barca
-
Posts
383 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by barca
-
-
-
Just finished watching this on On Demand. Not a feel good movie at all is it? The sets and photography are outstanding but I come away with the same feeling I always do when a woman is portrayed in movies. Woman smart and strong? Woman die.
So according to this story, she was killed not for her beliefs really but because she influenced the prefect. Is it true she was helped to die before the stoning or was that part added for the movie?
I just saw the movie recently. I found it interesting even though it was not entirely correct historically. nevertheless, I believe that it captured the hostility that went on back then between the former establishment (pagans) and the fanatical side of Christianity. Some individuals have criticized the movie for being anti-christian, and i don't agree with that perspective. Christians are portrayed as a rather diverse group: a spectrum ranging from moderates such as Orestes to fanatical terrorists such as Ammonius.
Here's an example of a somewhat negative review of the film:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html
-
... passing through it gradually, pressed forward one by one, or in single file, and worked their way into the fight in the same way. Meanwhile the tired men of the original first line, when sufficiently rested, reformed and re-entered the fight. This continued until all men of the first and second lines had been engaged. This does not presuppose an actual withdrawal of the first line, but rather a merging, a blending or a coalescing of both lines... [/i]
Is from a book "Lt. Col. S.G. Brady, The Military Affairs of Ancient Rome and Roman Art of War in Caesar's Time, The Military Service Publishing Company: 1947"
And I'm glad to see they put it on the internet.
I'll read his book, and try to pass my way through quotes of autors and sources until they give me an ANCIENT autor in their sources
Again that all sounds good in theory, but as mentioned before, carrying it out in the heat of battle is another matter altogether: changing conditions, being assailed from different directions, inadvertent compression of the of the units, resulting in an inability of the relief force to make it to the front line. I can easily see the retreating troops crashing into the relieving troops, resulting in chaos.
I will be interested in seeing what you are able to glean from that book.
-
As regards Adrianople, it's iompossible to say whether the battle plan was any good because we don't know what it was. All we know is that their army turned up after a march and made a very ragged attempt to deploy, and one section of the line arrived late. Notice also the confusion. No-one in the Roman line appears to know exactly what was going on. In fact, the batle started because the late arriving Romans spooked the goths and reacted as if the battle had begun.
It was only a few years before when Julian's outnumbered army suffered an initial setback at Strassburg, but quickly regrouped and won a decisive victory against a the Alemani.
One of the differences was that Fritigen's Goths had been rumaging around within the empire and had access to the armory, so they were able to equip themselves with up to date Roman arms and armor. There were also numerous defections of semi-Romanized Goths from the Roman army who joined Fritigen. The point being that Valens was probably facing a much more sophisticated force than a typical Germanic army.
-
It is said that the Epicurians discouraged involvement in politics. Can anyone give me a quote from Lucretius, Epicurus, or any other original source that supports this statemet.
It is interesting that Thomas Jefferson considered himself an Epicurian, and he certainly was involved in politics.
-
The fact that they have an episode centerted on a rather obscure Emperor like Decius makes this sound like it might have something new to offer over the standard documentaries that only follow the 'big' events of Roman history.
Wasn't Decius the one whose army was annihilated by the barbarians in an Adrianople-like manner? Rome was fortunate that they were willing to return to their homes after taking plunder and accepting bribes. It seems to me that this was an important event that could have led to an earlier collapse of the empire.
-
Wasn't it something to do with the temperament of the animal. They were indeed fearsome weapons when they were under control. However, if this was not the case they were likely to inflict heavy casualties on the armies they were supposed to be fighting for. This might be one of the reason the Roman decided not to add war elephant as standard member of the legionaries ranks.
They were certainly aware of the liabilities of the war elephants as evidenced by the Roman victories over Pyrrhus, Hannibal, Antiochus. Or to go back further, Alexander's victory over Porus.
Elephants were somewhat of a novelty, and the Romans did experiment with them. They were used at Cynocephalae. where they seem to have contributed to the Roman victory. They were also used in more limited manner at Pydna. I believe that Caesar also experimented with them during his civil wars. They did not adopt them as wholeheartedly as did the Eastern Hellenistic Kingdoms.
It seems to me that they were certainly not essential. I would think it would be a big expense to maintain a herd of elephants, as well as having all of the appropriate trainers, not to mention the logistical issues of keeping them in control throughout a campaign.
