Lex

Honorius Hiding in Ravenna, ready to escape at a moments notice without making any effort to save the Empire or at least alieviate the sufferings of the Italians. Even if he might have been a bad leader he could have at least tried. Apparently his greatest passion as Roman Emperor was tending to his beloved tomatoes on his small farm while the rest of Italy was getting raped by the barbarians. He had sufficient troops at his disposal and he had lots of money as well as a companion in the East who he could have begged or paid for reinforcements from. There was a lot Honorius could have done but instead he didn't do a thing and to make things worse he had a very long reign and died of natural causes! Anyone with a shred of patriotism or a bit of determination could surely have turned the tide and Honorius' reign was at the decisive moment when the Western Roman Empire still had options available to recover. After his reign and the damage he caused, it was then too late to recover, the vital moment was lost. Honorius was in my opinion like a 'dead' Emperor, under his reign Italy (essentialy the Western Empire at this point) virtually had no government and no protection, the government was weak and corrupt and still bleading the Italians with heavy taxes while offering them nothing in return.

I agree. In addition, I would have made a very serious effort to conscript more Romans into the army and to make sure that training and equipment stayed at a good level. I would also have strengthened the city of Rome's defences and walls. I would also have corrupt officials hounded down and try my best to ensure more accountability and checks and balances in the government. I would also reduce all wasteful expences and live in moderate conditions as an example to the citizens and only allow gross extravagences in triumphs. I would also reduce expenses in the games and try to improve the currency and its quality. I would also reduce taxes and try to create a feeling of confidence and stability in the government. In addition, I would make an effort to prevent the decline in jurisprudence and to ensure that the law is constantly developing and that the rule of law is respected. I would then disband the Praetorian Guard and not allow any soldiers to be near the capital. I would have a smaller group created who would each only serve a few months at a time. I would then gather the greatest minds that are available across the Empire and appoint them as advisors and encourage learning and education among the public. And if any Germanic tribe attempted to infiltrate the borders or demand tribute, then I would send a few legions to wipe them out as an example, and then inform the other barbarians that if they show any hostile intentions then they'll meet the same fate.

I don't think the question should really be about racism, but rather about 'discrimination'. My interpretation is that if you weren't Roman or at least Romanized you were viewed as a savage or a barbarian who was regraded as culturally and technologically inferior. Racism in modern times in my opinion is mostly between whites and blacks. The differences that might exist with whites and other races is in my opinion more due to culture and religious differences. The reason many whites still regard blacks as 'inferior' is because they haven't really ever invented anything and this might be a similar opinion the Romans had against barbarians. They might say "well, we live in cities of marble, and they still live in hovels, we have an alphabet and they don't, thus they are inferior" etc.

How would the cataphracts or clivanoforii have rated against the knights from western Europe? Which side would have had the better armour, weapons and horses?

I just noticed that I posted my last topic in the wrong thread. Sorry about that, it was supposed to go in the topic dealing with the question whether Christianity had weakened the Roman Empire.

As far as I know it was Diocletian who introduced the diadem and also the Imperial purple made of silk in imitation of the more despotic Persians. The diadem comprised of pearls around a white band that was supported by gold and decorated with jewels. Diocletian believed that imitating the despotic Persians would give the Emperor more authority, dignity and respect and probably more power, as previously the Emperor had always been considered as an ordinary citizen and could in theory be approached as an equal. Diocletian changed all this and made it that all those who approached the Emperor would have to bow down before him flat on the ground and would also have to adhere to certain court procedures and protocols similar to the Persians. He also changed the image of the position of Emperor, to look more impressive and to create more awe, this was done by wearing the more elaborate emroided or jewel encrusted purple silk robes and the new more visually impressive diadem. He also created all the similar offices that a Persian King would have such as 'Chamberlain' and those types of positions that would always follow the Emperor wherever he went. I also think he was the one to introduce eunuchs to the imperial palace. This is what I've read, but to be honest, the first Emperor I've noticed wearing such a diadem is Constantine. On all the busts I've seen of Diocletian on coins, he's still wearing the wreathes and also what looks like a spiked metal crown. Possibly inspired by the wreaths? One of the statues of him has what possibly could be a diadem but it looks far bulkier than the ones used on the coins, so I'm not sure it it isn't just a decorated wreath instead. EDIT: Actually, there's an example of a diadem in my avatar, as worn by a clean-shaven Julian Apostate!

