Lex

I've also read it and I've lately finished "The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World" by Adrian Murdoch which was good but not as detailed as I would've wanted it. The author leaves out some details which I thought were very important in the Persian campaign, but otherwise it was quite good. Though in my opinion, I still think Gibbons chapters on Julian are probably the best. In "The Last Pagan", Oribasius is listed as one of those present at Julian

Unfortunately I don

Though, surely after hundreds of years of experience the Roman medics must have had excellent knowledge in dealing with all kinds of wounds and also overuse injuries? Though the problem is probably infection of the wounds, since I gather they must have often been able to do a successful surgery but then they would have to sort of "hope for the best" and just hope infection doesn't occur. While reading "The Last Pagan" by Adrian Murdoch which is about Julian Apostate, there was quite a detailed section on the treatment of stomach wounds. The whole area would have been drenched in a high alcohol wine then the exposed intestines would have been pushed back into the bowel but if that didn't work, then the wound would be extended, held open by clasps, and it would be attempted again with the "patient's legs in the air and his head back". The abdominal walls would then be sewed together.The only painkiller given would apparently have been "pomegranate in wine". Apparently in thrust wounds to the stomach, when the gut was damaged, then it would leak out "faecal matter". It seems that if the gut was damaged, as was the case with Julian, then the wound would not have been sewed closed but instead left open. It seems that they would clean such a wound then leave it open, but this was only the case when the gut was damaged (I don't quite know what this means though by the 'gut' being damaged). It also seems that if the liver is pierced, it could also heal by itself and "seal itself off". It also seems that "blood and fluid" from the gut would flow out faster as infection occurs. Infection seems to be the biggest problem here, not a lack of surgical efficiency or knowledge.

How about this; they still regarded themselves as being "politically" Roman? I think being "Roman" for them meant adhering to the political and legal system of the Roman state. Being Roman meant subscribing to this political system. I also don

South Africa. Our system of law is still one of the most "Roman" in the world. The reason for this is that when the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652 they brought with them their legal system which was a Dutch interpretation of Roman Law. The influence of Roman Law in Europe was unfortunately mostly diminished by the

I must admit I'm slightly influenced by a political aspect. The system of law our country follows is Roman-Dutch law. My legal studies merely rekindled my admiration and interest in the Roman Empire So, when I learn more about Rome, I don't believe that it is a system that is 'dead'. I believe that the Roman idea is still alive and this is clearly evident in our law...even though the spirit at work is somewhat different.

Don't forget their legal system! This has had a massive impact on the Western world and is even partially used by some Asian countries. As someone who has studied Roman Law, I can tell you that entire portions of it are still completely intact in Private Law; especially in Property Law and Law of Persons. Much of the law hasn't changed at all and is often a verbatim copy of the texts of the Roman jurists and the various Codes used by the government. This obviously depends on country to country, though it is less so for the Anglo-Saxon countries because of their strong influence from English Common Law. Also, don't forget their bureaucracy, which was highly developed, stable and efficient in comparison to those of other states. The Roman state was a centralised one that efficiently controlled its territories and also had an efficient and developed tax system (though by 'efficient' I'm not necessarily referring to the effectiveness of their tax policies). The government had detailed information about their people's private property and would take detailed censuses every few years to determine the wealth of its citizens. The government therefore had intimate knowledge of its citizen's property and the conduct of their business'. It would not have been easy to escape the attention of the government. The thing is, even though the leadership might have been unstable at times, the state still continued to function relatively normally, no matter the coups or the usurpers taking control of territory. Political instability never led to the sate collapsing as was often the case for other empires. Most people tend to focus on the army but I think it

Mostly just reading the amazing stories of some of characters, especially achieving things against heavy odds.

Good point about the stress fractures Lost Warrior. Other injuries which come to mind, which I'm sure must have been possible from the impact of shield upon shield would be rotator-cuff injuries in the shoulder. Just imagine the sheer force of two opposing armies smashing into each other. I think that there would be a considerable amount of injuries that would have to be dealt with even after a successful battle, since the strains on the body must have been immense. I'm wondering, if a Roman soldier sustained an injury while he was in formation would it have been possible for him to safely withdraw from his position to seek medical attention and then have a soldier behind him replace him? Or could this cause a break in the line? Would the soldier be allowed to abandon his position? I think it would be possible if the formation wasn't too tight. Or did they constantly rotate their positions anyway since it would be so difficult to have the stamina to fight for extended periods? Does anyone know the procedure or policy with regards to injured troops in the frontline of the battle? Were they expected to literally 'fight to the death' holding their position no matter what their physical condition was? Or were they allowed to move to the back of the lines to get medical attention, or would this cause confusion?

