Neos Dionysos

God I love that article... and being from "Chicagho Towne" I can tell ya we were amazed when these archeologists etc started showing up in the city. No!! We don't want to be marked on some map! We are our own stubborn people and we shall be damned if you "Coasters" are gonna come in here and change that!! Beware our many fields of corn and strange animals called 'Cowes'!!! :2guns: Cause... we inhabit most of the area and wanted ourselves... obviously...

If you're asking about favorite sites in general then I'd say Art & Letters Daily. One of the best things on the 'net if you ask me, a real feast for the mind. I beleive in a little brain rot too... and my gamer side comes out full force when it comes to Penny Arcade Though, for brain candy... I would say the Perses Project... if I am naming it right? You guys know what I am talking about?

Of course, they were the very first city to be attacked and of course they will resist. They did not fear Christianity... they feared the Eastern Empire. Justinian and his reconquest did more damage and destroyed what remained of 'Rome' in the west than the Goths ever did. To the people of Italy, when 476 rolled on, nothing for them changed... in fact, afterward Theodoric the Great even with the blessing of Zeno in the East ruled the west like a de facto emperor but not in title, more like a subserviant role. The Goths continued the Roman laws and customs and allowed the Senate to continue... after the reconquest much of this was lost. I am talking about modern historians. Tacitus and his "Germania" have many issues with it. You named one... what are "Same sources"? same as in where you got the info on Naples, which would be Procopius "History of the Wars", which are not in question, we are talking about 3rd and 4th century Rome, not 6th century. Or did you mean same as the ones I cited? Because unless you can give me page references, I ask you please elaborate.

What year, and what rebellion. Dacia was also abandaned by Aurelian as well, because he felt it was too far from additonal support to be held... Dacia was Roman since Trajan.... so I'd like to know when you are exactly speaking on.

Which ones? I am curious... because those I have thus far run across they attribute a decent diet to the army, usually grain and a type of hardtack, supplemented on occasion with salted meat.

The Ostrogoths are not "Western Romans"... and so Belisarius never fought Romans. Secondly, Belisarius excelled at the indirect approach, he fooled the enemy into thinking he had a far larger army than himself by using campfires at night and thus gained a major victory without a loss of life. He defeated Rome, and defeated a city ALWAYS gives major advantage to the defender, in Persia he had his cavalry run back and forth behind his front lines to make it seem the dust being kicked up was from a much larger army than was actually there and this made the Perisans want to discuss negotiations. Now, on the matter of barbarization of the army, I HIGHLY suggest you start to read actual texts on the matters and not continue the old trend of, 'Barbarians = bad, and so Barbarians + Roman Army =very bad'. While the late army was in decline, it still performed its job quite effectively given the circumstances. The failings came adminstratively when soldiers were not being paid and corruption rampant, training declined and so the army deteriorated NOT because of barbarization but because of corruption and a collaspe of the adminstrative and logistical structures of the army. I ask you cite where you are getting your information from, and where you claim historians placed barbarians on a pedestal for political reasons. And numbers are never overlooked... too often the little things are overlooked, such as in when people think of the fall of Rome, they blaim Barbarian invasions, when in fact it was an economic and fincincial collaspe and most of these 'invasions' were migrations of people who were ADMITTED into the Empire and so were never invaders. My sources are: The Late Roman Army The Rise and Decline of the Late Roman Field Army Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom Corruption and the Decline of Rome Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD

Just what are you basing this on? While there is cases of overexaggeration in numbers of enemy, predominantly what is sourced is around the correct number. Why is it hard for you to believe that superior tatics, training and leadership cannot overcome simple superiority in numbers? Having a larger army does NOT mean you win. Alexander the Great used an army that was never more than 47,000 men in total to conqeor most of the known world. And there are MANY sources that cite this, both logisitcally and through textual data and archeogoical. If Rome did not field an army that was well fed, it could not train, nor do the exploits it acheived. And, if according to you they could not and they were lying, then how do explain Rome's dominance of Europe, Africa and part of Asia for hundreds of years?

