Tobias

That is the thing though; if more and more people had moved away from Italia, all the other provinces would have increased in size and power. It would surely be only a matter of time before businesses, upper class peoples, the plutocrats and even the government was moved away from Italia. As Italy and Rome decreased in population, money would also move away from there. Eventually, Italy, if not Rome, would have lapsed into an unimportant state, and may have been overthrown by an ambitious and powerful province wanting control of the Peninsula and city. I agree that if more people had been spread around the Empire, more productivity and Romanization of the other provinces would have occurred, most likely making them less likely to fall or lose their own culture. I suppose it came from the fact that originally outside of Rome and Italy, until much later, hardly any peoples had Roman citizenship, and I daresay they were not likely to stop giving as much grain to the original citizens or generalising grain doling throughout the empire. Not a practical way, lowering the main governing area's population.

I think it's a good idea. I have a bit of a thing for "On this day" events in history, so i enjoy reading events. Do famous Roman battle anniversaries appear? I haven't seen any for a while...

I've just gotten back from a round of social events; seeing as we live a fair way out of our nearest town, it takes a while to get to all the friends and family and exchange gifts. But yesterday was really good; My younger brother and sister got me and my parents up at 6:00 am to open the presents, and then i slept in until lunchtime, when i had a glorious banquet of a lunch I got a DVD called "The Roman Empire in the First Century", and am going to watch that tonight And of course, the festive season in Australia wouldn't be complete without one thing; HEAT. It reached 53 degrees Celsius according to our back veranda thermometer. Beautiful eh?

I daresay that this movie is based on the book written by Valerio Massimo Manfredi? If so, i hope that the movie does the book justice. I've read the book again and again, and i seriously enjoy the thought that Romulus Augustulus may have ended up of a brighter fate than at best lifelong exile and imprisonment or at worst, death.

G'day All Novum Comum was a colony established by Gaius Julius Caesar at the Western end of Lake Larius, modern day Lake Como. Caesar extended the Roman citizenship to all the inhabitants of Novum Comum. It was generally accepted in this colony that they were now Roman citizens, although they were mainly Gauls. However, whilst Caesar was fighting the wars in Gallia Comata, an chap by the name of Gaius Cladius Marcellus, the consul for that year, ordered one of the "citizens" of this colony to be flogged on the back. Now, whilst a proper Roman citizen may be chastised by a beating with the rods in a lictor's fasces, his back is inviolate from the lash. The flogging of this "citizen" was to send a profound message to Caesar and the people of Novum Comum that they were not, (and would most likely never be whilst the Boni held sway) Roman citizens. Was Gaius Cladius Marcellus justified in this? Was it just another attack on Julius Caesar? Were the peoples of Novum Comum citizens, even after Caesar gave it to them (which, strictly speaking, he was not authorised to do, although he believed he should be treated equally to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, who also established his own colonies)? Where did the "Latin Rights" fit into all this? I appreciate all opinions

The governor of Cilicia immediately after Appius Cladius and his quaestor, Brutus, was Marcus Tullius Cicero. He wrote a series of letters speaking of the corruption which Brutus and the Governor had participated in; his own evidence included the state of the legions in Cilicia; Very under strength, ill equipped and in a state of complete poverty, which all pointed to the garnishing of the legion's money. As well, there would be a flood of informers everywhere dying to inform the Great Advocate of the corrupt lending practices which had occurred. Brutus' methods reeked of Extortion. I believe one of his main methods occurred similarly to this: The Governor would threaten to send his army to camp in a random town in Cilicia. Brutus would arrive in said town and subtly suggest that a "gift" of, say, 100 talents, to the governor would help to send the army elsewhere. After this was suggested, the firm of Matinius et Scaptius (Brutus' front) would lend the town the bribe money. The governor would pocket this money, and Brutus would make even more for lending the money. Of course, Brutus denied this (as you would), but i believe at the time it was a rather given fact that Brutus and Appius Cladius had participated in these schemes. It lead to Appius Cladius being tried; although he was acquitted.

