Lex

They would not always be fighting in formation. Their formation might break, or there could be gaps, and it could end up in one-on-one fighting until they were able to reform or retreat. Also, they could be ambushed or involved in skirmishes or scouting operations in which they would not be fighting in formation. Battles could also end up chaotic where there is very little order on both sides. Also, I would think it would be important for confidence, knowing that individually they are highly trained and capable fighters who are able to take care of themselves if necessary in all situations. And believing that that they are also each individually more skilled and better trained than their enemies would give them that extra confidence as well, and further trust and confidence in the men standing to each side of them.

I've been away from this forum for about 10 years but I am getting back into reading Roman history again. Perhaps it's a trend across most internet forums, but I do notice the traffic is a lot lower than I remember.

This is an old thread, but it may be of interest to you:

My main focus has generally been on the Late Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire but I honestly enjoy learning about any type of history. I like reading non-fiction in general, so I also read a lot of books on politics, crime, travel, exploration, sport, military history, biographies or anything I might not know about. My last big focus was on North Korea though, I've read about 5 books or so just on this regime. My next book might be about the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. I also focused quite a lot on World War II a few years back and it still interests me. My interest lately has been more on modern history, but I would like to read another book on Roman history soon.

The media are now trying to portray the riots as 'multi-racial' but this is a complete lie, they're still plagued by some kind of political correct agenda even while the city is burning around them.

Here's my account: There were massive riots in Ealing last night. Literally metres from where I live a shop was set on fire as well as the floors above, causing the fires to go right through the roof. The road was barricaded as several cars and bins were on fire in the street and the rioters smashed open the windows of shops, restaurants and pubs as they looted the shops. One of the cars in the distance exploded, sending out streams of white smoke as the rioters cheered. I overheard one of the rioters saying how they should 'get' a jewelry store and how she wanted them to 'hit' H&M. They were quite young and mostly wearing hoodies while some were also wearing masks, I'd say over 95% of them where black with some Asians and whites as well. The whole time I was wondering where the police were? The windows of a pub was getting smashed and the rioters didn't seem worried at all, most were laughing and cheering and having a good time. They where moving from town to town and I saw some of them comparing pictures on their cell phones and one guy telling them how they should have been in Clapham earlier and how 'crazy' it was. It sounded like a lot of stores where looted. Then some of the rioters started yelling to pull-back, to 'fuckin run'. I also heard someone shout 'gas' as the smoke thickened but I think it was just the smell of the car that exploded. All the rioters moved quickly from the corner and further down the road while some went across the park in the same direction. They pulled back to the bus stop in my road and I began to see the riot police slowly moving into position, mostly armed with small shields and batons while a few on one of the flanks had larger full-length shields. In the background more police were putting out the fires. You could easily see the police even in the distance because they have a glowing blue light near their shoulder. As they moved to the barricaded area in front of the burned shop, they held position in a straight line but did not move forward. At the same time a bus was getting it's windows smashed in at the bus stop, it had arrived not too long ago, the driver probably not knowing the road was closed off or what was going on. After a few minutes I heard cheering and the bus was stolen by some of the rioters as they jerkily drove it with it's smashed out windows around the corner into one of the side streets and set it on fire. Apparently they crashed it into a pole. Not long afterwards two cars were set on fire by the bus stop. The riot police eventually started moving forwards down the street and across the park and took position. They didn't approach the rioters though, after a few minutes the rioters moved down the road towards South Ealing and smashed some more windows in that area. The riot police kept reminding each other to check behind them to make sure they wouldn't get surrounded from one of the back roads. After a few minutes a fire truck came down the road, followed by another two more. The cars were still on fire though and were only extinguished once the rioters had left the area. I only saw one person get arrested, a young Asian guy. Overall, the police did not seem to be stopping anything. They were merely trying to regain control of areas that had already been burned, damaged or looted and to stop further chaos. They were not willing to engage the rioters even though they could see them causing damage.

I would want to speak to Caesar and Octavian/Augustus. I would ask Caesar what his motivation was for dismantling the Republic? Was it based solely on personal greed or were there other factors? I would ask Octavian/Augustus to elaborate on how exactly the 'Republic' functions when one man is permanently Princeps, and how this is different from being a King? And if the Republic is 'restored', then shouldn't Consuls rule and the people elect their magistates etc? I would ask his thoughts on having tax paying citizens properties illegally taken away from them without compensation? And what his thoughts are on allowing Cicero to be murdered? Assuming of course I could quickly escape back to the present!

Yes, I'm refering more to the educated classes and the people with influence. But with Rome at the centre-stage, I'm sure the population would equate this with more wealth in the region and thus not have a problem with support of such an idea. I'd just like to clarify, that when I say 'Italians' I'm refering to the people of that region and not in the modern context of a nation-state. When we're talking about Rome versus Rome it just makes it easier to differentiate. Though I deliberately used the word 'patriotism' and not 'nationalism', since I was not refering to a nation-state but rather the support of a region or group/s and not of a state/nation.

