Lex

I'm no expert, but my main areas of interest are the Middle and Late Roman Empire and the Byzantine period. My main source of reference is Gibbons 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' of which I have read the unabrigded version. My other sources are some shorter books on the Roman military. I'm really interested in military history in general and am a military enthusiast. I'm also a Law student, so I've studied Roman Law and would like to do an advanced course in Roman Law later in my studies.

Thanks for the info Zeke. So it would seem that the Vandals still used the traditional Barbarian tactics instead of trying to emulate the Roman way of ruling their territory and still kept piracy as their main means of income. Did the piracy consist mainly of Viking-style coastal raids or was it mostly intercepting supplies? I'm not sure, but I think they might have eventually had a peace-treaty with the Western Empire, or am I mistaken? If they had been more forward thinking and tried to include the locals in their government and treated them equally they could have probably developed a good economy, a loyal population and a sizable army...but I guess that wasn't their way of thinking. So basically, in the end, even though they adopted Roman luxuries and fashions they remained Barbarians. The Byzantines though with far less troops didn't seem to have a problem defeating them, does anyone have any knowledge of this campaign and way the war was conducted in Africa?

Thanks for the info guys. With regards to Gordian III, what was the reason for his campaign in the East? Was it expansionist or had the Persians entered Roman territory? And what exactly were the details and consequences of the events that occured? And why did Philip opt to buy a peace-treaty, was it beacause he was too busy trying to consolidate his power? Mars, nice group btw, I especially like what you did with the map section.

I was quite impressed after reading about the Vandals in 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' by the fact that a relatively small amount of them managed to seize North Africa, a vital part of the Western Empire, and then still be able to rule over it relatively succesively for quite a while until they were wiped out by Belisarius' troops. What also impressed me was just how ambitious they were, since besides having parts of North Africa in their possesion they also conquered Corsica and Sardenia and even parts of Sicily. The thing that interested me lately was that I watched a documentary about the fall of the Roman Empire a few weeks ago and it showed to what extent they had adopted the Roman lifestyle. Apparently, once they had settled in North Africa they all adopted togas and built large country villas in imitation of the Romans along with elaborate gardens. The documentary even showed some remaining frescos of the long-haired Vandals reclining in their divans wearing togas eating fruits and using Roman style goblets, besides their long hair they looked quite Roman. I was wondering if the Vandals had left any long lasting impact on the territories they controlled in Africa in terms of culture? Did the locals perhaps prefer to be ruled under the Vandals rather than the Romans? And generally how was their treatment of the locals? And how was their soldiers generally equipped and was their army relatively disciplined or were they the same as the other Barbarians? How efficient were they in ruling the territory in terms of crop production? If anyone has any information regarding their Kingdom, I would be greatly interested to hear, as they were the only Barbarians that I read about that I couldn't help but feel sympathetic towards.

Why did the Byzantines put so much reliance on mercenaries instead of building a larger professional army? Would it not have been cheaper and more reliable? Or were the Emperors so scared of usurpers that they deliberately tried to keep the army smaller and divided amongst many nationalities?

I really wonder what happened to Alexander Severus' army on his campaign in the East. Apparently he lied to the Senate about what happened, but it also appears that what had happened was blown out of proportion. According to Gibbon, Alexander Severus was murdered by the Praetorian Guard because they thought he had become "effiminate". I wonder the reasoning behind this, since he was clearly an extremely able Emperor and even personally led his troops on campaigns. Was it because of his failure on his Persian campaign or were there ulterior motives? What really caused the Praetorian Guard to murder Alexander and could the Persian campaign have hurt his image so badly? What really happened, any ideas?

