Neos Dionysos

I beleieve his reasoning was there was not a great natural barrier to defend it. While there may be mountians to the North and East, the West did not have these and without a strong concentration of troops in the province, order and control could not be maintained. Now, take this and compare it to have land on the otherside of the Danube or Rhine. You have a great natural barrier, and should anyone attempt to invade they must cross the river, and so long as you have a handful of troops watching the major corssing points and guard towers with a couple men watching the rest, any major attempt to cross could be caught, and word sent out for a force to assemble to meet them, thus the enemy simply might turn around and leave if faced with the notion of having to make a landing that was guarded.

Same with me Goblinus, toss b/w Late Roman Empire, (Dominate), and the Byzantine Era... I'll go with Dominate though...

I am highly curious to something, we all know what being Consul in the republic meant, but after Augustus established the Principate, what was it's fuction? Many times I come across people being awarded and given the title of 'Consul' in the Late Empire and they hold it for one to several years, and it can be either for pure administrative reasons or as an honory title for someone who is the ruler of a Roman Province. Can anyone please point me to any sources or give me a listing of the duties of 'Consul' after the Principate was established? Thanks.

As you said we already argued it there... and I stated my responses to your points yet you still bring up the same points even when evidence has been presented against it... I am not saying he did not fail in the end... I am arguing that he should not be one of the worst emperors and that he should not be blamed for Rome's fall... this is all I have been trying to argue. So then we're supposed to simply just read in history... "He lost and got killed..." and just say... "Ok... I guess that means he is a real bad one, no further use looking at anything else in history." Forgive me, but that's an assinine comment to make... you CANNOT disregard details of history simply because it refutes or 'clouds' your arguement. Using that logic, we should just read history and see... "Hey, Julian got himself killed in battle... and because of that Rome lost land it never recovered... he most be one of the worst." Instead Julian is regarded as one of the better emperors of the Late Empire and to some as the "Alexander who died at Granicus"... Or perhaps we can just simply say, "Hey, what's the point of reading of Rome's accomplishments, afterall, it fell in the end so that's all we need to know..."

American Mutt... though if want to be technical... 50% Mexican... 25% Italian.... 25% Polish...

Caesar this, Caesar that... the man is overrated in my opinion, (and if you speak with M. Porcius Cato on UNRV he will show exactly why Caesar is more of a criminal than a hero). If you want a great all around person... choose Augustus. He was succesful in both military and adminstrative. And left a great legacy for others to follow. I would advise against Alexander because he was a brilliant general, but a very poor administrator IMO. He was more concerned with the next conquest, he simply put someone in charge of a territory and moved on. The men who laid the true foundations of Hellenic society were men like Ptolemy, Antigonos and Seleukos... Alexander simply brought Hellenic soceity to someone's door... but once the army marched out... so did the culture... it was his successors who were able to make it take root. Caesar defeated Pompey and then his sons... this is not an organized army? Caesar was dictator of Rome, he was the leader by the laws of the Republic... granted this was for a short time but he was still its leader. I will agree Caesar was a better politican than general...

I beleive they were trained and used as logistical personal. So supply masters, manual labor, paymasters... this way if they fill those jobs up, then soldiers who are already there and have thier thumbs can be moved to frontline units and used in combat.

I think for once Wikipedia is kinda on target here... I have seen no other descriptions except for the above and the same information, (though slightly more detailed but not by much), has been told to me in lecture by professors I've had.

