Divi Filius

I really hate hearing of this stuff... especially considering the fact that I am a student. This is just horrible!

I personally loved it all, except 'Death Proof'. It was the typical Tarrantino "shoot the s**t" but at its worst, I wanted to something to happen but when it did it was too sudden and short. Planet Terror however was just amazing, pure hilarity.

I say Mommsen simply because of the fact that he was a pioneer.

I would say Michael Grant was one of the finest in publishing a fine library of mainstream introductory books, however this is one of the reasons why I would refrain from calling him the best. I would go with somewhere between Syme and Mommsen.

the Byzantine empire is not my specialty, so my answer wont be too clear. However, from what I can tell, the army of the eastern Roman Empire continued the legacy of the Diocletianic and Constantinian reforms. The only difference is that they seem to have better adapted to the differing military circumstances better then the western legions. The fact that much of the military terminology of the Byzantine empire remained Latin originated attests to the continuing tradition. What was left of the legions probably died out in the post-Justinian age.

I've never heard of him prior to this. Perhaps I will check him out, his Slaughterhouse-Five looks intriguing. Something about the old generation of smokers...

The fourth and fifth century legions would have been completely unrecognizable to the Romans of old. However, large parts of the Roman legions survived deep into the 6th and 7th century in a hollow form . The "evaporation" of it, though, can probably be placed in the early to middle 5th century. Until that point we could still trace the location of various legions.

Perhaps a younger slave-reader.

I think the earlier Romans must have thought more in terms of glory. Caesar and later Augustus both considered(the former planned) a Parthian campaign in order to avenge the Roman loss (even though the loss would technically be considered "just" since Crassus had absolutely reason to invade, yet did so simply for self-aggrandizement in the most apparent way). For Trajan, glory must have also been a significant factor when planning the Parthian campaign. He boasted about having gone further then Alexander, similarly with Caracalla. For Severus, probably a mixture of glory and gold. Fill the treasure of Rome while at the same time have the legionaries occupied with Ctesiphon booty.

Thats a good question. Even late Byzantine emperors portray themselves in the more "traditional" military attire of the Romans, so it may be possible that the more conservative Italian originated (or those simply wishing to mimic the greater period) generals looked back to the time of old and wore, at least what they thought to be, classical Roman attire. Carving of Stilicho Stilicho here doesnt seem to drift away from earlier "late Roman" clothing that we see... Perhaps Aetius wore something closer to the barbarian in order to receive more sympathy from those he so heavily relied on, or perhaps he wore something that was more Roman in order to differentiate himself from the barbarians. As for officers: by the time of Chalons, I would think that most of them were composed of the people that they lead (Alan "officers" leading Alans).

If Italian recruits are the only "Romans", then I would say that the Roman Empire's army had ceased to be Roman by the time of the Antonines.

As I said, the traditional view has come under fire in recent days. As it seems, Parthia was somewhat dual in character. It was both large and centralized enough to inspire apprehension and deterrence on the Romans, while at the same time being decentralized enough so as to make annexations extremely difficult and costly. This decentralization was ultimately its undoing, considering that Parthia was nearly always inhibited by its own internal discord.

Rome's eastern frontier was always problematic. Unlike the Rhine or African desert, much of it was not protected by any particularly strong natural barrier(the Euphrates was more symbolic*). However, we should note that Parthia was not a centralized to the point of Rome. The kingdom had a large "feudal" sense to it, the Romans could sack and capture the capitol, but that would not be enough to subdue the entire land. When Trajan invaded, although the seat of government and capitol passed out of Parthian hands, the resistance to Rome continued. This was Luttwak's argument. Like I said, this has come under a lot of criticism in modern day. I remember one historian, I forgot which, said that if Alexander could conquer Persia, then what stopped the Romans. The answer, most likely, lies in the history of their relations. Augustus and his successors lived under Crassus' disaster earlier on, they wanted a conquest of the land in order to reclaim lost honor, however were deterred by the fear of a repeated Carrhea. Augustus was more or less happy to receive Parthian "subjection" through diplomatic means, rather then actual military. What occurred was a sort of "cold war" between the two lands at this time period. Rome was more then happy to receive glory by non-militaristic means, while the Parthian kings, always weary of wars with Rome and what they could produce(claimants to the throne), were happy to come to agreements(Rome crowning the Armenian king, who is a relative to the Arsarcids). What happens afterwards, after Trajan's successes, the Romans grow more and more confident, but nevertheless, the grandeur or Parthia stops them short of annexing major territories(Severus makes the last annexations I believe, in Scotland and Mesopotamia). In the end, however, I don't think we can come to any real agreement as the actual reasons are all these and more. Parthia was not Germania, in that, it had a distinct cultural awareness from Rome and kinship to its dominion(for instance it considered Armenia a cultural kin, a "brother"), its army was far more organized and differed significantly from European tactics that helped form the legions, it was large, it inflicted a terrible defeat on the empire etc. etc. Wars against it were expensive, time consuming and dangerous. Thus the Romans were more or less content with a border that mimicked those of the Danube and the Rhine: a river frontier. While with Armenia, the Romans were happy to hold the "greater" level of power in return for relative peace*. *However, its important to remember that nearly all river frontiers were more symbolic then anything else. Neither the Danube not the Rhine were these major cultural and physical barriers that we make them out to be. *One of my questions is: what did the Armenians think. I can't imagine the country having held a great amount of pro-Roman feelings considering their closer cultural tie to Parthia.

