Neos Dionysos

Favorite Movie? I have a lot I love... but here;s one of the top tier ones... "Starships Troopers" and favorite book? again WAY to many to list... but a top one... "Starship Troopers" LoL... notice a trend?

Most of academia views 'The Secret History' as more of entertainment value than historical accuracy. The fact that we have a man who wrote so many books on Belisarius' campaigns and also on the public works of Justinian, (which he acclaims and proceeds to venerate Justinian for), and then suddenly comes out with this which in complete contrast to everything he had written before is cause to look at the account as speculative. There may have been an underlying reason to ruin them later in life for reasons of jealousy, intrigue or simply pent up hatred. The fact that we only have his accounts on many of these events also leaves us to question the truth of them since we cannot verify the vadility of them with other historians. In either case, it is not wrong that Justinian did leave the Empire in debt, partially because of his massive building projects, but also due to his expenditures on reconqeoring the West and paying off the Persians who would attack when the army was away in Italy. Yet his building projects were not luxury, but more geared toward the betterment of the city overall and the most famous of which is the Hagia Sophia which still stands to today and is renowned as one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. Would I consider him a Nero? Hardly, he instituted many reforms and laws to the administration of the empire and seems to have been an overall good ruler. Theodora, if you do not beleive all the negativity of 'The Secret History' which in my opinion is laid out so thickly that you must question the truth of it, was good for Justinian. Had it not been for her steadfastness and resolute determination, Justinian may have lost the throne during the Nika revolts, she was of equal status as her husband, helped increase the privlieges and rights of women in the east, and routinely would run adminstrative tasks for his husband when he was ill. Her contempt for Belisarius did make matters hard, but overall she was a strong and good empress and is considered a saint by many orthodox christians. Also, Justinians persectuions of Christians was on a sect of Christianity, not the religion in general, however his attacks were centered on areas of Palastine, Syra and Egypt and duie to this, less than a hundred years later, the terrible persecutions brought on them had an effect with the Arabs invaded since the Arabs allowed freedom of worship and was more favored to the persecutions of the Romans. In then end, some can argue Justinian did more harm than good by trying to retake the West, but given all of his actions and reforms and policies and even building projects he left Constantinople greater than he had received it and I would not equate him with the likes of Nero, afterall, a man who is sometimes called Justinian the Great is in no way a Nero. Justinian did what any ruler who wishes to ensure his continued rule would have/should have done in a similar situation. Excpet, the difference here is that Theodora wore the pants and had the balls in this event rather than her husband. She was his strongest supporter, (and with good reason obviously), but I think Justinian would not have been the man we know him to be had he not had such a strong, assertive and iron-fisted woman for a wife like Theodora.

Something I love is when you are taking a class in the first couple days you can tell if this is going to be an easy A = blow off class and those you can't. I've got about 2-3 of my 6 classes like that... I just hope I can survive my one class. That being my one political science class, (I made a tread in the after hours section), because of my frustration with the instructor. But it is always good to know you can drag ass in some classes and concentrate on the harder ones and still pull the good grades... Also... I realize if I drink a couple beers before my power hour classes I am really relaxed and take a ***** load more notes... so... I need to go out and buy more Killians...

Had to vent... kinda pissed... Ok, so I have a Political Science class... it's topic being the effect modern weapons has had on current world politics, so like nukes etc. Of course to start us off he wishes to discuss military weaponry at the dawn of the gunpowder revolution... fine... ok... no problem. The instructor even tells us he starts there because he has NO clue about anything from the ancient world... he even called Roman legions... "Roman Leagues"... so... I'm cool with that... it's not his area... no problem, but I have issues and become frustrated and insulted when in his lectures he USES ancient warfare and weaponry in terms of comparison... while he can do this and should he uses no evidence or completely omits key items or facts that would negate his arguement. Maybe I am being picky, but when an instructor fails to acknowldge that catabults, ballista's, trebuchets and siege towers even EXISTED... I tend to be frustrated and insulted... So... has anyone ever come across a similar experience in a class regarding any topic or subject? Also, for shits and giggles, in a small lecture class the most embarresing thing to do is to fall asleep and then proceed to snore VERY loudly to the point the professor has to stop and wait for the student to cease or wake up... easily the highlight of my day to see this and laugh my ass off.

The length of service of 25 years etc. did not start until the Marius reforms. Before that, Roman armies were called up on a seasonal basis.

Of course, Liebeschuetz addresses that very well in Barbarians and Bishops. Christians were more violent and more geared to fight against each other on monastic beliefs than outside forces. Also the monastic life of self sacrifice and service to God also took away quite elegible men for recruiting, in some imperial reigns, when emperors would persecut certain Christian sects, they would force monks into the legions, this was a way to increase recruits but it also shows the desperation of some emperors and this was in the East, not the West.