The Roman learned from their opponents and they integrated new ideas into their legions, but they also wanted to streamline them by maintaining uniformity as much as possible.
Their tactics were therefore simple yet very effective. Adding elephants would only complicate things and increase the risk of errors.
-
Has anyone read this book? It has good reviews on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848310706
-
Hello all.
It's recently been brought to my attention that I have failed to inform the readers of this august forum that I have a new book available - via Pen and Sword and all good book shops (and Amazon!). I grovel in abject apology for the oversight and hope you can all find it in your hearts to forgive me.
'Stilicho: the Vandal Who Saved Rome' was published 30 June 2010 by Pen and Sword and is an attempt to re-evaluate the life and career of the late-Roman magister militum Stilicho using the relatively-meagre sources available.
I hope that you enjoy it and find it useful.
Ian
I have not read your book yet, but I do plan to read it eventually. Arther Ferrill's The Fall of the Roman Empire implicates Stilicho as part of the problem, i.e. he continued the short-sighted policy of Theodosius.
-
The impression about the Roman advance being like a phalanx isn't even close to correct.
Why not? It seems quite probable....If the army was presumably in the shield-wall formation then it's movement and appearance alike really looked like the phalanx.
And we know the shield-wall was regularly used (Julian also used it at Strasbourg).
Here's an artist's rendition of the late Roman army at Adrianople. Isn't it somewhat like a phalanx?
-
In the late 4th century the Roman army was still a formidable force. Julian was able to use a relatively small force to defeat a much larger force of Alemani at Strassburg. I don't think that he could have done so without an element of the traditional Roman discipline. Many of the soldiers were of barbarian, but they were trained and led in the Roman manner.
Battlefield tactical discipline is not the issue with the argument I referenced above. The issue is allowing Roman generals who were also Germanic princes. Roman operatives with divided loyalties, commanding untrustworthy states-within-a-state, ultimately using their power base within the empire to carve out kingdoms for themselves.
I understand what you are saying. I don't think that was much of a problem prior to Adrianople. Stilicho's father led a Vandal unit under Valens at Adrianople, and there were no issues of of divided loyalties there.
-
I think the empire fell because of the propensity of the Romans to fight each other for the throne, coupled with the propensity of the Germans to run roughshod over the borders.
... And opening the army command to people not directly tied to Roman culture and property (i.e, the Senatorial class of old) had the effect of giving outsiders with their own agendas (Germans and other assorted barbarians) too much power to play with in the borders of the empire.
In the late 4th century the Roman army was still a formidable force. Julian was able to use a relatively small force to defeat a much larger force of Alemani at Strassburg. I don't think that he could have done so without an element of the traditional Roman discipline. Many of the soldiers were of barbarian origin, but they were trained and led in the Roman manner.
After Adrianople, Theodosius seemed more concerned about dealing with Maximus, and later Eugenius than dealing with the more rampant threat of the Goths. Perhaps he underestimated the danger of the Goths. Or as it has been suggested, he thought he could kill them off by having them fight his civil wars for him. The plan backfired. Many Goths were killed at the Frigidus, but they were not annihilated. They came out of the battle feeling that they deserved more recognition and demanded special treatment undeserving of their status. As Machiavelli pointed out it is not a good idea to injure an enemy without killing him because he will seek revenge, as Alaric did in 410.
"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."
Niccolo Machiavelli
-
Last night History International (US) showed a 'documentary' called "The DarkAges," and in typical fashion nowadays the voiceover narrator was a bit over-the-top on some of the comments. The experts interviewed were fine enough, but there were some comments by the narrator which I had questions about:
I saw the show just recently. One of the so-called experts stated that during Alaric's siege (410) the Romans continued to watch Gladiator competitions in the Colosseum. He didn't bother to mention that the Emperor Honorius banned these games in 404.
-
Why the roman military abandoned the traditional roman shield used in republican and early imperial times to adopt the germanic rounded shield typical of the late imperial army? What where the advantages of this kind of shield?
There was a discussion on this issue previously:
-
Has anyone read Arthur Ferrill's The Fall of the Roman Empire?
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-Arther-Ferrill/dp/0500274959
His explanation is based primarily on the eventual collapse of the military as a consequence of bad decisions beginning with Theodosius and his policy of appeasement, which elevated the status of the Visigoths. Instead of trying to extricate himself from them, he sought their help to conduct two civil wars against Western usurpers.
