Neos Dionysos

Don't remind me... LoL Now, Phil I have a question here. Because of the adoption then of Hellenic style rule and of the adoption of mainly Ptolemaic which copied the Egyptian Gods, do you think Gaius chose this style also becuase of how Isis and Osirus were both husband and wife but also full brother and sister? Hence his close relationship with his own sister, (whether or not it was sexual he was still very close to her), and why he may have emulated it and this style of rule?

Hello Dr. Keaveney and thank you for answering our questions... My question is, why did Rome act the way it did in Greece and Macedonia? What I mean is, it seemed as though originally Rome had little enthusiasm for interfering in the Greek world but they went in anyway. After thier initial conquest of Macedonia, why did they leave and just hand things back over only to have to go in again and finally years later have to go in once more. I guess my overal question is, why was Rome's actions here so different from thier conquests of other areas, where once they were there they stayed? Thanks.

Thank you for the correction, this time period of history is not a strong point of mine...

I just saw this... looked up what they are saying the "plot" of the movie is... because, let's be honest how many people when they hear "Hannibal" think the Carthagian General, or the Hollywood Serial Killer... So... this is what it says... "Vin Diesel stars as the Carthaginian general who led an elephant-riding battalion across the Alps to attack Rome in the 3rd Century B.C." God help us if they use this litterally and he has like a couple hundred men on Elephants riding around Rome... I fear another Gladiator... good movie, nice story... terrible history...

Right, that's another key influence... the fusion of paganism to Chrisitanity to gain converts more easily and we lose that history, we lose those roots because suddenly Church doesn't want to admit in some of it's more sacred holidays or institutions or sacrements, there is a root to some pagan idea, or thought, or day, or event. Sadly, I also wonder what exactly was cut out from the bible or our later teachings by Constantine and his Counicl at Niecea. Since only those who beleived his way were invited to it... and Arius and leaders of the other sects ignored and isolated. In a recent debate with a close friend, I am struck how deeply her feelings are, (and I respect her for it), but I just feel that to think that there was no political motiviation or purposeful distortion when the Counil met to make an official bible is naive... Naive to think people do not have agenda's and it makes me wonder, was Arius and his followers wrong? Were they more correct to the teachings of Christ? Have we been fed lies? It's all a personal opinion, choice and decesion to make... I'd like to think my faith is "Holy" and thus pure and would not purposely do wrong... but then again, I am a student of history and now better and thus it makes me question what is supposed to be 'Right' and 'Fact'... and asking my own pastor for his feelings and 'guidance' gets me know where, (I don't know why I am surprised...).... Sorry... little bit of a rant there...

Just of of curiosity, might i ask what you dislike about Justinian? Well, some see his grand expiditions West as foolhardy and exhaustive to the treasury and resources of the empire and thier conquest brought little back to offset the cost, besides paying huge amonts of gold and silver to the Persians to make sure they did not attack while the Army was in the west... though... even though he did these things... I count him as an overall good Emperor personally... mainly for his laws and massive building programs in Constantinople...

I think you mixed the centuries a little... Theodosius was 4th Century, and Honorius 5th Century. On a side note which I think may add to the discussion, I have seen that a very influencial policy created by Theodiosius was that of using Barbarians against Barbarians, that any barbarian force is potentially an ally against a future or current enemy and that even a current enemy should be courted in a way to use as a future ally. This policy was imitated by Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius... etc. All of the "true" ruler's of the West. One could argue that this policy was self-destructive but also a saving grace... since this policy allowed Rome to use a lot of barbarian support, (many of whom were former enemies), to stop Attlia. I'm looking more into all of this and I wonder... perhaps this policy was a necessity, and Romans knew they needed it, even though they knew it would slowly lead to the dissolution of the empire.

And I agree... hence why I am really trying to find this out, since as a Roman Catholic I find I have issues believing what I have been told since a child. Am I so wrong for thinking this really has merit/logic? I am not sure concerning Plato's theory. Very true. Exactly, and I am afraid to admit that perhaps that it was destroyed by the rivals that the original notion is now forever lost to us...

See I want to avoid Wikipedia... and the damn shame is that most of what is written about Arius or Arianism to date is from the opposite point of view so of course it will be 'heretical'. Is there any non-biased sources out there?

Right, but they are essentially cannon-fodder. They cannot fight as well as the good soldiers so you're wasting bodies... which would then need to be filled again, and with recruitment so bad you NEED to take thumbless soldiers I think you would hinder yourself more in the long run then helping in the short run. Besides, you can say it's a "cusiher job" but they could also be doing all the manual labor. Built the camps, repair walls etc, while the good soldiers avoid it, also, you need those good soldiers up front so besides manual labor, logistics is the only logical place I can see for the thumbless ones to be placed while actually getting some good work out of them.

If I am going to far forward... But I'd also like to comment on a person who gets little recognition, that being Tamerlane and his Golden Horde.