I don

Thanks for providing the link to such a fascinating site Tobias. Before I make a properly informed opinion I must still read the information on that site and the link provided on it. However, at the moment I struggle to view the Holy Roman Empire as a legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire since the 'Donation of Constantine' which the Popes used as their authority to crown a Western Emperor was a forgery and the Eastern Romans never really officially acknowledged them as Emperors or as equals and were quite blatant about this. Though I do believe that after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire the Popes would legally have had authority to crown an Emperor because of their positions as officers of the Roman Empire which was never taken away and of course their title of Pontifex Maximus. But while the Eastern Emperors still ruled I don't believe they any authority to crown an Emperor since only the Emperor could do this. I would also like to know in what way the Holy Roman Empire actually attempted to revive Roman institutions or some of its culture? The Germans and Franks at the time, were still considered as Barbarians by the Italians and Eastern Romans and their law remained primitive for a long time. Personally I view the title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' as quite an empty one, but if anyone can give arguments against my views, I would be interested to hear them.

Didn't quite a large portion of Italy remain under Byzantine control for roughly two hundred years? I know they might have held a lessor percentage to the Barbarians but they still held the most populated and economically powerful regions at least. Can anyone remember for how many years they reclaimed Rome?

Personally I don't really see it as an issue that the culture was different. I reckon the importance was that they were still ideologically Roman, the Emperor still wore the diadem and the imperial purple, the Empire still followed Roman Law and its institutions were still Roman. And most importantly the Emperors considered themselves as the lawful successors to Augustus and no one could dispute this from a legal standpoint, not even the popes of the time. So, even the popes recognised them as the lawful successors of the Roman Empire and had to create a forgery to crown the 'Holy Roman Emperor' of the West in the hope that the Eastern Romans would lose their claims to the West and to Italy. I aslo believe that because Rome was no longer part of the Empire didn't make much of a difference since for more than a hundred years before the fall of the West, the city had lost signifigance and was basically just a relic of ancient monuments and institutions that were almost forgotten. Constantinople had become the most powerful city of the Empire and this was now where it's future lay and it was already the senior partner long before the West fell. So long before the fall of the West, Constantinople in my opinion, was the de facto capital of the Empire.

Belisarius. He had to make do with minimal supplies and only a small professional army supplemented by raw recruits hastily conscripted and an Emperor who sometimes seemed oddly reluctant to send any further aid when desperately needed. His victory over the Barbarians in Italy was simply amazing, since he only had from 5000-7000 troops and the Barbarians had up to 150 000 well-armed troops. The way he managed to hold on to Rome while besieged by the Barbarians and then still deal them a devastating blow with numerous successful cavalry charges personally led by himself out of the city gates into enemy positions. The difficulty with holding on to Rome was that the circumference of city was so huge and some sections were badly damaged and he only had a few thousand troops that had to be thinly spread-out across the walls and then also deal with a hungry population that were sometimes tempted to aid the Barbarians in order to end the siege and get food. And then the aid he received by sea from Justinian was often minimal or a fraction of the promised amount. What makes Belisarius so incredible was that he achieved so much against immense odds but with hardly any support and only a small army. He managed to turn the tide so many times and recover from many desperate situations whilst always being greatly outnumbered. *************** What really bothers me is that history seems to conveniently forget about this event and the fact that Rome and Italy was at one stage reclaimed by the Roman Empire after the fall of the West.

I'm willing to take that risk. The benefits in my opinion far out-weigh the risks. Anyway life is about risks, driving a car has it's risks but the benefits far out-weigh the risks....a person has a far higher chance of getting killed in a car accident or slipping and dieing in the bath than being an innocent executed.

Don't you guys think that these days 'human rights' are going overboard? The people who seem to benefit the most are the criminals. I reckon that hanging is a very humane form of punishment and if murderers, baby-rapers, hijackers, etc are executed en masse by the thousands then this world would be a better place. Either they get executed until they learn or until there's nobody left to hang. Personally, I don't care if the death penalty costs ten times more, it's a lot more satisfying to know that they're going to get killed. I don't understand why people give a damn about those pathetic wretches or feel sorry for them, the world doesn't need them. I'm a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to fear.

