Fatboy

Yo, Viggen, is there not an intact library still mostly buried, just sitting there in Herculaneum, due to lack of funds or something? If so, any sign of someone getting their ass in gear and excavating it? I mean a battered original is worth twenty dodgy medieval copies - somebody has to have the cash and the inclination surely

I think they came up with the water wheel ( at least in Europe )

I believe in a selection of ancient Gods from Greek, Egyptian, Phonecian culture etc, but I can't say I'm very serious about it. I have several little wooden figures representing various dieties which I burn incense in front of and kind of pray to but really, if I was about to get run over by a train my thoughts would not be " help me Zeus! " it would be " *****, I'm dead " I really use it as a form of meditation and as a way of externalising my problems. Turning over some control over the aspects of your life you can't control to some sort of higher power, imaginary as it may be, seriously helps the human mind cope with stress ( and its a great cop out -" well its not my fault- it was Baal!" ) I think that the human mind may well need to believe in some form of mythical nonsense to accept the world without freaking out. All the ancient polyatheisms are cool cos they were non judgemental and simply provided lessons and explanations to help people get through the day, unlike the monoatheisms which have being making peoples lives a misery for centuries with their bullsh*t dogma. I'll repent on my deathbed though..just in case

I agree with marcus regulus. Athough the soldier on the ground is often motivated by religion ( and almost always by some sort of belief - in their nation, city state, ideology, etc ), the people who call the shots generally precipitate wars over more practical reasons - land, resources......oil.(ahem) Religion does have a unique ability to prolong wars into messy ongoing conflicts that lose touch with whatever reasons set them off in the first place. No doubt, religion has had a very devisive influence on the world - but I would say specifically the monoathiesms whos claims of sole devine authourity and aggression towards unbelievers has caused no end of problems. The people of the ancient world on the other hand would happily swap and borrow gods from each other. Ramesses the Great and the Hittite King Whassisname famously signed an oath to BOTH peoples gods on a peace treaty - they were entirely comfortable with the idea that the other guys gods existed too. This brings me to one of my favourite subjects. Monoathiesms; sure, Christianity hurt the Roman empire but I think monoathiesm in general is one of the worst things to happen to the world.The intolerence and cruelty of those who believe they are the only ones with God on their side has no equal. Religious wars/persecution didn't really happen before except when monoathiesm was involved. Obviously the early Christians were persecuted themselves by the Romans but this was due to Christianities confrontational attitude more than Roman intolerance. The Romans happily absorbed peoples af all sorts of religions into their Empire - but Christianity assertion that all other Gods are false was a fundamental attack on Roman Culture, they couldn't let it go.

its all Greek to me

Well, the fact that the Romans considered themselves decendants of refugees from the trojan war shows the prestige value of all things Hellenistic to the Romans. They emulated Greek culture, appropiated their myths and legends and even merged their respective pantheons of gods. Any self respecting Roman nobleman wanted to be connected with Greek civilisation in any way possible - they wished they were Greek, or more accurately wanted to be seen as the successors to Greek civilisation - it gave them credibility when throwing their weight around at the very least By the same token, the Greeks came to consider themselves Roman. Even by the fifteenth century, with the original ( western )Empire dead a thousand years, only a brave man would address the Byzantine Emperor as King of the Greeks. Although they spoke Greek, lived in Greece and had almost nothing in common with the long dead Latin Empire, the people of the resilient eastern Empire still considered themselves as Romans. So, yeah, they were thoroughly absorbed in to Roman culture

I'm almost sure that the Chinese didn't have stirrups during the Han Dynasty, although I believe they invented (?) them by the fifth Century. The Romans definitely didn't have them - for some reason Europeans took forever to adopt them - until the middle ages I think. Why the world was so slow to develop stirrups despite centuries of mounted warfare is an absolute mystery to me. As for the similarities between the Chinese and Persian armies - to a certain extent we tend to consider them alike more out of ignorance than anything else, but nevertheless there are similarities. One major constant in history is that western armies tend to prefer frontal, shock battle in order to break the enemy line and win a decisive victory ( and generally a preference for infantry over cavalry ), while eastern armies generally like battles of manuvre where surrounding and enveloping the enemy is the aim of the game ( obviously favouring mounted warriors ) For this reason the Romans struggle with the Persians is quite instructive when imagining a clash between the Empire and the Han as despite any specific differences between the Persians and the Han ( and there are many ), the pattern of the warfare would probably follow the same pattern as almost every other east/west clash in history. The idea of the disparity in numbers would not be such an issue because the Roman military machine's ability to form and equip new armies was one of its greatest strengths - they would be able to match the Han in the field on any given day. As for heavy Roman armour versus Eastern mobility - your spot on( although by most standards the Han infantry WERE heavily armoured - just not by Roman standards )