Its difficult to say. An usurper often claims to be doing it for the people, or for the good of the nation, whilst actually wanting to lord it over everyone else. I doubt many of them were serious about restoring Rome as it was, and were more likely thinking of putting Rome back together to suit themselves. Maybe so, but the intention would seem to be to have Rome at the centre again, no matter what the motivations might really be of those calling the shots. With regards to the support of the local population, I'd say there was a patriotic element to it. Why would the Italians not want their territory to be centre-stage again? They'd have more prestige, and more wealth would probably be coming into the region. Perhaps if Rome's subsidies had not been taken away and the area was not reduced to the status of an ordinary province, then the whole event could have been avoided? Who knows? But from just reading Gibbon on this, my impression is that the Romans and Italians were harbouring some discontent about the overall situation for a while.

Agreed. You listed some of the points I wanted to make. Especially about the Vandals, since they deprived Italy and a weakened Western Empire of desperately needed resources when they most needed it. Resources they could have used to build up the army.

But it was transitory. At soon as he retired, the whole system collapsed, so the only reason it worked was because his personality allowed it. As always, the roman need to compete and dominate worked against it, since there were always men who thought they were better or more deserving of power. But what about introducing the diadem, the jeweled robes, new court ceremonies, retinues, new imperial positions, using the Persian system as an inspiration and giving the Emperor a new more absolute god-like image? Didn't he make it official, that the Emperor's rule was now absolute? With regards to the other issues, can one really fault him? Imagine one person ruling a territory so huge without modern communications and a population that was probably bigger than hundreds of years before. Including two fronts that really had to be looked after. Sure, some where able to, but delegating some of the responsibilites make sense in my opinion. Even Constantius, willingly wanted a Caesar to handle the situation on the other side of the Empire since it was getting to much for a single person especially when he was on one of the fronts. I get this impression as well. The Italians wanted to regain control of the Empire. Maybe there was more to it, but I personally see quite a local patriotic spirit in it.

I remember reading Gibbon stating that the Italians were unhappy about their territory being reduced to the same status as that of any other province. Especially Rome itself. That the founders of the Empire now had to take the back-seat to some Greeks in the East. And now they were telling them what to do. Apparently that was one of the reasons why the Italians supported Maxentius because they wanted a Roman ruling from a Roman Empire with Rome as the capital again. And probably hoped that they would be able to once again monopolize influence across the Empire so that they would be calling the shots again. With regards to Diocletian.. I really think he did what needed to be done. He gave the Empire a new spurt of life, gave it a new image, and gave the Emperor a position of more authority. I believe that in the long-term this was all for the better.

This is basically my view as well, in 395 when the Roman Empire became two separate entities but still formed one and the same Empire. Two independent governments, two separate states but still one Empire. Was it Stilicho that would mockingly refer to the Eastern Roman Emperor as a 'Greek' and them in general as 'Greeks'? Though I think this would have been more tongue-in-cheek than anything else and not quite serious. And even Valens, he could hardly speak Greek and apparently this was quite a nuisance for him when he went over to Constantinople. What about their imperial courts? Would a Western Roman have still felt at home in Constantinople as he would in Ravenna, Milan or Rome? And what about fashion and other customs? So in these areas I think they were just going different paths according to local influences.

I don't think it would have helped. You'd still always have commanders leading rebellions, usurpers claiming the throne, and secessionist territories in the mix. Or family members fighting for control, no matter what it said in the will or what was approved by the leading figures or factions. There would always be factions that would support the cause of one or another for their own particular reasons or convenience. The law then becomes a nice little piece of paper. Or if the new/candidate Emperor was deemed 'weak' by ambitious commanders or local leaders, then you'd always get the token power-monger who would compete for the prize under whatever pretences they may need, for 'stability' or for whatever reasons seemed most convenient. Especially if they had the support of the local elites, industries or just the masses.

Julian Apostate.

The Emperor Caracalla was the first to grant citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire in 212 AD with the Constitutio Antoniniana. My understanding is that it had to less with tolerance but rather with economic benefits, a wider tax base and a bigger pool of conscripts to join the regular army. I'm also thinking that the majority of the inhabitants were already very much Romanised so it seemed to make sense and would have made entering into contracts far more simpler since the same laws would apply to all.

True, diet does play a vital role, genetics may determine a person

The ius gentium was the system of law used for all non-Roman citizens as well as the law used for relations between a Roman citizen and a foreigner/non-citizen. The main characteristics of these laws were that they were quite informal and had a strong reliance on good faith (bona fides) and equity (aequitas). It

Nice. Peace? I wonder what the droves of Xhosa refugees would have thought of that while they were being hunted down?