That's just it, while they were increasing in Foederati, they were also recruiting them for the regular army and legions. Also you need to remember, foederati are only enrolled for a campaign season then disbanded afterward so they would no longer be part of the army to 'revolt'. They were more like a quick conscription force used in times of war or crisis and meant only to be around till the campaign was over they were never part of the regular army, nor treated as such. The late empire suffered badly when it came to recruiting and recruiting provinicials and citizens was not only hard to do to begin with, but it was very expensive. The government had to pay for recruits, as in pay to the city or town etc who furished them, and then had to pay an extra sum to the local government as well for the loss of manpower if you will, (there is much more technical laws behind it), and in the case of volunteers, they had to pay the men themsevles the money twice. Barbarians on the other hand, were MUCH cheaper. This is not to say they were mercenaries, it was just simply to intice them to serve and cheaper overral to afford to keep large numbers of them. The Romans for the most part were not afraid of rebellions, because they rarely happened, and they felt they could control any situation. However, a prevailing sentiment in Roman society and culture kinda ingrained into Romans that barbarians were inferior, that they were lesser then Romans and that they could be treated like crap. This is what led to problems when they did arise and those that did cost Rome dearly. The barbarians, for the most part, who were incorperated as regular unit soldiers and not allied contingents under thier owen tribal leaders considered themselves Roman and were, argueably more loyal than many Romans. (I am using examples of high-ranking individuals). After the Goths were finally quelled in the late 4th century, the East made an all out effort to purge it's regular army ranks of barbarians. Whether by moving them to certain units and re-locating them or putting them in other work. Barbarian strength in the Eastern Army was always low and actually, the East had the hardest time recruiting. The West on the other had had little trouble and routinely raised many units due to thier proximity to Germanic peoples willing to serve. Usually, for every 1 unit that the East could muster, the West could raise 6-4. Which shows you the large difference in army strength and size and makeup as well.

Well, let's expand on this. Personally, I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on the story of Antiochos I Soter and Stratonike. Also, perhaps then Ursus, you can help shed light on what started the Syrian Wars with Seleukia and Ptolemaic Egypt. There were five, and this constant fighting, really drained the empires, (well mainly the Seleukids who had less to muster against the East or in Asia Minor). I always thought it interesting that Seleukos and Ptolemy, who were close friends, and who fought together and the longest than ANY of the other successors, would end up having each of thier lines exhaust themselves waging war over Syria, Judea, Palastine/Phonecia.

This ought to get ya on a good start... scroll down... they list A LOT!

Yes, but they were also more likely to simply tie the victim down instead of 'nailing' since even if they nailed the wrists etc, the chances the body would rip off due to the weight were still high. So if I am not mistaken the majority of the crucifixitions would have been used with rope, though we know in some cases, (like that of Jesus), iron pegs were used.