-
Here's a related work that i just picked up at the local book store.
http://www.amazon.com/AD-381-Charles-Freeman/dp/159020171X
Barca. Your first book link is the first book referred to in my original post. I recommend the book highly to anyone interested in the development of Christian doctrine. It changed forever my view of the theological forces at work during the late Roman empire.
guy also known as gaius
That was an oversight on my part.
I also have the books by Jenkins that you recommended and I started reading the The Lost History of Christianity. Interesting information but somewhat laborious reading (for me, at least)--I'll pick it up again later. It does give a different perspective on Christianity, i.e. that it's not necessarily endemic to the Western World.
-
... local variations were either destroyed or declared heresy, so that a politicised religion governed peoples hearts and minds?
Here's a related work that i just picked up at the local book store.
http://www.amazon.com/AD-381-Charles-Freeman/dp/159020171X
I plan to read it when I finish my book on Julian:
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Pagan-Julian-Apostate-Ancient/dp/1594772266
-
Sorry, Aetius was a Catholic. I agree that religion was an important facet of the times. Tensions between religious groups, especially in Africa, could lead to unrest and even the possibility of the inhabitants siding with the barbarian invaders.
One of the ways in which Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome.
Under paganism things were quite simple. All that was required was for individuals to offer a superficial aquiescence (offering a sacrifice) to the gods of the empire. With Christianity things got very complicated. It wasn't enough to declare oneself a Christian. One had to come to terms with the ideology of the faith. People could not agree on issues such as the nature of Christ, and they took these disagreements very seriously. Christianity became divisive and affected the unity of the empire.
-
I saw this video on another website
The last part of the video describes the line relief system. I personally don't see how they could carry out such an orderly maneuver in the heat of battle.
-
I was wondering if any of you think Hannibal could have gone on to take Rome after that big victory (which did take place on August 2nd apparently)? Like the Gauls did in the 4th century B.C and the Huns did much later.
Huns?? You mean Goths and Vandals?
-
Interesting theory, but it seems to me that they're reaching
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...o=feeds-newsxml
-
I don't know that the gladius was an intrinsically better weapon than other swords of the period. It was the organization, discipline and fighting techniques of the Roman army that made them a force to be reckoned with. For their fighting style, using the large scutum shield in close combat, the short gladius was the optimum weapon. However, I doubt that anyone else the Romans met in combat had weapons of better material, i.e. steel vs. iron, either.
I seems that the prior to the Punic Wars the Romans used a sword something like the Greek xiphos. Sometime during the Punic Wars they replaced it with the gladius, presumably from their experiences in Spain, thus the name gladius hispaniensis. It is generally assumed that it was a superior weapon, and that is why they favored it over the xiphos.
On the other hand it may have just been more cost-effective to produce, and its effectiveness may have been as you suggested, a function of the skill and training of the legionnaires.
-
Even when it is white-hot, pounding on it will cause it to shatter. This is because cast iron is very high in carbon content; as iron is heated towards its melting point, it combines with carbon from the air and especially with available carbon from the fuels used to heat it. Making steel required not just mixing carbon with iron, but limiting and controlling the carbon content, and that was technology the Romans did not possess.
Gromit
Are you saying that cast iron has more carbon than carbon steel?
If the Gladius was made of this relatively soft iron, what made it superior to other swords of its age?
-
"In the latter days of Rome, the economy was crumbling, the emperor…would placate the mob with bread and circus - food and entertainment to placate them since the economy was in shambles and dwindling around them," Paul told Tea Party activists at a rally, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal and confirmed to CNN by Paul's campaign...
...found at CNN Rand Paul compares U.S. economy to fall of Roman Empire
...at least every week an article or two pops up about america and roman empire, but when a possible "senator, how ironic" makes those claims, then.... sigh...
...can someone fund more history teachers?
cheers
viggen
As I recall, the bread and circus occurred when Rome was at its height, not when its economy was crumbling. It was a means of gaining popular support.
Am I correct?
Here's an article i found on this subject:
http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/prog...do-with-it.html
Christian Era Roman army brutality
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted
What's more brutal? Caesar cutting off the hands of numerous Gauls? Or Basil II gauging out the eyes of numerous Bulgarians?