Kathleenb

I have read that Romans did not temper their metals; does anyone know if their contemporary enemies, competitors, subjects used the tempering process and why Romans did not? (Any sources on this?) Also, Rome often had numbers in its favor. It definitely had discipline and organization in its favor. How did its technology and weapons compare to its opponents, though? Rome used infantry and swords and fortifications and siegeworks; some opponents used horses and bows. Were there other differences and where did the advantages lay and why/how? (again, sources if you can) I'm looking to use these items as minor points in a paper, but am interested in following up on my own. Thanks.

That was quick! Thanks - especially considering that nearly everyone else wanted to debate the dates rather than discuss my paper! I appreciate your time and thought. I did not condense as much as you would have liked in the final version (although I can see that I could have done so to get down to bare bones to meet the suggested word count), but I think I did a better job of tying things together and explaining why some of the material (that you didn't get) was there. Kathleen (And I didn't think that was harsh, by the way - harsh IMO is more in attitude and tone... critiquing content and style when asked is all fair game!)

Constructive criticism is never irrelevant - feel free to re-post. I'd be interested to see what you have to say. I have to warn you, though, that my prof liked it better than you did according to your PM. This was the final version I submitted. Didn't change much in the opening paragraphs. The question of when the Roman Empire fell assumes both that the Roman Empire did, indeed, fall, and that there was an identifiable event or moment that marked its fall. Certainly there is much room for debate as to the cause of the decay and "fall" of the empire

Thanks! Livy certainly has a lot to say, negative, about the barbarians. hot-headed, ruled by emotion not intellect 5.36, 5.37, 5.49, 27.17, 27.19, 27.29 Lack of culture 5.48, 28.18, 34.24 Lack of material culture 21.60, undisciplined and disorganized 24.48, 28.1, 30.28, 31.34

The concept of "barbarians" went from non-Greek speaking to non-Latin speaking to non-Roman culture as well, and it probably carried with it some negative connotations. I think Romans tended to evaluate others not just on their language (although written language that was very important and worthy of respect by the Romans), but also in terms of their material culture, their social structure, their law, and their military prowess. I am looking for ancient sources which spoke negatively of the "barbarians," either explicitly or just showing negative underlying assumptions/connotations. I thought these would be easy to find, but there are fewer (and they are buried deeper) than I thought. Anyone willing to point me at specific texts? Thanks.

Primus, thanks, saw this after you posted but didn't get back to say a proper thank you and then it drifted down...

Tuesday I was pondering the long paper due next month for my online senior-level college history class when I realized that I had not yet turned in my 4th short paper. Hmm, when was it due, and on what? Due Monday 3/20... better get crackin'! Prompt: When did the Roman Empire 'fall'? Pick one only. 1. 312 CE, when Constantine converted to Christianity 2. 395 CE, when the Eastern and Western Roman Empire separated 3. 410 CE, when Alaric the Visigoth sacked the city of Rome 4. 476 CE, when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial trappings to Constantinople 5. 629 CE, when Emperor Heraclius replaces his Latin title of 'Augustus' with the Greek 'Basileos' (which means 'king') 6. 1203 CE, when Constantinople was sacked by the 4th Crusade 7. 1453 CE, when Constantinople was toppled by the Ottomans 8. 1806 CE, when Francis II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, renounced his imperial title 9. Still exists Supposed to be 500-700 words as a guideline; I'm over, but quality has been more the issue with this prof than strict word count. I'm about 80-90% done I think... still need to verify a few citations, work on some wording, but I think I have the bulk of the content, structure, and organizaiton ... Anyone want to critique it for me? TIA When Did the Roman Empire Tumble? The question of when the Roman Empire fell assumes both that the Roman Empire did, indeed, fall, and that there was an identifiable event or moment that marked its fall. Certainly there is much room for debate as to the cause of the decay and "fall" of the empire

I see many references to this letter or Rescript from Honorius to Britain, and a couple of sites have referred to Zosimus or Gildas as being the source for this letter... but I can't find the reference in any text of Zoximus or Gildas posted online. Can anyone point me to the primary source for this letter? Thanks.

Thanks, Cato and all.

Ah, yes, it's all in the proper wording and definition of the problem/question, isn't it?

Roman territory reached its greatest extent under Trajan. There were losses during the period 235-270 during the civil wars, then Aurelian restored most of the earlier boundaries between 270-275. From looking at a map of the empire in 337, it looks like Rome still (again) possessed most of its territory under Constantine. (If I'm reading it correctly - no key for its color-coding, duh) I don't have a map showing territorial extent for when Theodosian divided the empire in 395; was the Roman Empire still relatively intact? By 450 Britain was gone (no longer under the Empire's control), parts of Gaul and Germany and Africa were gone... by 476 more of Gaul became independent rather than an ally of the empire Anyone care to straighten out for me the details of what therritory was lost when and how and to whom? Or point me to a web site that will do it for me? I'm still working at cramming all the Empire period facts into my brain.... I'm better (a little) at the Republican period... Thanks.

I don't think I can add much to the discussion of the myriad contributing causes of Rome's fall (for those who agree that Rome fell). Perhaps I might add a question though? At what point did the fall of the empire become (more or less) inevitable? When was the "no turning back" point?

Well, OK, so the conquered didn't write their own version, true; would've been nice to hear that version tho! I haven't read the other histories mentioned here (Thanks, Primus Pilus) re: Gaul & Germany, but overall do they concur with Caesar's account, or or there any versions that are more or less anti-Caesar? Wanting to get as much of the "whole" picture as I can...

Am reading The Conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar. What other sources cover Gaul (and "Germany") from Caesar on into the empire? Thanks - looking for the "other side."

One secondary source I have mentions the "free poor" building the first aqueduct built by Augustus. Was that typical for the later aqueducts? What about other public buildings? The public baths charged fees for their use - I've read the fees were small/reasonable. Were those fees used to pay for the original building, or only the ongoing operational expenses? Just curious...