Neos Dionysos

Sadly, I beleive only Josephus tells us what happened during the siege... he is the only primary, (and may I add contemporary to the event), that tells the tale. All others would be secondary sources using his version for thier own.

Well the same for those who take history as fact from movies like Gladiator... where the only bits of truth are buried under Hollywood action... Be glad people aren't taking history from the game "Spartan: Total Warrior", I'll spare you the details but if you knew what they used for history in it you might cringe with horror and frustration... That it is, though I will say that Rome: Total Realism is not and "tries" to be as accurate to history as the game can allow, not by simply looking info up and using it and making units up, but having fully accredited professors supervise and lend helping hands to the work to make sure the info is accurate... but it can never be 100%. To add to the discussion... I've always wondered what happened directly after the Praetorian Guard's disbandment. There had to be something and I cannot as of yet find anything that crops up of major importance until several decades later when you see the Scholae as being not only palace guards but more like units paid for and supplied by and even used, by civilian aristocrats on estates as well as generals and emperors.

And how long would that then have lasted until thier mouthes watered thinking of having the whole pie compared a piece of it...

[quote name='Julia C

He doomed the other half though. Valens reckless failure in diplomacy and battle with the goths sent the Western Roman empire down the path to hell. While I don't believe he was the worst Roman figure, I don't think he deserves to be so spiritly defended from accusations that he did mess up big time, despite some noteworthy achievements. His actions at Adrianople, (while detrimental), does not explain why the Western Roman Empire fell. No one has yet to give evidence why Valens actions doomed the West... I am waiting. The Western Half was always the strongest militaryily, it was not until 394AD that the Western Army had any setback and this was because Theodosius destroyed a very large portion of the that army as he defeated his rivals in the West, uniting the Empire. Upon his death then, most of the Eastern Army, (since it had been partially rebuilt and 1/4 of it; around 16,000, which was not in the East during Adrianople but instead in the West due to orders from Valentinian to his brother in 370; had returned to the East), was with the Western Army under Stilicho until Stilicho was finally forced into returning the forces that had gone West and stayed there by Arcadius. At this junction, the West was a strong force to be reckoned with; however, due to intrigues and hostility of both of halves of the empire with each other, (they were on the brink of war), and then the death of the military steward of the West, (Stilicho), who had defeated Alaric several times but was unable to completely destroy them; due because when he was going to deliver that final blow Rufinus, steward over Arcadius in the East signed a treaty with Alaric thus forcing Stilicho to cease his actions and then ordered Stilicho to leave Eastern lands immediatily. So I ask to anyone to please supply me with information as to why Valens, (whether to be regarded as the worst Roman figure or not), was the reason the West was doomed... unless the information I have presented can be disputed and found to be void... then Valens cannot be the one responsible... Furthermore, my repeated defense of Valens on this board has more to do with his image as the scapegoat of the Late Roman Empire... that everything was "Hunky-Dory" until he came along and then he f***** it all up... My fervor comes from trying to be historically correct in giving blame to those who rightly deserve and to defend those who have been falsely accused... and being accused of creating the downfall of the Roman Empire is a very large crime... simply stating him as the cause gives a "Get out of Jail Free Card" to men like Gratian, Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius, Stilicho, Valentinian III, Rufinus, Gainas, etc and that is something I cannot just let happen. P.S. Nothing personal Hamilcar, I'm just frustrated is all... please do not take my response as an attack on you... it was in no way meant to be against anyone in particular...

How exactly? Last I checked he fixed the economy, removed a lot of corruption in the admistration of the Eastern Empire, set the stage for a strong East in the future and established husbandry farms for the cavalry of the Eastern Empire. So how can he be the one who doomed Rome when his Eastern Empire did not fall until 1453?? She is regarded as a saint by some and, she was just what Justinian needed... she was strong, steadfast and pushed for more rights for women in the East and admisitered a lot of the bueracracy in Constantinople... she's seen as such a horrid person because of Procopius' "The Secret History", and I find it very entertaining to read but I question how truthful it was, especially how before Procopius did nothing but rain praise and honor on Justinian and Theodora... Well I will say I think it was foolish of him to think that it was a wise decision to leave the Empires to his sons under the guardianship of, (while very capable men), men who hated each other and were quickly at each other's throats...

I just bought that a week ago... haven't gotten around to opening it... how is it?

Right, thank you for the correction... it must have slipped my mind...

I thought it was the Arab invasions in the 7th century that destroyed the library... ?? I have never come across info saying Theodosius had a part in it...

Well those compromises he had little he could barter... following Adrianople he had to make those concessions otherwise stability in the East would not have been secured and he would not have been able to fight off the rivals of the West. His compromises were a last resort as well, since they did not occur until years later following Adrianople...

