Neos Dionysos

Came across this several times, though I have never found any textual data on it. The Lost Legion I thought this would be the best place to discuss the issue... ...so onto the debate.

Perhaps it be better to focus on an actual seperation like the Gallic Empire created in 260 AD, which lasted for almost 20 years and included Britian and Belgica. The one you speak of was more of saying they were going to break off rather than any real force behind it.

Wow Valentinian, you are just what people in America perceive as a stereotypical European these days. Jez, talking about a stagnant economy. I would say more, but would yet again incur the mods wraths. I could say so much... but I'd like not to be banned...

Try this, Greek and Roman Artillery or if you can get your hands on it... this... Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treaties

And after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, many of the soldiers in the English army went to Constantinople to be Varagians, part of the perk was that they would be fighting the Normans in Sciliy and Southern Italy.

I agree with you Plautus I'd love to see one on Julian the Apostate or about Adrianople and Valens... afterall it is the first major Roman defeat in centuries... kinda like a wake up call to the decline of the mighty Romans.

Well there really wasn't a major demand for printed works outside schools of learning like Athens and Alexandria. Some argue that the black plague actualy helped make the printing press, because there are so few people around right after that something needed to be done to copy manuscripts, before hand there were plenty to do the work from abby's and monks but now with the lack of manpower they had to create a new way to print. Just some food for thought.

Other than name it had no relation to the Roman Empire of antiquity. It was created, and Charlamgne crowned Emperor, to supplement and be a check of balance with the Eastern Roman Empire and her Emperor. The west no longer wished to be under the yoke of the east and this was the first major step in breaking away from thier control.

They weren't mercinaries, they were Federates, who were for the most part settled peoples on Roman lands and part of thier treaty was to provide soldiers for the army. The sad reality many of these were more loyal to Rome than most Romans, since many prominent Romans were more interested in being Emperor and rich than saving Rome or the provinces of the empire. The problems came when withen a generation both the Eastern and Western Armies were decimated; the Eastern Army at Adrianople in 378 and the Western Army at Frigidus in 394. In addition you had the persecution of Federate troops by Romans following Magister Militum Stilicho's death. He was a servant of Theodious and his family and I think it more so propaganda that he was made to be this villian, once he was killed 30,000 troops were forced to go to Alaric who used them to sack Rome in 410. I say 1461 with the fall of Trezibond.

The Minoan Civilization fell because of a huge natural disaster that wiped out many of the Creten seaside cities and towns. I argue that the Late Roman Army was not as bad as people claim since the Eastern Army performed thier task quite well and we need to remember many of the barbarian peoples who settled in Rome were either invited in or in a treaty were allowed in and given land, and not after a defeat but after a victory. Two of the most famous settlements, the Visigoths in Aquitaine in 418 and the Burgandians in eastern Gaul in 443 were made from a position of strength. The most lacking element of the Western Roman Army was not equipment but more so a cohesion problem. It did not help that Romans would attack thier own troops and Foederati who were loyal to Rome, such was the case following Stilicho's death. 30,000 Roman troops, (barbarians), left and went to Alaric because they had no where else to go. Many left following persecution and attack by thier Roman comrades and many of thier own families were attacked. You can chalk that all up to Roman arrogance.

And she's a saint now. While she was cruel to her son, she still accomplished many things during her regin. The notable one being the re-instatution of the icons and she ruled fairly well, plus it must be remembered that she only did this act to her son when he tried to have her killed and for him to rule alone so you can't blame her for being secure. Because of course she was ruling, the Papacy saw the throne empty in thier eyes because a woman could not rule in her own right to them and so made Charlamnge Emperor as an insult to the East. It is alleged that Irene tried to negotiate a marriage with Charlamagne but this was thwarted and later Constatine VI tried to marry Charlamagne's daughter but this was in turn stopped by Irene. She was eventually conspired against by people she was very gracious and giving to and they placed Nicephorus, whom Irene had raised to his position of power before this, on the throne. She died a year later in exile on Lesbos. Nicephorus wasn't a great ruler then either, it didn't help that he did not honor the treaty Irene made with the Saracens and so forced a war with them and lost badly having to pay a worse endemity. Later when the Saracen king died, he went east to fight the Bulgars who would defeat him and kill him in battle which then the Bulgar king used his hollowed skull as a drinking cup.

Exactly, 'Victorious Christian Doctrine'... as we all know history is written by the victors and filled with propaganda. You need to be careful of this.

I am confused... what was the point of this post. To make a statement that had you been a Roman you would've been a practioner and loyal adherent to the unconqoured sun or just to post an overview of religious ways of life in Rome? Nah, I say it did not end until the 15 century A.D, then again I am of the Byzantine-ilk.

