Neos Dionysos

I like that one... I think every man fears his woman during those days...

Quite frankly after the establishment of the Principate and the military figured out how to deal with their tactics it becomes more and more difficult to find a war with Parthia that the Romans didn't win. Not only did Rome sack the capital, it did so at least three times (maybe four) and the final sacking under Septimius Severus arguably led to the downfall of the Parthian dynasty to the Persians. It was, and you could argue that Rome was trading in an enemy who was something they could deal with, with one they could not and had to divert more time and energy to. The Sassinad Persians were much more aggressive and proved to be much more of a threat than Parthia ever posed. Parthia was bad yes, but they were never offensive, if they were it was as a defensive counter-measure. Persia on the other hand was very aggressive and very offensive. More men, money and resources now needed to be diverted to this critical front and the struggle would continue until Heraclius in the 7th Century finally broke the Persian's back, though he exhausted his own forces in doing so, thus leaving both empires prime targets for the Muslim warriors of Islam to sweep over the land, overwhelm and destroy the remnants of Persia and to take half of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Indeed, sadly though I would love to learn more on Stilicho, though the most comprehensive work done on him is in Italian and I cannot read it, yet anyway. Of course one wonders also the true intention of Alaric. Was he revolting for betterment of the Goths? Or was it for his personal gain because he felt that he did not get the rewards or titles he felt he deserved for his service to Theodosius against his Western rivals.

This belongs in the Archelogical News Forum not here...

I also don't think Adrianople (or Frigidus for that matter, but you make a good point I hadn

I'd like to open up this discussion on Metics, (though they were more known in simply Athens), being the non-citizens and resident alieans of a greek polis, notably that of Athens. Many were ex-slaves, some simply moved to the city during it's time at the top and helped bolster the local economy, even if you were the richest man in Athens you would not be a citizen, and it appears many metics, were middle class to very rich, and could not change what they were at birth. Many metics after so many generations would try to pass themselves off as citizens and there were many who were caught and sent to slavery, in the very rare occasions, metics were granted citizenship, though while they did not enjoy privileges of citizenship, they had to endure it's responsiblities of taxation, paying for major events or celebrations, and serving in the military. Does anyone have any information they contribute? Any references to them would also be helpful since I have come across only one book, and I am highly considering this for a topic for a term paper...

I would cast my vote to the Battle of Chalons. The battle was described as one of the bloodiest affairs in antiquity and it was said that the bodies of the dead piled so high they formed small hills. Tactically the battle was indesicive though was a Roman, (along with her allies), victory. It has 'stopped' Attila. And had it not been for the massive casulties inflicted, the Romans may have been able to anihilate the Huns as they retreated. The battle is said to have changed the face of European History, the same as Tetouberg Wald did in 9 AD.

*sighs heavily and shakes head* "Not this again..." Ok, Puducu you've stirred up a hornet's nest and I doubt it will go down. On the one hand, you will have those who would have those who worship the very ground Caesar walked on, will give you either just "Hail Caesar" or a lengthy good response on why he should be considered as the 'Greatest Roman Figure'. On the other hand is Cato and is usually a one-man army around here when it comes to his opinions on why Caesar is 'the devil', (my words not his), though he will give you excellent responses which can be hard to refute and usually we all end up just agreeing to disagree. Basically, we can't tell you if he was bad or good since it is personal judgement and if you do not agree with what we tell you, (if we actually all came to a consensus), then your teacher or instructor may see this in your work or if you are supposed to present it and your paper will be left to be somewhat weak. The worst thing to do is to not beleive in the arguement you are trying to make in your work, and so in the end you need to decide, once all the facts are given to you, (are as many as you can get a hold of), if Caesar was indeed a villian or a hero. My personal beliefs, Caesar was human. He accomplished great deeds on the battlefield and should be hailed for that, his political actions and or motivations on the other hand come off as self-absorbed and greedy/power hungry. Does this make him a bad person? Depends on your view... if you are moral person believing in a system of ideals for the common good than Caesar is almost a terrorist. If you think that there shouldn't be this set system of morals or spiritual rescrictions, than Caesar did exactly what any man in his position should have done to increase, his power, his wealth and ensure his survival. My personal feelings aside, I cannot tell you much more, there are far more learned individuals here who know the Late Republic Period than me, I am more of a Late Empire person and so I shall refrain from truely coming into this debate since I should be listening and questioning instead of answering. Enjoy the deabte...

