Tobias

You know, maybe we've all misinterpreted the meaning of this thread: How do we know that it wasn't about which Roman in history had the best body figure

As Germanicus said, there's fairly little chance of being attacked by a shark, and even then, you have a reasonable chance of survival if you have a go at the shark. Most swimmers know that if you punch and kick and generally try and hurt a shark as much as you can, usually they will leave you alone and look for less troublesome prey. The trick is to not get too injured yourself and spill too much blood, whipping the shark into a blood frenzy As for the jellyfish, well, where i live (Near the middle of NSW, with no ocean for about 800kms), i have no trouble with jellyfish, so i'm not really qualified to comment on jellyfish further than that. The bugs aren't too much of a problem; it's just the spiders that are. The most common out here are the Redback spider (potentially fatal), the Whitetail spider (potentially fatal but more chance if you aren't allergic to it's venom) and the occassional Sydney funnel web (one of the most poisonous spiders in the world) The temperature's alright once you're used to it, although i've been stockworking and working as a general farm hand for the last two weeks in upwards of 50 degrees Celsius temperature, which does take it out of you a bit . Incidentally, i read an American website that said Australia's hottest temperature was 50 degrees, and would like to say that is completly false. Australia's hottest unofficial temperature is 54 degrees Celsius; that is generally well known around out here. Dingos? Well, i've seen a fair few of them, as a lot of farm dogs around here are part or fully dingo. When they're tamed, they make excellent working dogs. There actually aren't wild dingos in our area, but yeah, they are a bit of a pest in other places. (They think sheep were invented for their personal ease) The snakes are pretty much the main things to worry about. We have plenty of potentially fatal venomous snakes. It just takes common sense to avoid these dangerous things; we don't provoke them and don't touch them and they leave us alone. Pretty simple eh? So yeah, nothing wrong with living in Australia

Hmm, well, going on what i can see from where i live, Humankind is going to verge on being wiped out by either Nuclear war, the Bird Flu or rising water levels (the latter perhaps not as soon). The only question is which one first

An article similar to this was in the Australian "Daily Telegraph", so it must be big news

I've read the Colleen McCullough Masters of Rome series, and i thoroughly enjoyed the entire series. It's historical accuracy and it's literary licence is very well combined i believe, and she especially portrays Caesar in an interesting light, and as was mentioned above, she has no love whatsoever for the Boni, which, to tell the truth, made the later books appeal even more

Trebizond was an empire that continued to survive by playing it's enemies against each other and forming political alliances through marriages. The Empire was in constant conflict with many enemies after the Latin Empire; such as the Turks and their various Sultanates, the Italian republics (especially Genoa) and occasionally against Constantinople itself. When Baghdad was destroyed in 1258, Trebizond become the major trade centre of the Silk Road. Whilst inder the protection of the Mongols, the city grew to tremendous wealth. When Alexius II was on the throne, the empire reached it's peak of wealth, artistic accomplishment and territorial extent. Towards the end of his reign, the empire was continually fractured by civil war. It never recovered it's unity or wealth or dominance of the area's trade. By 1442, the strength of Trebizond's army was made known to the Turkish empire, and Murad II attempted to take the city by sea, although the attempt was repulsed. The ruler of the city at the time (John IV) could tell that his city would soon face Turkish conquest, and prepared for this by forging alliances. John's son, however, misused these alliances, and began intriguing with European powers, talking of wild schemes against the Turks. Mehmet II eventually heard of this, and led an army from Brusa in 1461. He isolated Trebizond from it's allies and laid siege to the city. After a month, the city surrendered. As i said, the city survived for so long for various reasons; protection from the Mongols, it was useful to the Turks (providing considerable tribute) and it also played on the disunities of the Turkish empire; as well as appearing to not be a threat to the Turks.