The invasion of the Arabs happened so quickly and with such fervour that the Byzantines, already rather overextended and exhausted from Heraclius' campaign against the Persians, really had no chance of saving Egypt. It would have been a terrible loss at the time, but not a crippling stroke. This loss was just one of the many disasters that the Byzantines would endure during their history. The Byzantines would be back in position as a powerhouse relatively soon at any rate. At the time, Egypt and North Africa were large drains on the Empire's treasury anyway, especially after Justinian's campaigns in Italy. It probably turned out to be more of a relief to lose this African territory.

I'm glad somebody did. Brutus and the other conspirators do not deserve any thanks or feting for their deed. One thing about Brutus; Wasn't he supposed to have a knack for making and managing money? Which is why, when he was Appius Cladius' quaestor in Cilicia, he helped to totally financially strip the province through his money lending. Of course, at the time this was illegal (no senator could participate in financial ventures unconnected with property i believe), but Brutus made a pretty penny out of it anyway. More to Brutus then a promising young senator, eh?

It's not easy; i believe it is a kind of a flick of the wrist or arm that causes the missile to leave the sling uninhibited. It'd take a fair bit of practice to perfect, but once the action was honed, the slingers would become very deadly for their speed and accuracy.

Congratulations Spurius old mate What about some famous females from history; Berenice, Boadicea, Zenobia, Zoe, Cleopatra, Joan, Elizabeth, Victoria, Mary Read ...?

What a tic matey, i didn't say that it wasn't possible for them to have Roman blood, i was just saying that it was not a great idea to say that the Italians would have more Roman blood then anyone else. Please don't go upsetting people about it lol As far as genetically proving it, i'm not really in the know about that sort of thing. Bones are pretty much the only thing that can be used to match modern day people to ancient Romans, and mosaics, pictures and verbal and written accounts. Getting back to the Varangian Guard, i see them as valuable allies to the Byzantines. And it wasn't only a one way street; the Byzantines caused much of the Rus to be converted to christianity through Basil's treaty, and much of Russian architecture is of Byzantine influence. So, the advent of the Varangian Guard not only profited the Byzantines greatly, but it helped to shape Russia through the Byzantine influence on it.

A little bit of information i thought i'd add; When Caesar was campaigning in Greece against Pompey, (around about the time of Dyrrachium I believe) his legion's staple rations were quite an interesting invention; It was called "bread", although apparently they resembled "slimy grey bricks of a fibrous, gluey substance." It was made of the roots of a local plant (called Chara i believe, or something along those lines), crushed, mixed with milk and baked, and apparently tasted rather...horrifying Apparently, Caesar's soldiers slung this bread at Pompey's soldiers. When Pompey received word of what Caesar's legions were subsisting on, he kept the information from his soldiers, as he feared that if his soldiers found out what Caesar's soldiers were prepared to eat to beat them, it would have a demoralizing effect. A bit of food for thought..........

Ha, i shall certainly celebrate the start of winter. The only thing is- as i type this, it is 11:10 am, and according to my thermometer outside, it is 41 degrees Celsius. The thermometer is in the shade. Still, i'll keep an eye open for some snow...

Not the best assumption to make at all. You must remember that Italy after the West fell was populated with Ostrogoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Normans and (for a while) Byzantines. Thus being born of an Italian family doesn't ensure that you have more Roman blood in you then a person from somewhere else in Europe that was touched by Rome.

