Neos Dionysos

Well Caeser had the ability to make people fanatically loyal because he led from the front and incurred the same hardships they did, but, Pompey did not have his old army that he won all of his conquests from. Some were reformed but for the most part his veterans were given lands and settled and no longer in the army. They were re-formed into newly raised legions by the various power players along with new recruits etc, thus negating the experience they accumulated as they were with thier own old unit.

Caesar does deserve acclaim for what he accomplished but perhaps he has too much than he really deserve. The same could be said about any famous person of history, an example is Alexander. Yes he was a great general but so few give credit to his generals who, in thier own right were very good if not at least highly competent and yet we can never really know just how much they added to make Alexander's victories so no matter whay he gets the credit his his leuitenants recieve little if any. Added to this, we must take into account that victor's write history. So Caeser's tales are told by himself and he may make himself out to be better than he really was, using propaganda and telling the people he killed 20,000 in a battle when he only killed 2,000. No person who writes thier own story is ever 100% truthful, they naturally have a bias in thier written texts and speeches to further thier own aims. This doesn't take away what they accomplished but should be kept in the back of ones head when they hear of great stories and feats done by person A or B. Another problem is that over time, someone goes from a leader to a legend and over time stories and triumphs they render and deeds they commit are made to be monumentus in achievement. I guess my final comment on this is that Caeser deserves credit for his achievements but I think we, like everyone in the world has made him out to be greater, (and this goes for every other great figure in history), than they really ever were. This is where Heros are made. They die ordinary men who accomplish awesome deeds and we revere and emulate them to legendary status. Such is the problem we face when evaluating figures of history.

Until the military lifts someone on thier shields. That just gave me an interesting thought, I wonder how many were lifted on the shields on legions in the end. Replying to world politics though, well it all depends on the perspective you take. Are you of the school of thought which beleives the entire world can live hand in hand, or of that one can be trusted for too long and it's everyman, (nation), for itself. Personally there is a fine line between the two that should be tred by states. The outward appearance and attempt for a peaceful co-existance but to always be prepared to fight for your existance.

It's called Karma... the old man got punished for such a cruel death toward an innocent little mouse.

Harmless? Tell that to the people who suffered under them. Indeed, this is the same way that killed Emperors because they felt like it and who ransomed off the empire to the highest bidder. Not the best of systems if you ask me.

LoL, everytime my Prof hears that "History repeats itself." he snaps it's so funny. I agree with you because it is so much easier saying that than, throughout history, like situations are repeated due to the same set variables being applied. Yeah I know... this was a nonesense post. But I do agree with you Flavius, hence why I said each system was good for it's period and the particular situation they evolved from. But here we get to be armchair generals and pick favorites.

I agree with you Flavius, though I wish the Tetrachy was an option all it's own though the Dominate is kinda combined with it. Either arguement we each take, one side has more pros and cons and each is for given situations. Systems change and evolve to deal with current or contemporary issues and problems. The Republic used Dicatorship in cases of emergency, while the regional procons and governors dealth with civil and military matters in thier respective regions. The Principate was the evolution from using a dictatorship in emergencies to using it all the time to deal with any and all issues not just dire ones. The Tetrarchy was the transition to rivert back to a more spread out power-base. Two Augustii, (one Senior the other Junior), and two Caesars one for each Augustus. While there was a clear chain of command each had realitive free reign, (so to speak), in thier assigned areas and dealth with the thier own important issues. Instead of proconsul or praetorian prefect, (as we know the change in the office in the later empire), handling the tasks you had a man with an army to back him up and with strong Imperium. Perhaps the later empire needed more hands on, iron-fist administration and control given the times and conditions it was used. Though I am inclined to think the Tetrarchy would have been an excellent system had it not been for men in power wishing to see themselves and sole-ruler. The main problem with the Tetrarchy was that the place of Augustus and Caesar was not defined well enough, in the sense of succession I mean. The Tetrarchy was funcitioning quite well until Constantinus Chorlus passed away and Constantine was proclaimed to the purple by his father's army. IIRC the problem with Diocletian and Maximian's, (forced for him it would seem), abidication was that it led to other men proclaiming themselves Augustus thus started the civil war. Perhaps if a better system had been prepared or at least tinkered with we would have a lasting system that was not a one time deal.

This does bring up an interesting question though. What role did the Constantinoplian Senate play in the years after Constantine into the Byzantine Empire... we can say limited... but surely they did something... and had influence... I think we should investigate this one.

No. His men loved him even when they hated him, but every human has a breaking point, unless he constantly revovled and changed his army so that no veteran served more than a set amount of time, than he would constantly run into the same problems. The question also arises that he would need new companions again and again because just with the basic soldier, each of Alexander's companions would want his own domain at some point or another or to enjoy the spoils of thier success. New leuitenants would be needed and this would effect the army in their effectiveness. In addition, had he gone on to the beyond and continued conquering he would be seen today and even in his day as a great general, but a terrible administrator. Alexander left a lasting effect on the world by his victories and conquests without a question, yet made little attempts to really administer his domain, besides setting up Alexandria's everywhere so he could station veterans to settle and help hold the land, he did little else, it was his successors, his generals and companions who ran his empire and turned it into the hellic domains that would later endure. Well, my two cents anyway.

Emperor Galienus. All of the problems he faced and the severity of the situations yet, he was able to maintain and strengthen what he took on and also helped create the transitioning from the classical Imperial Army to that of the one of the late period.

Where did you read it? The greek language was an offical language of administration of the Roman East, when the Empire was united. Are you sure? I was always under the impression Latin was the preferred of the two, but Greek could be used. Kinda like how Ptolemaic Egypt, the court system used both Greek and Demotic...

