Emperor Goblinus
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Emperor Goblinus
-
-
They would undoubtedly admired America's military prowess, and republicans like Cicero would probably admire American democratice processes. Also, the Roman Empire was almost just as ethnically diverse as the US is today. So I think that the Romans might be very much at home in the US.
-
A full mobilization of the large western army could have secured all of the borders, and if he had been bold enough, he could have shaken off the German influence at the imperial court, like the eastern emperors managed to do. The western empire could have fully rejoined the empire, and it might have been able to do things that the eastern empire alone couldn't have, like stemmed the tide of the spread of Islam.
-
There was an excellent book on Aurelian at my college library, but which has disappeared before I could read it in depth.
Though I don't know the full details, his suppression of the two seccessionist governments was nothng short of amazing, though he failed to stop the bloody, self-dectructive cycle of rapid imperial succession. I'm not sure how he was in terms of his relationship to the Senate, though I did read one place that he wore a golden crown which would normally have pissed off most people, but due to the chaos of the times, no one really cared. I've heard mixed things about the walls that he erected around Rome. Some places I heard that they were tall and imposing. Other places, I read that they weren't that strong, and could only stop a poorly organized barbarian raiding party. His religious policy of promoting Sol Invictus was extremely significant in that it pushed the empire towards monotheism, which eventually led to the official adoption of Christianity a few decades later.All in all, I think that he was a good emperor, and it's a shame that he has largely been forgotten.
-
Just a comment, but if Honorius had really wanted to, he could have martialled the western armies and saved the empire. Things were still not beyond the point of no return then.
-
Just to make totally sure before I sign up, does the UNRV newsletter cost anything?
-
Readings in Late Antiquity by Michael Maas is a great book of first had sources from the time of Diocletian to Heraclius. Though it doesn't all deal with Rome, probable two-thirds of it does in some way.
From Rome to Byzantium by Michael Grant is a great book about the transitions in the late empire.
Diocletian and the Roman Recovery by Stephen Williams is a good book focusing on the reign of Diocletian, but tells about the whole situation of the late empire.
The Emperor Constantine by Hans A. Pohlsander is a small but good book about Constantine and his times.
The Last Pagan by Adrain Murdoch is a new, lively book about Julian the Apostate.
Justinian: The Last Roman Emperor by G.P. Baker is a good book about the life and times of Justinian.
First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars by Goeffrey Regan is a good book about the holy wars of the Roman/Byzantine Empire up to the times of the First Crusade.
1453 by Roger Crowley is an excellent recent book about the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks.
I list these and several others in the Book Recommendation thread.
-
Well, I'm glad you liked it. The late empire was never my forte, but lately I'm been exploring new ground. I'm intrigued by new possibilities. And maybe I'm just getting tired of Late Republic bru-ha-has. Cheers.
I personally find the late Roman period fascinating. I could recommend to you a whole slew of books, if you would like.
-
Romulus. Without him, well, there would be Roman history.
-
Eugenius Splatidus Nerdus Goblinus
"Eugene Squished Nerd Goblin"
-
It's a pity this is an Imperial Rome discussion, Heraclius is one of the most unrecognised and uncelebrated Emperors of Later roman history. But i don't want to spark a discussion on it, i was just saying
I agree. Heraclius brought the empire back from the brink of utter destruction and completely neutralized Persia as a threat.
Other emperors I think are good (I can't exactly say which one was "the best") wwould be Augustus for the order and stability he created, Diocletian (except for the horrible Great Persecution) who put an end to the vicious third century cycle and brough about a good measure of order, Constantine for the foundation of Constantinople and ending the Christian persecution, and Justinian for creating the extremely influential Corpus Juris Civilis, and bringing back Roman rule for some time to parts of the West. I'll also add Julian. Though I don't agree with his religious programs, I do think that that he would have been a great emperor in other areas if he would have lived longer.
-
Correct me if i'm wrong as its been over a year since i studied this, but didnt constantine bestow certain powers on officals from Constantinople, that the rest of the western empire would not accept or acknowledge for some time?
He did, and I don't think the West disproved this (or could really do anything about it), but at first, he was careful not to step on the toes of the old aristocracy at Rome. For example, the senators at Constantinople only had the rank of clari, not clarissimi like the senators in Rome. But as time went on, the power shift from East to West became natural and accepted by all.
-
If Christians had been around in the time of Augustus, do you think that he would have supported the persecution of them? Emperor Goblinus
I don't think so. One hallmark of Augustus' career was to try to appear not to be a tyrant, and to look as constitutional as possible. Arresting and killing people simply for their religious beliefs would not have helped his case in trying to just be the "First Citizen."
-
I would have to say Adrianople. Though it wasn't as cataclysmic as some ancient writers make it out to be, it was a big event that signalled the end of Roman dominance. As well as the obvious manpower losses and the loss of an emperor, it forced Theodosius to recognize the Goths as almost equal to the Romans on the Romans' home territor. Though they technically had to serve the emperor, they could serve in their own units under their own leaders. It was a humiliating compromise that just led to things going even further downhill. For the other battles mentioned, the empire recovered (unless you take Cato's excellent point, that the Romans' loss of freedom because of Pharsalus was greater than any military calamity), but militarily, the empire as a whole did not recover from Adrianople, and the East could do little as the West became little more than a playground for ambitious Germanic officers pulling the strings of a puppet emperor.