Did the Pagans believe in "slapping the other cheek" or loving their enemies? Did they believe that if they killed innocent people they would burn in Hell/Hades for eternity? The difference for me was that the Pagans were more materialistic whilst the Christians believed that everything we do on Earth must be to ensure that we live forever in Heaven. I agree with Julian 'Apostate', that Christianity had weakened the Romans.

I meant that when the Romans started getting into the habit of bribing the barbarians not to attack them, this led to a downward spiral since it made the Empire look weaker and gave the barbarians even more confidence and resources. This made Roman prospects of protecting the borders far weaker and simply strengthened their enemies instead. Bribing them was only making things worse. The Romans were not solving their problems by bribing the barbarians, it was just an expensive delaying tactic and was bad for the economy since every year the barbarians would just demand more and more and leech of the Empire while at the same time more non-Romanised barbarians were being used on a large scale in the legions. From a strategic point of view this is a massive mistake, since the Romans ended up teaching the barbarians their tactics and equipping them with better armour and weapons and most importantly they were starting to slowly form the majority of the army, or at least the element with the most power. I would also like to clarify that when I say

I'm currently reading the chapter in 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' dealing with the Crusades and Gibbon reckons that the sacking and destruction caused on Constantinople by the Crusaders was far worse than caused by the Turks. Three fires were caused in Constantinople by the Crusaders. One of the fires burnt down an area equivalent to the size of the three largest cities of France. All the Churches and palaces were completely looted, and all the ancient and amazing and historic bronze statues were melted down by the Crusaders. The wealthy inhabitants of the city lost all their properties and their wealth and those that weren't massacred or enslaved by the Crusaders were forced to flee. Gibbon suggests that countless libraries were burnt down and mentions that many farmlands and buildings were still left abandoned until 1453. The damage to the capital was therefore immense, not to mention that the government was basically destroyed even though they were in exile, and the capital they reclaimed was unfortunately reduced to a shadow of it's former self. The Eastern Roman Empire would never fully recover from this disaster.

I

The problem was that the Roman troops were so overstretched at the time, and even in the campaigns led by Belisarius he at the most had only from 4000-7000 troops available at his disposal. There was also a problem with supplies, since the administration was now very centralized. The costs must have have also been astronomical in regaining and keeping such vast territories. The army was also struggling in getting recruits and had to often rely on hastily gathered conscripts to supplement the small professional army. I believe that the Eastern Roman Empire was straining to keep the Western territories and that it could only be kept together by an extremely determined and efficient leader. I believe that they should have rather concentrated all their resources on keeping Africa or Italy instead of trying to hold on to both.