One can kinda say that since afterall the Western Roman Empire, (WRE), was turning and transforming into a Germanic scene and now you have the 'Holy Roman Empire' which was German. The Church used Charlamange to establish order and stability in the region and in my opinion was also more created for a challenge and opposition to the strong influence of the dominace of the Orthodox church in the East. This was a chance for the Catholic church to ascend the latter and no longer be a pawn but be part of the power politics like the East and so championed for a united empire under Christian Catholic rule. From this you did have a lot of communication b/w East and West and each regarded the other but the East still believed themselves the true Romans, which they were, since the Holy Roman Empire was Roman in name only and in the faith, all the old Roman systems of administration had been replaced by this time while those in the west were functioning to an extent or some though they would not be recognizable by late Empire officals. I thought he meant the last stage of evolution that we have seen, not what should have happened otherwise I would agree a form of democracy would be the last stage.

Eastern Roman/Byzantine history is very fascinating indeed. I highly suggest you pick up John Julius Norwich's trilogy "Byzantium" hardcover books, book 1 "The Early Centuries", book 2 "The Apogee", and book 3 "The Decline and Fall". If this is too much you can get a condensed version of the three in "A Short History of Byzantium". It is not as long but a lot of facts hit you at once so be prepared but it is an excellent lead and a good start for those who are new to subject because it is not some dry read but made enjoyable.

Right, but this was to capture it from Saracen hands, not to try and extract it over the same way the Eastern Church had once dominated the Western one in Rome. The Normans eventually came in and took the island, and the Byzantines continued to fight them for years since Sicily was seen as a birthright to be part of the Imperial fold mainly because of its highly Greek population and orthodox sway. My eariler point was that the initial ocnquest of Italy in the 6th Century was not a big deal with the church since they were not split, once they were the West wanted to be independant and Sicily was not really part of that so there was not the fear of being under sway of the the Eastern Church. There was no attempt to conqueor Rome, and both churches would be at each others throats.

No, he persecuted Iconophiles, they were all Orthodox at this time just different sects. Constatine V Copronymus, (meaning the 'Dung-named' because it was said during his baptism he deficated), continued the policy of Iconoclasm from his father Leo III and was of the beleif that it was heretical to venerate images of Jesus and Mary since to him and his supporters it seemed as though people were worshiping that actual imagne, rather than the person on the image. Leo IV, his son, was married to an Athenian named Irene who would become one of the most famous of Byzantine Empresses and is now a saint in the Orthodox church because while her husband, like Constatine V and Leo III his father and grand-father, was Iconoclast he was moderate towards them but soon enacted very harsh punishments after Constantine V's death and when it was discovered that Irene had Icons in her private bed chamber hidden she quickly lost favor and was no longer visited by Leo IV. He died shortly afterward though in battle and many quickly said it was divine retribution from god and Irene, acting as regent for her baby son Constantine VI, was crowned Empress and ruled for quite a while and brought Iconoclasm to an end.

Hahaha, and all the posts are probably by me right? Dan, I'm trying right now to go through various books and other texts to see if I can find detailed information on her though it is hard. What we know of her is just what we are told mainly from the Byzantine perspective and anything that the Ostrogoths would have had would have been negative since they hated her, thought her a traitor to her people and culture. If I do find anything majorly different from the basic details on her I will make a thread and post them, though right now I have not found much. The only additional info I found was the plan her and Justinian had formed just before her arrest and then the possible outcomes and implications of this and I am right now looking at which books on my desk I found that in.

Flavius Aetius, Belisarius, Amalansutha (I know she is isn't Roman but damnit she is too interesting not too), Constatine XI and Diocletian.

Without his victorious army from Gaul he would not have been as much of a fear that he had been before, though I assume had he returned if the Senate felt him to still be too much of a threat and someone they could not handle then he would have been dealt with in one manner or another. For Caesar's part, I wonder how much of a choice did he have. Return to Rome with nothing, (save political image which would slowly dissappear when you are no longer doing anything for 'Rome's glory'.), and face likely death, fall on the sword which he could have done and it would not have been a loss of honor or dignity, at least I think. But as we know he chose the final option which was to march on Rome... and give the death blow to the Republic.

