Neos Dionysos

The book that Ingsoc references is in English and though a bit hard to get hands on seems very nice. Sadly I have not had the chance to read it so I do not know about it yet. This is the only book on her I even know of.

I am not calling into doubt the ability of Belisarius... but I find it perplexing you call them 'super tribes' and that they would have finished off the Eastern Empire. Both were peoples that the East was well aware of handling and knew them personally, the Ostrogoths especially as they were a formidable faction in the East until the time of Anastasius. However, after Gaiseric, the Vandals had been in decline and the Ostrogoths were on friendly terms with the East, up until the "pretext" for war occurred, all during Theodoric's reign he was "King of Italy" but never used the title only King of the Ostrogoths and was gave de jure suzerainty to Constantinople. Gelimer was not a grand tactician in my mind, and neither was Totila... at least not on a scale to "finish off" Roman power in the East on a scale you make it seem. Julius Nepos was the last legitimate emperor of the West since he died in 480 and until that time had ruled form his base of operations in Dalmatia and Illyricorum. Augustulus was never recognized in the East...

See that always intrigued me, since Theodosius did much to "reshape" the command structure of the Eastern Empire's military hierarchy and yet allowed the Western Empire's version of a dual post of Magister Militum for foot and horse in the West, (with the foot always superior to the horse), to persist even when he had direct and de facto control over the region. I have yet to find any theories as to why this is... my only conjecture is that while he ruled in the East, he wanted a strong and loyal second in command in the West, (like Arbogast), to oversee a weak emperor and see that things went as they should, since allowing Valentinian II to rule led to problems like Magnus Maximus.

In two weeks I will be done with my History Degree and a Minor in Poly Sci and in Dec. I will be done with my Classics Degree and a Minor in Theology... After that... it's on to Grad School...

Elton makes a rather convincing case for the superiority of the Roman army throughout the fifth century. And 'not a single true Roman'? Not even Aetius? What does it even mean? Indeed and Drinkwater also falls into this camp as does Heather, (though Heather believes the decline began with the loss of Africa... losing the tax base to pay and upkeep the army as we have the one comment from Valentinian III, the source escapes me at the moment, saying he can't even pay for them army he has), while Elton feels it is with the death of Majorian and the breakaway of Aegidius. I'd like to add Marcellinus as well in Dalmatia, taking away the other units in the Western Empire from central authority as well. Decimus, allow me some time to go over that. This is a great topic and I'd like to explore this in more depth. Perhaps we can turn it into a discussion on the Academia sub-forum...

Can you give me the complete source on that Decimus. That comment rather intrigues me since H. Elton takes a completely different approach and says that Roman forces were equal to those of the foederati on the field and in terms of fighting capability were still far superior to Germanic forces they faced. Also, my only comment to the source of Attila's attack on the soldiers under Rome is that if that were true, how did they campaign successfully against the Visiboths and Burgundians in the decades before Chalons?

Money does play an important factor in the survival of the East, but at a few points from a contemporary view the East seemed worse off than the West. I would largely agree though with caldrail in the differences in not only culture and language. And to continue an eariler point, the late empire years were marked by a need for an emperor to be near the front much more so than he ever would have had to in the Principate. Hence why we had the imperial capitals at Trier, Ravenna and Sirminum. Communications is the real issue. Since it was almost expected that there would be major trouble on several possible fronts the time for an emperor to hear of a major incursion or threat would be long after the event and his response would also be long overdue and possibly pointless since the situation may have changed. Having dual Emperors to govern East and West and then capitals closer to the borders is more necissity than anything and a reason for having a "split" so to speak.

I would argue that Alexander, (except the Gedrosia incident), had well planned logistics to keep his army constantly on the move and in supply across the known and the unknown world. If anyone has this off hand, perhaps it can shed light on this discussion, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army. This is the only work I know of on Alexander's logistical operations, and if I recall I do not remember Arrian being ever critical of Alexander for logistical reasons, (again Gedrosia aside), and being a general himself this is one aspect he would mention if it indeed was an issue.