Only after Adrianople were they truely under thier own chieftans control... meaning they still answered to a Roman commander but afterward... they had that independance if you will. Hahaha, most people would agree but many good ones can for the bad ones. Also, you take what you can get... besides... Romans were just as nasty if not worse than the barbarians, and your worst enemy might be your own realtive. Which is the important thing... It was a short term deal, because he was planning for an offensive campaign into Persia to retake the territory lost after Julian's death and Jovian's treaty. Well, yeah Julian did not have issues, but of course he was also before the army as a whole had suffered a serious setback, before the Procopius revolt, and Julian was able to get enlistment because... "Booty would be thiers in a very short time..." Well there had been laws on the books for sometime, I beleive either Diocletian or Constantine was the first to order that if anyone who mutilated themselves in such a way they would be put to death. This was repelled later when they realized it would be better to have at least a person who could perform some duties rather than no man at all, which again shows the desperation of the Roman Emperors. I am so inclined to agree and myself being a Roman Catholic, it doesn't surprise me this happened... The only comment I have to this is possibly he did not wish to spend these resources. Much had been spent on strengthening the forts along the frontiers and he was trying to 'balance the budget' if you will, and stablize the economy, I do not think he had the luxury of throwing money at the problem. Plus, a lot of Roman resources were lost when all of the Mesopotamia territory was seceeded and given to Persia... so... you are also now working with a lower revenue. Allow me to simply say... Norwich is fantastic and you shall not be disappointed... ...I completely understand, finals hitting me about now as well as a few research papers. Reading for enjoyment has taken a very terrible back-seat to readings for my professors. Thank you for restating your point... and while I will agree he was 'crude', (he was Pannonian afterall and they had a wonderful reputation. ), I think he was an excellent administrative person. Sadly, when one is very good in one way, they must have some failings and military was indeed his. Forgive me... but I am slightly confused? Do you mean because we have each put forth arguements that after cross-arguements they are both still standing? Sorry... my brain is not working again... (tomorrow is 'Breakfast Club on campus... )

Upon allowing the Goths to settle, he went East to deal with a very real rising Persian threat as well as to organize the army for an expidition into Persia, thus effectively leaving the Goths in the complete control of officals who took advantage of the situation. Again, while I think Valens as Emperor has some blame in this, to have him shoulder the most of it I think is too much. Sadly we will never know the full situation. Perhaps it was overconfidence, (something I would not be surprised about if it were any Roman Emperor), perhaps by this time Fritigern had moved into a position to force the Romans to attack and so by this time intelligence would not be accurate at all; meaning he had succeeded realatively in cutting off the Lines of Communication from Adrianople, we won't know so I think we will end up disagreeing on this point. This I think is being a Monday Morning Quarterback... why should they assume they would revolt? You may not like the idea of having Germans in the army, but what choice did they have? By this point in time, it was nothing new to bring in barbarian tribes from abroad and settle them with the sole purpose of gaining military troops, this was a practice started by Augustus and continued for centuries, why change now? Understandilbly I see how raising provincials or citizens into the army would be safer long-term but really how would it, there's a point one hits when people just will not serve. The economy was slowly recovering, (Valens along with Valentinian had inherieted an economy in shambles due to Julian), and so they were in no way going to destroy the fragile stability they brought to it by overpaying on Romans who did not want to serve. Besides, what good are soldiers who, once trained and who do not want to be there simply desert on you? Valens as an example, desperate for soldiers had actually taken men who in older times would be perfect for military service but used Christianity and life in an abbey to escape service, and so had then forcibly enlisted. Sons of veterans were already required to serve and the practice of cutting off a thumb to avoid service no longer applied, they would still be forced to serve. Now... if your recruiting base is mutliating themselves to avoid serving, how dependable are these forces going to be in combat? So now you have a prime oppurtunity to recruit barbarians into your army, not only a fair number of fighting men but you would not need to pay for thier recruitment and many would opt to serve as well. To simply say recruiters are simply bribed doesn't explain the full picture, not every recruiter can be bribed... corruption was rampant in Late Rome, and the Valentinian brothers had done much to stamp out as much of it as they could. A law introduced required that if a town could not produce the men they should have for recruitment, then they had to pay a base fee to compensate. I am of the opinon the situation could have worked, even if there was abundant food, it would not stop commanders from taking advantage of the refugees, whom had been disarmed, and so would have been no real major threat, they became a threat when the riparian forces pulled away from the Danube to put down the hungry Goths and allowed armed Goths to enter... thus adding 15-20000 armed men. Food was scarce but not to the point they would starve. I think Valens should be blamed for poor managment in this situation, since his orders were not carried out due to curruption of the officers he charged with the task, but because they were able to carry out this exploitation because one, the large numbers of Goths coming in was too much at one time and so to gather so much food and then settle them on land in a short amount of time is a logistical nightmare that I think even with our own technology would have extreme headaches seeing it done. These then created a black market for food and thus where the corruption began. Gibbon is good... though I highly recommend some primary ones, Ammianus, Zosimus and Vegitius. And the following men, Noel Lenski, Ramsey MacMullen, J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, and A.H.M Jones. Much better and far more up to date than Gibbon. He was far from illiterate... someone who was of such background would not have been able to run large estate and excell at it in finance and administration. His father was a man who made himself known in the guard corps as did Valentinian... so they had no noble birth but if you consider that peasent they so be it. Just because he is a peasent should not make him not fit to rule... look at men like Justin, Justinian. I think you would greatly enjoy "Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D" by Noel Lenski, (which I did a review for UNRV so it's here). You learn a lot about Valens and Valentinian's rule and it is thus far the only work on thier reigns... After reading it, while I think Valens ultimately failed, I think he did much good and I think is given too much blame in the end and I see him as a tragic figure. Had he survived and won Adrianople, or died shortly after and it was a success... then I can almost guarentee he would be looked at quite favorbly, but... such is fate and the way of the world. And as you stated he died like a Roman Emperor should... on the field of battle.