No, not necessarily. The best trade routes to Europe lay through Asia Minor at this time. As you probably know, most of Europe at this time was Christian. Christian trade could not always travel safely through Muslim lands (i.e. Syria, Egypt, Israel etc.), and whilst the Byzantines held Anatolia and Asia Minor, along with Armenia owing allegiance to the Empire, the best course for European merchants for trade with China, India etc was to via the Byzantine provinces in this area. Thus, merchants could pass relatively safely through Christian land, and the Byzantines could impose taxes, levies and duties on the goods passing through the Empire, as well as conducting it's own trade to China etc. However, once the Turks (Muslims) had control of Anatolia and Asia Minor, it was no longer safe to send Christian merchant trains through this area. Thus, not only did the Byzantine's trade with the East and the West dry up, but they could no longer exact money from the European merchants passing through their territory. And thus, nations like Venice realised they could do a better job with trade then the Byzantines, and they took most of the trade from Byzantium. With the lifeblood of the Empire (trade) rapidly dwindling, it's economy collapsed, and it couldn't hire or maintain armies, and thus collapsed. The problem of trade with China and India and the other areas supplying exotic goods being blocked by the Muslims lasted into the renaissance, and resulted in people such as Columbus, Magellan etc searching for alternate routes to India and China.

The empire could not exist on ideals alone; it would have been impractical for Rome to conquer territory that did not bring home some financial benefit. Now i know a lot of territory was conquered for the very reasons you mentioned above, but again, if the Empire strikes trouble elsewhere and needs soldiers, it has to choose what regions are worth stripping troops from or even withdrawing from altogether (An example being Britain which was eventually withdrawn from by various Emperors because the territory wasn't worth tying up three or four valuable legions that could be deployed elsewhere) So, in conclusion, the empire could not afford to maintain a presence in territory that did not want to be Romanized and would continue to resist, and that gave little in return for having a presence their. Hence why Scotland would not have been held for long.

There are many i'd like to meet: I've mentioned famous figures i'd like to meet before, but some other people i'd like to meet are Gaius Marius, Pompeius Magnus, Cato, Marcus Antonius, Cicero, Tiberius, Cladius, etc. etc. I agree with Ursus as well: It would extremely interesting to meet or even serve under Vespasian. I would also like to meet Constantine XI Palaeologus. I believe he had the makings of greatness, and under different circumstances would have brought stability and prosperity back to the Roman Empire.

G'day everyone, i've been away for a while, but now i'm back, and having read this thread, i have a few opinions to offer. It's very interesting; in the time i've been a member of this site, this argument always pops up in one guise or another every so often. I suppose it is because such a topic is so controversial and bound to attract powerful debate. I would personally say that in the history of such a great power such as Rome, it is impossible to designate ONE person who was the greatest of them all. The longevity and power of Rome ensured that throughout it's history, it would face different threats; militarily those of external invasion and internal resistance, politically the threat of economic instability, discontent and the disruption of the Pax Romana. In such times, many different figures would rise to face these challenges. Rome had the ability to throw up such men in times of danger; i.e. Lucius Junius Brutus at the beginning of the Republic, Fabius, Scipio and others against Hannibal, Gaius Marius against the Cimbri and Teutones, Sulla in the east and later against what he saw as "political instability", Pompey again against Mithridates, Caesar against the Gauls and thus against what he saw as the larger, more looming problem of the Germans, and later against what he saw as the tyranny of the Boni in the name of the Mos Maiorum. I could go on for ages and ages, naming many many great figures from different times. Many figures in Rome's long history achieved greatness at different times, under different circumstances and against different threats. They had two things in common; they fought for Rome, and they affected Rome in some way. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to have a single greatest figure in Rome's history. To attempt to do so is bound to cause controversy; as in history their are not just different threats and circumstances, but different viewpoints, as is demonstrated by people such as M Porcius Cato (who have my sincere respect for laying out their views in the face of stalwart opposition), and these different viewpoints see Rome's great figures in different lights. So i would say that Rome has no single greatest figure; all those who influenced Rome were part of Rome's ongoing parade. These men each had something to give to Rome, and for better or worse, they gave it. But for an Empire which spanned Europe for so many years, faced so many different enemies and were eventually overcome, it is virtually impossible to compare (for example) Aurelian to Julius Caesar or Gaius Marius to Aetius. As i said, each had something to give to Rome, or some influence to exert, and they certainly gave it. The results of these influences resound through the centuries. By the way Cato, as i said, i read your remarks about Caesar, but i've decided to not bite and argue back, otherwise this thread may degenerate into a Caesar argument again