Changes in the army occured over a period of time. The legions of the High Empire were gone, some of them still held the old names, but they were not what they were back in Trajan's day for instance. Legions were now reduced to only 1000-15000 strength and the army was for the most part divided into two setions. The comitatenses, which was the mobile field army, and the limitanei which were the frontier troops. The field army evolved from the constant nature of the army always being on campaign and on the move with the emperor's during the 3rd century. It became much easier to simply create field armies than retain the old legion forms. Severus is said to be the first to really start to this type of change, though it was not a major change to the traditional legions. Also, at this time of crisis and the constant need to move troops from here to there, the idea of fast, mobile forces seemed like an excellent idea. As for the borders, they needed a constant force that would also be tied to the land in one form or the other. The idea was for the frontier troops to engage and delay or halt the advances or invasions of an enemy force, so the field army could assemble and descieivly engage and defeat the threat. Within these two groups you had other groups, like the pseudocomitatenses which were troops who had started out with the froniter units but had proven themselves to be very capable fighters and so they were moved up. Another would be the ripenses which were another form of the froniter units. Besides this, crack, elite units were also formed, the scholae palatini which were the horse guards of the palace and always accompanied the emperor, and the auxilia palatini which was the infantry version. It should be noted that the elite units were pre-dominanty Germanic and it has been that Germans were sought after to fill this role of manning the elite units of the Late Empire over provincial citizens and Romans. As I said, Severus started the reforms, with slight changes here and there, but they were added on. Another major change was with Emperor Gallenius who added a large mobile cavalry vexillationes which was a precident. Later on, more minor changes were made and with recruiting becoming so difficult and almost impossible from provincal or citizens within the Empire, more and more barbarian origin people were used and with the legions of old, so under depleted, it was changed to use a smaller number of men to fill thier new role. Diocletian furthered the transfermation and really set the standards for the new army and Constantine finalized it with additions and changes here and there where needed. In theory they new system was a masterpiece, sadly there arose problems with the system, part of it due to the nature of the hierarchy of the army. At the top were the palatini then the comintatenses then the pseudocomintatenses and finally the limitanei and ripenses being of around the same level. The better equipment, better pay etc. favored the higher ranked units and thus more and more the frontier units were becoming less and less effective, though they still played an important role and did their job considerably well. The late army also suffered from a change and shift in training, more and more training was becoming less intense and not up to the old standards they had been during the Early and High Empire periods and so this affected the army as a whole. The changes were institued to address growing needs during the 3rd Century to cope with the seemingly endless revolts, civil wars and barbarian incursions into the empire. Frontier troops were for the most part stationed where they were assigned and were only pulled off from the front in cases of emergency or major concern and they predominatly stayed in a general location, so more and more of the frontier forces would become landed and have families and tile the land where they were. This was also part of the reasoning of having them in this fashion but it had it's drawbacks. The field armies on the other hand were stationed in cities and were moved from time to time to various points for whatever the emperor wished them to do or prepare for. This is in complete difference from the old legions, since they were rarely stationed inside cities, and if they were never in the homes of people, for the late empire it was practice to have citizens of that city provide shelter and food for the soldier stationed in that house, this as you can imagine is a nightmare for dicipline and unit cohesion, and these were other major problems that plauged the late army and not the early. Also, legions of old were moved and used on campaign and usually a solid unit and not split up. It was very common in the late period to mold a vexillation from various units and move them across the empire or wherever they were needed and instead of disbanding and coming back to thier own units they usually formed whole new ones. I hope I have answered your questions and if you have anymore, perhaps on the reasoning for the influx and need, (and even desire over Romans), for barbarians in the army I would be glad to answer them.

LoL... you'll get it. Yes and my point that they did not take it, meant to the Seleukids the situation was not 'completely' out of thier control at least from their point of view. Also, because the rebels had not tried to make relations with other foriegn powers, (for the first couple of years anyway), the rebellion was not seen as a major issue, more like a minor conflict, however once Rome became involved, then suddenly Seleukia realized the truth of the situation and saw they had to act deciviely which is why at this time you see a conserted effort to crush the revolt.

I would think that at a young age, those who would go on to command troops would be well trained to weild a sword on horseback and be combat proficent.

No I was making reference that the lack of initative is something that Antiochos IV did and imitated eariler examples like those of Antiochos III. Exactly, the upper saptrapies were of prime concern. We, (our modern world view), sometimes questions why they were so important, but so much revune, resources and supplies in manpower, horses etc were the eastern territories. That's my point, the Maccabee's are NOT reliable, the strength they cite is out of this world, of course one can see the reasoning behind this is to inflat thier victories and make them look that much more spectacular. I am looking for sources that give good figures of troops myself... though I probably won't have anything solid till tomorrow...

Sorry about that... had to meet some people... I am currently getting, (the repository closed before I could there, so I need to wait till Sat. afternoon), his book in my hands so I can go over the references he cites his info from. I wrote a paper on the revolt last semester in class, and so I took what he had written to heart, mainly because he is the only scholar/historian to have done such extensive work on the subject, as well being the only one to do a major work on the Seleukid Army as a whole, thier units, locations, tactics, equipment etc. I did not mean to say the other engagements were like a couple hundred men or something, I mainly meant that the two which Seleukia really threw everything in was the two they won, the others, the number was much smaller and they were bested, the analysis of the books claim though that when a large battle was given, the rebels could not stand up to it, but smaller engagements they performed quite well. Also, it is not so much that Seleukia was giving it thier all, on the contrary, I cam across information suggesting that Seleukia overral was slow to react to revolts, or rebellions and when they did, the situations had usually, and quite logically, become far more complicated and worse. The rebellion in Judea did not rate high on the priority list. here is a peice of what I wrote...

I am basing my comments on the work by Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). The book completely covers the war, now I never said they did not send large forces, they did, but only on those two occasions. The reasonings for smaller efforts on the previous engagements I will cite and give reasonings for, allow me to dig up the information, check back in 2 hours after my post now. The Seleukids could muster only 41,000 infantry and 4500 cavalry in the Judean region, now if you beleive the Maccabee books, they claim they fielded 100-200,000 which is a great exateration.