LoL... Facebook is an online database for university level students and alumni across the US. You sign up, what school you are at and then you can add info about you, put up pictures and add friends etc and have groups which share interests... it's like a grand social experiment... kinda like a blog, but generally the little wall posts are just for little comments, not long posts like a blog... And Goblinus I am on Facebook for Purdue...

Wow, hey thanks guys, lol... I've been so engrossed with school work, (a great example is I am trying to finish a research paper due tomorrow morning and I have a presentation in the afternoon and an essay Friday) and social work, (just me trying to hook up with this girl in my history classes ), I completey did not even see this post. God... how bad can that be... As you might guess, I am indeed an extreme procrastinator... but I work better under pressure... Happy belated Easter everyone... I hope you all spent it well with friends and family and for those who do not celebrate it, I hope you still had a very good day. ...and thank you all for your birthday wishes, I did have a good time with friends and I am starting to feel old... it's all downhill from here on out! LoL. Now... back to papers and the likes... and being high on about 12 energy drinks mixed with Pez and Pixie Sticks... it'll be an interesting day to say the least. Like I said eariler in the saying's thread... "Sometimes you just gotta roll hard six" and God knows I do it so often I should've blacked out by now... ah... College, my body hates me for what I do to it. :punk: Phil

I love how people trying to force feed information down the throats of grade school and high school kids always try to use some infamous person from history to get thier point across, usually completely making it up. If she truely believes that, then she is probably drawing that 'knowledge' from the fact Caesar had such a public image as being a ladies man. This reminds me of a lecturer back when I was a freshman in HS, the person used Alexander the Great as an example not to drink under age and not to use drugs which he had gotten along his campagins into Asia and Africa. While Alexander was well known to drink in excess, the person claimed he died of an overdose of drugs and heavy drinking, that it acted like a posion. Now, last I checked, Alexander was no druggie... On the sphyllus matter, I thought it was around during ancient times, orginating in Europe and is not the "Indian's Revenge" as once thought... though I'm trying to remember where I was told this so do not hold me too it as I to am doubting it but thought I should throw it out there.

I have a question then, has there been any advance yet into the knowledge of the construction of a Trireme? I know we have no actual text that tells us the proper construction of such a vessal, (and we have yet to find a single wreck of one dispite tales of hundreds of ships being lost in a single spot). I ask only because the Modern Greek Navy which has a Trireme and which it lets it go once in a while around near the harbor is a very unstable thing, it cannot even attempt to reproduce the speeds at which are generally recorded by ancient texts and it cannot handle in rough seas and I wonder if it could even handle the astounding manevuors attributed to it during the days of the Delian League/Athenian Empire. Any comments would be appreciated.

To get a little kick in the pants here on some Hellenephile threads I propose this... The Greek world had at it's core two dynamics to its history, Particularism and Pan-Hellenism and through these dynamics we can see how city-states, (depending on which side they took), furthered either the continued fractionism of the Greek world into competing city-states or those men or cities who at times, realized they must be joined together in brotherhood to withstand outside threat and influence. Particularism embodied an identity with one's own immediate community and due to the terrain of Greece, helped isolate some city-states and so one would be attached to the city-state rather than as a 'Greek' and so could see his ethnic brothers as different. Lines would draw as, Athenians, Spartans, Cortinians, Thebans etc, just the same as one would say Persians, Romans, but to the Greeks they were city-states, and to the outside they were simply Greeks. Pan-Hellenism is the identity of the individual city-state as being under the greater position of Greece as a united people, culture, society. There was no difference's in this mindset with those from Athens or Thebes, they simply hailed from those cities but they are 'Greeks'. This allowed for the potential for the Greek world to be joined together to oppose a great outside threat, and succeed. I would like to ask everyone thier opinions on the matter, I personally think Pan-Hellenism was a very rare event and that Particularism was the major school of thought which took hold of most Greeks and the reason they were never able to truely become a dominate force in the Mediterranian or the world, for a more than a very short time.