Does no one tire of this old tale of progressive Caesar fighting alone for badly-needed reforms? Does no one yawn at this yarn of an evil Senate, one full of aristocrats who no doubt eat poor babies for fun and profit? Why who needs Frank Capra? We've already got "Mr. Caesar Goes to Rome"! Think about this for a second. When exactly did Julius Caesar make these supposedly people-loving reforms? After he had himself appointed DICTATOR FOR LIFE. If Julius Caesar were really such the darling of the people, why couldn't he run for office like everyone else? If the people loved Caesar for his reforms, why didn't they elect more allies for Caesar? If Julius Caesar were really so concerned about the enfranchisement of the plebs, why did he have to hand-pick their representatives in the Senate, the tribunes? If the Senate were really such an opponent of the rights of the people and so willing to subvert their own laws, why didn't they abolish the veto power of the tribunes? If these laws of Julius Caesar were really the products of progressive thinking and superior political acumen, why were they ignored by his loyal allies? And if Caesar were not responsible for the death of the Republic and the Republic were dying for a century before Caesar was even born, why was the Republic --like a Phoenix--able to recover time and time again, only to die decisively once Julius Caesar came along? Isn't it possible that Julius Caesar simply used the poor, like a pimp uses his whores, to get what he wanted--viz., absolute power and everlasting fame? He got what he wanted. Must we endlessly repeat his propaganda? I never said he did it for the love of the people or the Republic. He was simply opportunistic. I am not repeating propaganda that he was some perfect, plebian loving man only out for the betterment of Rome, he was human and he was a 'true' Roman. A corrupt, greedy, arrogant, military strategist who used problems apparent in the current system to set himself up above the rest and acsend to a position of complete power and control. Now, what better way to make yourself look legitmate and loved by the people than giving them what they wanted? Don't assume I am toting "Caesar is the hero of the people!!" because I am not. The laws were ignored for so long because as I said the Senate wanted nothing more than to continue the status quo, hardline conservative thinkers unwilling to change or make reforms which might affect thier own land holdings, monetary value or position of power and influence. Recover time and time again? It was dying for a century and it was given enough medication to keep it going. Kinda a major illness, you can keep taking the proper medication and help yourself but once it becomes terminal no help in the world can save it. The Republic recovered because men who saw the problems or saw an iminent collaspe made the very bare minimum in changes to make sure the system continued. Using a band-aid to cover a rupertured artery is hardly what I consider a recovery, more like a delay.

The Senate was more of a disaster for the Republic, Caesar made reforms and changes that were decades overdue to help allievate the problems. The Senate wanted to keep the Status Quo, money and power in thier hands, when this was really straining the Republic and hurting her, the Gracchi tried to fix this and agains change the status quo, they were killed for it. Caesar followed in a sense the same way. He was loved by the people notfor just his victories but because he set forth laws and reforms that benifited the people not the aristocracy. The Senate, unable to accept changes went to drastic measures to ensure things stayed the same, so they are the ones who forced an end to the Republic in my eyes. Does this change the fact that Caesar wanted to be another Alexander? That we was a very notorius womanizer? A killer of hundreds of thousands of people both men-at-arms and civilians? No... but even if Caesar had not come along, someone else would have and we still would have had the Principate and the Empire because the Republic was dying for a century before Caesar was even born.

No, all the time. I think the last attemts to conquer something in the West there were in XI century. Can you give a reference? Because I can not think of any attempts to conquor land in the west excpet in the Balkan region, and that it not really the west and they were more of taken back recently lost land.

Yes, in the sixth century, Charlamagne does not come around until the 9th century when the West no longer wished to be under the rulership of the East, before then they still allowed the East to be over them in authority though over the years this attitude quickly began to fade. Still, it does not change my point in the arguement that 'Byzantine' is an invention of European scholars well after the Eastern Romans were gone.

The Byzantines were always Roman. Maybe not in our eyes but certainly in thier own and thier contemporaries. The name for thier Empire, while Greek was still the literal translation of the Latin form for 'Roman Empire'. The West however, did not like to consider themselves under the rule of the East and so set up thier own structure starting with Charlamagne. Regardless of what the feelings and sentiments were, the land of Anatolia and especially the lands of Thrace, Macedonia and Greece were called Rumilia by the Turks well into the modern age which stood for, 'Land of the Romans' and until recent times, many in these regions would refer to themselves as Romans, though nowadays it is more of a folk name than an offical recognition one. Much of what we are led to beleive about the Byzantines and even the name Byzantine comes from the European Scholars in France who coined the term, thus making them seperate from Rome and not the same, Gibbon carried on this legacy by writing a terrible history on her and blaming so many problems on her society. We must also keep in mind that there is still the hatred of the scism between the churches and that the West hate such a contempt for the East that they sacked the city in the 'Fourth Crusade'. Only in the last century have we really begun to question the established status quo on Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire and begin to see it is not as bad, nor as truely sperate from Roman heritage. Yes they spoke a different language and there were drastic changes here and there, but all societies do this, Rome from the founding of the Republic was much different from Rome of the Empire, and so it would be the same of the 'second Rome' in the East. In my eyes, Rome did not actually fall until 1461ad, when Trezbiond fell to the Turks and even then, as Tobias has pointed out and I have stated, people still called themselves Roman in certain parts of the old Byzantine sphere.