It's not that he lost out... just that he did not have the support of the party over Bush...

The Seleucids are an amazing part of history and an interesting dynasty and realm. One that started out as a vast territory and was finally reduced after two and a half centuries into nothing more than a buffer state that Rome needed to absorb and digest into a province. High points in its history are, of course, Antiochus the Great, and the one who gets the most bad press because of his abuse of Judea, Antiochus IV. Interesting stuff. Especially the fact that after spending tons of talents and sending several armies against the Jews, the later contenders to the throne use the armed Jewish militia as a tool to seat themselves in power. The Seleukids actually never really sent armies to fight the Maccabees, only two major battles were fought during the length of the rebellion, (both of which Seleukia won), the rest were all gurellia style or very small skirmishes which Seleukia won. A key factor which led to thier victory was the fact that Seleukia responded quite slowly to rebellions or insurrections against thier rule, this the Maccabee's used to thier advantage. Also, the heavy taxations, (which were simply Seleukia taking the money of the Jewish Temple which had never been done before), was started by Seleukos IV Philopater and was actually suggested to him by Simon, who was the temple finiancial administrator and who was at odds with the High Preist Onias III. Seleukos, hearing of the large amount of money and wishing to alliveate the heavy burden of indemities that Rome had placed on Seleukia forced his hand to act and take the temple treasury, a measure Antiochos IV Epiphanes continued. Presvious to the war with Rome, the Jews and Seleukia were on excellent terms and even used to settle troublesome lands to make them loyal again to the Seleukid rulers in Syria. Finally, I'd say that Antiochos III the Great wasn't that great and we use the term "Great" because he had assumed the title 'Megas Basileus' meaning 'Great King'. Granted, he marched around the empire and regained much land that had been lost due to rebellions etc and had repeated things that Seleukos I Nikator had done but, he really never won any great victory. He could not take Judea and the land of Phonecia, etc, which had been the major battleground of the Ptolemies and Seleukids for generations, until Ptolemy IV had died and the infant Ptolemy V had taken control of the throne, only in this way was he able to take the region. His campagins into the rebell provinces of the East, were not spectacular battles or campaigns, but ones which were won on a fickly nature since the rulers all swore loyalty to him and promised to serve him, the same for Bactra, which he segied for two years and never took, but came to a peace treaty with Euthydemus who was now in charge in the important province of Baktria. He did cross the Hindu Kush and see the Indian King, of which through a treaty and with the pledge of freindship and one of his daughters given in marriage to the Mauryan King, he walked away with a very large force of elephants. In the end, his expeditions against Rome was he terrible downfall, not that challenging Rome was, but how he prosecuted the war, which shows how poor of a leader he really was. Soon after this defeat, all territory he had gained, (all that he had not won back but who more or less just sued for peace to him), all left him and went thier indepenadant ways. Paving the way for the collaspe of the Seleukid state.

Of Otho? How, that pic there is part of the statues of the Tetrachy.... Mine is simple... Stewie from Family Guy mixing a good drink and getting wasted on the 'sauce'... Singatures... well... awesome phrases I love...

Has it been shown that Mithras allowed for the legions to more readily and more easily adapt to and take Christianity as the religion... both were Eastern, both were monotheist... I think there are more similarites... So... is there strong evidence of this? That a temple, or enclave to Mithras was converted to one honoring Jesus?

I say Phocas be named the Byzantine Nero... even over Theodora... and if her antics are true... perhaps we know why Justinian wanted her so badly... LoL

www.romanlegion.com Great game if you like to be social, historically accurate... and if you like text-based RPG's...

At the request of Ursus, I shall start us off on Greek/Hellenic topics. The Seleukids, which were founded off of Seleukos Nikator, one of Alexander's companions and generals during the campaigns he made around the known world. He would later take on the satrapy of Babylonia, and eventually rule the most land of any successor, in 281bc controlling, (for a brief moment), all of the land that Alexander had, (except for Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemy Soter was also a close friend of his for years), and Seleukos in pursuit of this conquest re-campaigned in the same areas as Alexander and did almost as much, he was also an excellent administrator, and beleived in mixing and assilimating the cultures... (his son Antiochos being half Iranian)... Debate and discuss... or ask questions... I'd be more than happy to answer what I know.