Neos Dionysos

Well Emma, as was pointed out, Christmas was techincally an invention or adaptation in order to get converts. Saying to someone, yes this day is the Feast of Sol Invictus, but it is actually something more, (enter in Jesus talk), and so now you see 'the truth'. You gotta admit, that Christianity is one adaptable religion, taking on so many aspects of paganism, and using it as a tool to convert so many thousands of others to thier belief...

The Battle of Naissus In 268AD, Pannonia, the Goths had invaded Roman territory the yeaar before and were devastating the land. Emperor Gallienus responded quickly and defeated them in the spring, but due to his constant challenges to the throne was unable to fully expel them. In the autumn of that year he led another attack with furture emperor's Aurelian leading the Cavalry and Claudius II leading the infantry. This battle broke the back of the Goths and they lost around 50000 soldiers and took thousands prisoner. Unable to completely destroy the Gothic threat due to yet another ursuper claiming the throne, Gallienus had to leave his seige of the remaining Goths and they broke out of the Roman containment and escaped over the Danube back to safety out of Roman lands. The Goths at one time threatened Rome herself and Galleinus, dispite having to deal with break off kingdoms and empires and constant challenges to his rule was able to exact a terrible cost onto the Goths in the battle and as they retreated they lost even more. This was indeed an astounding victory, especially since Rome was still in the middle of its crisis.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't an important trade and revenue commodity for the Byzantines silk? I swear I read that Constantinople had illegally acquired silk worms and so were able to produce thier own silk and not have to pay the exorbent taxes on it from China and could turn around and sell it to Europe for almost the same price and make a killing? Or am I completely off on this...

I can't tell you of the southern most Roman settlement or town, but I would say the reason for the lack of further expansion was the Atlas Mountains, and the Romans felt that going any further south was not in thier best interests. Perhaps there wasn't anything good in trade coming from the lands over the mountains and so there was no indication that there was really anything worthwhile there.

Thanks a lot Pertinax. It seems I tend to ignore signatures when I should be paying better attention to them.

I have always felt the seeds of destruction for the republic were sown during Marius' consulship, though perhaps even before with the death of the Gracchi, how now disputes were not debated out but opponents were killed. When that starts, the door is open for all possible avenues and true debate begins to die. Don't forget when Caeser was made consul, since the other consul was for the most part kept under house arrest and the year was mentioned as being, "The year of the consulship of Julius and Caeser"... I will agree I am too surprised the Republic lasted as long as it did, though is that due to the use of the Republic as a guise for dictorial or imperial-style rule? Or was it around as long as it was due to the actions of true statesmen and Romans who kept pushing back the death date?

I too have the same feeling and am unsure of the reference. But I don't think it was a 'drift' east, more so it was to ensure that the captives would not defect back to thier old nations of origin and so were sent all the way East so they were in a completely alien world and thus would be more controllable and even more loyal since now they depended on thier captors to keep them alive in such an alien environment.

Reading that reminded me of the story of Constantine XI, who is considered the Immortal Emperor and who will one day rise again to throw out the Turks from his city and refound his empire in God's name. On Arthur... I beleive he existed in a sense. Meaning, he was a hero in a time of darkness when Rome was no longer around and where all over Europe we have this sense of depression, or forbodding sense of existance. A hero of legend to call upon needed to be had, and so, the writers of the story tell us of this 'Arthur' who was the true inspiration, in actually as some have already stated he was probably just a Roman blooded, (I am of the belief he was not pure Britain), man born into a ruling family and assembled what remainded of the native auxilias and fought to save the Romano-Briton culture and society that was created by Roman occupation from the Saxons.

This sounds damn good... You guys have any other links or places I can find more on Roman dishes? Or even Greek for that matter...

Human Nature is the problem... we are dangerous creatures. Smiling and shaking someone with one hand and holding the blade with the other behind the back. As you pointed out, when government ignores human nature the crisis arises... agreed, but the problem still stems from human nature, if it wasn't then government should need not have to concern itself with watching it and to not ignore it and account for it.

What!? LoL... and just what are his viewpoints? This I gotta hear...

I would call it a Scipio argument. Got into an argument over Valens for a while too... even though he wasn't a candidate... lol...

