the part of the commander named Basilicus. http://i-cias.com/e.o/basilicus.htm And I wasn't able to find anything on Ricimer and his potentially aiding the vandals.

Is that what made the Gladius superior to all of its contemporary swords?

Equality before God is one thing. Equality in this world is another. One of the criticisms of the early Christians was that they turned away from this world, seeking salvation in the hereafter. Therefore woldly goods were of no value, since the kingdom of heaven was all that really mattered. The early Christians were quite a bit different from the Christians we see today. They were much more spiritual, practicing self abnegation and asceticism. They were following Christs' preachings: 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' If their communitas were present in todays world, they would be regarded as a bunch of communists going contrary to the tenets of capitalism, which encourages "enlightened self-interst" as Adam Smith put it. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith Many modern "Christians" are right wing proponents of capitalism. They view social programs as wasteful. Not only do they take up tax money, but they encourage people to take handouts rather than incenting them to be successful through the competitive spirit of capitalism. And I'm not necessarily agreeing with this viewpoint. I'm just pointing out that it is hard to reconcile the Christian vows of poverty and charity with the competitive nature of Capitalism.

A rare case of mutual respect and trust. Later military leaders were not afforded such a luxury. Look at what happened to Stlicho, Aetius, and Belisarius. And there were some like Ricimer who turned on his emperors, but he really doesn't count since he was a barbarian, and I don't know how Romanized he was if at all.

The trend toward eliminating Latin began with Ben Franklin whose school emphasized the teaching of English rather than Latin, but he certainly was not in favor of eliminating the Classics in English translation. However with the decline in the learning of Latin, there has also been a large decline in the reading of Latin authors in translation. Although I agree that Latin has little practical value to the average person, it is a very important part of the Western Heritage, and it should not be eliminated from any institution priding itself on first rate academics.

Unfortunately, Belisarius doesn't get the recognition that he deserves. His armies were vastly superior to those of the earlier Romans. No previous Roman mastered the art of combined arms the way he did. He was very successful despite the political squabbling that held him back (much like Zhukov who was held back by Stalin) And I know that historians tend to downplay the importance of the reconquest, but I would argue that the reconquest showed the world that the Roman legacy was not dead. They were no longer huddled away in the East in fear of the rising barbarian tide. They actually got out there and turned the tables on the barbarian world. Had it not been for the plague, which devastated the Roman population, they may have completed the reconquest.

And he actually did attempt to reach out: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_a...eans_1_text.htm Perhaps if his reign had been longer his works would have been taken more seriously.

How did Christianity provide a more democratic theory of justice and social mobility? Democracy originated with the pagan Greeks long before Christianity, and I know one could argue that it wasn't true democracy as we know today because slaves were not part of the process, but the Christian West didn't do anything to eliminate slavery until the 19th century. As for upward mobility, the pagan Romans provided a system of laws that encouraged free enterprise, and a somewhat capitalistic or competitive outlook, though not as overwhelmingly capitalistic as was seen later in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution. If anything Christianity's attitude of turning the other cheek and spirituality rather than materialism would be inconsistent with upward mobility. I will agree with your other point that they found a way to accommodate Plato (St Augustine of Hippo) and Aristotle (Thomas Aquinas), but that was after Julian. Many Greco-Roman scholars replaced their blief in the pagan gods with Greco-Roman philosophy (Epicurianism, Skepticism, Cynicism, and Stoicism) Stoicism is considered by many the basic philosophy of the pre-Christian ruling class in Rome. They didn't need a new religion for spiritual guidance. However the uneducated had little or no appreciation for their philosophy. Christianity began by converting the uneducated: " Come to us ye who are sinners, ye who are fools or children, ye who are miserable, and ye shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. " Celsus

I agree that the situation had deteriorated, but it was not beyond repair. It is important to remember that the Eastern Emperor still played a role in Western politics. Leo chose Majorian as the successor of Avitus. Majorian actually had some military success and it was only because of the treachery of Ricimer that he was overthrown and executed in 461. The attempted reconquest of Vandal Africa was a joint effort by the East and West in about 468. It was actually a well-thought out plan that should have been successful. The problem lay in the execution, as I pointed out earlier Basilicus proved to be totally incompetent as a commander The Western emperor this time was Anthemius who was also appointed by Leo. And again Ricimer was responsible for the eventual overthrow of and execution of Anthemius.

The attempted reconquest of the Vandal Kingdom was initiated by the Eastern Emperor Leo, who unfortunately assigned the incompetent Basilicus as the commander of the mission. In the next century when Justinian was preparing to retake North Africa the Vandals were quick to remind him of their previous failure. As we all know, Justinian succeeded where Leo failed, so I would consider Justinian to be Rome's last hope.