Neos Dionysos

to a westerner point of view, there are many eastern armies at that time that can match rome best army. the parthians later sassanid(persian) empire can match them the indian and the chinese at that time got huge armies with thousands of infantry, cavalry and armored elephants that can match the romans. the steppe horseman are some of the best in the world during this time like the huns this guys make rome run to the barbarians for help. If the Parthians and Persians were such a match why was Parthia and later Persia constantly invaded by Roman Armies and thier capital of Cstepion sacked by Rome no less than 5 times. The farthest West the Persians, (not the Parthians because they never invaded the Roman Empire), got was Antioch and this was not until the 6th century AD... The Huns did not appear until the very late 4th Century early 5th Century AD... when we say "of thier time" we are refereing to the period of the mid/late republic to the high empire... and during this time, only the Parthians/Perians could attempt to match the Romans but still fell short in the end. We know little of the Indian and Chinese armies of the time, how they were organized or exactly how many numbers or how well trained they were... just because an army has thousands of troops does not make it an instant victory. Numbers alone cannot guarentee victory...

Wow... where to begin... Yes Alexander reached India, but he did not stay nor did his presece of that of his successors last very long in India... Alexander did not create his empire by himself... he had not only the best trained army in the world, (due to his father not Alexander), and he had excellent generals under him who could be argued were the reason for Alexander's success... ...also, Alexander's empire practically crumbled upon his death, while the Roman empire lasted hundreds of years later and left a greater legacy to the world than his short lived one. You just combined a dozen different scenario's concerning Parthia... Caesar had delevoped plans for the East as did Marc Antony but none of them came to fruition because of the civil wars that occured so that cannot be used against them. In addition, Alexander only went East and expanded all in that direction, Rome went North, South, East and West... thier attention was divided much more around. Of course Rome isn't that powerful, she was just starting to dominate central Italy around the time of Alexander... so you cannot compare the two. Alexander and his Macedonian Empire was at it's peak, while Rome was still a fledgling Republic... Pyrrhus was defeated in the end by his own allies in Italy who once they won under Pyrrhus thought they did not need him and once Rome defeated them they pleaded for Pyrrhus' aid once more. His allies were just as a threat to him as Rome was and this is not including the Antigonids in Macedonia. The Gallic Sack of Rome was in the 4th century bc, not the 3rd... which is when Pyrrhus was in Italy. In fact it was in 390bc, much longer before Alexander and before Macedonia was more than a backwater hole of little value. You present weak arguements... besides the inheirent fact the two cannot be compared since in no way would an Imperial Roman Army vs Alexander's Macedonian Army.

Happy Birthday guys... may many more come and as a result of your b-day... you two must go do something you would've done w/o a second thought back in your teens, but now would not ever consider... you know just for ole times sake... 8)

In these ancient times the 'other side' rarely if ever gets to tell their tale, being too busy dead and/or oppressed. "Help, help I'm being oppressed!" LoL, I love Monty Python...

Not sure about current... but... in Nicol's book The Immortal Emperor he does go into a bit of the family tree and shows gravestones of men in England and Spain up till the early 20th century that have as an epitah "King of the Greeks", or "Heir to the Throne of Romans", etc...

"Repression of Women and Early Feminism in Ancient Athens" ...

Be aware that on the dispute about the quality of the later Roman army Elton generally comes down on the side of the argument that believes it remained at a high level. I think he tends to be in the minority of historians on this question. LoL, indeed... and I share his view on the quality being high with the Late Roman Army... Aphrodite, I ask because having read the book and taken much information away from it, I'd like to know what is said to be unreliable...

Well since this is really off-topic... I'll just PM you...

Who claimed it to be unrelieable? Unreliabe in a small part or two or do they claim the whole book?

Thanks... I've taken a look at Whitehead's work and it is very good sourcebook though, the information and his sources are all over the place and no where would I be able to use it to the full extent with the time limit I have on my term paper... so... I switched over to a different subject but using Eva Kleus' "The Reign of the Phallus" as my main secondary source, besides Aristophanes, Euripdies and Xenophon for primary.

If you like that... than... ...have you heard the story of Antiochos I and Stratonike? I think that's a much more romantic story...

That's perhaps the most nicely put way I have yet seen for the Romans actions to the Sabine women... Still I consider that more of a story of myth than anything else....

Ah, so what was your opinion or what is your opinion then of Southern's work, I'm very curious to know...

The term is "Basileus" which means king and is of Greek, (though it has been shown to possibly come from Mycenean culture), and Heraclius was the first Romanion Emperor to assume the title. Interesting enough, Basileus replaced "Augustus" and "Caesar" and Czar, (used by the Rus after thier interactions with Constantinople), would later replace Basileus but all derive around the same name...

I have written on several older threads regarding the new army though the transformation was slow from the traditional imperial legions people think of to the limitanei and the comesitatines. Included in this is the Scholae Palatinae and the Auxilia Palatinae as well... Is there any specific part you had in mind? Or speaking of the Romanion age, which era? That of the time of Belisarius or later during the Apogee of the Byzantines? Also, I have written a review on the "Late Roman Army" for UNRV in the book section if you wish to go and check that out...

I know. They settled in the empire in large numbers as a cohesive social unit. I didn't mention land, why bring it up? Sorry, I misunderstood your orignal comment and so just ignore that part... Well that was due to the fact that Theodoius did not have the forces necessary to inflict any defeats on the Goths and he also suffered defeats of his own... but perhaps it was for the better since he then would use Alaric and his Goths against his rivals in the West...

