Northern Neil

I agree with these points entirely - The Roman Empire did not fall, it evolved into something else - the Roman Catholic Church. Once the need for forts, roads and the trappings of classical culture became obsolete, Rome then used spirituality to retain control (politically as well as spiritual ) over its subjects. And it has succeeded to this day.

Julian.

...John Julius Norwich, Averil Cameron and Colin Mc Evedy (History of Byzantium, The Later Roman Empire and the Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History) suggest that the Byzantine phase of the Roman Empire began with the reign of Heraclius, about 625AD. Prior to that, it was a recognisably late Roman state. I regard the best Byzantine victory to be the Battle of Dorylaeum (1098). The Byzantines got the Crusaders to fight their war for them, and regained half the territory they lost at Manzikert with little expenditure in terms of gold or material.

With regard to the first posting on this thread - structures one could possibly call 'castles' were built on the eastern and southern parts of Britain in the third and fourth centuries. They were basically standard Roman 'Castella' but with slightly thicker walls and projecting towers. After that, castles in the true sense of the word do not appear until the tenth century (assuming, of course, we are talking about Britain!) with the Norman mercenaries in the Welsh marches. With regard to Arthur, I can not furnish much more than has already been given... with a couple of exceptions. Arthur was said to have died at the battle of Camlann, fighting the Picts. On Hadrian's Wall at Castlesteads there is a fort whose Roman name is CAMBOGLANNA. Could CAMLANN be the same place? it could be. Personally, I think it probably is. Further west along the Wall is a fort whose name was ABBALLAVA ( Burgh by Sands). Arthur's burial place was AVALON, which was marshy and had a lake. Modern day Burgh - by - Sands is a windswept place surrounded by salt marshes and ponds. Food for thought, maybe!!

Earlier this year, I went to Pompeii and visited the famous brothel, complete with its stone beds and cubicles. Obviously, such establishments have their modern counterparts, and as such merely provide proof - if any were needed - as to the similarity of human nature throughout the ages. What I found more interesting was a pamphlet I picked up in the Pompeii museum, called 'The Forbidden Pompeii'. This little book contained information on some of the highly erotic paintings and inscriptions found in Pompeii, which were all removed and in most cases destroyed due to religious (Catholic) pressure. There is a suggestion that the paintings were supressed on account of the fact that they contained images and information which was deemed incompatible with Christian doctrine. In most instances, only sketches drawn immediately prior to destruction remain of the originals. Others which were not destroyed remain intact, but under lock and key at the Museum of Naples, available for study - but not to photograph - with special permission. I would hazard a guess that these paintings would not particularly shock us, or give us any revolutionary insights into the Roman world's views on sexuality. They do, however, tell us a great deal about the mentality of those who would keep these artifacts from us... Give the guy a break, he probably is. If more information can be gathered by getting references and such of other forum members, then fine.

The Scottish 'Schiltrom' of the 13th - 15th centuries was the same, a reworking of the Phalanx. Perhaps the English technique (during the 100 years war) of heavily armoured, dismounted men at arms supported by missile fire weakening the enemy prior to impact could be interpreted as a re-working of the legion? Just a thought...

The Roman period (even excluding its later Byzantine phase) was such an immense length of time that I believe it would be foolhardy to categorically say that the 'Romans never used dogs in war'. The anecdote about the dog found at the signal station refers to findings of archaeologists using scientific methods, so I assume they would have checked out all variables before coming to the definite conclusion that the dog was part of the staff of the installation. I am happy to pursue this particular lead further; I would assume that archaeologists would have taken into consideration such factors as morphology of the skeletons, associated finds, breed of dog etc. etc. before arriving at their conclusion.

Sorry - it was Goldsborough (5 miles or so up the coast) not Scarborough. Some information can be found here.

A sad little story: In the early 5th century, the chain of Roman signal stations along the north eastern (Yorkshire) coast of Britain were sacked and burnt, possibly by Pictish raiders. Archaeological investigation of the one at Scarborough discovered, in the charcoal layer, the skeleton of a man who had sustained serious head wounds. Lying across his body was the skeleton of a large, thick set dog. The interpretation of this is that the dog died protecting his master, one of the watchmen who garrisoned the station.