I would cast a vote for the Battle of Chalons. While the immideate tactical outcome was a draw, the Romans and thier allies had stopped Attila and had it not been for the massive casulties Aetius and the allies endured, perhaps they could have exploited the battle and massarced the routing Huns. Indeicsive tactically, but hugely important in European history, the battle that 'stopped' Attila, and is equated to changing European history much as the diasaster at Tetouberg Wald is...

My favorite quotes are in my signature.

I have only ever seen Decurion used in terms of a cavalry officer, never a magistrate though if I find a reference I will let you know. Concerning wikipedia, I tend to stay away from that, since once you edit or post an article, someone else who doesn't agree with your view or has a different bias will change it to fit thier view/understanding and you go back and forth.

So was the sack of Carthage. Rome kinda forced them into a conflict so they had an excuse to finally destroy them. Needless to us, is something they did not seem to have in thier vocabulary, if it sent a message of "Don't f*** with Rome." then it worked perfectly and was not for naught.

I forgot to add, when I was younger I almost drowned and so now my fear of the sea is pretty high... unless I have too... I avoid deep water like the plague.

No I agree... and I am Catholic and I know that both major forms of Christianity point to that council as thier major beginning, though I was just being technical about it all so... sorry. And I completely agree, the loss of a diciplined force, brought on not only by the corruption of the system but a loss of the NCO's which are VITAL to any military structure suggest and breakdown and collaspe of the old system of training, expertise, dicipline and tactics. This as we know, had the detrimental affects on the army which would culminate in her eventual destruction or evolution depending on your view.

I do recall reading somewhere that sparta did have its own league but i cant remeber the name...maybe achaen? Yes, it was the Peloponnesian League, which was headed and lead by Spartans by known more so as the Lacedaemonians.

Being completely lost by myself... I have a terrible fear of being alone with no human contact or somewhere I cannot communicate with anyone...

The changes in equipment and shields, and from glaudius to spatha by the regular infantry began in the 3rd Century and Galleinus was the first to use a large cavalry force all it's own, realizing the imporantance of cavalry, but hardly having it replace heavy infantry. Cavarly was never exploited or used to its full potential in the West like that in the East, this is primarily due to the East having a better understanding of cavalry due to thier constant contact with the Persians, the West, could simply rely on Germanic allies to supply the cavalry, while the East had to creat there own. Exactly, and in the event that the field army were defeated, the enemy force had free reign throughout the region to cause further devastiation and choas. Well Catholicism was not around yet, it was Niceane Christianity, Arianism and then two others which was more of a compromise b/w the two though with each favors one extreme or the other. Stilicho was never trying to become emperor, he was a loyal servent to the Theodoius house, and so a great servent of Theodosius himself though it is claimed that he was in discussions with Alaric to plan an attack on the Eastern Empire, (the reasonings are unknown), and this led to his death and then the persecution of the germanic troops under him, 30,000 of them and they went to Alaric, who now reinforced with this, and his chief adversary gone was able to sack Rome. Personally, I don't think Adrianople was what broke the back of the empire. 1/3 of the Eastern Army had already been transfered to the West years before under Valentinian's command and then 2/3 of the remaining Eastern Army was destroyed. The battle marked the end of a pre-dominate Roman Army in the East, (the Western Army was not pre-dominatly Roman for a long time now), at least until the barbarians were purged from the Eastern Army ranks from the regular army by Theodoisus. The battle that really broke the army's back was in 394AD, when Theodoisus destroyed the Western Army at the Frigidus River. This battle is little known and always overlooked but had more of an effect on the army overal than did Adrianople.

