Tobias

Really? Even better! Good to see we're well looked after

Well i've bought my map - i decided to treat myself to an early birthday present

Now that is a particularly good map; for it's detail, it is almost as good as the one here on UNRV! It's a bit of a pity that there's no key, but apart from that, all good.

I'm sure there's historians all over that will never forgive Theodosius for ordering the destruction of a lot of what he saw as "pagan" material, including the terrible damage to the Alexandrian Library which he caused.

G'day all In my ancient history class the other day, my teacher posed us an interesting question based on our recent studies of Troy and it's discovery and excavation; Should Heinrich Schliemann be considered the "father" of archaeology for his excavations and discovery of Troy at Hisarlik and his digs at Mycenae, his supposed discovery of "Priam's Treasure" etc, or was he merely a moneyed treasure hunter? We debated over it for a couple of hours, and I thought it might make a good discussion here, so i pose it to you. What are your opinions on the subject? Based on my own studies, i have a firm opinion towards Schliemann, but maybe there are some different thoughts here.

Hmm, i suppose there's absolutely no possibility that this is school work is there.....

I believe the main differences are tribal branches, dynastical differences and different time frames. The Seljuk Turks were a major branch of the Oghuz Turks and a dynasty afterwards. Under Alp Arslan's successor Malik Shah I, the Seljuk state expanded, coming to dominate an area that bordered China in the East and the Byzantine Empire in the West. In 1092 the empire split, being quarelled over by the sons of Malik Shah. Despite several attempts to reunite the Seljuks, the Crusades prevented them from rebuilding their empire. After 1194 A.D. only the Sultanate of R

As i said about Augustus' Principate System, the system is only as good as the man who controls it. The Tetrarchy system was based on the fact that everyone would put the interests of the state ahead of their personal ambitions; which was most certainly not the case. It failed to take into account what people saw as their inheritage, interests or what they felt was theirs by right. The disowned or slighted candidates for high positions would not stand for their disgrace, and take what they thought was theirs by force or scheming. Answer; The Tetrarchy was a guaranteed failure from the second Diocletian had no control over how it worked.

It is a good map, but it does perhaps lack a bit of detail. If the map represents territories that are only relevant to your class, then fair enough, but it doesn't give the best impression of the extent of the Roman Empire. Otherwise, quite a fine map, well done sir!

So i was told before the last American presidential election; it looked as if George had no hope, yet he flogged the other chap!

I'm about half Irish; so i will join this celebration. Happy St Patrick's day all! "Erin go Bragh!"

It's a bit of a contentious question; good arguments can be produced to support option 4 and option 7, whilst options 1,2,3,5 and 6 were merely milestones on Rome's ongoing march. As Ursus said above, the Holy Roman Empire was no continuation of the Roman Empire at all, it is just that there was a certain...hmmm...romantic (?) idea about adopting the name "Roman Empire", as well as the obivous advantage in the middle ages of possessing the name of an empire that represented authority, power and greatness. The idea that the Roman Empire still exists is perhaps impractical. The modern Greek state could perhaps be looked upon as the most direct descendant (people in greece continued to call themselves rhomaioi well into the 20th century). But Constantinople, now Istanbul, is still firmly in the hands of the Turkish state. Without it, modern Greece is inevitably seen as the successor to ancient Greece, not (as it perhaps may be said to be culturally) to the last Roman Empire. Other nations such as Romania and Italy are perhaps too diverse and removed from their Roman roots to be considered genuine successors. As for the European Union, well, knowing so little about it, i don't feel i should comment on that

Nah, they broke up a fair while ago, around about '85 i believe, after the "Two Hearts" album. I've inherited my mum and dad's LP collection and player, so that's why i'm so into this music; i have Men at Work's best album "Business as Usual", and it's great...but yeah, Men at Work are gone, unfortunately...