The late army was more and more increasingly becoming germanic or 'barbarian'. Reasons for this stem from the 3rd Century Crisis when the army was no longer a career people wished to go into and would go to the extent of mutilating themselves in order to save themselves from being recruited. Germanic peoples were seen as a much easier, more plentiful and cheaper source of men. Another bad aspect of recruiting citizens of provincials was that it cost the government a lot of money to recruit in the late empire. For every soldier recruited they had to pay for him to the family or the established of where he came, and if he volunteered they had to pay the volunteer. Having to pay to just get you to sign up was something they did not have to do for germans. In fact, some of the settled peoples were given land on the pretext that they would supply men to Roman armies in times of war or crisis. This makes no sense at all. Please rephrase. Who is 'Some say'? Please give exact referenences. While it is true that more and more germanic peoples made up the legions, it does not mean thier loyalty was not to Rome. We are in an age of intense Nationalism, something that did not occur until the 19th Century. Germans had no problems killing other Germans, (unless they were fighting the same members of thier tribe which I believe was never recorded.), Some germanic, assimilated people were more Roman than the Romans, and I use Stilicho as an example. He was a loyal servent of the Theodosius house and cared greatly for the Eastern Empire's defence and after that Rome as well. His germanic troops were, (like many men fighting in the age,) were loyal to thier commander. And so when Stilicho was murdered, and Romans persecuted thier germans allies and those who even THOUGHT themselves Roman, they had no where else to go except to Alaric or others who would sympathize with them. Rome's history is very hostile to different people and to germanic ones especially. Assilimation for some was a sense of heresy and something that should not be allowed, this is mirrored in how Germanic peoples were treated outside and inside Roman borders.

Our feet, miles, etc, is actually more precise than those used by Rome and besides, why should we convert? The military, NASA, many governmental and industrial factors already use it. I do not see the need in common day use like how much you bought in milk or meat etc. That is not needed... for construction purposes we already use it.

I do not think any other Roman general was undefeated as Caesar was and faced the numeric odds he did. Late Rome not withstanding because that army was just a shell of itself and might have been mostly Germanic as some experts believe. Caesar had an abilty to train his men better than any other not just make them fearless. Fearless men die just as easy when outnumbered by the extreme but Caesar did not. This cannot be just great oratory but great training, surpacing any other Roman general. So because he is older he can train them better? Tactics and strategy then are meaningless by your analysis. Just because he's older than some other great generals in history, who accomplished more mind you, he is still superior because he could train them better to overcome the odds. The best training in the world does not assure you victory. It is leadership that does it. Also, the late army was just as effective as the early empire army. The beleif that it was inferior is one of those old falacies that finally is slowly being shown to be false. I highly suggest you read, "The Late Roman Army" (which is reviewed on this site), and also "From Severus to Constantine" by Pat Southern and also "Barbarians and Bishops" by J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz. There you will see that the army was not so ineffective, and that barbarization, while carrying with it negative aspects, had more positive aspects.

That is only one school of thought, there are a few more... Ward-Perkins has done an excellent job, don't get me wrong I just follow more to the "evolve" school than the "fall", (this is mainly due to my own professors being of this school and that sureidly influences my thought.

All soldiers have fear, but the difference is the dicipline and training as you describe, but to inspire your men to fight. I'm not sure that he would tell them they were outnumbered or that they aren't supposed to be afraid, we have little to tell us of his speech's, (his own commentaries should be taken with analysis since he would most certainly make himself look better). Again, this is Roman training in general, not Caesar's personal training.

What!? Alexander beat much greater odds than Caesar EVER faced... How can you say Alexander did not know how to train men? His army was perhaps the greatest in the world... Caesar did not have some secret ability to train men... he had an uncanny ability to get the most of his men and to inspire great loyalty, (in his personal legions). If his training was the reason for his success, then the 14th legion, (whom he raised and recruited and hand picked the centurions to train it), would not have been almost anihilated in Gaul.

The German form is no where near what the phanlanx of Pyhrrus was... and his Epirote version was not even as efficent as that of Alexander's and Philip's... honestly, I feel had Caesar and his legions faced this phalanx they would have been crushed. The dicipline and experience are tenfold if not more than those of the Germans.

