Lex

As far as I can recall (and I've also had a fair share of religious teachings in my younger days), nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Trinity are all equal. In fact I don't even think the Trinity is even mentioned as such in the Bible. Could anyone confirm this? I really believe the best way, is for a person to make their own opinions and even interpretations when reading the Bible (or religion in general)....that's why I have such a problem with the Christians of the Roman Empire, because people weren't allowed to make their own opinions on the subject. They were forced to believe in a specific interpretation only.

Things that I find quite fascinating (or entertaining) about the Byzantine era are the villains, the intrigue, the back-stabbing, the cruelty, and even the sheer arrogance and cultural isolation of the Byzantines. I don't mean this in a negative way though, it just makes the period more interesting for me. I also find it fascinating to see how the Roman state evolved, still calling itself 'Roman', yet having evolved into something so different...yet still legally the Roman successor state. The way the Greeks regarded the Westerners or 'Franks' is also quite amusing since they viewed them as crude barbarians even though they weren't really, since the Byzantines viewed anything from the West, especially the culture as inferior. The absolute image projected by the Emperor and the extremely complicated court procedures and the fancy titles, uniforms and diadems makes the their state seem quite unique to me. For long they were quite weak, relying mostly on mercenaries, yet projected themselves as superior to all other nations or kingdoms, even though they might have been weaker and eventually poorer. They had a lot of dignity. And they recovered from so many disasters and unstable periods and made quite a few (albeit temporary) comebacks. Their recovery from the Fourth Crusade is a true inspiration for me, since their government was virtually destroyed and their capital taken...yet they managed to eventually reclaim what was theirs!

Thanks, likewise! I know exactly where Roseto is, it's a nice area.

My father is from Giulianova! They speak 'Giuliese'. It's so strange...when I go to Italy, I hope to improve my Italian, but I hardly ever hear it! I almost always only here Giulese....I understand it relatively well, but there are only a few people that still speak the true dialect, mostly the older people, the younger generation speak a toned-down version that's basically half-dialect and half-Italian. The people there always joke that I must learn Giulese and not Italian! My grandmother used to speak to me in the pure dialect and I was able to understand her, since she couldn't really speak Italian. My dad mostly also just mostly speaks Giulese....it's strange but I feel my heritage is more Giulese than Italian! Though my Italian grammer is now really really *bad*, since I haven't really spoken it for the last few years. They would actually say 'lu pa'' and 'lu ca'' , some other exmaples would be the word 'fish' that would be (phonetically) 'puh-sh' instead of 'pesce' and instead of 'siedi' (sit) they would say (phonetically) 'ah-loo-gat-ee)

If only life were so simple, that all we had to do was offer a few sacrifices to our favourite gods every now and then and then be rest assured that in return they'd help you. In many ways I'm envious of the Pagan mentality of the Romans....just remember to go to the temple every now and then, sacrifice a few animals and then the gods are happy. There's a certain purity to the pagan mentality that I find hard to explain...we definately changed after Christianity...but I still can't help sympathising with the pagans, there's something about their simplicity that I just find pure...and maybe something we lost? Just my opinion anyway...hard to explain.

Sol Invictus

Does Arianism simply believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not equal? If it does, then it makes sense in my opinion because God would surely be at the top, then Jesus then the Holy Spirit....or am I just an heretic??? I always thought that the 'Trinity' theory was quite tricky, especially if they are all supposed to be one and the same, yet three seperate entities. Though the appeal of this theory came from the similarities to the 'Logos' theory of Plato right?

It seems they also wore their hair longer, sometimes near shoulder length. Were they not maybe influenced by barbarian neighbours incorporated into the Byzantine territory? Though, I think it was Phocas who first wore a pointy beard and shoulder length hair. He apparently did this to accentuate his barbarian/foreign heritage and possibly to hide scars. Didn't Constantine want to be clean-shaven because Jesus at the time was depicted as beardless and Constantine wanted to emulate the look? I could be wrong on this though but maybe someone can clarify it because the Emperors before Constantine had beards for a while as well (Diocletian, Maximinianus, Maxentius etc). Or then again maybe he just preferred being clean-shaven.

It was between the Dominate and the Byzantine era, but I chose the Dominate. I find it more interesting when the Empire isn't at its peak and is surrounded by problems on all fronts. The sheer determination of some of the figures, the desperate situations and the way the tide keeps turning make this period the most interesting for me. I find the style of government interesting, where the government is military in appearance and where the Emperor has absolute power and wears the diadem and silken imperial purple. I also find it interesting to see the accumulation of so many hundreds of years of Roman government and how different it had evolved from what it originally was, yet still being the same entity.

