Tobias

lol, if that's the case, Scipio's wars in Spain and Africa must have been won by someone else:)

LOL Well, my dad was loading drums of oil, sheep, pallets and crates onto trucks by the time he was 10 years old, he was shearing sheep and working various hard jobs to get through his schooling, he still shears sheep and works managing a fuel depot and delivering petrol to places about 200kms away from our hometown. I've been orange picking, rouse-a-bouting, watermelon packing and various other jobs as well almost every school holiday since i was 11. My dad told me to always value money, even worship it, because you have to work damn hard to get it As well, it's important to realise how important Rome's currency was to it. As soon as the silver content was lowered, Rome destabilised, and as soon as the gold content of the Later Roman Hyperperon lowered, Constantinople destabilised. The Roman Empire's money was important to it

The Presidentator-----Has a cool ring to it

I liked the Equiites, although they usually only fought other equiites. It would be interesting to see a gladiatorial fight like this, both mounted. That was what almost made me like that other mounted gladiators (i can't remember the name offhand) that used to do a kind of ancient jousting.

I voted Early Empire. Rome when at it's peak could afford the most expansive military expeditions and ended up conquering a large amount of it's largest rival, the Parthians, as well as the Dacians.

I understand that when that Roman legion under the equal command of Sabinus and Cotta in Gaul was annihilated by those Eubrones under Ambiorix, Ambiorix commented on "these shorn Romans!" because he couldn't wrap the short cropped hair of Sabinus' severed head around his fingers and carry it. This was quite amusing , although the repurcussions of the defeat of this legion was quite unfortunate.

I thought i recognised the "Te futueo"

G'day everyone In the other thread, it was ascertained what most thought the Byzantine's worst defeats were. Now it'd be interesting to see what everyone think's the Byzantine's greatest win was. If you do express a battle, please try to supply rough numbers of men and the circumstances of the battle. Please bear with me if i don't reply, i'm down with the flu at the moment

I voted for the "Optimus Princeps", Trajan, for his victories over the Dacians and the Parthians. I have to agree with Primus Pilus, as i am an admirer of Vespasianus as well, he was an unassuming Emperor who has my complete admiration for his great deeds. Everyone's already expressed my opinion on Octavian, so i wont re-iterate it. It's a pity this is an Imperial Rome discussion, Heraclius is one of the most unrecognised and uncelebrated Emperors of Later roman history. But i don't want to spark a discussion on it, i was just saying

I was interested to read in books by Patrick O'Brian that a learned person ( a priest for example), who was educated in the English pronunciation of latin, finds, for example, a Portuguese Catholic priest's Latin almost incomprehensible. Have English latin and latin by the Romans or other countries really drifted so far apart? By the way, i always pronounced Diocletian Di-o-clee-shun, but that;s just me

Thanks germanicus, that's part of my question answered. I did say Known wealth for Crassus, as my book said, god only knows how much Crassus had hidden away:)

Now those are top class pictures. Whatever magazine you're scanning these from george looks like a really good one

Ahh is that what that was? I always wondered why that thing was in here.

G'day again everyone. I've finished my philosophical studies and now i want to move on to something new: the wealthy of Rome. I've read that Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus were both rich, especially Marcus Crassus (whose known wealth was estimated around 12 talents i believe). I was wandering if you people can help me find out about Roman currency, and who the richest people were in the times of the Roman Empire until the fall of the West. I'd especially like to know what a talent is (my ignorance in this area is showing through rather strongly, but i'm only a young chap, so while we live we learn eh?)

Thank you very much George, those pictures are very interesting indeed. I always was interested in what the Byzantine armies were like, and how they were later influenced by oriental equipment. Facing a Cataphract charge on an open field must have been scary eh? Man and horse, both fully clad from head to foot (hoof for the horse lol) in armour, charging at you! The Varangian Guard was a fearsome looking group as well, from pictures i've seen.

As far as Hadrian being "wimpy", Trajan's conquest of Parthia was never complete, and the Roman soldiers were dangerously overextended there. It was quite wise (or rather common sense) for Hadrian to withdraw soldiers from Parthia, as it would only be a matter of time before Parthians or maybe the up and coming Persians or some other group ambushed the Roman province. He also erected a series of large fortifications along the empire's frontier i.e. Hadrian's wall in Britain and a series of wooden fortifications, forts, outposts and watchtowers along the Danube and Rhine. Hadrian's policy was peace through strength. To maintain morale and keep the troops from getting restive, Hadrian established intensive drill routines, and personally inspected the armies. He was not wimpy, he just didn't believe that Rome needed costly wars to survive. Unfortunately, for an Empire made rich on conquest and plunder, peace did not necessarily mean prosperity. The coinage was repeatedly debased from about 170 onwards, so indirectly, but not from him being a wimp, Hadrian could have the dubious honour of doing Rome it's greatest disservice.