But see that cannot be a reason because during the late 4th and early 5th century the Eastern Army was nothing... it barely had troops to fight brigands and bandits... it did not repeal any barbarian or Persian incursion until the 6th century well after the West was gone... the East survived because it used diplomacy and because the civic administration controlled the army unlike the west where the generalissmos control the army and not the emperor. Besides, the West had a better army which for a time had most of what remained of the Eastern Army as well. The West continued to grow in force of arms, while the East followed a policy of culling thier ranks, killing successful generals etc, because they feared a strong army under one man who would dominate Constantinople... when the Huns invaded, the East sat behind their high walls... when Isasurians went on rampages in Asia Minor... they sent little forces barely capable of doing the job to stop them and half the time they could not contain it. So... if the East survived by added abilities, it was surely not the military... not until the very late 5th early 6th did that army become a potent force. Wait, how did thw West supposedly grow in force of arms when in fact it crumbled to nothing? After Theodosius, the Western Army was the strongest force in the Roman world, this was due to much easier recruting as the West could recruit several units to each Eastern one raised and after Theodosius' death, Stilicho in the West had most of what remained of the Eastern Army under his command. until Stilicho's death the East was in threat of attack from the West by Stilicho so he could re-unite the Empire and claim his guardianship over Arcadius besides just Honorius. There were trade embargo's on the East from the West, and the East routinely would fail to inform the West of a problem until it spilled over into Western Lands, besides the fact that Rufinus, (who was Guardian over Arcadius initially), made a deal with Alaric just before Stilicho destroyed him, thus forcing Stlicho to make pease as well and threatening Stilicho that if he did not depart Eastern Land there would be conflict...

But see that cannot be a reason because during the late 4th and early 5th century the Eastern Army was nothing... it barely had troops to fight brigands and bandits... it did not repeal any barbarian or Persian incursion until the 6th century well after the West was gone... the East survived because it used diplomacy and because the civic administration controlled the army unlike the west where the generalissmos control the army and not the emperor. Besides, the West had a better army which for a time had most of what remained of the Eastern Army as well. The West continued to grow in force of arms, while the East followed a policy of culling thier ranks, killing successful generals etc, because they feared a strong army under one man who would dominate Constantinople... when the Huns invaded, the East sat behind their high walls... when Isasurians went on rampages in Asia Minor... they sent little forces barely capable of doing the job to stop them and half the time they could not contain it. So... if the East survived by added abilities, it was surely not the military... not until the very late 5th early 6th did that army become a potent force.

I don't think it was Byzantine culture specifically, because Hellenic women in royalty for the most part played very influencial roles... names that come to mind are Olympias, Adea Eurdike, Arsinoe, Cleopatra VII, etc. Also there were a similar number of very influential Roman women, Livia, Agrippina the Elder/Younger, Pulcheria, Galla Placidia, Aelia Eudoxia and then into Byzantine with Theodora (wife of Justinian), Theodora, (wife of Theophilus), Zoe, Theodora, (daughter of Constantine VIII), Theophano, Irene and Zoe Karvounopsina.

Crappier? I would not say crappier... it was still a strong half. Valentian was also the last emperor of Rome to choose to rule the West over the East when faced with dividing the empire up. The Western Empire was a fairly strong half and Valentian along with his brother Valens worked hard to weed out corruption and fix the economy, mainly the debasement of the coinage. Both Valentian and Valens had experience running administrative tasks as they ran the estates of thier father in Pannoia, though when it came to finance, Valentian followed the lead of his younger brother because he had more experience. The one ironic problem from this is that by making the coinage as pure as possible only helped the economy a little, whereas is there was a little debasement it would have made for greater economic prosperity... though they could hardly have known this. In all other matters of adminstration, religious and foriegn policy Valentian lead and his brother Valens emulated similar actions in the East. In all though, if you want a good understanding of these institutions I suggest reading or overviewing, "Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD", because while the book focuses on the East, it speaks a lot of Valentian's actions in the West and many actions taken by Valens are because he is following the example of his brother in the West.

Ursus, I commend you sir on your post. Your info is filling a much needed info gap on the Late Empire and I am greatly excited and pleased with the rise of interest and debate concerning the Late Empire period... keep up your info threads.

When Rome lost her legions in Teutoberg Forest or Cannae and so forth, it was tragic, but the republic was untouched and Romans kept their freedom. When the Roman army lost at Pharsalus, the state was overthrown by a monarch and the people and senate of Rome forever lost their rights. Who cares about the loss of a few eagles, when the SPQR stops standing for anything meaningful? I think we are steering away from the real question at hand, What was romes greatest military defeat not which defeat had the worst reprocussions for the empire. So for me the worst military disaster would have to be cannae; in terms of soldiers killed. I hope whovever reads this understands where i am coming from No I understand... it was the worst in terms of manpower and troops lost... though I think some read into the "Worst Roman Defeat" differently. Some see it as simply a numbers game and think of the battle where Rome took the heaviest losses... and others think in terms of reprecussions and consequences...