So instead of just cutting off your thumbs, (which would still be a major change to your daily life), you'd rather cut off your arm? Just becaue you're right-handed, doesn't mean you cannot learn to use your left, so for that to work you'd have to cut off both arms which, without help is physically impossible. Besides, if you amputate your arm, you're probably die since these are mere provincials who would have no knowledge how to properly treat such a wound, and, even if they did stop the bleeding, they might develop gaingreen, etc. That's an interesting question that begs another, just how were they accepted by other soldiers? I can't imagine much confidence by peers or leadership in someone who's actions show them out to be a coward to such an extent they'd chop an appendage off. It points to things being so bad just a warm body would suffice. I'd train them up--assuming a work around on the no-thumb thingy--and put the schmucks right up on the front line the first encounter we had with some sturdy troops right behind them. True, but how much confidence could you trust them with a front line job like that? I mean, if they're willing to cut of body parts to avoid basic service, who's to say once the meat meets the metal they just won't turn and run, and not only weaken the morale of your good troops, but possibly cause a terrible change in sitiuation that could cost the lives of many a good soldier. I'd think though they would be looked down upon very heavily and perhaps officers were smart to avoid inter-persecution by peers they placed them in rear units as groups so, instead of them being scattered, they are grouped and so they have a common bond at least. Might help with morale, might not...

As a Roman Catholic, I underwent a lot of 'force fed' education concerning religion and especially that of early forms of Chrisitianity. My question concerns the sect of Arianism which was first introduced by Arius in Alexandria. I would like to ask anyone out there who knows more on religions of Rome or early Christianity what the major controversy was? Was it simply that those who followed Arius beleived that there was no equal trinity or was there more to it? Also can anyone point me toward good sources or books on the subject? Thank you for any help you can give me.

Is this the novel by Manda Scott? I don't think you can really take what's in that book as fact since it's a novel and while there are foundations to the facts used there is also a lot of liberation taken in novels to increase the readibilty and interest of the material.

That's in Palestine, Judea area no? Perhaps they were only appointed in provinces that were in very troublesome areas or had a history of discontent where military action was required.

The only thing that comes to mind currently is the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists all of the counts both east and west, though this is the only list I know of that does this. Perhaps you can look for a pattern to the grades per their assignments and duties. Hope this helps...

I think it has to do more with he was a genunie 'crusader of the Greeks'... meaning, when Tarentum called for his aid, he came... when Syracuse called... he came... his benifit perhaps was to gain more allies etc, but personally it may have been knowing that he was keeping the Greeks 'Greek', under thier own rule etc. I could be romantizing him but it's what I get from his character and from his actions, each time he comes to thier aid, his allies and those who ask for his help, turn thier cheeks to him and just act against his advice etc. and then hate him for being there as well, I kinda see him as an almost tragic figure.

Adrianople is a terrible example of Cavalry destroying Infantry supremacy... for the simple fact that the Roman Forces were already committed to battle when the barbarian, (they weren't Gothic, they were Alan and Hunnic mercs), cavalry came back on the scene, drove off the Roman Cav and was thus able to encircle and smash the Romans from the flanks and rear. This does not signify the death of heavy infantry and the emergance of cavalry as the mainstay of armies, because for the next couple centuries, infantry was still the mainstay.

She be a harsh and unpredictable mistress... http://dojo.fi/~rancid/loituma__.swf

I find it ironic that the person is on the most conservative news agency possible... But I will say, that it's issues like this that make me upset that freedom of speech allows this... *sigh* ...but not wanting to get into a debate over freedom of speech I will refrain from commenting on that further. I have too many friends, who brothers to me execpt by blood, who are and have served in Afganistan and Iraq and when I see things like this... ...I'm gonna stop right here.

Despite these resources, it still have seemed to Aurelian that abandoning it was the best solution, afterall what's the point on holding onto a resorce rich area when you expend more in resources simply holding it and then extracting the wealth, this may have been the reasoning behind his abandonment, we must remember he had just concluded two very resource exhaustive wars in which he destroyed the Gallic Empire and reassimilated it back into the Imperial fold and then all of the land lost to the Palymaric Empire which was most of the Eastern territories.

Adding to this thought process, is that the West civic administration, (including the emperor), had no control over its military. The military was run by and controlled almost exclusively by the Magister Militum or other military stewards in the West, like Stilicho, Aetius, Odoacar and Ricimer. Yet compare this to the East, who though having a smaller army and no generals of notoration, (or if they did they made sure not to allow them to much success), the civic administration had complete control of the army and they were able to weather the terrible storms that would sink the Western Empire.

A heavy infantry formation, if properly trained and led could repel any cavalry attack. Horses are not dumb beasts that will simply charge into a solid mass... if Romans used the 'Repel Cavalry' tactic, (forgive me for not giving the exact name of the formation), any cavalry charging toward them would slow up and stop just before hitting the formation, horses are not going to throw themselves into it, plus if the formation happens to be causing a lot of noise and commotion, it may cause the horses to slow up and halt even more so, and a cavalry charge that loses momentum is as good as screwed. Heavy cavarly was good when used properly, the same for heavy infantry. The Crusanding Armies used Heavy infantry very well in the Middle East during the 'era' of knights and heavy cav, as did the Byzantines, an ingenious formation described by Arabs that the Byzantines as well as 'Franks', (refering to any Europeans), told of Heavy Infantry formed into a Hollow Box formation. The infantry was tight enough as not to allow cavalry to penetrate, but also hollow to allow friendly cavalry to stay within and so could suddenly open up to allow the friendly cav to sally out and make quick attacks and come back to the protection of the infantry. This is just an example, usually when cavalry adds to a crushing defeat on infantry its when the infantry cannot defend itself...

Who on earth is/was Benjamine Franline? He was that guy you know... who did all that cool and inspiring stuff... for all those people... back in that year when all that stuff happened...

"Spiral, spin, ride the whirlwind. Knowing when the music stops, there'll be no second dance."