I understand that Roman material culture persisted until the Lombard invasions of the 7th century. Had Justinian not devastated and weakened Italy in his attempt at reconquest, the Gothic rulers might have been better placed to prevent the ensuing Lombard invasion, and with it the final destruction of a recognisably Roman culture. The Citizens of Neapolis welcomed the East Roman reconquest because of their Greek heritage. This suggests to me that Greek was still spoken by the Neapolitans even after seven hundred years of Roman rule.

Politically, Justinian's reconquests were a success, albeit not a great one. A look at the map for 550 shows the Empire's fortunes apparantly restored, its boundaries including much of what was lost with the exceptions of Gaul , Britain and half of Spain. Culturally it was a disaster. Many of the classical cities of Italy and coastal Spain were devastated by the wars, never to recover. Had Justinian not interfered with the West, the Gothic rulers of Italy, by now Latin speaking and fast coming round to the idea of being Romans themselves, would have been far better placed to resist the subsequent Lombard invasion, and with it the final destruction of a Roman way of life in Italy. I am charmed by the idea that had Belisarius sided with the Goths, the Western Empire would have been ressurected. This might even have happened anyway, but for Justinian's interfering.

I think that Venice arose in the 5th century, and was founded by refugees from Aquilea after the Huns sacked that city. According to the recent BBC book on Venice, as late as 850 the Venetians regarded themselves as Byzantine subjects. However, in 880, when they pillaged the rival port of Commachio (Also, I think, a Byzantine dependency) they were clearly acting independently. In one of those strange quirks of mediaeval history, I think the Doge of Venice was still 'officially' a Byzantine governor right up until the fall of Constantinople. I believe they sent ships to aid the city in 1453. But revenue from Venice to the Empire stopped coming through round about 920. (Sorry - forgotten which book I read that bit in!!)

If it was on the poll, I'd have gone for Strasbourg!

definitely an engineer. Well paid, but not close enough to politics to get me murdered.

I believe the similarity was, and continues, to be very close. Until recent years, the US picked wars with other, weaker powers and on victory annexed territory in a very Roman way: for example, the Spanish American war and the annexation of Puerto Rico. More recently, pressuring rival powers such as Britain, France and Belgium to give up their colonies in the name of freedom, yet steadfastly keeping their own colonial acquisitions ( the American midwest from the native Americans, for instance ) also has its ancient parallels. To me, George W. has much in common with some of the mid - third century Emperors such as Decius, assuming power by less than democratic means and keeping his citizens focused on 'The War Against...' whoever the present focus of exteral danger is at that moment, whilst at home there are internal crises which dont make the news. (to be fair to Decius, though, this process had been the norm since the accession of Augustus) Clinton, on the other hand, was more of a Hadrian, or even a Marcus Aurelius... in my humble opinion! On the positive side, there are the many things about America which make it and its culture very admirable, and something that people from all over the world aspire towards becoming part of. They are just too numerous to mention here. I think America has already learnt a lot from Rome; by my estimate, I believe - or rather hope - it has now reached its 'Augustan maximum' in terms of territory, and is now merely exercising influence to prevent other powers overtaking it, much as Rome did with Parthia. The US must, however, beware of an modern equivalent to the rise of Persia in the 3rd century...

Absolutely. Although individual christians were and are compassionate, I believe that even by the third century it was by no means a foregone conclusion that someone who was a christian was by definition compassionate. By Constantine's time, of course, they were able to be 'bought' by the emperor in order to manufacture a new state religion which then became the mediaeval church, and far from making it fall, it actually perpetuated the Roman state long past its sell - by date - the cost being the death of the classical world.

England -North, in Cumbria

I think most Christian holidays are pagan, are they not? Could this be related to Moonmaiden's topic on 'Council of Nicaea' and the apparant amalgamation of paganism and Christianity in the fourth century?