Wow, I never knew that we never had any proven examples of Knight Templar before... ...the way it's phrased almost makes it seem like there may have been those who even doubted that the Knights Templar had a military section since then no remains have been found, but perhaps these are a very small minorty if even or I am reading into it wrong. Still, great article Viggen.

"Sometimes, you just gotta roll hard six." ---Bill Adama aka: 'The Old Man'--- I had to go off subject with this one... but for more traditional ones, see my Sig...

They can't, it has been well documented... yes Greece has MANY mountians and rough terrian, hence why almost all of the battles that are recorded happened on plains, valleys or passes, where the land was flat, and realtively level. I highly suggest you pick up, "The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece", by Victor David Hanson. He is one of the world's leading experts on hoplite warfare...

Well which version of Dionysos? The one of him being the god of the vine and of the free sprirt, letting go of all inibition and self-control, (I can see the reason for hatrd by Cato), or the Hellenic version of Neos Dionysos, which was used by Diadochi following Alexander to legitimize thier rule since this version was of a travelling warrior who went East, (along with Heracles), and went to new lands and conqueored peoples, I would think this version would be more positive? But then maybe this is tying into the warrior-monarch ideal... But would Romans view this as a bad thing? As far as I can tell, gladitorial events was a Roman aspect, since personally I cannot see the Roman plebs all crowding to see a play by Euripides or Aristophanes...

Well, I'm not saying he was the worst but I think what some are trying to say is that the defeat at Adrianople took the Eastern army generations to recover from. Two-thirds of their army was destroyed in a day due to him being a 'glory seeker' and wanting to take on the Goths alone instead of waiting to meet up with the Western Emperors' reinforcements marching towards him. Also, there was a serious lack of discipline in the Eastern army under his reign since the troops had complained about the weight of their helmets and armour and where given permission not to wear them, apparently also in battle according to Gibbon. So, perhaps if 2/3's of the army weren't wiped-out, they would have been in a stronger position to help the West in the next few years, like when the Goths were ravaging Italy, instead of just being thankful that the barbarians had stopped raping their own territory and left to their neighbours. And therefore not being able to worry to much about the West, since they had their own problems to recover from and grateful for some breathing space. The defeat weakened the army for many years and also weakened the citizens and barbarians perception of the government. The perception of the Roman Empire was also important and Valens defeat revealed that the Empire was vulnerable, shedding some of the constructed images of 'invincibility' and showing the taxpayers that the Government could no longer protect them. 1/4 of the Eastern Army in total... 2/3 of the avalible forces since, 1/4 was in the West and sitting actually IN Pannoia and were given orders from Gratian NOT to go to the aid of Valens. Valens waited more than a month for his nephew, who instead of sending forces to assit, wasted additional time to cross the danube and eradicate an already destroyed and repulsed barbarian formation. Only Sebatianius of all the generals around Gratian said Valens would need help, and he was sent with a meager force, infact Amminaus describes the initial reinforcements as the being of such few number and utter low quality they did more harm than good. Gratian took his sweet time going to his uncle's aid, Valens finally had to act because Fritigern had mobilized a large enough force around him to where he was moving to cut off Valens from his supply lines and so battle could not be delayed any longer. Was Valens himself seeking glory? I am sure of it, but if he was so intent on gaining it w/o the assistance of his nephew why did he wait a full month for the engagement when each day, the Goths grew stronger? I will agree that the defeat weakened the overall empire in the eyes of the enemy, there is no disputing that and that before the defeat, Rome would never have allowed such terms of treaties to be made the way they would be following the defeat. It was a turning point, and as I stated the East and West were at each other's throats for just over a decade after Theodosius and Alraic was used by both sides against the other, Stilicho even planning an attack on the East with his superior army along with Alraic because he wanted to take guardianship over both sons as he claimed he was given after Theodosius' death. Following Stilicho's death, (and the death of 3 successive guardians of Arcadius), the West and East did start to work together by this time, and the East sent aid to Honorius at Ravenna though while a meager force it was a sign of a renewed bond b/w the two halves. Until that time though, both were trying to out do the other, one instance being the East got Africa to 'switch sides' and so Rome now was not getting her grain supply, Stilicho had to send a force down to Africa to retake it... This type of activity is what doomed the empire IMO, Valens' actions at Adrianople and her aftermath was the a part of it, but the problems accelerated full force during the years after Theodosious' death... The idea that Rome could no longer protect her people is nothing new, in fact it was an issue in the 3rd Century, hence why you had the Gallic Empire and the Palymaric Empire sprout up... this continued and until Stilicho's death, only Italy was truely safe. I mean... they were so concerned about fighting each other than fighting barbarians... a perfect example, when Constatine III rose to power in Gaul as a rival to fight off barbarians coming over the Rhine because Rome would not send troops, what does Rome and Stilicho do? The general Sarus is sent with a force to defeat and subdue Constantine III rather than the Germans... things like this is what made Rome in the West collaspe... and why the East endured. The Eastern Army, until the time following the demise of the West did almost no noteworthy action and had trouble dealing with simply brigands like the Isaurians, the West had the Army... but the West had other problems the East did not and it is these problems that called for the curtain call on Rome and not Constantinople.