The disaster at Adrianople was that 2/3's of the Eastern Army was wiped-out in a single day and all the Roman equipment lost was then aquired by the Goth's as well and the Emperor was killed. The only strategy really available to the Eastern Empire in this situation was to withdraw their remaining troops from many cities and 'pull back', regroup and try to protect the more vital areas and literally just abandon the other cities and hope for the best. At this time the economy was also not too great, with high levels of inflation and many Romans no longer had any confidence in their governments ability to protect them. According to Gibbon, this led to the Romans no longer saving and investing their money but only led to waste, as the public probably sensed the end might be near and investing money in property and farmland was unwise due to the very real threat of the barbarians. At the same time, the army was struggling to get recruits, with many men just paying money instead of being conscripted and those who couldn't afford the penalty often were so desperate they cut off the thumb of their right hand! The remaining army was also not as great, disciplined or well-equipped as it once was and didn't have enough cavalry to counter the mounted barbarian troops. So the situation after Adrianople was extremely desperate, and I think the priority was just damage limitation. What led to Adrianople in my opinion was that Valens had allowed the Goths to settle in Roman territory. In my opinion, they should have either (1) tried to wipe them out when they were weak as they were fleeing the Huns and were still basically hungry weak refugees or (2) Not have allowed them to enter Roman territory and let the Huns deal with them, or (3) Have treated them better once they were in Roman territory so that they wouldn't have had a reason to organise themslves and revolt, and to also divide them (locate them in different areas). The reason I believe the East was able to recover was that all the barbarians eventually decided to focus on the Western Empire instead and this gave the Eastern Empire some breathing space, coupled with the almost invincible defences of Constantinople. I also suspect some foul play and some instigation on the Eastern Empire's government in that they perhaps encouraged the barbarians to rather attack the weakened Western halve, but this is only my opinion, considering the 'Byzantine' politics and mentality of the Eastern Roman Empire at the time. In opinion, the Romans should have wiped the Goths out when they had the chance and shouldn't have allowed any barbarians to settle in their territory. They should have also been more rigorous with conscription and only allowed Romans to form the bulk of the army or at least divide the barbarian auxiliaries and put them under Roman leadership. The problem was that the barbarians were enlisted en masse and were still led by their tribal chiefs with who their loyalty still primarily rested. They should have been divided and dispersed across the legions instead or if possible their numbers should have been limited.

I don't how relevant this might be, since it relates to modern warfare. During WWII in the North African Campaign, the Axis and Allies had a type of common agreement that both sides stopped fighting in the late afternoon at I think about 5 o' clock. Both sides would then be allowed to send medics on the battlefield to recover the wounded without the fear of being shot. This agreement was obviously of mutual advantage, so I guess it makes sense that both sides would generally abide by the custom. The point is, that I can see reason in both sides stopping fighting for a while to move fresh troops to the front and also for the troops to get refreshments and briefly rest. I remember at school a teacher of ours telling us in class when we were reading "Julius Caesar" that especially when two legions were fighting each other in a battle, that the troops used to rotate so that they remained fresh. Those who were in the front lines would apparently go back through the ranks and recover, get water, have wounds tended to and perhaps get their armour seen to if it was badly damaged. They would then go back to the formation and the process would be repeated. I must admit I only really see this working properly in a Civil War or against another country with a relatively professional army.

I'd say it was a bit more than just "oriental style despotism", but this is a subject that does cause a lot of debate.

Ursus, with regards to the Republic, I agree with. However, when it comes to the Principate (mostly middle and late) and especially the Dominate and Byzantine era, then I disagree. Fascism is a modern term, so the Roman Empire wasn

Another thing is, how did the Commander really know what was going on in the battle? He has thousands of troops stretching out quite a distance to either side of him and depending on the conditions the air could be filled with dust, smoke, snow or heavy rain. The sounds of the trumpets could also be muffled by strong winds and the screams, shouts and clashes of battle. It must have been very confusing. Was he perhaps constantly informed by scouts on horseback?

Constantinople. I've been to modern day Istanbul and I've seen to what extent the size of the original city was...it was absolutely huge. Not to mention that Constantine had the new city made almost entirely out of marble and other impressive materials. I doubt that the later Byzantine Emperors would have spared any expense either, not to mention the immense personal wealth of the citizens and traders within the city walls. I'm also sure that the Emperors would have tried to outdo each other with new buildings and additions to the Imperial palace. Constantinople also apparently amazed the Crusaders and other Europeans with its sheer size and beauty. So it would seem that the city was quite impressive to the Franks, Italians and I'm sure even the wealthy Venetians. Because lets face it, most of Europe at the time still probably consisted of muddy hovels and dreary castles whilst Constantinople was the capital of a once immensely powerful and rich nation-state.

Constantinople. I

Isn't that essentially the idea that Italian Fascism tried to introduce in Europe? Since one of the aims of the Fascists was to eventually restore the Roman Empire, which caused them some ridicule, since this was one of the reasons why Mussolini wanted Egypt, North Africa, Albania and Greece. And perhaps one of the reasons the Pope supported Fascism?