I wonder quite how advanced their knowledge was of treating problems like torn tendons, ligaments and tendonitis and other overuse injuries which I think would have occurred after a long battle or rigorous training. I once read somewhere that for torn tendons, they would stick a piece of steel covered with sulphur (I

Good question. What I think makes the Dominate different to the other monarchical systems is that theoretically anyone who was Roman could become Emperor. It wasn

I still hold that the assimilation of barbarian groups into Roman territory only caused long-term problems for the Empire and hastened its disintegration. If one allows former enemies into their own territory then they're looking for trouble. If the Romans kept them out of the borders then they obviously wouldn't have been able to establish a power-base within the Empire. This is obvious. I also think some people here have some idealized concept that the Romans were super-tolerant of other cultures, ethnic groups and races. I think the Romans viewed other peoples according to what they had achieved in comparison to the Romans and Greeks. I get the feeling that the Romans would have regarded the barbarians as especially good for auxiliary cannon-fodder, cheap labour or strong slaves. Compared to the Romans they were physically larger (and maybe stronger) but still lived in mud hovels while the Romans were living in villas made of marble, with running water, toilets and indoor heating. The barbarians and all those in northern or Eastern Europe didn't even have a written language so they didn't qualify as having a civilisation. In comparison to the Romans they were also filthy and probably lagged far behind in personal hygiene wearing filthy rags of animal skins while the Romans were wearing togas. They had failed to invent anything of importance as well and they only had themselves to blame for this. Imagine what the Romans would think of African tribes! So I believe that the Romans would have viewed these people as inferior to them and even when the Germanic peoples became "Romanized" they were still discriminated against and couldn't hold certain positions and even they admitted that they didn't qualify to hold the position of Emperor. I just read "The Last Pagan" by Adrian Murdoch and Julian even refers to the Persians as being "barbarians" and showed little sympathy to their artwork and buildings when he invaded Persia. He razed many of their "barbarian" buildings and monuments to the ground, so I doubt he had much respect for their culture. I suspect that other Romans might have held similar opinions.

Personally, I don't like the Late Republic era. I think that the main protagonists are mostly power-hungry self-absorbed aristocrats who didn't really care much about patriotism or the Empire but rather lining their pockets with cash at the expense of others. It seemed to be more of a side-note that in the process they expanded Roman territory. In my opinion they where mostly corrupt glory-seeking upper class types. I much prefer the super-state of the Dominate. And also the fact that they long ago ditched the concept of democracy which proved a failure in controlling the Empire, and no longer made any attempt at even a fa

You're right. Sorry about that, I was in quite a rush when I made my post, but I also figured it could be found with a right-click.

Unfortunately, yes. The government has laws which discriminate against whites. All companies with over 50 workers must employ 70% blacks. All companies doing government work must have a black partner. Whites aren

No, because I'm actually refering to Europe and Britain. I'm not from the USA so I can't comment too much on what is happening there. So then which groups ruled Gaul, Spain, northern Italy, Sicily and North Africa when the Western Roman Empire fell or was collapsing? All of which are surprisingly incompetent when it comes to preventing boat loads of refugees from entering Europe. Let's not mention Libya....Italy has to deport thousands upon thousands of them even after continually telling their government to take greater steps in policing their waters. Who pays for those who are granted assylum status? What about Spain? Morrocco is not doing a good job preventing illegal immigrants from leaving their waters into Spanish waters. Really? Yes, you're right, I'm sure you know more about the topic than an Admiral of the British Navy. Is that so? I was trying to have a proper discussion on the issue but I guess you're entitled to your opinion even though it's not productive for a proper debate.

True, but they aren't 'foreign races', they're all white. The article is refering to the influx of Arabs/Moslems, Indians, Pakistanis and blacks in Europe and Britain. Groups of people who don't share our common heritage. (Judeo-Christian or Greco-Roman) With regards to America I would be refering to the influx of Hispanic peoples.

Dailymail Here's an article where a British Admiral compares the decline of Britain and Europe to what happened to the Roman Empire, namely mass migration of foreign peoples/races.

I very much doubt that Italians during the Roman Empire where ever "Semitic" in appearance. Just look at their features on busts, coins, paintings and statues. I think they would have looked similar to how they do today. I don't believe that the various invasions and mixture with other population groups would have changed the way they looked too greatly. Just look at central Italians today, they still look 'Roman' in my opinion.

I think the fact that so many barbarians were being incorporated into the Empire was a factor that can be compared to what is happening to the USA. Just look at all the Mexicans and illegal immigrants that are flooding into the country to do the jobs that the Americans no longer want to do. Some estimates predict that the USA will no longer have a white majority in 50 years and that Spanish will be the main language in numerous states. Will the USA still be the same entity when the majority of people are no longer white?

Thanks a lot for the help Neos Dionysos, the first book you listed is *exactly* the type of book I had in mind. I see it also got good ratings. I'm ordering a new batch of books soon and I'm also including the other book you recommended, "Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D." as well as "The Last Pagan" (about Julian Apostate) which also looks really good.

In no particular order: Julian Constantine Diocletian Augustus

Hi I was wondering if anyone could recommend some good books dealing with the Dominate era? More specifically I'm looking for a book that focuses on Diocletian, his reforms and the Tetrarchy. Any books dealing broadly with the Dominate would also be fine though. Thanks.

"Better to live one day as a lion, than a hundred years as a sheep" -- Benito Mussolini "Life is just a memory...but the sleep that follows is eternal..." -- Unknown

I really think the Christian Kingdoms across Europe and the Christians in general would have been forced to unite and expel the Turks from Rome. Imagine what a sacrilege it would be considered for the Turks to be in control of Rome and the Vatican! The Pope would most probably declare a Crusade against the Turks to liberate Italy since I don't ever for a moment believe that the Europeans would become so weak and so incompetent to not see the danger of having the Turks in the heart of Europe!