1,552 years after thier sack of Rome, and the Vandals strike again... On a serious note, I can't help but think of what kind of security they have to begin with since I know major sites, (like Pompeii I would assume is on par with attracting tourists as the Colessuem or the Hagia Sophia), would/should be well protected. I came across some major ones in Turkey which were guarded 24/7 by Jandarma, though others were just left where they were, (ones being "not that important" to many since they don't attract the people). I truely hope they catch those responsible and I hope security is beefed up while the site is closed, since I doubt someone would pull such a stunt during the day. Let's just all hope they don't beef it up so much you lose the ability to actually be in Pompeii instead of seeing it from a distance.

*ugh* Well with only 45 minutes left. I don't think I am going to make it. However... I'd like you to read it for the hell of it. I'll send you what I got PP, maybe next time right? Phil

Now THAT I would've loved to see... Speaking of the movie... I went in with friends knowing full well there's about as much accuracy in it as penny dropped from a roof. I wanted to be entertained, and I felt like I was being shoveled the same crap every couple of seconds with over the top scenes and forced acting. After a while, all the cries of this and that get old, the single spartan taking on an army in slow motion gets old, and the video game style gets old. I found myself watching my watch several times hoping it would end... I prayed that the story they gave us was worth the blood and guts but it wasn't and insulting to human intelligence I think. Historical accuracy, political propaganda all aside, the movie was terrible. If they did not have the special effects, this would be hailed as one of the worst things to air on the screen...

Seriously!? Oh snap... I think I can do this then... *runs off to finish*

Well... looks like I shall be one to be attacked. Thanks for the drive there Gaius and also to MPC as well... but sadly I was not able to make the deadline. If I had one more day... I might've, but the essay I have is only 3/4ths. Hey... considering I only just found out about it like a week or so ago and taking into account my other troubles I'm kinda proud with what I did finish...

Agreed. I'm inclined to say economic collapse, but in my opinion it is tied to the barbarians. (I am changing my old vote from internal fighting). My point is, once Rome lost control of the mediterranian, it was the end for the West. It is all on one's opinions on what is acceptable to be "an empire" still and giving swaths of land away, but so long as Rome controlled the Med, I think shw could have lingered on and still be a potent force. Some sources state into the dying days that to teach or assist barbarians in learning seafaring knowledge is punishible by death, of course once Africa was lost these became mute points yet, the Vandals taking of Africa was a two-fold blow, #1, the loss of revenue of the realitively unscathed African provinces which was the main source of income for the West, and #2, Gaiseric's brilliance in realizing true power lay in controlling the Med. and in doing so cutting the very throat of Rome. So, economic collapse is my vote... with babarian migrations being the cause of the economic crash.

Try this for source... only book I know on the material. "The Varangians of Byzantium" by: Sigfus Blondal and translated by Benedict Benedikz. Varangians of Byzantium You're in luck too... just came out in paperback. To find a copy of the hardcover is a pain...

I think that should atest to his superior generalship rather than the Germanic Tribes being possible pushovers... I did not vote... since mine would've went to Marcellinus.

Happy B-Day Cato...

If you're still looking... I highly suggest this. This is perhaps the only (in English), comprehensive article on them. I would suggest a university library, and if you can't get into one then go to your local one and try for a interlibrary loan, or ask if they can copy the article for you as a PDF, also, the Library of Congress will send you a copy of any article or book you wish, but they charge... Liebeschuetz, J. H. W., "Generals, Federates and Buccelarii in Roman Armies, around A.D. 400," Philip Freeman and David Kennedy (editors), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a colloquium held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986 (BAR International Series 297(ii) 1986) 463-474. Hope this helps...

Sometimes I wonder if they will ever be done with this mod... they've been working on it longer than RTR, and they are still in Beta while RTR is on v7.0... It looks really good I will not lie, but I question beta's since they have a tendacy to run amazing to a point then suddenl CTD and prevent the game from being anymore fun.

Rome: Total War, is a decent game at best... it's true ability comes out when the community contributes to the game to either make it more fun or more historical...(for most of us here more historical = more fun), and I would highly suggest you download Rome:Total Realism 6.0... it blows RTW Vanilla, (the original version store bought), out the water by a gigantic margin.

