Tobias

Probably because it'd be interesting to experience the Byzantine world under a great administrator; Justinian's laws brought a lot to the empire, and his military achievements through his generals like Belisarius and Narses certainly reflected on his abilities to choose good thinkers and fighters. Granted, his taxes were high, and yes the Empire did fall apart afterwards, but i believe that the standard of living in Byzantium would have been high for most in Justinian's time.

Have you actually found the play it comes from yet Sextus?

LOL. Myself, i can't see any resemblance whatsoever, but there you go. Perhaps you haven't seen much of the older Doctor Who episodes Flavius

My Avatar is a picture of a character that i've really gotten into lately; Doctor Who. The picture is of the Sixth Incarnation of the Doctor, acted by Colin Baker. My signature is a quote from Horace, who's words i greatly admire.

Yes i typed that message hoping you would notice it Ursus

Very well done Sextus Roscius, you're far too good for me But then, if you really look at all the facts given, it is pretty simple in the end. It is only an apparently difficult riddle because of the large amount of information given, some of it irrelevant and intended to lead down the wrong track.

The general consensus is that it ended with the deposition of Romulus Augustus by Odovacer, and the beginning of the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths in it's place. However, I myself, and many others, believe that the Eastern Roman Empire, later becoming known as the Byzantine Empire, is a genuine successor state to the Roman Empire. Certainly, the empire did not possess Rome (for long), but it possessed the ideals of a Roman Empire, and it's capital Constantinople was officially named Nova Roma. Charlemagne's Empire i believe could only just claim to be a sucessor state, but it is controversial, and the empire certainly did not last. Charlemagne was anointed by Pope Leo III as "Emperor governing the Roman Empire". Whilst it can be disputed how much right the Pope had to do this, this is a fairly legitimate reason to at least call Charlemagne's Empire a "Reborn Western Empire" whilst he was alive, although it could be said that the Pope did this because of the strength of Charlemagne . The Byzantines certainly didn't want to accept this, however, and emphasised this by inscribing the title "Emperor of the Romans" on their coins. As i said, however, Charlemagne's Empire disintegrated fast, and soon was reduced to a kingdom in Upper Italy. This could mark the end of another "Roman Empire". The Holy Roman Empire was similar to Charlemagne's Empire in that it gained an essentially artificial cover of a "Roman Empire" by having it's ruler Otto I, King of Germany, crowned Emperor in Rome when he conquered the Kingdom of Italy. The Holy Roman Empire could be said to have lost this cover, however, when the Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg recognized the Popes' declaration of independence of the Papal States in 1278, thus losing the possession of Rome and the "aura" that went along with it. Finally in 1453, The Byzantine Empire, the only empire that could be said to have the strongest right to be called " The Roman Empire", fell to the Ottoman Empire. All that remained after this was the papal states, which were further weakened by the Great Schism (1378-1417) when there was a Pope in Rome and in Avignon. However, by the mid 17th century it had regained direct control of the whole of the Patrimonium Petri. The Papal States are probably the most legitimate successors to the Roman Empire remaining, although it can be disputed. I believe myself that the real end of the Roman Empire was the fall of Constantinople, as an Emperor ruled the city, and it had the strongest surviving link to the ancient Roman Empire, whereas the Papal States had been conquered by various rulers and restored to favourable Popes for political reasons. One has to remember that despite the deposition of Romulus Augustus and the fall of the west, most peoples in Europe had large respect for the name of "The Roman Empire", and if you had a dominion in Europe back then, calling your own Empire a sucessor or genuine continuation of the Roman Empire would probably gain a large amount of respect for your empire. That is what occurred; the were any number of "Roman Empires" in Europe; they just weren't necessarily genuine No reason why we can't discuss it again Flavius

In terms of the Principate until the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, i'd probably want to live under Augustus, but names such as Vespasian, Trajan and Aurelian come to mind. Rome was peaking in glory under the first two, and life under Aurelian was surely better than it had been perhaps before his reign (He wasn't called "Restitutor Orbis" -Restorer of the World- for nothing) But i'd like to perhaps wander slightly outside the parameters and also suggest that i wouldn't mind living under Justinian or Basil II "Bulgaroktonos" of the Byzantine Empire.