The European Union seems to me to be another example of a special interests group. Similar to APEC (Which the Australian government is desperate to join ), and other groups that help to make money for a minority and not benefit the majority.

I don't know too much about the EU, living down here in Australia, but from what i can see, i can't see the EU being the best thing for Roman artifacts. A great Australian once said that as far as solving problems is concerned, governments and political institutions should be a last resort, not a first option

People find it necessary because of what sort of world we have on our hands right now; such amazing claims are allowed to be heard when even up to 20 years ago such a thing would have been dismissed out of hand. This should have been dismissed straight away from court and the bloke recommended for pyschological testing. But such absurd claims are being heard in today's world, and people are getting money from such claims. It's indicative of the times, i'm sad to say.

There wasn't much difference between the Byzantine senate and the Roman Senate. Originally, the Byzantine Senate consisted of Roman senators who lived in the East, and also consisted of people who were attracted to the east. Constantine offered property and grain to Senators who were interested in moving to his Senate in Nova Roma. As was said, the Senate of the Byzantine Empire was pretty much an elite social club; it's powers were purely honorary. Although, it is interesting that the senate of Constantinople did occasionally try to exercise their powers: they tried to elevate a barbarian Alan to the throne of the Emperor, they influenced the Nika Riots against Justinian etc. Senators were of course, public servants; they voted on the distribution of food, allocation of funds, taxes and public building projects until Justinian stripped them of all of this "power". After Justinian and Heraclius, the Senate is essentially neither here nor there. Senatorial titles could be bought by rich or well-off men of any class, and these titles were purely honorary and contained little or no power. Usually, the Senate met to recognize a new Emperor, but they hardly ever met apart from that. The Senate was a relic of the latin West, and declined with the influx of the Greek east, consequentially causing the decline of the latin language and literary works. After the Fourth Crusade, the Senate is not again mentioned. It is safe to assume that it was completely dissolved by the Latin rulers. The Byzantine Senate existed merely to maintain tradition; it had no real role in the hierarchy after Justinian and Heraclius.

The Republic; this a system which gives all men a chance to be the best- or the worst. I feel it worked better for providing stable government, but it wasn't necessarily the best in facilitating the growth of power of the Romans; i.e. territorial expansion, the appearance of influential figures like Caesar, Sulla, Marius, the Gracchi, Cato etc, and could thus be manipulated by such figures because the people wanted things to happen. The Principate; I loved the initial machinations of Augustus here; he effectively castrated the Senate, gave himself a lot of power and made it appear as if he was merely the First Man (Princeps) of Rome. However, this sort of system is only as good as the person who wields it. To maintain the Pax Romana, a person with great political and military skills, with a genius for hard work and organisation and the ability to hold together such a vast dominion is required. Unfortunately, such main aren't common; Augustus was extraordinary, but his sucessors weren't necessarily. Thus Rome experienced a lot of chaos in the first century A.D. until the time of Vespasian, when he again showed that all that was required to gain the ultimate power in Rome was strong military support. The question of succession was always there for the Emperors, and it was always difficult. The Dominate; By this time, the empire has suffered much and recovered more. But again, with ultimate power comes many problems, namely maintaining power and peace at the same time and the old question of succession. Again, the system was only as good as the man who had control of it. If a weak man with good connections managed to gain the throne, the Empire would possibly suffer. I just think that the Principate and Dominate wouldn't necessarily benefit the people of the Roman Empire. They say for every one great ruler there are many, many utter nonentities.This is the case. If the old problems of the Republic could have been overcome (i.e. jealousies, grudges, thirst for dignitas), then the system could have worked better. That said, i voted for the republic, because it just didn't have that constant question of succession, and it was more than the toss of a coin's chance that you would get stable rule in the Republic.