I always understood the Celts to be a linguistic, not a racial grouping. They appeared to differ in appearance in various geographical locations. For example, the Celtic -speaking Belgae are described as being tall and blonde haired - pretty similar to their neighbouring Germans, in fact, whereas the Ligurians and Celtiberians looked then much the same as they do now - raven haired and brown eyed. I figure that members of different races actually spoke Celtic, and so were by definition celts.

According to Colin McEvedy in 'The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History,' Mithradates and the inhabitants of Bithynia and Pontus belonged to the 'Thraco - phrygian' branch of the Indo European group. This makes them closely related to the Phrygians, Cimmerians and Armenians, and distantly related to the Greeks. Culturally, however, I believe they adopted the trappings of Hellenism, mainly due to close contact.

I agree with all the above points. Adrianople was a turning point also in that it marked the end for the old - style mediterranean heavy armoured infantryman. Henceforth, we are well and truly into the cavalry age. Just one aside, from an earlier post on this topic: I think Theodosius earned the title 'The Great' in a similar way that Constantine did. He was a great patron of the Church, yet had too much blood on his hands to be made a saint. Unlike Constantine, however, he brought no great benefits to the Empire, and his two sons were even more lacking in merit.

If the Empire had ended - as so nearly was the case - in about 270, then it could be argued that the adoption of Britons and Gauls into the army was the use of 'barbarian' troops. Earlier still, the use of provincial Italians rather than 'Real' Romans could have been regarded as such, if the Roman state had been vanquished in republican times. The Romans did not 'start' to use barbarians in its army in the third century - it always had used them, and due to manpower shortages that were always present. They simply ceased to be regarded as such as the Empire expanded, and they became Romanised. Perhaps if the Romans had viewed the immigrant Germans as Romans, just as they had other subject peoples prior to the 4th century, the debate as to wether or not 'Barbarian' troops caused the fall would not even be raised. As early as Claudian times, Batavian (German) auxilliaries were used in the British campaign. Were these not Barbarians, by every definition of the word, just as Visigoths and Asding Vandals were? Again, Hamatic (Syrian) archers are to be found on Hadrians Wall in Severan times. Were they not, depending on fluctuations of the eastern frontier, sometimes barbarians, sometimes Roman provincials? The Illyrians, in the first century BC were regarded as subject, barbarian people - yet almost all the emperors of the late third century - including Constantine - were Illyrian. Was not Belisarius (Slavic for beautiful king) a Barbarian mercenary, or was he a newly promoted Roman patrician who was the saviour of the Empire in the sixth century? He certainly regarded himself as a bona fide Roman, as did Aetius, Stilicho and Valentinian I, all fanatical Romani, yet of Barbarian descent. All these characters defended the Empire with their lives, rather than took from it, and regarded themselves as Roman Soldiers. I am not saying that these ideas should demolish previously held theories, and they are certainly not my original theories - but they certainly deserve looking at more closely.

Given that the Roman Empire, at least politically (if not culturally) carried on until 1453, I think the question is already answered.

Once again, we have a view that things after the third century are a debased and inferior thing than the equivalent that went before the third century. This has been the view ever since Gibbon, with respect to all things Roman, and it needs to be looked at with more analysis. Generally, people seem to simply 'not like' the late Roman army and its soldiers very much. Whilst they no longer wore Lorica Segmentata, gallic helmets or short haircuts, They had adapted, by 275, to meet the Persians on equal terms once again, and to defeat the Barbarians more often than not - something the Augustan style legions had consistantly failed to due throughout the third century. The changes and adaptations in the Roman army did not bring about the fall of Rome, they gave the Western Empire another 200 years of extended life!

I'm not sure this is the right place for this subject - but as it discusses stuff outside the empire, maybe so. A while ago I bought a greatl little book by the '40's archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, called 'Rome Beyond The frontiers.' In it, he discusses Roman trading installations and docks in Iran and India, similar things way North of the Danube and again similar sites along the East coast of Africa. Whilst not built perhaps at the behest of the state, many of them were built by traders from within the Empire who were, by definition, Romans and acting as agents for the Empire. Apart from that little book, with its tantalising descriptions of a few odd sites, is there anything available on this subject which is more modern and comprehensive?