Hello everybody, my names fatboy and I stumbled across your site today and its well cool. I was reading the forums for ages and figured since I'm a complete history freak myself I should log on ( or is it in ? ). I've left a couple of rambling posts already but just noticed that you should introduce yourself ( its the first forum thingy I've ever been on ).Please note I have a vastly inflated opinion of my own knowledge of history, so when I'm wrong ( as I'm sure I probably will be ) feel free to put me in my place, cos being wrong is how you learn. Anyhow, I'm 27, from Dublin, and obsessed with world history, so I think this site rocks. Ave

Hmnnn,imaginary wars,these arguments can go on....and on...and on - and really nobody knows because we have no ( sensible ) context to put it in Lots of fun though, so I think I'll have a go myself If we're talking about both empires at their peak I think its hard to call because both were pretty much invunerable. We could argue about the old chestnut of Western armour versus Eastern mobility far ever but these things decided battles, not wars. For every Mongol horde surrounding closely packed European Knights or Eastern horsemen swamping isolated Roman Legions, you have a Macedonian phalynx smashing through Persian front lines or a Frankish shield wall rolling over Saracen horsemen. It was the machinery behind the individual armies who decided wars ( and still do ) - determining who was beter equipped, organised, supplied etc. Both these Empires were seriously well organised and barring and early, cataclysmic defeat for either side ( almost unthinkable given both sides resourses ) whichever side was on the back foot would be able to roll with the punches and learn how to fight their new enemy. Romes probable superiority in the field would not be enough for complete victory as the never ending struggle of the Roman/Byzantine Empire versus that of the Persians/Parthians shows - the Romans were usually on top but never really conquered them, that took the Islamic armies who took advantage of the two worn out behemoths after their final epic confrontation and conquered most of both empires. The Romans famously relentless approach to war would not have been decisive either - the Great wall alone is enough to show that the Chinese can match anyone for sheer bloody mindedness. The obvious advantage for the Han would be sheer weight of numbers, but this wouldn't be sufficient either. The Romans true military talent wasn't tactics or technology ( although advanced in both ) it was the ability to raise armies. The Romans lost almost as many battles as they won, but unlike anyone else Rome could absorb huge military disasters without breaking a sweat. We hear of them losing an entire army of 50,000 in a day, but before their opponents had finished celebrating their victory they could see another Roman army on the horizon -of identical size, identically trained and identically equipped as the last - but they knew about the last battle and had learned from it - it was like fighting the Borg. Basically, the Romans are built for wars of attrition and you will never wear them down. Someone made the point that Chinese are better warriors, hardly, its obvious from history that all peoples are capable of fighting like lions or running like cowards, it depends on their attitude at a particular time - unshakeable religious belief or confidence in your commanders help, infectious defeatism or lack of supplies obviously don't. If its the late Han Empire the Romans would conquer the individual fractured areas one by one By the same token if its the late Roman empire the Han would swamp them a la the Barbarians Finally then,who'd win? I think after the first few bloody and inconclusive battles they would learn to leave each other well alone and go pick on some "savages" instead. Maybe some sort of cold war as befitting two superpowers. Or Rome would win on points. Or something.....ok, I still havent a clue.

I suppose you could argue that the fall of the Empire in the west would have happened anyway, with or without Christianity( or at least that Christianity did not precipitate it ). You could then point out how the fanatical iconoclast Emperors of the eighth century saved an eastern Empire which would carry on for another seven hundred years - this of course means including the later Byzantine Empire as part of the true Roman Empire despite it being a very different animal by this stage, so maybe thats a whole new argument you don't want to have to make. To mention the Holy Roman Empire would be just taking the piss so all I can think of is that Constantine the Great forged a fairly healthy Christian Roman Empire - would the Empire have been on the slide earlier than it eventually was had he not appeared? - Basically, play up the post Constantine Empire and play down the state of the pagan pre-Constantine Empire. Its a toughie and no mistake, cos Christianity certainly hurt rather than helped.

John Julius Norwich is the business.Anyone who hasn't read his Byzantium series is missing out big time. As the man says, he brings the characters to life. You'll feel you know these various Byzantine nutcases personally. You'll be in awe of Nichophoras Phocas, you'll feel sorry for Romanos Diogenes, as for Basil the Bulgar Slayer and Justinian II ( he of the golden nose ), well - they're just cool.( as you can see The Apogee is my fav ). You may not learn anything new, but you get a FEEL for how things actually went down and the personalities of the major players. Get it Get it Get it