The Vatican in 2001, under Pope John Paul II apologised to the Greek Orthodox Church for the Fourth Crusade and and for the the sack of Constantinople and also for the senseless slaughter of fellow Christians. This really was the death-blow of the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople and the Empire was only a shadow of its former self when the Greeks liberated its territories, but never really fully recovered.

I find it absurd that the Vatican has made such an apology. They have nothing to apologise for. North Africa, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East were all invaded by hordes of fanatical Moslems. The Crusaders set out to reclaim and protect territories that had been forcibly taken away by Arabs and Moslems. Apologising for things that occurred centuries ago is insane. But if the Vatican condones such talk, then surely it is expected that the Turks apologise for conquering Constantinople and eradicating a nation and culture off the face of the Earth and for ending the Roman Empire. Maybe they then should also apologise for their incursions into Europe and maybe the Moroccans should apologise for invading Spain and the Arabs for the rest. This would of course be pointless and stupid but I can't understand why the Vatican has made an apology for the Crusades. Maybe by calling the Crusades "barbaric" they are actually intending to imply that the fanatical Jihadi Moslem followers and a large portion of the Arab and Moslem world, who still believe in "jihad", are barbaric. I hope so. In other words the Vatican might be implying that the concept of Jihad/Crusade is primitive and backwards and that Europeans consider themselves above such outdated thought.

"Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great." "Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain." "For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." -Nicolo Machiavelli

What do you guys make of Julian's death? Do you think he was killed by one of his own troops, namely one of the Christian troops. And do you think his death was organised by some of his Christian commanders who were plotting against him? He was killed by a Roman spear, though I know this isn't good enough evidence since an enemy soldier could have picked up the spear and used it. In Persia, Julian wouldn't have needed to retreat if Procopius obeyed his orders and met up with Julians forces. Why didn't he obey the orders? Julian had given the Persians a thorough beating on the battlefield and they didn't stand a chance against the Romans. The problem was that Julian was relying on Procopius to bring supplies as well as troops but without the supplies they were forced to retreat since Julain couldn't risk waiting any longer. The guides that Julian used where treacherous and led the Romans into an ambush that forced the Romans into a desperate retreat with the Persians following in close pursuit constantly harassing them. Gore Vidal mentions the possibility these guides might have been in league with some of the Roman commanders and therefore that some commanders were working with the Persians after Julian didn't accept their terms (though I doubt it). The reason being that they wanted to replace a Pagan emperor with a Christian one, so they arranged for him to be killed in the confusion of a skirmish. And why did the commanders choose such an obscure figure such as Jovian to replace Julian?

I am.

The opposition of Berlusconi's coalition is one comprised of Socialists, die-hard Communists, moderate Communists and unions. Combine this with the fact that they want to pull the troops out of Iraq and it's not looking good.

I voted other. My impression is that Galerius was worse than Diocletion and according to Gibbon he was the main instigator in the persecutions.

The streets apparently didn'thave names either. So without an accurate way to tell the time and using landmarks for directions, it must have been quite difficult to meet-up with someone or find where they live.

(Here's a summary for anyone who doesn't want to wadethrough our posts) I mean we

I think we've now achieved a balance on our arguments so I'm happy, and I agree with you that Valens does come across as a tragic figure since he died in battle trying his best to defend the Empire. I think the difference now was that barbarians were being enlisted en masse into the army and fighting under the command of their tribal chiefs. If they were to used in the army then they should have been dispersed so as to no longer have any cohesion with their countrymen. I really don't like the barbarians so I'm strongly opposed to them being allowed to settle in Roman territory. The Romans knew the character of the barbarians and what they were capable of and knew they could be treacherous and potential enemies. Letting potential enemies in your territory is never a good idea, so personally I can never approve of Valens decision but I do understand his motives. Letting so many barbarians into the army seems like a short term solution and did not address the cause of the problems so I agree with you on this but I don't recall Julian having such problems amassing an army to invade Persia. His army was comprised of well trained and loyal professionals that easily defeated Persians on the battlefield but were forced to retreat because of betrayel from his commanders (not the troops). I agree with you and this certainly is quite a difficult situation. But what if self-mutilating men were sent to the games or executed or if deserters families were punished? I know these would have been desperate measures but I sure they would have 'persuaded' conscripts to be loyal. It seems the government and citizens were becoming soft which might be due to their religion...but that's just a personal opinion. My point is also that if the Emperor was serious about reforming the army and Romanizing it, then I'm sure he could've achieved it if he ploughed enough resources and energy into such an enterprise. I really enjoyed Gibbons' style though and I have read Vegitius' 'De re Militari' but I will keep a look out for those authors, but I've recently ordered the first volume of 'A History of Byzantium' by John Julius Norwich and I must first finish another three books (2 non-Roman) and study for my law exams as well, so it might be a while. When I say "peasant" I'm implying that he was crude and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

I would most like to meet: Julian 'Apostate' He seems like someone that is approachable even though he's an Emperor and I'm sure he would be quite an interesting character to talk to. And he probably wouldn't kill me if I gave a differing opinion or accidently insulted him.