Yes, thank you very much again from me as well. I'm looking forward to this book arriving-i'm devoid of anything to read at the moment now, since i finished "A history of the English Speaking Peoples" by Winston Churchill

Are you trying to gather a bit of dirt on Germanicus, Favonius

Hmm, too much alcohol and snacks from the houses they visit i think

Thank you Cato, they say one learns something every day! I've been viewing this thread, and i've officially decided to stick with AD and BC: BCE and CE reek of political correctness

I can't see why not. If Caesar had not moved to stop the migration of the Helvetii, Rome would possibly have lost allies in Gaul, upset relations with the other gallic allies setting back diplomatic efforts by a long way and allow a large and potentially hostile tribe to settle on Italia's doorstep. With his continuation into Gaul, again the only argument i can reiterate is allegiance and obligation: Rome was obliged to assist tribes with "Friend and Ally" status; Caesar upheld this, and gained further allies in Gaul. I admit that the invasions of Britannia and the crossings of the Rhine may have hovered around illegality, but i maintain that the ends justified the means; he prepared Britannia for Romanization and inclusion in the Roman world and warned the Germans of Rome's might (although the Germans would come back to haunt Rome ). Besides, Caesar gained a useful weapon against Vercingetorix by hiring cavalry from a Germanic tribe called the Ubii (I think) which were formidable weapons. By the end of the wars; Gaul had been secured and ensured as a future roman province, a source of wealth, soldiers and loyalty and Rome's power had again been confirmed. The Gauls themselves (the allies and any remaining insurgents) were assured protection; to quote McCullough; "A light Roman hand on the bridle, as opposed to a heavy German one" and would become faithful citizens of the soon to be born Roman Empire. As far as i can see, the only sufferers from this are those who lost family, land or wealth from the wars, or those couch Generals (i.e. Pompey, cato etc.) in Rome who were shown what a great General Caesar was. My conclusion is that the Gallic Wars, although hinting at illegality in some areas, were justified, and Caesar's conquests would help to shape the Roman and later world. Right, that's my two bob's worth...time to take some criticism

Look at it this way old chap; if you're a soldier who has been drilled night and day and night and day for months and years on end in techniques, you'll have it down to a fine science. You will barely think when you execute these long honed actions. Long physical and mental training makes soldiers far more endurant and able to work as a cohesive unit. That's what the Romans had; they were able to work together as an efficient military machine. This was of infinite advantage to, say, the Celtic Warriors Caesar fought, who were not a constantly established or necessarily cohesive unit. They merely went to war a few days at a time, and when it was over they returned to their homes. The legions were constantly training, and would not stop training themselves just because the war was over. Discipline is a very important thing; If soldiers will quickly and efficiently carry out orders without question (which the romans were trained to do), battles and wars are won. Superior training is certainly one of the telling factors in what made the Romans "better", because it entailed strong discipline and the other factors that make an efficient, cohesive military machine the most dangerous weapon to wield. You can't compare Roman generals, with completly different methods of warfare and technology available, to a 20th century general with rifles, machine guns, tanks and bombs at his command.

As will i Germanicus, although it's tempting to fall into a discourse of our own nation, because after all, aren't we all patriotic and faithful citizens of our nations ? As far as the legality of things like the crossing of the English Channel and the Rhine, i believe the end justified the means. Essentially, such things were mainly self enhancing; they were meant to enhance Julius Caesar's image. But i believe that that's not all there was too it. Caesar believed solidly in the power of mental warfare. He saw such achievements as not only opportunities to enhance his image, but to teach the Gauls that the Romans were better, and there was no point resisting the allure of the rising Roman sun. That's just my thoughts, i'm sure others have their own

I Agree. These things are all well and good occassionally for the first few weeks or months, but eventually it just falls into disuse. There is plenty of opportunity here in the site for people to work out their problems (isn't that what the Consilium Comitia is for?).

Being the non-practicing Catholic that i am, i always use BC and AD. Besides that, basically no teacher i've ever had uses BCE and CE, so i'm not sure what they mean and how they differ from BC and AD.

Really? I didn't know that, but i honestly can't see that happening. Although when you think about it, it does make sense as far as winning over the people of Constantinople is concerned, as well as persuading the Orthodox and (little chance) the Roman Catholic churches not to preach more crusades against them. However, knowing of the convoluted treacherous way Sultans were elected and deposed, it would be a bit dangerous to convert

Justinian was stolidly Orthodox, with strong faith in the Trinity and i believe the Incarnation, as well as being a bit of an advocate for monasticism.