No, Constantine's changes were just additions, we don't know the exact time or date or emperor who changed the classical legions to the forms of the late empire employing field armies and frontier troops. Personally I think Diocletian had more toward the change of the legions than Constatine... tactics were not abandoned, they simply slowly adapted... No, I do not think that at all since at this time the legions were still the classical sense we know of them and his changes were needed... mind you the legions after his changes performed outstandingly, defeating not only Persians, but usurpers and throwing back new Germanic threats like the arrival of the Alemmani and the Goths... You mean the Goths... when speaking of Adrianople?

Let's hope they are more historical than all for the flashy types of units and things you see in Osprey books... I am a developer for Rome Total Realism and a Researcher for the Imperia Romana mod, (which is the realism mod for BI)... we tend to shy from the wonderful world of Osprey cause usually the authors of those books have no idea what they are talking about or take wild stabs at colors...

Of which was due to corruption of officals... the army taking more pay from previous losses, the Visigoths not paying and Rome losing civil control of the land b/w them and the Goths to Bagaudae... and after a certain point, the Visigoths for the most part simply refused to acknowledge Roman soverginity over them...

Dacia was actually abandoned by Aurelian who felt that it was too large and too far from Roman Lines... (meaning to much across the Danube), to effectively control and manage... Also, it should be noted that the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain was land given to them by the Romans... so perhaps to us it would seem 'lost land' but to the Emperor, they were acting as the garrison troops and defenders and still sent him his portion of the taxes... meaning they were the new governors...

Well the government of the West fell... that we all agree on... Personally... I'm gonna go with the very latest date being 454ad when Aetius was killed since this left the West no longer controlled by a strong, powerful Roman... soon after his death court intriuges would be used left and right and claimed the life of the emperor and then the succeeding rulers were all truely puppets, (that is if you do not think the previous emperors of the West weren't 100% puppets ), of Germanic Leaders in command of the Roman Western Army... Another time could be said at the assasination of Stilicho... and the same type of scenario occurs... though Rome was kinda able to recover, but I think at this point she was trying to apply a bandaid to a ruptured artery...

Allow me to present a partial counter-argument. Tactics and organization don't quite make an army by themselves. It begs belief that a dozen or more different tribes with minimal state infastructure could support and conduct the large scale manouvers of the early Roman legions, practiced forced marches, constructed well-built daily fortifications as a rule while on movement, used a cadre of NCOs like centurions to command and control smaller units, applied consistant procedures on weapons training and so on and so on. Certainly if one takes even 50% of Vegetius at any value contemporaries in the later empire understood they'd lost a step. While he may not have had the military experience he didn't write in a vacuum and his manuscript would've been subjected to some scrutiny, he seems to know enough that he could claim older training methods hadn't been utilized for quite some time. I think the evidence is pretty indicative that the later legions weren't of the same quality of the classic legions of the Principate, not that they were all bad by any means but their glory days were long behind them. Perhaps I should rephrase myself... I beleive that the Roman Army of the Later Empire was of high quality, but it was not equal to her glory days of the High Empire period... and her enemies now had increased in tactics, organization, strength and ability... so the playing field was no for the most part level, when back in the High Empire, the playing field was completely slanted in favor of Rome... I just hate seeing how people claim barbarization made the Roman Army the poorest quality, (I am in no way saying you implied this), and therefore unable to stop any of the barbarian movements against them when we have evidence showing that while thier was a decline in overall quality the army still performed its duty and performed it with a higher degree of success than not... Aphrodite, if it's a simple comment in someone Bib... then I would not even consider it worth listening too since I have seen no academic source or publication claim it to be anything but relieable...

If that is your reasoning then it is feasable for some to say that Pharsalus was its greatest victory. Why? The forces of the state were defeated. I think he means because of this battle the empire was technically born...

The Roman Army in the late period was not lower in quality the difference was the quality of the enemy greatly increased... after centuries of interaction with Romans and many tribal leaders and men serving under Romans and learning thier ways they adapted and were able to employ the same tatics and organization as the Romans, Rome lost her advantage because the enemy knew her through and through by this day and age. This did not mean the late army was not potent... since it played crucial roles throughout the wanning days of the empire. The aggressiveness was not lost, only the composition, (since few 'Romans' wanted to serve at all, even forced to serve was a hard thing to pull off), but thier tactical advantage, the slow slow of the crucial NPC's that made up the core of an Imperial Army were also on the decline and so this affected them, but it should be stated that limiteani were considered 'low quality', but the comesitaties and palatinae forces were considered very high quality...

I think I know why you are saying that Cato, though I would like to hear your thoughts on it and your reasoning...