That's quite interesting. It's difficult over here to discern what the majority's opinion of old George "dubbya" Bush is. There's so many conflicting opinions that are here there and everywhere lol All i want to know is when is George going to pay us a visit? He'd better come to the outback if he does

I'll probably be beat up for this, but i was listening to some music on the radio today, and the best song i heard was by one of my fave bands. So, my song for today, march 18, is "Sultans of Swing", by Dire Straits! You most likely won't be able to download that from itunes yeah, i'm a 60's/70's/80's music fan; nothing wrong with a bit of individuality is there?

I daresay it is mainly due to the state of Europe at the time, and the train of thought of many of the other nations of Europe at the time. During the dark times following the fall of the West, the infrastructure, education etc also fell by the wayside in the areas of the former Roman Empire. Because of the uncertainty, barbarity and the violence, It fell basically to the primitive idea of the domination of the strongest and fittest. As women were generally not as physically strong as men, they lost any standing and importance they may have had in Roman times, and were usually dominated and of less value then men, except in the centres of education, which was mainly the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine centres generally preserved the Hellenistic ideals and the writings of the past, which allowed Byzantine women more of a chance to gain higher education and high status. As well, the upper echelons of men of the Byzantine Empire had higher status and power than most other nations in Europe at the time, and if a beautiful, ambitious and learned woman such as Theodora wished to go far, then an available option was to marry an influential Byzantine elite.

Although i'm a bit behind, Happy birthday mate! May you assist many more a heated debate in the future

Now that is a magnificent map. If was tempted at the old one, this new one has pushed me over the edge. As such, i'll pull together enough funds to buy this one, i think, just gotta con my parents into allowing me to borrow their credit card...

I know how you feel; almost the entire time since my joining UNRV has been plagued by computer problems. I have a new computer now, but as an earlier thread of mine will attest too, it has not run without problems.

I believe Theodosius ruled over a relatively intact empire - it was when Arcadius and Honorius took control that things began to happen....in terms of decline

If you want anything "anti-Caesar", perhaps you should ask our resident reincarnation of Caesar's antagonist, Marcus Porcius Cato, for some sources (Kidding M. Porcius Cato, it's great to have someone who defends their beliefs thus on an alternate view )

Philhellene, we value your contributions to the list, and you have made some fair points sir. The reason why we aren't making the list as in depth as perhaps you would like it is that as i said above, having too many rulers around the same time only serves to confuse. We want to inform people of the main Byzantine rulers, not every single general, politician etc who took it into his/her head to proclaim themselves the Emperor of the Romans. This disagreement over the list is not the best way to go; don't you think it might be best if we left it as is?

The one day i decide to not go on UNRV, and it's the master's birthday! Happy Birthday mate, may no new thing arise! And as i type this, i note that it's another great moderating figure's birthday too..... Happy Birthday to you too Primus Pilus!

I think "Pax Byzantia" sounds better .... As for a period similar to the Pax Romana, there was very little of that . As was said above, the Empire was always at war, always in danger of losing territory and often suffering setbacks. Even after the "glorious" period of Basil II (Perhaps the closest to a Pax Byzantia you'd get), it didn't take long for the situation to deteriorate.

I suppose there is a bit of a gray area in this list. Some of the usurpers in Byzantine History were of consequence, and did influence the history, whereas others are mere nonentities who lasted for virtually no time or for not too long, leaving little or no legacy or improvement to the Empire. And when you throw in the Co-Rulers etc, you have a certain amount of confusion, with cases of utter nonentities ruling alongside great men i.e. in Basil II's reign. An idea i had to limit potentially unneeded info was to perhaps establish a set of conditions for the list; that is, have guidelines or conditions that a ruler has to meet to be considered the main ruler of the Empire, so that a smooth and tidy list is made. That way, a researcher isn't confused by a heap of usurpers and legitimate rulers declaring that they are ruling at the same time. Just a thought, and i'd be interested in any thoughts from my colleagues and the moderators on the matter....