Ultimately(I believe), those who go out and compare Napoleon and Scipio after reading this book or its title miss the point: the glaring statement is not so much a serious one, but rather one there to bring attention to Scipio and LH's book. The statement is never truly defended, except on occasion. It is there simply in order to make people think about Scipio; from the very onset of the book Lindell groans about that fact that there is not much out there on him.

You can find the answer to your question in this topic. Chalons is one of the last well documented battles of the Roman Empire and from what we can gather: most, if not all, of the roman army was made up of Foederatii. In fact, even Aetius' personal cavalry troop(bucellari) was composed of Hunnic mercenaries that followed him quite closely.

For a man who grew up in the army, he sure looks puny... ^_^ Im sad that they didnt show the initial "clashing" of the shields. The unity and size of the Roman cheers must have been deafening and horrifying to the far less unified Hannibalic army. But anyway, that was great. Awesome detail, they even gave Roman armor to the Libyans since they acquired it during the previous battles.

In the mind of the Romans, very little. They acknowledged the fact that their days of expansion were finished, however their overall outlook remained the same. To say that Rome was aware of any real "strategy"(as in an awareness) would be quite wrong, they didn't; and nor did they admit that their empire ended at their "borders". Roman authority stretched all over the world. Augustus states that he received embassies from people all around the world(including India), from tribes hither to unknown*. Meaning that he expanded all over. As Roman conquest ceased the historians went about explaining the stop. Traditionally it was believed that Rome stopped in Germany and other places because of the decentralized character of the regions*, however this has come under scrutiny in today. The main thing to remember is that Romans rarely if ever thought in the long term. Everything was made in the basis of the minute and part; therefore it would be impossible to consider any longer term plans having ran through their minds. The Romans simply dealt with situations as they came along. *Another thing that changed was Rome's awareness of the world. Under the republic Rome still did not a very great idea, however as the empire expanded and the world kept going, the Romans realized that it was actually bigger then they thought; and more mysterious. *Luttwak

One of my biggest interests in Rome is a study of its borders. Roman Horizons: 1. Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study by C. R. Whittaker 2. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third by Edward N. Luttwak -- a bit antiquated 3. Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate by Susan P. Mattern -- Relies heavily on Whittaker 4. The Reach of Rome: A History of the Roman Imperial Frontier 1St-5Th Centuries Ad by Derek Williams -- Probably the easiest of the all. 5. The Creation of the Roman Frontier by Stephen L. Dyson -- Roman frontier creation under the Republic.

Happy B-day man!

I hate the fact that K-rock no longer has any rock music, that it is all talk-radio. Granted that I do listen to some of it(I am a big fan of the Radio Chick and occasionally enjoy Oppie & Anthony), however this does not excuse the fact that 90% of the rest are opinionated and extremely ignorant(Nick DePaolo). Dont we have decades worth of great rock music that we can plan instead of these idiots? When I drive home from work at 12 o'clock at night I would love to hear some Pink Floyd, instead Im forced to endure the ranting of some nobody with terrible jokes. KROCK you stink!!!! That the creators of the Simpsons continue to drag the show down further and further for the sake of cash. The show went from one of the most original programs on TV(years, years ago) to absolutely unbearable repetitive slap-stick humor. Sad! Really sad!

Not necessarily following the "fall of Rome", since when and how that occurred can be debated, but the passing of the (western) provinces into what we consider to be "barbarian" warlords. The lands also saw the decentralization: Rome lost control and thus the locals began forming what we consider to be"manorialism", that is a rural based society where wealthy individuals provide defense for the farmer(through "mercenaries" -- which could also be the peasant himself, and defense works) This is not to say that it occurred immediately after 476(the date I presume you thought of). It was actually a long drawn out process that started in small stages during the 3rd century crisis and increased rapidly through the 4th and 5th, eventually taking over. As this sort of society took-over Europe, the quality of life also decreased. During the 4th and 5th centuries people began to abandon the cities since they were difficult to defend without a strong state and instead moved to far more safe positions in the countryside. Higher ground was usually preferred(in France many stone age sites were reoccupied) and so we see the rise of the castle. The process was long and drawn out, it did not occur overnight and nor was it a process which was alien to the Romans. In fact it was Roman landlords which initiated this throughout the empire when the Roman army began to fail. The Germanic barbarians were incorporated slowly into this new society and eventually became the dominant factor. This, along with the fact that the new landlords were not well adept in Roman civilization, is the reason why the major works of the previous periods are no more. There simply is not enough wealth to produce it; and not nearly enough men capable of understanding it.

Compare the old picture. To that of today: Happy runnin twas today!

Pic from the local marina where I run Dreary NY. Man, today is just depressing! Hows the weather in your location?

I doubt buy the info, the thing is probably fake. But entertaining nonetheless....

Well, sometimes you have little choice but.... ...