Neos Dionysos

This might help you considering how daily life was, since it covers how the state of affairs developed into what they did from the glory days of Rome. Living conditions, economics and even livestock etc. Hope it helps.

I'm curious to this source, since Ammianus Marcellinus never mentions the Roman Army being in any disorganization, a decline in discipline, weaponry, or equipment and he was a soldier so he was very astute to the conditions of the army. Are you speaking of the foederate forces? Such as the settlements of Visigoths, Franks, Burgandians? I would agree they were as is, and had to come to fight as ordered by Rome as part of thier agreements, but they weren't part of the Roman Army, more so allies than anything.

I am really of the impression that Alexander would not have been ever able to go West, because he would have died, if not in combat, then by his own push to 'keep going' he would have killed himself. His drinking orgies, the way he took care of himself, (his wounds never healed against the Malians), etc. If that was not his undoing, I think his own generals would have off'd him, since Alexander would not just 'stop' and settle down. The army mutinied a couple times while he was alive, and after his death more so, his generals, (except for PERHAPS his CLOSEST), would have discreetly killed him because, they were tired and did not want to continue campagining. Alexander was... lol... Alexander, unique among men of history, someone who was never satisfied, always wanting more. Unless he changed generals, I think they had hit thier limits and I am a beleiver that his companions had a hand in his death.

"History is, indeed, little more than the register of the the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind." "The best and most important part of every man's education is that which he gives himself." "Books are those faithful mirrors that reflect to our mind the minds of sages and heroes." ~Edward Gibbon

Coming back to this topic, I find that there really is little written on Valentinian or his family. (Save for Lenski's work). Much is done on Theodosius, (I think this is due to his stance with Chrisitanity), but little is written then of the Valentinian Dynasty and the later Valentinian-Theodosian since they were tied together. It would be, I think, an excellent thing if a scholar did a comprehensive work on at the very least Valentinian since he seems to be the last Emperor to truely rule the West and a man who all around had excellent qualities of a leader, his only fault perhaps being his love of his family*, and his anger problems which probably caused him to have an anyersium and die. *I say family because Ammianus relates that when he was deciding on a collegue to rule with, he was advised, "If you love your relatives, most excellent emperor, you have a brother; if it is the state that you love, seek out another man to invest."

The only one I can really think of is "Diocletian and the Roman Recovery" by Stephen Williams. Though I have recently come across this, The Reflections of Diocletian by Robert C., II Montague, I don't know if this is fiction or actual fact...

It can be argued that the officers of the Late Empire were actually the best than ever before in the state's history. This is due directly because of the 3rd Century Crisis. During that time, emperors broke with the tradition whereby higher commands were reserved for senatorial amaeturs as a step in thier aristocratic careers. Promotion was from henceforth by merit, and the high commands opened up to a far wider pool of talent. This allowed the best qaulified to become the commanders of the army, and also more quickly weeded out those who could not hack it since threats constantly threatened Rome, a commander's capacity to command would easily be tested. If he failed, he was done for, if not, he had an excellent career ahead of him. So leadership is not an issue here. You're right Ursus, since the days of the Augustus Barbarians were used by Rome and it just increased and increased. The issue is when people see, "Barbarians" in the army they think of disorganized rabbles and men whom the Romans could not control, this was not the case, they were trained, structured and led like Roman Armies would normally be.

Yes, it was during thier reigns so were looking at 363AD and up, and by the reign of Theodosius 'Heresy' finally becomes a defined illegal and punishable act, and heresy was anything that was not Nicean Christianity.

Valentinian and Valens were nuts when it came to 'evil sorcery'... Another great example, when the two had officially assumed the purple and they returned to Constantinople, they both fell very ill suddenly and for a month or two it looked bad but then both made a full recovery. Immideitly were was an investigation into charges of sorcery against them, but men around the brothers calmed them down and investigations did not take place, or executitions, though the idea of 'sorcery' was something that would creep back up years later and when this incident was pulled, (the Theodorus affair), many lost thier lives to Valens purges of 'sorcery'... I beleive his brother followed a similar policy in the West as well.

At Alexander's time, Rome was nothing more than some barbarian tribal group, (from the view point of Alexander and the Greeks and Macedonians), what was important and worth going West was Scily, Magna Graecia and Carthage. Also, an explaination why Alexander went East was besides his desire to punish Persia for all of her years of meddling in the affairs of the Greek world and also because he wanted to not only imitate the Gods but surpass them. The Gods being Heracles and Dionysos who both travelled far to the lands of the East, (into Sogdia, Baktria, over the Hindu-Kush), and were not only adventurers but 'conquerors' according to the myths. He wanted to out do them, to show that not only was he equal to them, but better. This is I think, one of the most important reasons for his eastward movements after Persia had been defeated.

In no particular order... Constantine Aurelian Valentinian Theodosius

I doubt there was much to take anyway, all of the riches and relics were plundered when the Crusaders sacked the city in 1204.

Agreed... While I can be persuaded to see this as possibly happening... I have a hard time seeing how this could be repeated... or that Roman Officers just merrily ride through Gallic Forests unescorted.

As has been pointed out, sure the engineers and technology comes from Western Europe but so long as you have the money you can acquire the best there is... because I would not say the Europeans helping them were "stupid" for it, it's just that everyone has a price.