I believe that whether he or another expert comes back depends on how sucessful the session was; is that not correct? At any rate, i sincerely hope another does come back. Having a certified expert visiting our website is a great idea that i wholeheartedly back. My only regret is that thanks to me being ill and my computer being infected with Spyware at the time, i couldn't get a question to the Professor in time. Maybe next time...

Ah, i had a teacher who used to give us Lateral thinking puzzles every day, because he said he wanted to stimulate our minds to think outside the square. Here's a puzzle i remember; i believe it may have been a true story; In a small building block, there are three rooms. The rooms are all in a row. The two outermost rooms are occupied apartments, and the centre room is a refrigerated storage room with a wide freezer inside it. When the owner of apartment #1 went to the refrigerated room, he smelt a terrible odour emnating from it, and the door was locked. After calling specialists to open the door, a man was discovered hanging from a hook in the ceiling by the neck. He was identified as being the man who owned apartment#2 in the block. His feet were quite a bit higher off the ground than the freezer is tall, and the freezer has not been moved anyway, so it is unlikely that he hung himself by standing on the freezer. There are no windows in the room, and no access points to the room apart from the main door. There is a large puddle of water beneath the hanged man. The room's cooling generator is not turned on, thus the room is not refrigerated anymore. The owner of apartment #1 is a butcher, and he owns the refrigerated room. He was arrested for murder. The only problem is; according to the butcher and the specialists, the main door to the refrigerated room was locked from the inside and had to be cut open with heavy cutting tools. Is the man who was arrested guilty of murder? Why or Why not?

If it was to be granted, then everyone who gave me sensible suggestions for assistance must have a share in it Well Admins, i think this topic has run it's very helpful course; thank you UNRV

I completly agree. The current titles certainly encourage contribution, and any further set-up of new classes, new titles and different areas would only lead to anarchy. People would be complaining that they aren't being treated equally, there would be divisions in how the site should be run, and (God forbid) this may lead to the lessening of the Admin's power and the necessitating of them taking drastic actions against these potential divisions. I've seen elsewhere how seriously people take titles and responsibilities, even if it was originally in fun that the titles were created. I'm sure that there'll be currying of favour and as i said, outright argument for power. I am not opposed to reform if the majority want it, i'm just suggesting that we not place far too much importance on the titles here.

Exactly. The Crusading army would be operating totally surrounded by enemies (The Ottomans and the various other tribes etc.), as well as being potentially divided within. The English and French Soldiers would definetly not be happy together, and all the other Western states were extremely paranoid and distrusting of each other. These dangers, multiplied with potential defeat almost anywhere in Ottoman territory, the lack of incentive for being there beyond "God's will" and a more hypothetical (then anything else) payment for being there, coupled with the terrain, the lack of good food and water that they didn't steal, disease etc. would be so extremely discouraging that a crusading army would soon be discouraged. The Ottomans had too strong a grip on Anatolia, and they knew that they had to hold it. They could sustain more damage than the Crusaders could. And of course even if the crusaders managed to set up states similar to those in the holy land, once the crusaders leave or settle down, they would be revolted against by the turks and other tribes almost continually and on all sides. That coupled with the continuing troubles between the Christian states (i.e. France and England) would cause heavy losses from both withdrawn and killed soldiers. My projected course of a united crusade to save Byzantium; Terrible slaughter on all sides, destruction, theft, rape, loot on christians and muslims alike, Turks eventually causing the Crusaders to be kicked out of the area, and Byzantium falls anyway. Another united crusade would give at least 50 years more for Constantinople to somehow accumulate enough resources to reclaim it's territories, hold them, inspire complete faith in a Byzantine Emperor again and beat back the muslims. Not likely, i think

Constantinople would have been saved. I have no doubt, however, that even if the Byzantines could have brought about an incentive for the Crusaders to go east, it would ultimately have been the Byzantines that sufferered (further). The Byzantines just didn't have the funds or resources to reclaim much of it's territory, and the armies from the West may have re-established another Latin Empire in the City. Once the western armies left, the Turks or another faction would fight their way back against Byzantium. It would definetly have fallen eventually, even if it had been saved by the West.

