Tobias

I've noticed that some of the emoticons don't work as well, even if they are allowed on the thread

I get the idea that Christianity made a lot of difference-many of these people were considered heretics

G'day "In 1068, Emperor Romanus IV led an expedition against the Seljuk Turks. He was able to capture the city of Hierapolis. 1070 A.D, and Romanus led a second expedition towards Manzikert, a Byzantine fortress that had been captured by the Seljuks. He offered a treaty with Kilig Arslan, the leader of the Seljuks,

Hmm, that sounds a bit worrying, both the message it gives and the thought that there are people who may make hoaxes like this on the net. unfortunately, it's a bit too common these days. The other day i received multiple emails asking for credit card details etc. as well as invitations to parties in Sydney, when i live 800kms west of there lol

G'day Everyone! If you were in a position in any age in history (ancient, dark, mediaeval etc.) to seize power of territory, how would you structure your own ideal country? Where is your nation? How is it governed i.e. monarchy, republic, imperial empire? How is your country and power protected? Who are your allies? etc. etc. Myself, i'd be interested in a kind of sea empire like the British Empire, naval oriented at least, i just wouldn't follow some of the more ridiculous policies of the British Empire This will probably be viewed as a pointless exercise, but one's imagination will grow vindictive and unwilling to work if not used on a regular basis, so that's my excuse for this post

Over here in New South Wales, we haven't had a serious flood since 1990. Even then, it was nothing to what you chaps in that area must be experiencing.Now, because of extensive drought, we'll probbaly not get another flood for ages. My best wishes to all of you over there, nonetheless

I'm a little late posting this, but happy birthday chaps I hope you weren't too legless

Precisely. You can't tell me that if the Byzantines had the strength and thought themselves capable enough they wouldn't have conquered the Persians. The Sassanid Persians and the Later Eastern Roman Empire were of around about equal strength, with variations to up and down in the balance until the arabs. But neither had such an advantage over the other as to be able to conquer it. As well, a classical roman government didn't do too well against Hannibal intially did they? To the Eastern Empire, i'm sure that a reasonably equal neighbour to their east was preferred, as a lot of the byzantine's trade came from the east. But i wonder off topic slightly. Justinian could not have united east and west. It was not economically or militarily viable. All of the reasons supporting this i have said above.

Possibly because many choose not to learn from past mistakes By the way, the Theory of Plate tectonics might explain earthquakes

No offence taken old lad

Does it have to be non-fiction? If not, i'd recommend "The Last Legion" by Valerio Massimo Manfredi. It's a really good book based around Romulus Augustus, his fictitious rescue and transportation to Britannia. Whilst it is fiction, it does show the times very well.

If a 21st century scientist or some very learned person were to go back to Roman times and witness some of the "miracles" performed by the gods or signs of the gods, i'm sure they'd be able to give a plethora of logical scientific reasons as to how they happened i.e. the eruption of Vesuvius. But, were they to try to explain to devout Romans that these weren't signs of the gods, at best they'd get a "prove it" attitude in reply. The Romans knew no better, and they reasoned that they must happen for some reason. Thus, obviously the gods must make these things happen! So, the Romans reason that there are all powerful gods out there contorlling everything. Something bad happens, the gods are angry, we need to placate them. That is their reasoning. So the Romans worshipped because as was said above; both fear and respect. Slightly similar perhaps to Catholicism in medieaval times; you conform or you're a heretic

Exactly. It was very lucky that Justinian managed to bring about the conquest of Italy and north africa. The fact that Justinian had little trust for the loyal Belisarius is indicative of the times to come. Emperors would not feel completly safe on the throne and distrust and disloyalty would rip the government apart into constant civil war.

I agree. With the exotic, rich and completely different way of life in the east from that of the Italian peoples, Alexander was bound to go east. What was west? A few greek colonies and barbarian peoples, not worth the effort of conquering. Whereas east was the navel of the world; grand palaces, mystic religions and deities, great cities like Babylon, Ctestiphon and the wonders of the world like that Arch (can't offhand remember what it was called). Great riches, exotic women, legends and heroes. But an interesting train of thought would be if Alexander had gone west and instead of conquering Rome, went north and encountered the gallic tribes and even the germanic tribes. If the Romans could not totally master the germans, how would Alexander go?

True, i do agree. With a strong buffer province between the goths and the main areas of the empire, surely the goths and huns would not have had as much of an effect.