However, the Eastern Romans were always ideologically Roman. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that Roman culture merely evolved over a period of over 1500 years? Let's remember that the Eastern Romans existed in a completely different world to that of the Western Romans. Europe had entered the Dark Ages and the Eastern Romans merely evolved and adapted to the changing conditions of the Medieval world. Across Europe the languages changed, cultures changed, fashions changed, systems of government changed and so did the laws. It would be impossible for the Roman Empire to perpetually stay the same and I only see it as natural that it evolved over such an immense period of time. Take the diadem for example, it started off as a simple band of pearls with gold tied around the head but ended up as a large conical type of crown with pearls dangling down the sides. It was very different yet still symbolised the same thing and went by the same name. It simply evolved according to the styles of the time. *************************************** Apparently Stilico once refered to the Eastern Roman Empire as "those provinces usurped by the Greeks" but there was probably quite a lot of animosity at the time since the Eastern Empire was prpbably trying to divert the Barbarians to the West and wasn't really helping them against the Barbarians either.

Thanks for the info everyone, I'm finding this topic quite interesting and it's definately given me a different perception of the Greeks and their modern history. I was wondering if anyone knows roughly how many ethnic Greeks there are in the European part of Turkey and how many there are in the whole of Turkey?

Apparently Constantine kept worshipping Apollo even when he converted to Christianity. It was also custom for Christain Emperors to get baptised in their old age or on their death-bed so that that they could do all the necessary killing in their reign and be 'cleansed' and have their sins 'wiped away' by being baptised at the end. Constantine was definately one of the most ambitious, dynamic and influential of Roman Emperors ever, and I believe he used the stories that he saw the cross before the battle as political leverage to gain the support of the Christians. But I also believe that he had a genuine respect for the"God of the Christians" and that later his belief eventually became quite genuine. He was tall, strong, well-built and apparently good looking, well-liked by his troops, a good leader and a powerful warrior on the battlefield known to personally charge into the enemy. He was also obviously quite politically astute and could be ruthless on occassion and even really benevolent when it came to his laws. Not to mention he managed to gain sole-rule of the Empire. An amazing man, whose story would make an awesome movie.

Interesting. I never knew that he modern Greeks were so determined to regain their old territory. And thanks for the link, even though the idea isn't too realistic these days but it is still interesting to read about. But here's a scenario; what if Greece convinced the EU to only allow Turkey to join the EU if they surrendered their European territories to Greece? It's not too realistic, but how desperate is Turkey to join the EU? Their economy isn't too great and their prospects of joining the EU is currently not good due to opposition from the majority of Europeans and the Pope. So maybe they might accept such an offer?

I believe that serious criminals should be executed. I don't see what the big deal is, I'm not a criminal and have nothing to fear. I also believe that if the West returns to it's Roman and Pagan attitudes we would no longer be in decline.

Could someone please explain this to me? I know that the Spartans all had male "companions", does this imply that they all had homosexual relationships?

Wow! I never knew that such an idea existed, that's really interesting. How much support does this idea have amongst modern Greeks? I think that any Romanist would love to see such a thing occur, a final vindication for the Romans.

Awesome posts Sebastianus, keep up the good work! I would also like to ask everyone, how 'legitimate' was the title of "Holy Roman Emperor" really? Since the Donation of Constantine was actually a forgery and the Franks were still considered as Barbarians and they didn't seem to make any real effort to continue Roman culture, laws or architecture or even show any patriotic Roman sentiments. To me it just seems like a very empty title that they tried to exploit to gain more wealth and one which the Pope granted because he believed that the Eastern Romans couldn't protect the Italians from the Lombards and the other Barbarians raping Italy. And how legitimate was the title for Western Europeans at the time? Did they really consider those Barbarians as "Roman" Emperors of the West? The Eastern Roman Empire was at least still ideologically Roman and I don't believe that the change of the official language to Greek really changed anything.

Apparently the flag most flown in the USA is the Mexican flag....perhaps the fall of the USA will be the absorption of too many people who are culturally not American? Does anyone see any similarities here? I don't mean to be offensive here but I see a similarity between Romes absorption of barbarians in their territories and Americas absorption of non-Europeans in theirs. Studies show that in 45 years the USA will no longer have a white majority...

How did ancient people trim their nails? Did they use a type of scissors?

According to Gibbon, the Roman troops in the late empire began complaining about the weight of the armour and the helmets. And their leaders actually consented to allow them to no longer wear their armour around camp, in town and even in battle!