Yeah, my mate is a bit full of himself. He believes himself to be an authority on Latin, but really he's got nothing

I've seen that- they are easily as bad as the men

I'm not against titles, indeed i have quite a bit of pride in my "Equestrian" status, it's just interesting that people love to have high sounding titles attached to themselves, and as you said, it does inspire them somewhat.

That's fair enough. I was only referring to cruelty in general, but i concede the point

I have something a friend gave me; If this makes sense, what does it mean? "Missiles invenientes semper potestatem viae habent" Gee you've moved up in the world since i last saw you Flavius old mate

I have "A short history of Byzantium" and would recommend it to anyone with a budding interest in teh history of the Byzantines. Hmm, A Byzantine Nero. There have been many emperors with features of Nero; Basil II was named "Bulgaroktonos" (The Bulgar-Slayer) after he was said to have blinded 99 of every 100 prisoners out of around 14 000 prisoners from the Battle of Kleidon against the Bulgars, and the rest were blinded in one eye so they could lead their comrades home The difference between Basil II and Nero is that Basil was an extremely efficient general and ruler, and practically rebuilt the Byzantine Empire. There were many, many others, each with their own interesting ways, however.

I watched a show the other day in conjunction with christmas in Britain; it was a kind of Documentary called "Grumpy Old Men", and it showed a group of extremely cynical old lads showing an extreme lack of faith in how Christmas works these days . It was on the Australian ABC, which probably means it was lent to us by the BBC, i don't know. As for the Santas, i think children are beginning to be a little frightened by the large amounts of men dressed in red suits and beards running around this time of year

Ah, all these titles; what is it with man's preoccupation with titles ?

"Zachary's successor Stephen cemented the Papal-Frankish alliance by conferring the title Patrician of the Romans upon Pepin in 754. In so doing he was usurping the role of the Emperor, but the latter was in no position to stop him. In 756 Pepin defeated the Lombard King again, and forced him to give up the last century of conquests from the Byzantine Empire in northern Italy. The Emperor Constantine V demanded that the ceded territory be returned to Byzantium, but instead Pepin gave it to the Pope, creating the Papal States (Patrimonium Petri). In 772 Papal bulls ceased to bear the Emperor's name. In 774 Pepin's son and successor Charles the great (Charlemagne) conquered the Lombard Kingdom, calling himself King of the Franks and Lombards. The Papal States became a Frankish protectorate, and Charles went on to conquer almost the whole of continental Christian Western Europe. In 800, when Charles was visiting Rome, Pope Leo III took the logical step of anointing him "Emperor governing the Roman Empire", reputedly to Charles' own surprise. At first, the Byzantines ignored this claim, but, under military pressure from Charlemagne in the Adriatic and southern Italy, they recognized him as Emperor of the Franks in 812. They reserved the title Emperor of the Romans for themselves, and emphasized this point by introducing that inscription on their coins." via http://4umi.com/image/map/rome/19maps.htm#925 Charlemagne's empire is an interesting point in history. In a way, it personifies some parts of the original Roman Empire; in that the dominance over the territories was artificial if not controlled by a strong leader. Apart from that, and the ideal of a "roman" empire, there is little to reconcile Charlemagne's empire to a reborn western empire.

G'day Professor Ward-Perkins, i apologise for taking so long to post a question, as i have been restricted from the net due to viruses to the computer and myself I hope that i'm not too late to post a question. I hope you can clarify something for me; How did the East survive so much better then the West? By the time Romulus Augustulus was deposed, the East had gained slightly against the Persians and were well versed in dealing with barbarians. So, why did the East end up better off then the West? I am sure i echo everyone's sentiments when i express my extreme gratitude in your presence in the forum and for answering questions. Cheers Tobias

Well friends, I believe i may declare Victory. After downloading many different anti-spyware systems, converting to firefox, calling in an Uncle who is a security expert from Sydney and thoroughly cleansing everything, the Sypware is moving towards the now non-existent stage My computer has pretty much been redeemed, and is working better thanks to firefox, so i thank everyone who gave me useful links and advice.