I have no doubt that Valentinian did not trust his brother, in fact it was his best choice, who better to have govern the other half than your younger brother, the chances of a 'rival' are almost rendered non-existant, espeically given thier past together. In almost all matters of administration and policy, Valentinian would et the tone for the policy, (example being he would begin by setting what foreign policy should be, agressive or passive, and would begin administrative programs first), and his brother would always very soon after follow his lead in the East, the only case where Valentinian followed Valens was in the case of economic conerncs and facitilies, since Valens had the greatest knowledge in this area to draw from after years of running large estates in Pannonia. Also, another reason he may chosen the West over the East, (besides the need to look after the half that was in the greatest danger, what with a rapid decline in many areas that were once the staple of the west), was that in the West he would have no trouble taking up the throne, there was no cultural issues. In the East, Valens had many obstacles, espeically because he was not 'Greek', or 'Eastern Roman', he did not speak Greek and so had to use translators for many of his dealings, his was almost entirely surrounded by non-Western Romans and so he felt isolated and alone, and his policy of bringing in Western Romans into the adminstration brought him the contempt of those under him, so much so that in the same year he took power there was an attempt on the throne by someone who would've had no chance had there been no cultural/language barriers... This is in addition to the fact Valens was seen as a 'idotic brute', not because of his personality, but simply because he was Pannonian, and so unfit to rule the East. The ideal had nothing to do what Valens actually was capable of, since he was a very capable ruler in the end, but simply because he was not to the liking of those established in the East. I always found an interesting side note to all of this, that Valens hated the people of Constantinople with a passion, mainly because they always showed him disrespect when he was in the city and because they had been behind the main support group of the Procopius Revolt in 365AD. He hated them so much that just before his departure from the city to meet the Gothic threat in the Eastern Empire in 378, he vowed on his return to level the city to the ground and create a new capital... (which most likely would have been at Marcianople)... because they had rioted in Constantinople while he was there and were very violent toward him and his image...

Just being brutally honest is all...

The game is HORRIBLY inaccurate... especially the expanison of BI... if you want better accuracy play the Rome Total Realism mod... The original RTW game was made in a way where the player's Roman faction expands quickly and then starts a CW with the others in an intent to win... by the game's year 270bc, there are HORRIBLE inaccuracies to locations held by Rome... besides which... the units are a joke as well. The Urban Cohorts were nothing more than police units of major cities and were in no way superior to even regular armed forces... it's funny how as soon as you develop legions they suddenly have lorica segmentia and look like the classic Imperial Legions we always see when we think of Rome... The game is fun yes, should it even be considered for any type of historical value... a little, maybe basic rudimentary stuff... should it be given the praise it gets for accuracy and showing how battles would play out? Hardly... the AI is so stupid it blindly suicides itself into your lines almost every battle... because you know... that's realistic right? Elephants are WAY overpowered in the game and cavalry is way overpowered in the game... another major issue is how your troops FLY across the field it seems... There are so many issues with this thing I can't see how it can be said to be "very accurate"...

Go to www.bookfinder.com ... it uses AbeBooks as well as other rare, oop and other type of book search engines and selling sites... so you get all of them collected in one place...