One can also thank the Romans largely for our language, English. Given many other languages make up english, but quite a lot of english descends from latin, and we still use latin terms for example "Quid pro quo" and "et cetera" and "vice versa" and on.

Other parts of this included his crossings of the Rhine and his crossing the English channel. He did them to show everyone that he, and Rome, was capable of anything.

Thank you very much longbow, that went far beyond my expectations

G'day everyone. I was doing a bit of research on the British Empire, and the book i was using (a little pro-british i admit) boasted of Britain as being the strongest and largest empire in History. I was wondering if some of you people could supply me with a top ten of the largest empires in History, with total area covered at their peaks if at all possible. I had an argument with a person in a different forum about whether the Soviet Union was bigger then the British Empire, so it'd be interesting if i could be proven right or wrong. I just won't tell the chap i was arguing with if i was wrong:)

Justinian viewed himself as the next Constantine. He believed in a Mediterranean wide politically, religiously and economically united Christian Empire, ruled from Constantinople under a single Christian emperor. To this end he directed his great wars and his colossal activity in reconquering the western provinces from the Germanic tribes. As well as causing the winning of Northern Africa, a treaty from the Sassanid Persians and the recovery part of southern Spain and Italy, he did a lot to re-instate old Roman institutions. His bringing Belisarius out of retirement to deal with the bulgars was well thought of as well, as they were beaten and driven out of Roman territory. Justinian was barely cold in his grave (565) when his rebuilt Empire began to crumble. Fleeing the Avars (who played much the same role that the Huns had done almost 200 years earlier), the Lombards invaded Italy in 568. When a temporary equilibrium was reached by about 605, the Romans had managed to keep almost half the country, and to prevent the formation of a unified Lombard kingdom. In 575 the Visigoths repudiated Roman suzerainty, and began the process of reducing the Imperial province in Spain, which was all but complete by 623. The Balkans were repeatedly raided by Avars, and Slav settlers immigrated in their wake. Finally, taking advantage of a palace coup in Constantinople, the Sassanid King Chosroes II of Persia invaded in 603, and had conquered Mesopotamia by 610. Although this prompted another palace coup, and the installation of Heraclius, the Later Eastern Roman Empire would not enjoy the expanse of territory it held under Justinian. The speed with which Justinian's territories fell again show that he could never have reunited West and East under the historical circumstances. Given he suffered some bad luck, and the continuing invasions of barbarians and persians alike brought an end to things rather quickly. However, if it wasn't one nation it would be another, as Justinian's campaigns drained Constantinople's treasury badly. By the stage of Justinian, i don't believe the Eastern Empire could reunite the West and the East (i.e. Gaul to Persia.)

hmm, as a strong supporter of Australian Rugby League, i'm not a big fan of Rupert Murdoch

I was reading a book on Caesar's career the other day. Although a fair amount of it was fictitious, it does have an interesting point. Vercingetorix said in this book that Rome's invasion of Gaul was far more subtle than a germanic invasion ever would be. Thus, a germanic invasion was more easy for the gauls to resist, as it would probably be more tyrrannic and harmful, giving the gauls a strong moral advantage. Caesar's campaign, however, was not. Given, he was not merciful to some tribes (That Belgae tribe he sold as slaves comes to mind) and some of his victories were quite crushing, but Caesar was infinetly fascinated with the idea of taking war to an enemy's mind. If Rome's dominance was introduced to the Gauls physically and harmfully, then the Gauls could resist. But if it was introduced mentally, with attacks on things that gauls considered untouchable (i.e. Caesar's felling of oak forests that caused a tribe, i think the Mandubii, to retreat, shocked and grieving that anyone could cut down the "nemer", or oak.), then the Gauls would have no hope of resisting. An enemy is not necessarily conquered with mere strength of arms and by many victories. The enemy has not just got to see that Rome was more mighty, they had to know that Rome was more mighty. That was Vercingetorix's argument in this book, that they would continue reisiting Caesar because his approach would mean the more effective conquest of Gaul. And that is why i voted no to this poll. The people of a nation will never be truely conquered by mere arms alone, physically. They have to be taught that they must necessarily loose whenever they tried to resist, mentally. And there, Rome was great. They used examples of their richness and power and the examples of other tribes living in peace and prosperity under wise (lol) Roman rule. This, and a wish to live as Romans did, often persuaded peoples to submit to Rome without using brute force and "making a desert and calling it peace." And that is what makes a great nation; a nation that does not have to kill, kill, kill to gain a people's subjection. Thank you, i'm done now

I'd have to agree Spurius. As a former Punic colony and then an independent nation, there would surely be that thought that a economically active, rich yet subdued Rome would be of more use to them then a razed wasteland. Although it seems that that was not likely to happen anyway. As well, the destruction or sacking of Rome may have inspired the Romans and given them a moral advantage, which does count for a lot in battle.

Great article as well Spartan JKM, that was very enlightening.