-
If Christians had been around in the time of Augustus, do you think that he would have supported the persecution of them?
-
On this site is a good animated map of the Roman territory from 301 BC to 1453 AD. It doesn't give the names of provinces (but it does give some cities) but it does give you the general shape of the empire and its evolution. This might help you with your map.
-
Three more books that I would like to recommend:
Neos Dionysos mentioned in another thread an excellent book that I had read a while ago, but had forgotten. Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD by Noel Emmanuel Lenski is an excellent book about the times of the emperor Valens and Valentinian I, focusing on Valens.
Theodosius: The Empire at Bay by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell is a good book about the reign of Theodosius I and the ramifications of his actions, particularly on the western empire
The Emperor Maurice and His Historian by Michael Whitby is about the reign of Emperor Maurice in the sixth century, and his chief historian, Theophylact.
-
I actually read that book, and it was quite a good read. I may in fact use it for an upcoming research paper. It was quite clear, but as you said, it focused more on the East and Valens, rahter than the western empire, so I didn't get a full picture of the West. I do know that when Julian was the Caesar in the West, despite his impressive successes, there were serious border problems, like when he had to beat off a horde of tens of thousands of Alemanni and alliances of other tribes. When I read the Valens book, they did talk alot about the military restructuring, including how more and more Germanics were entering the Roman military, and how that was not all the bad thing that it has been made out to be. Thanks for clearing some things up.
Thanks for reminding me about that book. I think that I'll add it on the Book Recommendation thread.
-
When he split the empire between he and his brother, Valens, Valentinian I took for himself the western provinces, and made sure that he ruled the greater number of provinces. Not too many years after Valentinian, the West began to crumble. Now Valentinian wouldn't have purposefully taken on the mantle of the crappier half of the empire (unless he felt that it was better off in his hands than his brother's). During the reign of Valentinian, was the West already in worst shape than the East, or was it fairly stable under Valentinian?
-
Well you could always write about a dynasty like the Flavians:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/flav/hd_flav.htm
Constantine dynasty:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl...nstdyntable.htm
or the House of Theodosius:
-
From what I've read, the whole point of the Lascarid empire of Nicaea was to preserve Byzantine sulture and continuity until Constantinople could be reconquered. And it was also quite successful in recapturing some territory in Macedon and other places. However, if it had to, could it have lasted a long period of time, if the Latins had held onto Constantinople?
-
Of the provinces you have included, well done.
-
When Diocletian created the Tetrarchy, he intended it to be a permanent system of governance. However, it collpased a few years after he abdicated.
I for one don't think that it could have succeeded. First, the two Augusti were to reign for twenty years before handing the empire over to their Caesars, and given the lifespans back then, and the tendency for emperors to die soon after taking office, a slew of shortlived Augusti could have caused much confusion about succession, and wrecked the system. Also, given the tendecy for rash power grabs for the throne. the two Caesars might not stomach being subordinate for two whole decades before becoming Augusti. Constant revolts against the Augusti would have undermined the system. In fact, that is sort of what happened. After Diocletian, no one was satisfied being Caesar, and for a while, there were up to five declared or self-declared Augusti. Also, as seen with Constantine, an Augustus striving for total domination would destroy the system as well. Basically,. in order for the Tetrarchy to have been a successful, permanent system of government, the four emperors would have had to have been not at all ambitious beyond their set post, unusually long-lived, and be able to resist the illegal creation of more emperors by over enthusiastic troops or the like. From my point of view, it was unworkable in the long run, but what do you think?
-
Although women did have a significant status in the ancient world in Sparta, and women did have some rights in imperial Rome, the old Hellenic world put a huge emphasis on female subordination. Then again, I'm not an expert so I maybe wrong. The Germanic tribes that swamped the West were usually male run, but in a few of them, couldn't so of the women gain high status, and in a few, didn't the women actually fight in battle alongside their men? Again, I'm not an expert and maybe wrong.
-
Welcome to the forum, OctoberHorse!
I'll add a few more another: First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars by Geoffrey Regan. It's about the various 'crusades' of the Byzantine Empire, starting with Herclius' war with the Persians, up to the Byzantines' conflicts with the western crusaders in the first crusade.
Another is The Emperor Constantine by Hans A. Pohlsander. It's a small book (eighty pages or so) about Constantine, his life, times, and accomplishments.
(I'm going to my original post in this thread to give synopses of the other books that I listed).
Charlemagne's Coronation
in Postilla Historia Romanorum
Posted
I've read in certain places that Charlemagne was completely unaware that he was going to be made Emperor of the West, and didn't exactly like it because he did not want to be "beholden" to the Roman people, only to the Franks. In other places, I've read that he and the pope knew about it ahead of time, and he only feigned unwillingness. He didn't gain any new territory from his coronation, he succeeded in pissing off the Byzantines, and he merely continued with basically the same agenda that he had in place when he was just King of the Franks. So did Charlemagne really not want to be emperor initially, or was it all just for show?