I scored as Marcus Aurelius as well Your attention to duty even when the going gets rough has earned you the identity of Marcus Aurelius. A philosopher-emperor, he used Stoic musings to steel his resolve against a hard lot in life. You know few years of peace, and believe the only final answer to the empire's problems is a complete conquest of Europe. Despite this, you are probably one of the most human and thoughtful emperors in the history of mankind. Hail Caesar! That's quite interesting. The "restorer of the world" has long been my favourite Emperor, this is quite an accurate quiz

I'm no latin scholar, although i mean to learn it one day

As i was discussing in "Wealth of the Romans", a large factor that led to the downfall was as said above. For an Empire made rich on conquest and plunder, peace did not necessarily mean prosperity. The coinage was repeatedly debased from about 170 onwards. With economic decline came political instability: in the half century after 235, there were 15 Emperors, most ruling only a few years. At the same time, Rome's enemies had become more powerful. In the east, the Parthians had been replaced in 226 by the Sassanid Persians, who sought to restore the glory of the Persian Empire 700 years before. They sacked Antioch in 253 and took the Emperor Valerian prisoner at Edessa in 260. Simultaneously, Germans raided deep into the Empire, reaching the Mediterranean at several points. The Empire's impotence prompted regional commanders to seize control in the worst affected areas. In the west, Postumus founded a Gallic Empire in 260, including Spain and Britain. In the east, the semi-independent trading city of Palmyra became the centre for resistance. Its ruler, Odenathus beat back the Persians and even sacked their capital Ctephiston. On his death in 267, his more ambitious widow, Zenobia, took power, and had by 269 conquered Roman Syria, Palestine and Egypt. Although Aurelian and Constantine formed a strong rebuilt empire, it was now based in Constantinople, and in my opinion the feeling of tradition and maintaining the former great had waned; why defend a Roman Empire if the capital isn't even in the traditional Rome anymore? In 375, the Visigoths, fleeing the Huns who had invaded Europe from central Asia, were allowed to settle south of the Danube. Poorly treated, they revolted in 378 and destroyed the Imperial army sent against them. With Roman subjects unwilling to serve in the army, the Empire took to replacing them with German tribes en masse, starting with the Visigoths themselves. In 395, Theodosius the great, the last Emperor of the East and West, died, dividing the Empire between his two sons. Taking advantage of the situation, the Visigoths revolted again in 395, invaded Italy and sacked Rome in 410. Meanwhile, Vandals and Sueves had invaded across the Rhine, and Britain had rebelled. The Empire in the West maintained just enough strength to repel the Huns from Gaul in 451, with help from its German allies. After that it went into terminal decline. However, this is oversimplified, and this description says nothing of the series of defeats, confusion and decadence of the time. It may, however, be safely said that the loss of the people's patriotism and feeling of ideals and aims had by for example 451 basically evaporated.

If this was a discussion on the most influential politicians, i would have said the Gracchi, notably Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus for his attempted Lex Sempronia Agraria. But the greatest politician? I'd have to agree that although Caesar had prodigious prowess in oratory and was a gifted manipulator, as well as popular with the people, he would always have the hatred and opposition of the conservative Optimates, limiting his lawful innovations and causing him to continue in unlawful ways, almost guaranteeing his assasination. Thus i'd have to agree with Octavian. He was another gifted manipulator and i admire his always keeping his own counsel, and he managed to basically have himself proclaimed Emperor in everything but name, instead having himself named the Princeps. That was quite shrewd, as it didn't seem that he was breaking the mos maiorum to pieces. Thus, i'd say Octavian was the greatest.

It is a good ad isn''t it? Me and my mates couldn't stop laughing when we first saw it

Ok, that fellow Spartacus went off the path a little. May i assert now in paranthesis Fafnir that i have no intention of going the way that chap did, and i would not make people feel guilty about their interests. I love this site already, and i love discussing ancient Rome with people as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable then myself. Also, i don't know if that's how i come across, but i'm not sly underneath

"Half is done when the beginning is done" is what it means, i think

Dimidium facti qui coepit habet Another by Horace:)

Well, i have to say that i didn't see the Spartacus revolution, so i don't know what that was like. What happened? Thanks for the compliment by the way

I've often thought that Heraclius was one of the least known and least celebrated of the great Byzantine soldier-emperors. His campaigns were brilliant, and the Persian heartland, even Ctesiphon, was not safe from this man's attack. I suppose the majority of his brilliant deeds were lost with the fact that just ten years after his triumph in Constantinople, the Arabs burst forth and engulfed the lands he had just re-conquered. He was still alive when it occurred. Imagine how that must have felt.