"Diocletian and the Roman Recovery" by: Stephen Williams "Marcus Aurelius" by: Anthony Birley "Sulla; The Last Republican" by: Arthur Keaveney "Sulla the Fortunate" by: G.P. Baker "Trajan: Optimus Princeps : A Life and Times" by: Julian Bennett "Vespasian" by: Barbara Levick Someone else mentioned Hadrian and Constantine shouldn't be terribly hard. On Sejanus, I don't think one exists... unless you want me to check classical/historical journals?

You say beast/monster... I am adding creature and saying the "Pegasus".

Such is the nature of humanity. We are vain, disgusting creatures and only care about the preservation of ourselves over the good of society or our race as a species. The 7 Deadly Sins is something we all have in us, and for some, they are more prominent than anything else...

Sure, if there was trust. The Triumvirates can sometimes be referred to as an early form of Dominate, but the major difference is that Triumvir was working under the Senate which still legally was the highest authority... and so they were like the de facto rulers. If it had been the Empire, it would simply have been a system like the Tertarchy, at least IMO.

I tend to agree with that, and the reason being was the climatic changes which occur every 500 or so years thus forcing them to move south and upon hearing, from before or now of the great rich and wealthy land of Rome they felt this should be thier new home.

Actually Flavius, you aren;t that far off at all. You are right about all of those facts, just you omitted the extra crucial info... (not your fault). The Huns, were a key problem to the Goths coming into Roman lands, but they appeared around the Black Sea area in the early 4th century, my question though is why did they come in middle to late 3rd century? But you are very correct about the way the Goths were treated by Romans of all social classes, in fact during the age of Valens, the term 'Goths' had become a degragatory term and associated with slaves and the worst of the worst. If you look here I go into a lot of detail on this event. Page 6 of this Topic The Goths that were upset during Theodosius' reign because Alaric felt they were used as cannon fodder during the battle of the Frigidus River in 394AD. The major reason though for the revolt was because Alaric felt he deserved to be rewarded with a high command/position within the Roman Government and Military but was not given it and so led the revolt against Rome. Now while this was a bad thing, he was kept in check by his old friend and faithful Roman to the Theodosius dynasty Stilicho who was a Vandal. After defeating Alaric a handful of times, but allowing Alaric to escape, (it's debatable if he really LET him get away or if it was just chance), but the Roman aristocracy and the Emperor Honorius felt him to be a traitor and not to be trusted and he along with other members of the Imperial Family had him executed. This, followed by a mass attack on Barbarian troops throughout the West caused many, (who were loyal to Rome), turn to Alaric since they had no where else to go. Alaric is said to have recieved 30,000 men because of this and used those to sack Rome in 410. My question though is what caused the Goths to initally involve themselves in Rome. Was it for simply conquest and wealth? A search for a new home? Being driven from thier old lands? A climate change? This is the question I pose.

Aurelian... he restored the order of the world and had accomplished what Diocletian is credited for, (ending the 3rd Century Crisis). He recovered the Gallic Empire, the land of the Palryme Empire, further defeated the Goths after Gallenius before him, defeated the Alemmeni, and was about to undertake a massive invasion of Persia, at the perfect time, when two kings had died in a only 2 years and a weak one was in charge, the perfect chance to really deal a hard, crushing blow on Persia, but alas, consipiracy abounded and his Praetorian Guard killed him on the eve of the campaign.

The Goths... where did they come from and why did they suddenly appear on Rome's border only to quickly arrive and ravage the land. Only a spectacular campaign led by Gallenius, (though the Senate gave credit to Claudius II Gothicus), severly weakened and broke the Goths back, forcing them back over the Danube and forcing them to recover. So effective was the counter-campaign that the Goths were unable to pose a serious threat until more than a century later. Now, I'd like us to investigate just what caused this people to suddenly appear on the warpath and the situation in Rome as this was the first among many groups they would encounter in the ensuing centuries.

Thanks for the info and the sites guys... I appreciate it and I am sure there are others, (like Pompeius), here at UNRV who are in the same situation like me.

I am of the firm beleif that Rome had to show everyone that they had to crush every last vestage of opposition to thier rule and that they could never say the war was over so long as those zealots remained. It was all about image and to instill fear to everyone of what they could do and what they were capable of. Even though you are in this seeminly impregnable stronghold, watch us build a huge hill and road, seige your city and show you the impossible is possible when Rome sets out to do it.