I agree with you on this but since Valens had delegated the duties to subordinates, he would still ultimately be held accountable in my opinion. I don't believe he could have been completely unaware of the harsh treatment of the Goths. This would indiacate rampant corruption and little control of officials if the emperor was perhpas receiving false reports of the situation, otherwise I think he would be aware of the situation. I know the Romans viewed the Goths as inferior and discriminated against them but their treatment was in this instance quite extreme. This was a massive error and the fact that they didn't know of other enemy forces in the area further shows the poor quality of their intelligence or their overconfidence. They should have been aware that other enemy forces were in the area and the lack of this knowledge would seem to be gross negligence on the part of Valans and his commanders Valens and his advisors should have at least considered the possibility that the Goths might revolt and realized that such a large mass of people could easily become uncontrolable. We may have the benefit of hindsight here but they should have at least considered such problems. Personally I don't like idea of barbarians entering the army and I believe it was the landlords who were to blame for the lack of conscripts since they bribed the recruiters and Valens could have ended this if he was determined, even though it would cost more but would be safer in the long-term. If food was scarce then I believe Valens should have not received the Goths and he should have considered the implications of a horde of hungry angry refugees within the Empires borders. Though it is possible that he was given incorrect figures by corrupt commanders who saw the situation as ideal to improving their own wealth, but since it was Valens decision to accept the refugees, he takes the responsibilty and blame in my opinion since he couldn't sufficiently control his subordinates. Once again, the Emperor had the power to put an end to this if he wished and I'm sure he was aware of the conditions. The mere wishes of the Emperor was law and he should have considered the obvious dangers of their treatment and made laws to allow better treatment of the Goths. I agree and that's what I've been doing...but my focus at the moment is on the 'Byzantine' Empire, I just finished "The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople" by Jonathan Phillips which I highly recomend and now I'm reading "The Fall of Constantinople 1453" by Steven Runcimen and I've also recently finished all the volumes of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon so I am making an effort to broaden my knowledge. So at the moment I'm not focusing on the late empire, but I believe that for now my knowledge from "Decline and Fall" is sufficient on this period but I will be reading more on the subject after I finish some books which aren't related to Roman history. Though my impression of Valens was that he an illiterate peasant who was known to be cruel and was not regarded as being particularly intelligent. But the matter is one of opinion and I still think that no matter his achievements in other areas, the disaster of Adrianople and the allowance of Goths to enter en masse into Roman territory has overrided his other achievements because of the sheer scale of the disaster. But to be fair to Valens, I think he was genuinely patriotic and a brave figure who did try his best but he was just responsible for some taking some bad decisions which led to the further weakening of the Empire and which led to much suffering of Roman citizens. The fact that he personally led his troops into battle is quite a brave undertaking and that honour can never be taken away from him.

Good post Neos Dionysos, but I still hold that Valens defeat at Adrianople contributed to making the current problems of the time worse or at least speeding them up. He was overconfident and didn

Imperator Augustus Iulianus Pius Felix Invictus Not witty, but I like the sound of it...

Im not a great admirer of Theodosius. He was responsible for the destruction of extremely magnificent buildings, namely the numerous Pagan temples he ordered torn down in his religious fanaticism. Thse buildings where irreplacable and he ordered them torn down. He was also resonsible for the ruthless massacre of thousands of his own subjects because a few of them in a certain city insulted him by breaking some of his statues. But to also kill innocent people as an example? He also openly subjugated himself to the authority of the Church and priests and was heavily manipulated by them, hence the title, "the Great". (in my opinion anyway...)

Well, I'm not saying he was the worst but I think what some are trying to say is that the defeat at Adrianople took the Eastern army generations to recover from. Two-thirds of their army was destroyed in a day due to him being a 'glory seeker' and wanting to take on the Goths alone instead of waiting to meet up with the Western Emperors' reinforcements marching towards him. Also, there was a serious lack of discipline in the Eastern army under his reign since the troops had complained about the weight of their helmets and armour and where given permission not to wear them, apparently also in battle according to Gibbon. So, perhaps if 2/3's of the army weren't wiped-out, they would have been in a stronger position to help the West in the next few years, like when the Goths were ravaging Italy, instead of just being thankful that the barbarians had stopped raping their own territory and left to their neighbours. And therefore not being able to worry to much about the West, since they had their own problems to recover from and grateful for some breathing space. The defeat weakened the army for many years and also weakened the citizens and barbarians perception of the government. The perception of the Roman Empire was also important and Valens defeat revealed that the Empire was vulnerable, shedding some of the constructed images of 'invincibility' and showing the taxpayers that the Government could no longer protect them.