Europe was not ahead of the Ottomans, if you recall Constantinople fell because the Turks had the imployment of thousands of heavy cannon that decimated and destroyed the walls of Constantinople. They were a rich, powerful and large empire they could easily pay for the same weaponry and technology that Europe had, and only a handful of European nations at the time could afford to equip in a large effective scale.

Yes, Orthodoxy, which was pre-dominant in the East and into Russia, not Western Europe. I don't think many of the common people or many of the Roman Catholic church lost much sleep over it mainly because of the sharp division of views b/w each of the churchs.

Nope, and they may never will. Hollywood I don't think the fall of Rome or the period thereafter is worth since people don't want to see such a period. Though I would argue I'm kinda glad since I'd rather have B or C Movies made on the period instead. Sure there isn't great effects and the budgets very low but they also tend to be far more accurate than A movies...

A couple points, I wonder how great of a blow to Christianity it would have been, yes Rome was a strong papacy and the seat of the pope, but only cenutry eariler Avignon in France was the seat of the papacy, so it could be argued that the pope could merely transfer to the other location. The Ottomans did try expand into Europe, (once the Byzatines were no longer a good bulwark against them), and men like Vlad Tepes did much to prevent Turks from exploiting holdings in Europe, the failed Serbian Crusade into the lower Balkans, and the battle of Vienna which threw back the Ottomans.

Major flaws... I took a look at the Ptolemaic Period of Egypt... Reading it one can say that the author if not has an agenda, at the very least has a very strong bais and is completely neglecting information which counters, or completely refutes some of thier claims. I would stay VERY far away from this site, and suggest that Wikipedia has much more information that is much more accuracte compared to this site.

I came across some info. I don't think the execution of those Senators was the death of the Roman Senate, though it did help it along. The last recored acts of the Senate seem to be dispatches sent to Constantinople and in 580, which was after the Gothic Wars had ended. Also, a report that the last recorded Senator in Rome died in 640 and his name was Petronius, a consul and the father of Pope Honorius. I am trying to verify this information, but if accurate, it shows that the Ostrogothic executions were not the end of the Senate in Rome.

The best advice I can offer would be took look at Theodoric in Italy by John Moorhead, or A History of the Ostrogoths by Thomas S. Burns. They would cover the period directly after the final disposition of the Western Emperor and also of the death of the last recognized Western Emperor in 480. From most accounts it seems that there was not much interruption and that the Senate continued to operate and meet like they always did and to continue to run affairs in Rome. This was finally disrupted and destroyed when the armies of Iustinian under Count Belisarius invaded Italy to re-conqueor in the name of the Roman Empire.

I can't see how you can compare the two, since America has more of an informal empire and it's reasons for 'expansion' and international conflicts is all centered around economics... The causes of Rome's "fall" or "evolution", (depending on the school of thought), are exhaustive... Finally, Valens was Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire from 363-378 and was the younger brother of Valentinian I who ruled the Western Roman Empire from 363-375. I would highly recommend Faliure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD by Noel Lenski because it is the ONLY comprehensive work on Valens to date.

Well, it is easy to see how scholars of the past took what was written by the ancient sources and just retranslated it, thuse the accounts by Suetonius become 100% fact though I beleive he has been shown to not be very truthful himself and with an axe to grind against the Julio-Claudians... (correct me if I am wrong with that). I take it you give no credence to the account that Gaius got her pregnant and in his 'madness' tore the fetus from her womb to prevent it from challenging his position? Which I myself find very hard to comprend. Now, as you stated the idea of a 'marriage' publicly for reasons of rulership like that of the Hellenic kingdoms but correctly keeping it non-intimate because over reaching would lead to his downfall, was his actions then in this regard perhaps too far for Rome at the time? Would it be wrong to possibly take into account that he had discussed this idea with advisors or high officials but they were disgusted with the idea of a Hellenic style rule and so rumors were spread that he was having incest with Drusilla, and when he died of an illness, it was then all the more easy for them to claim she died because of the incestous relations of having a child, thus destroying Gaius politically? Or was this all done after the fact to cement thier true reasonings? I must say, it would be a great read to have an expert re-examine Gaius without the preconceived tales of Suetonius filling his research.

Wow... Ursus... you have WAY too much time on your hands...

I always thought that many of Caligula's "madness" were added after his demise, but given his very harsh upbringing and experiences as a child I don't see it necessarilly that his relationship with his sister, even if intimate, was in his eyes wrong. As has been stated, the Egyptian Gods were consanguinous with themselves and the Ptolemies copied this to make themselves 'more God-like' and the idea of consanguinous marriages by the common people was a common event which continued until the 3rd Century AD when Rome finally banned the practice. So I think a couple takes could be placed on this. 1). If we assume Gaius was intimate with his sister, then he emulating the Gods of the Egyptians and ruling as a Ptolemaic monarch would shows that he was giving legitimacy to his relationship and conveying to Rome that it is not a 'taboo' but something that the Gods themselves do. ...or... 2). If we assume Gaius was not intimate with his sister but still very close to her, then his emulation of the Egyptian Gods and of the Ptolemaic monarchs is that both brother and sister, being so close and as one, is right and like the Gods and perhaps he was going to imitate the rulerships of some of the Ptolemaics where the Pharoah and his sister, (though married), ruled jointly and both were 'divine'. In either case, it gives credance and support to the idea that Gaius was pushing for the Hellenistic type of rulership in Rome, not the hidden rulership of the Princeps, but direct monarchal rule like that of the Hellenic Kingdoms. So I pose to you now, what do you think given these perceptions?