No, actually they did not. The Goths continued to Roam for a few more years until Theodosius finally put an end to it, though they were not settled on land, they were actually billetted in cities as an army and recieved annoae, land was never an issue in any treaty with the Goths until they were settled in Aquatine many years later. No, Tiberius was the one who decided not to pursue anything in Germania... something he had originally declared his intention to do in 16bc, the Varus defeat was just further proof Germania should be left on its own.

Right... they defeated the Germans but other than "punishing them" for inflicting a defeat on Rome what else came of these victories? Nothing... So 20,000 men, 3 legions, is a triffle? Perhaps when armies are much larger but the Imperial Army at the time was around 26 legions, so 1/8th of the Roman Army was gone and created a hole in defense which had to be quickly plugged by forces from nearby areas. If it was not a major thing than why did Augustus act like this: besides the Roman populace being very afraid and nightly patrols and watchs held around Rome... now this is not something you do when a 'triffle' happens. In addition the last battle with Arminus in 16 was not a "convincingly" Roman victory, the battle had heavy casulties on both sides and Germanicus though victorious, retreated back across the Rhine for winter quarters and Arminus was able to withdraw with most of his army intact, I would hardly call that a convincing victory... a victory nonetheless but not total.

This was not the case in Germania... Rome raided and attacked across the river but never gave the Germans a 'crushing defeat' that reversed all the woes of the past and Rome never held any ambition to take the land west of the Elbe and east of the Rhine. If Adrianople sowed the seeds for the West's collaspe then I would argue because of the defeat, the East was in a much better position to survive and continue. Now you may think this sounds absurd; however, following the defeat the Eastern Army, (even when reinforced from it's units which had gone West in 370), was in a very bad state and the governement of the East began a system wide culling of the army ranks of all Germans in any position of power, curtailed any one general from becoming too powerful and left itself with an army that did not a single accomplishment of notable act in years after Adrianople to the fall of the West, in fact the army had trouble just dealing with simply raiders and bandits in Asia Minor so the idea they would hold against a concentrated foriegn power or large invading force would be implausible. As extreme as these measures seemed, it allowed the Eastern Governement and civic adminstration to hold onto all power and denied the military from becoming to powerful, unlike the West which controlled everything. In the West, the Generalissimos and the army under them controlled affairs of state and set foriegn policy, a great example is Stilicho imposing a trade embargo against the East and acting agressively toward it. The Emperor and civic administration had no control... and this is what I think the primary downfall came from.

That was the point. They were now a political and military equation that had to be dealt with. They roamed Dacia and Macedonia without much interference trying to extract deals with Stilicho or the East. Honorius notwithstanding, the Goths wouldn't have been in the position to do the sacking without Adrianople. Right... but then this was not a terminal nor sudden and terrible consequence following Adrianople to cause the fall in the West. One could argue that save for Alaric and his Goths, any wrongs that Rome suffered had already been righted... My point continues though... Adrianople is not the battle which killed Rome... so then why is it assumed to be the major 'cause' of Rome's fall when the evidence is not there, (I strongly beleive this and will try to show anyone here why I beleive so if asked)...? Perhaps I make this a little personal crusade of mine but I always try to show how Adrianople isn't that "defeat that killed Rome"... as we are generally led to beleive...

The effects of Adrianpole were that the Goths were 'allowed' to be a semi-independent permanent fixture within the borders of the empire. The descendent of this group ended up playing a serious role in the events of the Western Empire including the sack of Rome in 410 and so on. Rome allowed them to remain this force because one, they could not completely get rid of Alaric and once they had the strength to do so, conflict b/w East and West prevented Stilicho from destroying Alaric when the chance arrived to him... also... after which time, Stilicho found it in his best interests and those of Rome's to allow Alaric to live and to go so far as to plan with him an assault Eastward against Rufinus and after he was killed Gainas, etc. Adrianople simply meant they would not be kicked out... but the sack of Rome was the fault of Honorious and the terrible polices of the adminstrations.

Adrianople did not have the greatest consequences... the Eastern Army was crushed in this battle... Rome suffered a terrible defeat, and yet it was the West, not the East that fell... so... how did it have the greatest consequences... what terrible things came after this battle which led to the downfall of Rome?

The West was not affected by Adrianople... the East was... the West was affected by Frigidus River in 394AD when Theodosius defeated his rival in the West and destroyed a sizable portion of the Western Roman Army which up till this point had not suffered any setbacks... In addition, following the division of the empire again in East and West to the sons of Theodosius, the West was the stronger of the two militarily, Stilicho had at his command not only the Western Army but most of the Eastern Army as well. The West was until the last couple decades of it's exisitance, the stronger of the two armies and I'd be willing to argue was the strongest even when the West fell... so saying Adrianople led to the West's downfall is erronenous.

Indeed. If you really want tactical though, multiplayer might be a better choice than single player, since often against a computer opponent somewhat unrealistic tactics seem to work wonders (well, like as greeks just use enough phalanxes to make a circle when defending, some horsemen and missile troops in the middle, and watch the enemy run to a pointy death, then let the horses loose when the enemy flees and run them down). Of course, you can use more realistic tactics, but often those end up being not as effective against AI in my experience. Rome: Total War is ok... if you want a more clearier picture of what ancient warfare was the Rome: Total Realism mod gives that too you...

The Roman culture did not disappear in England when the legions left, just a major part of the economy, the culture remained and would remain until the late 6th/early 7th century. I would assume they wished for the legions to return, when your whole livelihood depends on those men to purchase your goods, frequent your stores etc, it is a major deal, just look at communites now a days when army bases close... it completely changes the area and the community, but not the culture... Briton twice asked from Roman help, in 410 and then later again in 450's... both times Rome refused or would not send any assistance...