Honorius. For mostly hiding in Ravenna, with his ships ready to escape Italy at a moments notice and for not doing a single thing against the Visigoths that freely wandered Italy doing as they pleased, eventually even sacking Rome. He had an army at his disposal and could have engaged the Visigoths. He could have at least made a proper effort to request reinforcements from the Eastern Roman Empire and then launch a joint attack and finally wipe-out the common enemy. Gibbon describes Honorius as "...a captive in his palace, a stranger in his country, and the patient, almost the indifferent, spectator of the ruin of the Western empire...". I'm amazed that he wasn't deposed since I'm sure the Italians absolutely hated him. He was a coward and used all the troops for his own protection around Ravenna and just didn't do anything, it was as if the Western Roman Empire didn't have an Emperor or even a proper government under his reign. When he inherited the Western Empire it wasn't in such bad shape and I'm sure that even an Emperor with a minimal amount of patriotism or loyalty to his subjects could have dramatically changed things or at least prevented much suffering for the Italians.

It would seem that the Vandals were in fact more powerful than I had previously thought. They were also joined by the barbarian group known as the

It seems that in my last post I got the events of 410 AD confused with those of 455 AD since the sack of Rome that I referred to was that by the Visigoths and not the Vandals. Though everything stated by myself and Zeke in the last posts is correct if you simply change the year to 410 and replace the name of the barbarians from the Vandals to that of the Visigoths instead. The two scenarios are however very similar and are in basically the same in that both Emperors at the time didn't do anything to protect Rome, one actually fled the city iteslf and the other was planning to leave Italy. Both didn't provide any military to protect Rome. My apologies for that mistake, I did some frantic research to rectify this mistake, and this is actually what happened: The Emperor at the period when the Vandals sacked Rome was Petronius Maximus who resided in the city of Rome itself. On hearing of the Vandals rapid approach he advised the senate and nobles to follow his example and flee from the city. As he was in the process of escaping from the city he was mauled by a group of angry protesters who accused him of betraying his subjects and was then beaten to death in the street. The Western Empire then temporarily was without an Emperor and the Vandals under Genseric approached the gates of the city. As he approached, there was no army to stop him and he was greeted by the Pope Leo who asked him to spare the unresisting citizens and to protect the buildings from fire and to not torture the captives. The Vandals promised to these terms but of course the orders weren

Now that sounds interesting. Do have any more information on that? And what about the 'Amazons' that the Greeks believed in? I saw a documentary not too long ago where some sekeletons were found in Asia which were thousands of years old but the DNA indicated that they had blonde hair and blue eyes. Is it possible that the 'Amazons' were a small tribe of Europeans that migrated to a part of Asia?

The thing that bothers me about the sack of Rome by the Vandals was that Honorius had the military man-power at his disposal to prevent it but he just didn't seem to care and prefered to have the bulk of his army stationed around Ravenna for his personal protection. Sending troops to relieve Rome would have obviously been a risk but I think the remaining Legions could have handled it or that after the Romans had bribed the Vandals to leave Roame after the first siege they would have prefered to withdraw with their gold instead of risk a battle. The Romans (of the city) had sent Honorius numerous requests begging him for help but he pretty much only gave them false promises in return. It is my believe that the Italians at the time (since this was basically what the Western Empire was reduced to) must have hated the current Roman government because they paid heavy taxes and the government could still hardly protect them or their property from Barbarians. It was like they didn't really have a government anymore and had to fend for themselves. What are your opinions? Could Honorius have sent his army South to relieve Rome of the siege and save much misery and suffering of his citizens who's duty it was for him to protect? Gibbon seems to insinuate that Honorius was basically a coward hiding in Ravenna with all his ships ready to escape at a moments notice and abandon Italy, and that all the troops were basically used for his own protection.

Segestan, thanks for the info, the numbers of Vandals that went into Africa is then considerably higher than I had thought, for some reason I had mistakenly thought they were around 30 000. Can anyone remember who Gaiseric's successor was? I remember reading that his successor greatly regretted the damage caused to Rome and I think it was him who withdrew the Vandals out of Italy?