I would just like to add my a couple comments... One... this is a great idea... and two... depending on where it is... I will do my best to attend, but I am Midwest located, (Chi-town), so... if it is NY or LV or DC, not sure if I can get the cash to fly out... though... I might be able to swing it.

I happened to be in a class at the time when I read this... I kept the laughter in but as SOON as I read that line... I lost it, ROTFLMFAO... Talk about ackward. *shaked head*

No argument here. I'm a big fan of the common-core, and the study of the ancient mediterranean should be a part of that. For someone to graduate from college without reading Perikles' funeral oration...well, I just shudder. Perhaps this is a bit off topic but... Cato I seem to recall you stating having a PhD, but not whether or not you teach... (I'd take a stab yes), in either case the school you earned your BA at, (or the one you teach at), for core requirements are there any for Classical Studies? Is there even a department of it or is it a mere sub-division of History? This question goes out to everyone as well... At my school the Classics Department is a very small, almost independant affair and who is greatly at odds with the History department, (gotta love bueracracy, it's mainly because of those heading the departments), in either case, few people at my school even know we HAVE a Classics department and none of thier classes are for any core requirements, in fact the only historical requirements is US history, from Colonial to modern, that's it. I think Rome is making a "comeback" if you will because it has so long been skimmed over and merely glanced at in school's by people, growing up I learned of Alexander in grade school I learned all about him and all that he did in one paragraph in our textbook and Rome was a page worth, naming Carthage, (I don't even think Hannibal was mentioned), Caesar, Augustus and Constantine... that was it. Suddenly we are in the "Dark Ages" and learning about Charlemagne. This was basically my education through high school, (which only added some narrative), but got me very interested and why I know of many people my age or younger who have a huge fascination or hobby with Rome or the Classical Period... I think that's the reason why it is on the rise, a rediscovery of what has been only hinted to us in past education.

Having worked on several Galatian sites in Turkey I can say a few things... Trying to use archeology to compare them to thier Gallic brethren is difficult to put it simply, mainly because at many of these sites nothing much remains, and most have been re-used over the centuries and so what we have is a bastardization of what was originally there. In some places you can clearly make out walls and area's of habitation and you can compare these to sites in France which bear resemblance, others are not close in any manner. I am not sure how Gauls lived in ancient times though from Caesar's accounts they had villages and towns and 'cities' per sa, but in Galatia there is no evidence of this. So, were they a migrating people who roamed a certain range around thier established defensive fortifications in the hills? Or did they have wooden houses and so none of thier material remains? There isn't any evidence to show that the hillforts were occupied year round, since when Rome encountered them, they always retreated to these places up in the highlands, so perhaps it was a temporary thing. Some sites had the 'usual' find of pottery like courseware and some fineware, which suggest habitation, (one also has to realize these sites have ALL been looted and so what you find might not be much), and in a couple lithic material was found which is just beyond me. Why not use a simple, easy to make rock instrument, (forgive me I cannot remember the name it's used for sewing I have to check my blog I wrote about it there), for sewing but instead use a brittle, hard to make lithic one? This shows an amazing skill with craftmanship and the possibility that the site might have supported a large community below the fort with textile production. The Galatians are still very much an unknown and I will have to say, there is a forthcoming publication on them which goes in great depth on the Galatians, (but it is in Turkish), by Dr. Levent Vardar.

From that perspective, I am thus inclined to say it should end with the Polytheistic era. So then would say 312? Or would you go further past Julian in 363, or the "last breath" of polytheism in 394? To answer the original question, I was always taught that Antiquity ended with the fall of Rome but then the question begs, when did Rome fall? And to make things more complicated, did Rome fall at all? Personally, I have always felt that Antiquity ended with the crowning of Charlemagne, and the "middle ages" ended in 1453, because of the use of cannon to finally take a city that was almost imprenable without gunpowder's aid. Perhaps this has ben covered, but does anyone here see a difference between the "Classical Period" and "Antiquity"? Are they one in the same or do they merely overlap for a time?