LoL, it was his plan all along and to make sure he would be remembered he got himself involved with Kleopatra.

I understand that, but I have looked over his entire career hence why I still push that he was a decent emperor, had he did of a heart attack the day before the battle, he would be remembered as one, not as a terrible one. You are simply looking at this battle, nothing else in the 13 years he reigned. No, they allowed them in, a single tribe of them, because he NEEDED them. I addressed in a previous post the need for recruitment and his growing problems with Persia and the Isaurians, he was short of manpower because he brother took 16,ooo men from his empire. The Goths offered support in exchange for land and a new life. Valens agreed and the whole society and culture of how barbarians are treated was a common thing and the measures the governors used was what ALL governors did. It was standard practice to do that, the problems came when they did not have the manpower sufficent to keep them in line, the famine which broke out made it worse and the Romans perhaps took it to extremes. Yes responsibility does lie at the top to an extent, but blame must also be given out to those who do the deed. I know he was, though he should have been junior Augustus not a full one like his uncle, this started the problems between the too and they only continued when Gratian refused to hand over the prefecture of Illyricum to Valens to govern since it's defense would have consequences on Thrace and his lands, not to mention the forces there that he had originally given to his brother that he now needed to deal with crisises but would not hand over. The West was a much easier ground to recruit men from, not the East and so it was pivotal Valens recieve them back though he was given nothing. Valens did not enter battle intending to fight 200,000. That was the total number overall that had collected over the time from the start of the rebellion till that year. Originally around 80,000, (the Tervingi whom were allowed into Rome) were the only ones in, of this group only 15-20000 were fighting men and they had been disarmed. But once things got out of hand, the Goths who had been denied entry by Valens and those he had fought 8 years before crossed the Danube and they totaled about the same. This added to groups of Taifali, Alans and Huns paid to be mercenaries and run-away slaves, another already settled group of goths near Constantinople, (settled years ago), and disgruntled miners and Roman Army deserters you get around 200,000 as a whole group, not fighting capacity. Valens faced a force of some 40-50000, not that huge of a force, since his was around 40,000 hardly a great advantage. The problem lies is that all these groups were acting independent of each other, yes they listend to Fritigern to an extent but there was no central order or structure and that is why you had roving bands all over the place which turned the region into gureilla style skirmishes etc. The intelligence Valens recieved was the enemy force was no more than 15000, his army easily out did thiers, why not attack? The itelligence was probably right too, but by the time Valens commited to battle the roving bands and the cavalry were on thier way back. We know that Fritigern was delaying time by sending negotiations and embassies to valens so he could call out for help to the other bands of Goths and various groups. Valens was not a good military leader, but he knew he had to act already. Besides the rampages they already commited, Fritigern was moving to cut off all supplies to Valens and his army and they had to act to prevent this. The demands of the Goths at the time were terms that Rome in 378 would never have agreed too so it is not surprsing he sent them away, and as I stated before he did wait for Gratian for almost 2 months, the longer he waits the worse he looks to the people of his empire for not dealing with the situation already. Gratian, who would have been there and who sent more advance units had recalled them and stopped his move East to go north and pursue a band of defeated and scattered barbarians over the Rhine. He has been told full well the gravity of the situation in the East but it is almost as if he could careless because it is not his domain. Again, while I say he is not a great Emperor, and he failed at Adrianople, he does not deserve the title of "Terrible Emperor", had he lived and won and then allowed to carry out his invasion on Persia, his previous acheivements would be known and he would be considered one of the last great emperors of the late empire but fate is funny like that. We only remember his one major screwup and don't even consider all the good things he accomplished. Also, I'd argue that while the battle was decievely bad it did not break Rome, because the East continued on for another 1000 years, what really broke Rome's back was the death of the Western Army in 394 when Theodosius eleimated his ursuper rival from the West at the Frigidus River, but no one talks about that, because it was Romans vs Romans.

Hahaha... no it's fine. This is exactly what I'd like to do... bring in the other Germanic or barbarian, (from Roman view), peoples which were of the period and this is the perfect forum as well. The Byzantines are of course acceptable as well as Britian and the like. Perhaps I'll start off with one group just to post info etc. and we can all start from there and focus on that or also throw in the others as well, maybe turn this into a good descriptions/review of the peoples in question.