I know... I was hesitant to post it because I am afraid this will turn into modern politics, though I am sure we know not to, I am refereing to new comers but I am sure we are on guard on that. You know, to be honest I have never thought about that 'what if'. Perhaps Philip would never have had an independant Macedonia to build up to produce his kingdom for Alexander, Of course, Philip was the 3rd and youngest son of Amyntas III so perhaps had Macedonia been dependant on Athens or under her protection, the other brothers would have continued to regin and Alexander who have never been. I also think that Imperialism is not something democracies hate, or is demanded, I think Imperialism is something that democracies publicly deny and avoid but strong democracies hold close and even promote imperial attitudes because it is to their very beniefit and to thier ideals and forms of government, which is shown in the actions Athens had done to secure herself.

Alright then, I'll try and dig up what I can and if you would not mind, supplment what I come up with, with the Ptolemaic side of matters if possible. Thanks.

Pergamum was an ally of Rome for a few generations now, mainly due to thier contempt and hostility toward the Seleukids. Once Attalus had died, he had bequithed his kingdom to Rome in his will, so Rome found herself in possesion of Asian territory w/o any intervention of thier own, from there they would soon expand further and incorporate thier allies into thier provinces.

Sacked the same year as Carthage, part of Roman decision to get brutal with their foreign policy and, in the case of Corinth, the culmination of Roman wrath in dealing with the Greeks and their back-biting politicking. Corinth was the leading player in supporting a revolt against Roman hegemony and when the Romans sent envoys to try and talk things over, they were hissed, booed, and had garbage thrown on them on their way through the streets. During the sack, the commander in charge, Mummius, was a novus homo who had little appreciation for the city's wealth. When priceless art treasures were being loaded onto the ships, he told his soldiers: ''Whatever you break you have to replace.'' Maritime-mercantile interests in Rome also wanted the city out of the way, it was a strong competitor. The above is a rather general nut shell. I'll have to get my info out on this to fill you in more. You've just peeked my interest FrankQ, cause I'll be honest... I never even knew Corinth was sacked by Rome. You learn something new everyday.

This topic has always interested me, and I would love to hear from others on this as well. A little background, the Delian League was established as an offensive and defensive alliance against Persia and originally Sparta led the crusade against the Persians but the failed invasion of the '10 thousand', was something Sparta could not shake and so relinqushed the leadership of the campaign to Athens, who then established the league and began to make itself known to Persia. Soon, Athens used it hegemony of the league to become imperialistic in her aims and would persecute league members who tried to leave, forced 'liberated' cities to join the league and commuted all league members to give money instead of men or ships or supplies thereby allowing Athens to increase her navy in a huge manner and the final major act was making the league treasury mov from Delos to that of Athens herself. Athens actions, forced on the Peleponnesian War which is so well known to us by Thucydides. Thoughts, comments anyone?

I think we should, because it helps us better to understand the times we are studying. What's the point of learning about the "Fall of Rome" in 476, when in reality to those who lived it, it was not a major event. Life went on as usual. When we make end dates and themes or eras etc., unless they were of great importance to those that lived through it, they should not be made into something greater than what they were. I guess what I mean to say is, we tend to make start and end points in history that suits us more than anything. It is easier to place a study date from the reign of Augustus to when Romulus Augustulus was desposed so that we can focus on that area to learn. We chop up history into sections so we can better understand them, but history was, (like present day is), also on the move always moving forward and can't be chopped up. I just think this needs to be addressed and taken into consideration, only a handful of historians and scholars have really taken this into account.

I don't think we take that into account, or if we do, we don't think about it too much or into great detail. Another example is how we always hear of Rome's fall at 476AD. There was nothing major about this date, I highly doubt the people of Italy or Rome considered it an eventful year. They may have not an emperor, but he was only in name only for the last decades and had no power, and so seeing that the Ostrogoths were still in control and seeing the administrations and institutions and social structure was still running, they noticed no change at all and continued on living.