Maladict

[Four Yorkshiremen]You were lucky to have a channel that broadcasts it. We have to wake up half an hour before we go to bed and watch the results on the internet, and our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah [/Four Yorkshiremen]

Go Canucks

I heard that the city was favored due to the marshes nearby, which made sieging the city quite difficult. Kulikowsky seems to take this stand when he has the Goths go for Rome. There are no extant accounts (that I know of) that give Ravenna credit for the supposed exceptional defensive qualities of the city. They are largely modern attributions. It may have been those very marshes that made the city fall to invaders over and over again. The high water table and salination left the city bereft of natural sources of fresh water, food production and timber. When the only road leading to the city was blocked, all supplies had to be brought in by sea transport. Additionally, the court (and any armies present) would be trapped, leaving the besieger free to ravage the rest of the peninsula. "[belisarius was] alarmed both for Rome and the whole Roman cause, since it was impossible to lend assistance from Ravenna in any case.... Indeed he repented having ever come to Ravenna at all...since by shutting himself up in that place he had given the enemy a free hand to determine the course of the war as they had wished." - Procop., BG VI 13.13-18 The Goths packed up and left for Rome because Alaric thought holding Rome hostage would be more effectual. Ioannes was defeated at Ravenna in 425; Avitus' patricius Remistus was killed at Classe in 456; Nepos took the city by force in 474 and was in turn evicted by Orestes; Orestes' brother Paulus was defeated at Ravenna by Odoacer, who was starved into submission by Theodoric in 493. Belisarius succesfully besieged the city in 540 and abandoned it when besieged in 545. The Lombards, finally, ravaged the city repeatedly in the seventh century, after which it would sink into oblivion. Most of this information comes from Andrew Gillett's 'Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors', Papers of the British School at Rome, vol.LXIX (2001), pp. 131-167.

I'm intrigued by the 5 votes for 'Traditional Roman religion'. Are they really a member of some kind of group, initiated and all that? Based on historical sources, maybe in the vein of reenactment, or in a more esoteric direction? Or is it simply a perceived affinity with a religion long gone? Enlighten me please. As for myself, I'm fascinated by religion, but I won't be a part of it.

Put up Alba Fucens, please. I've seen very little of it.

The Romans themselves probably never regarded any city other than Rome as their capital, with the exception of Constantinople. The importance of Ravenna stems mainly from the sixth century reconquest, which is the period during which the famous monuments were built. Its fabled defensive qualities are still debated, as Ravenna seldom withstood a prolonged siege. Somehow it has become conventional wisdom that Ravenna was the capital from the moment Honorius transferred his court there from Milan in 402. However, there are indications that Honorius wanted to move back to Rome prior to 410, and various fifth century emperors spent considerable parts of their reign in Rome, most notably Valentinian III. The Roman Senate, too, seems to have been much more active during the fifth century than it had been before, and wielding more power as well. So, to answer your question, it depends on your definition of capital. If a capital is wherever the emperor and his court happen to be, Ravenna would be it in 476. If you take a broader view, Rome was still the capital of the western empire, with Ravenna an important seat of imperial residence.

When will you be in Venice? I might be able to attend.

No, the word shah was used centuries before Caesar's time.

Constantine XI's niece married the ruler of Russia, which is the dynastic link between the 'second' and 'third' Rome. I don't think they ever claimed succession to the Empire, but used the title of Czar just to claim descent and boost their authority. The Bulgarians indeed used the title as well. I doubt the Popes used the Roman emperor title as they were the ones handing out that title to the German kings. And don't forget modern Romania, the only nation currently using the empire's name.

Not possible

Damn right Gaius Octavius, in his infinite wisdom, has selected the following image:

Elton makes a rather convincing case for the superiority of the Roman army throughout the fifth century. And 'not a single true Roman'? Not even Aetius? What does it even mean?

I think what Augusta meant was that when you would respond to a certain post and then subsequently make separate post in response to another message in the same thread, it would automatically get merged into your first post. Apparently this no longer happens.

To me the phrase "the last of the Romans" doesn't actually mean the very last Roman it means the last true Roman, the one who possessed the attributes we would associate with the Romans of old like courage, pride, belief in themselves and what they stand for, auctorius, dignitas, the kind of things that makes people like us attracted to Rome and the larger than life characters that made her into the greatest empire in the world. Those attributes could apply to Constantine XI as well. They could even apply to Mehmed, "Kayser-i Rum"

Try 'The Emperor in the Roman World', it's a monumental work. Make sure you get the second edition, the first (1977) is starting to show its age, or so I've been told.

Millar is outstanding. I was just reading his latest book yesterday, 'A Greek Roman Empire : power and belief under Theodosius II (408-450)'. It's excellent, obviously

I don't think it was an official delegation sent by Antoninus Pius, but more likely enterprising merchants posing as ambassadors. That might explain the absence of Roman documents on the matter.

The quoted text was Trajan's answer to Pliny's question. Let me put it in its context: It sounds a bit like a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy and it that respect perhaps you could call it tolerance. But being Christian was still a crime, and you would be punished for it unless you denounced it. This would put Trajan in an unfavourable light, which is what I meant to say. So coming back to the original topic, these documents should hardly earn Trajan a place in Paradise. But then again, I can't figure out if these letters were still being read in Medieval times.

You were referring to Britain, I won't argue there as I know very little about it. I'll take your word for it. For Italy, things are definately more complex.

I don't know if they were. I believe "the charge against them" would be the charge of being (openly) Christian, i.e. rejecting the pagan religion and the imperial cult. It's probably more of a practical approach than anything else if you ask me, as well as an improvement after Domitian, but someone else can probably answer it better than I can.

Fair enough I'm glad he did, though.

You're welcome. Were you expecting anything in particular?

See this thread. Scroll down a bit.