Pretty much... 3-4 campaigns were launched against Caldonia from the late 1st Century AD, of which culminated int he battle of Mons Granipus where the Romans inflicted a horrible defeat on the natives. Though the land and people did not in any way wish to be Roman, and unless so great of a number of manpower and resources and money were used, I do not think that Romanizing was possible. Also, as someone earlier asked, would they rebel if they were in the army if used far off? It's possible, many times during the late empire units of men who were ordered far away rebelled from the imperial system. A prime example being the troops in Gaul and the Rhine under Julian. When Constanius II ordered them east, the men revolted because in thier contracts it stated they would not go further east or south of the Alps.

That is a LONG ass time... In reality... times of transit was more like this... Rome to Caesaraia(in the middle east) was only 20 days one way. Alexandria to Puteoll=i was 15-20 days and the fastest recorded was 9 days. Gades to Ostia was only 9 days. etc. Generally, travel did not except 20 days on normal conditions with weather being decent. If weather was bad it took take much longer and if the winds were highly favorable then it would be VERY short. *all this info is from pages 80 and 81 of The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome by Chris Scarre for information concerning the navy, you can try... http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/rome-navy.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Navy http://www1.rgzm.de/navis/Themes/Flotte/FleetsAndBorder.htm Also try this page for a nice bibiliography as well. Roman Navy Sources Also, I would HIGHLY doubt that they would travel individually... and being that Rome was a diciplined and cohesive military force... they would most certainly not allow soldiers to travel on thier own. If you did that, only the Gods knew if they would all make it on time, and they could desert too if they are not watched. Hope this all helps...

If I were you, I would add in Suzanne Dixon, she is an excellent historian on the Roman family and Roman women. The Roman Family The Roman Mother Also... here are others to look into. "War, Women, and Children in Ancient Rome" by: John K Evans "Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society" by: Judith P. Hallett "Being a Roman Citizen" by: Jane F. Gardner

Varus was a governor... and not really a military man if my memory serves me...

Your opinion. Was Caeser great? Sure. Did he accomplish a hell of a lot of things? Most definently. Was he the greatest Roman of all time? Not by my standards... What makes Ceaser's accomplishments better than say, Pompey's, or Scipio's, or Constantine's, or Auerilans, or Trajans? I think by default Caeser wins this contest because as Germanicus has pointed out, (and as has others), Caeser is the most widely known Roman to everyone from many walks of life. Chances are, you've heard the name or seen something on him or a symbolism of him. Caeser's Palace in Las Vegas is a good example, Little Caeser's Pizza, a chain of stores called Caesersland, (regional). The point I am making is that better would choose Caeser compared to anyone else even if they did not know anything about him, they know his name compared to others I have mentioned and so will choose what they know over what they don't. There is no right or wrong answer since this is all a matter of opinion and POV, though I tend to lean toward other Romans who did perhaps just as many great acheivements, (perhaps less), over Caeser because of the times in which they lived were starkly different than those of Caeser's day.

I'd love to assist you in this endevour if you do, do it.

I've heard this used as a reason... but I do not put too much stock in it... yes the Chemistry is there but I would think we'd see alot more of unstable emperors... and birth defects/no births would be a significant sign to see. The reason for the loss in manpower was not low birth, but the fact the army was something that was not a career people wanted to go into... sons of veterans were FORCED to serve... you did not have volunteers... people would multilate themselves so to render themselves incapable of serving, depopulation occured in the west because of the chaotic times, the east in contrast grew in size and population... I think the lead poisioning contributed a little bit, I don't consider a major, or high supplemental cause at all.

I've been to Chapel Hill several times actually... and seen Duke's campus, (it is amazing...), though I was there for completely different reasons. My GF used to live in Chapel Hill, though now she lives in Pittsboro... so I go there and see her...

Yeah, wait till you hit 40. HAHAHAHAHA!! Hey, I'm 21 and I already feel like I'm 40... couple years at doing a labor intense job I think does that to you though I guess...

Not surprised by any of this... there is a pleathora of artifacts and priceless art and archeology treasures that currently sit in museums in London, Paris, Berlin and New York... though more so in London and Paris. So much taken back for study yet never returned...

I can read it fine... and so I'll be happy to redo it... 1st "blue" passage. 2nd "blue" part... with the blue also mixed with the normal white text. 3rd "blue" passage, mixed with normal white text... 4th and last "blue" passage... That's all the blue...

I never said the list was long, just that there were those who tried to uphold the republic. I don't know, Caeser didn't seem too much a man for the republic when he declared himself dictator for life. Though he did put through reforms and bills that should've gone through years before, but the Senate would not because they did not want to change the status quo. Though you can also say he did them to make himself more popular. A grid would be nicely, though I'm afraid it would take us a while to grid all of those factors out.