Yes, even here in South Africa, it's still taught at school that he's a genocidal psychopath. Surprisingly, considering the current state of affairs, there has been no attempt at anything politically correct or making him some sort of 'myth' figure. And he was responsible for the mass migrations of blacks (Xhosa's) fleeing his terror and eventually coming into contact with the whites in the Cape. Contrary to popular believe, there were originally no black people in the Cape Colony only the San and the Hottentots who mostly died out from disease brought by the whites, who themselves were fleeing religious persecution in Europe as early as the 1600's... The Boers (subsequently fleeing British oppression) when they arrived in the Transvaal were quite surprised that the territory was virtually uninhabited due to the wide-scale massacres and desolation caused by the Zulu's.

I think the fact that the Papacy had to use such a pretext as they did, as well as forging the "Donation of Constantine" (the document in which which Constantine was supposed to have entrusted the Imperial title to the Pope) seems to indicate that even they recognized the legitimacy of the Eastern Empire and it's claims to Italy. And feared that the Eastern Empire might once again rule over the entire Italian peninsula depriving the Papacy of their little 'kingdom'. But to answer your question more directly, even though the culture had changed, the 'Byzantines' still regarded and called themselves 'Roman' while their Emperors still unquestionably considered themselves the successors of Augustus and all the past Emperors; still ruling in unbroken succession over the Eastern half of the Empire. And legally, there no was question about their legal right and legitimacy. That is why a forgery had to be created to attempt to usurp their legitimacy because even the Papacy or the West had to grudgingly accept their legitimacy. They were still the legitimate representatives of the Roman Empire who still officially lay claim to the West; the Western regalia having long ago been sent to the Emperor Zeno in Constantinople. Later, the Latins and Crusaders would contemptuously refer to them as the 'Greeks' and ruled by the 'Emperor of the Greeks'. They clearly considered this offensive and would not accept documents addressed in these terms. As far as they were concerned they were Roman, and so too was their Emperor, their laws and what they stood for. Though, even some of the Crusader states acknowledged that "the Romans" (Byzantines) had once ruled over the territory they presently controlled and thus had a valid legal claim to the territory. One thing that strikes me about them is their sheer conviction in being Roman, right up till Constantine XI. And the responsibility and burden that many of the more patriotic Emperors voiced in restoring their Empire to it's past greatness, acknowledging the heritage that they inherited. And despite the eventual problems of their ailing Empire, for me there is still something 'Roman' in their resolve, pride and the way they kept fighting to the end.

I'm sure a big problem was that many of the buildings were being used as quarry's without much regulation on what the people could take from abandoned buildings and ruins. It was still quite a while before one of the Popes (hundreds of years after the fall) made some laws to protect the public monuments and buildings. Even the Popes used to quarry the Colosseum of it's marble which they used in their churches and it seems used most of it. Eventually it was converted as a religious area and protected by the Church. If you're interested, Gibbon goes into quite a bit of detail on the subject on the fate of the public monuments and buildings in Rome.

From my understanding on what I've read of this era, at the time when the Eastern Empire most needed leadership or at at least moderate leadership, they were ruled by the most incompetent or care-free rulers in it's history. At the time, it seems the Empire still had a lot of potential strength and with some rudimentary leadership or foresight would have probably been able to prevent the outcome of the Fourth Crusade...from which the Empire never recovered.

A new Western Emperor ('Holy Roman') was crowned at the time when the Empress Irene was ruling over the Eastern Empire. The argument by the Pope and the West being that according to their laws; only a male could be Emperor, so in their view the throne of the Roman Empire was vacant thus allowing the Pope the perfect opportunity to create an Emperor who would hopefully be able to better defend the interests of the Papacy (mostly from the Lombard's I believe) And I'm guessing the Pope was also hoping to have an Emperor who he would have a lot more authority over. But honestly, I don't see the Pope having any proper authority to proclaim a new "Emperor of the Romans" when the Empire was still very much alive and still in control of parts of Italy. I really think it just a convenient pretext to get some assurances of safety and protection from a power that was closer at hand.

We consider ourselves descendants of the Romans. We aren't "ignorant", we know that some foreign people mixed with ours but their numbers weren't high enough to drastically change anything. People who argue otherwise are in my opinion having 'sour grapes' about the issue and are trying to deprive us of our heritage. We're descendants of the Romans; deal with it, no matter your opinion of Italians. Why do the statues of the Italian Romans still look Italian? If you're of Dutch descendent then your ancestors are barbarians. Because how many Romans were there ever in the Netherlands? We're more Roman than you, that's for sure. It's true that northern Italians show some Germanic traits and southern Italians show some Arabic traits but this is not so for the majority of central Italians. I know the same negative "sour grapes" arguments are made about modern Greeks that they "are no longer truly Greek". The people who make these arguments have obviously not seen Greek people