An excellent account and I think the only book soley devoted to the subject is "The Varangians of Byzantium" by Sigfus Blondal and translated by Benedikt S. Benedikz. It draws a lot of information on the unit from various sources, however I think the only drawback is that where evidence is lacking on some regrads they tend to become a bit speculative instead of just saying, we have no info on this... moving on. But all in all a great book. To add to your factual history, there's a nice romantic story in /King Harald's Saga/ (translation published under that title in Penguin Classics, 1966) chapters 13-14. King Harald Hardradi served in the Varangians in his youth. Princess Zoe wanted to marry him: he refused and was imprisoned. 'A lady', no doubt one of his other admirers, organised his escape. Once he was freed, in revenge for his imprisonment the Varangians blinded the emperor. HAHAHAHA! I love that saga... some of it is well written propaganda and some others I have read is just REALLY out there... (the story that Harald while in prison won his freedom by killing a dragon IN prison). The book I mention ironically goes into detail to show the falacy of the entire episode... I always laugh when I read that saga, because the tie in some facts into a story that can't be. Empress Zoe, (who by this time was in her 60's), is involved directly and indirectly that it was a realtive of her's by the name of Maria. Also, he blinded Michael V who ruled for only 4 months and not the Emperor who imprisoned him, who was Constatine V I believe. You gotta love propaganda...

Justinian is seen as the last 'Roman Empire' because of his laws and adminstrative measures. The reason the language suddenly changes soon after him is because of Heraclius, who came to power in the very early years of the 7th century changed the official language to Greek and changed the administrative sectors and the laws into Greek as well.

Exactly, one has to wonder of some notorious situations like that of the Goths when Valens allowed them to settle. Had the Roman officials in charge of them had no treated them so terribly and took every advantage of them during a famine. The entire rebellion and destruction of the land would never have happened and you would have had thousands good soldiers to bolster the Imperial ranks. Yep, and this is where the seeds of hatred start and would eventually go into the splitting of the churchs and the contempt of East and West. In the end, I remember coming across a saying that was amongst the people of Constantinople just before the siege by Mehemt II, "Better the sultan's turban than the pope's hat." Another event that helped speed it along was the relegious persecution that Justinian pursued in the region. He, along with Theodora, were a certain sect of Christianity, (I cannot remember offhand), and they tried to forcibly convert and remove the other groups from the Eastern Lands, kinda like how Arianism was rooted out and destroyed before it, (though at this time it was still hanging on I think). This couple with the above is the perfect time for an invasion or revolt to occur.

An excellent account and I think the only book soley devoted to the subject is "The Varangians of Byzantium" by Sigfus Blondal and translated by Benedikt S. Benedikz. It draws a lot of information on the unit from various sources, however I think the only drawback is that where evidence is lacking on some regrads they tend to become a bit speculative instead of just saying, we have no info on this... moving on. But all in all a great book.

Ah yes, the Praetorian Guard... one of the few very well known 'elite' units in history who seemed to cause more damage than protect from it. Plus, who could forget these are the same men who auctioned off the Empire to the highest bidder... I'd like to argue that the Varangians of Byzantium were far better, (though less known), than the Praetorians, simply because they were actually loyal and did not make or break Emperors.

Eastern emperors never "Hellenized" their empire. Where did you read that? The Eastern Portions of the Empire, (as Philhellene points out), were not Hellenized. They were always Hellenic from back to Alexander's day, the Romans never truely Romanized it they took it over and ran the administration and the upper levels for the most part spoke Latin but the lower classes and middle would be Greek with some Latin, over time when the main Latin speaking portions of the empire disappear you lose your Latin from dissuse. Just like the Greece and Macedonia was never really, 'Romanized' in the sense that they stopped speaking Greek and lost all thier culture, the same was in the East, besides, Rome admired the Greek culture and looked at it as thier forerunner.

It looks real nice but I am VERY skeptical because I have run across MMORPG's that look good and that have flopped... what can you tell us about the game? (I have readthe FAQ I mean anything more in depth from that).

For the most part all emperors after Diocletian were in power from military means, for instance Constantine took the throne and his line held it until Julian, (who was part of his family but not the direct line), took it by force, once he was killed in battle, the army chose the next set of Emperors. Jovius died after having been named the chosen successor so Valentinian was then chosen. He chose his brother to be co-Emperor in the East and the Valentinian Dynasty began, and would continue on until a new one came about etc. My point is, the Senate had little say or consul in these matters and during this time. Emperors truely ruled like monarchs and the days of the Senate of being anything more than an administrative body, (if that even), were long gone. Hence why this period is no longer considered part of the Principate but the Dominate.

God I feel old... LoL

Man. In the morning (at youth) , man crawls on four. During the day, (middle age), man walks on two legs. During the evening, (old age), man walks with a cane. An excellent riddle... Edit: Curse you Flavius, you beat me by mere seconds!!!!

I completely agree. Caligula was crazy and mad because of Tiberius, he was a victim and then in the end, history remembers Caligula as the mad one and Tiberius as an 'ok' emperor. Who knows, if Germanicus had made emperor, and done at least as good a job as Augustus, (the fact he was honor bound and did NOT march on Rome speaks volumes for his character), Caligula would have followed possibly, (he did have two older brothers), and he himself beloved by the army may have been an excellent ruler as well and Julio-Claudian line would have been a damn good ruling line. Of course... this is a lot of what if's... and we sadly shall never ever know.

Congrats Pertinax On a small note, itsn't the proper term Roma Victrix??? Where's Flavius when you need him.

I'm not I've got a marble throne with my name on a gold plate waiting for me in hell...

That's my point it's an excellent story, but how much truth is there in it.