I'll certainly review my book, although it hasn't arrived yet

That's what i thought when i was thinking about the subject; we talk about the nations that sprung up i place of Rome, effects on Europe etc, not just the Byzantines, so it probably is better to keep it the way it is and leave the Basileia Romaion until later...

G'day my esteemed colleagues, and Happy New Year! It has just officially become January 1st, 2006 here in Australia; it is the 105th anniversary of the Federation of Australia, and i'm sitting here, alternatively watching the spectacular fireworks on Sydney Harbour and looking at UNRV. So Happy New Year from Down Under everyone! Let auld acquaintance be forgot..... (By the way, i realise that the time shown for the time of the post says before 12:00, but that's because this site's time doesn't show the correct time for this part of Australia )

That's very interesting Flavius Valerius Constantinus. I wouldn't mind hearing such things, because (don't laugh) i've never actually heard someone speaking latin

If you don't mind me asking Spurius, how did the naming go?

Hmm, now there's a chap with a rather vivid, perverted imagination; or perhaps he is actually someone who writes reviews whilst under the influence of alcohol or certain illicit substances

Ah, fair enough, that sounds like a logical idea. I just didn't know how many numbers were in Zip codes - Australia operates under 4 digit post codes. Wow, that works like a dream! Thanks extremely for that link Viggen, now i can annoy my younger brother ( a big rap fan) with ACDC

Welcome to UNRV Ibrahim Certainly, Manzikert was a serious defeat. An interesting thing is that the Emperor leading the army through Asia Minor, Romanus Diogenes, had a political enemy leading a section of his army- a chap named Andronicus Ducas - and left his best general, Nicephorus Botaniates, at home, suspecting his loyalties were wavering from him. (Ducas or other factions had obviously completely pulled the wool over Romanus' eyes, as Nicephorus was certainly far more trustworthy then Andronicus.) Although it was a unmistakeable strategic defeat, Byzantine losses were relatively low. It was not an immediate disaster; most soldiers of the Byzantines survived and were fighting in other areas of the empire soon. The defeat was more disastrous in the shattering of the image of Byzantine -or Roman- invincibilty, that lead other tribes to rebel, and of course the loss of the Empire's main economic and military recruiting grounds.

I can't add much to FVC's very comprehensive account. Although slightly unrelated to the Romans, i recall a chap named Pytheas; a Greek explorer and geographer who made a voyage to northwestern Europe. He circumnavigated Great Britain between 330 and 320 BC, and was supposed to have reached a place called "Ultima Thule" (possibly Iceland, or parts of the Norwegian coast.) Pytheas was the first to document such phenomena as auroras, polar ice and the Midnight Sun. According to Wikipedia; "Pytheas estimated the circumference of Great Britain within 2.5% of modern estimates. There is some evidence he used the Pole Star to fix latitude and understood the relationships between tides and phases of the Moon. In northern Spain, he studied the tides, and may have discovered that they are caused by the Moon. This discovery was known to Posidonius." I daresay such methods were used by the Romans quite a bit and instinct, estimation and luck would also have been relied upon.

Mine is Aetius. I feel he never gets the credit he deserves for defeating Attila the Hun at Chalons, although he lost most of his army in the process. He seems to me to be quite a champion for Rome - a man who was a hostage of the Huns for quite a while, a man who was determined to save the Empire despite it being an almost hopeless cause, a man who united the Goths and Alans into his army (a not inconsiderable feat) and a man who had the military skill to defeat Attila and cripple his destructive army. As well, Emperor Claudius seems to me to be a bit of an unsung hero; considering the odds against him gaining the Emperor's throne.