Tobias

I'm a Roman Catholic; although, i must say that i don't have to attend church regularly to be thus; my religion is between me and My God. I prefer not to rely on a medium (priests etc) in between. I guess that is kind of a contradiction. My explanation has a few holes, but that's the way it works for me

I'm in High School, in my Preliminary year before New South Wales's Higher School Certificate year. The results i get in the HSC next year determine my place on Australia's UAI, and my eligibility to attend Australian Universities. Most of my knowledge about ancient Rome is surplus knowledge i've learnt myself

Ah, fair enough. The other version is perhaps propaganda...

I'm afraid i can't find anything on the net for my hometown; but i shall go to our town library as soon as possible and get some copies of the town.

On the Alexandrian library; apparently, it's a bit cloudy. As was mentioned above, Plutarch blamed Caesar for damage to the library. Gibbon states that Theodosius ordered the destruction of all heathen temples, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus, took that so far as to mean destroying much of the Alexandrian Library. An Arabic General named Amrouh was supposed to have destroyed the remaining books of the library on the orders of the Caliph Umar. I think that in general; i'd just go back and take the whole contents of the Alexandrian library away before anyone could touch it Alternatively, i think i'd go back and give a young Adolf Hitler a well-paying job as an artist, instead of allowing him to become a bit at odds with the world through poverty....

It may not relate to THE Byzantine crown jewels, but part of the Crown of St Stephen is supposed to be a Byzantine crown of some kind....

That is true. The Macedonian Dynasty Emperors after Basil II weren't particularly inspiring rulers. As well, much intriguing and civil warring between and inside the Comnenid and Doukid Dynasties did not help matters for the Byzantines all that much. Before Manzikert, A succession of weak rulers ran down the army even while raids and revolts spread across the Empire. The gold coinage was debased (for the first time since Constantine the great) by 25%. In 1053, 50 000 active troops on the eastern border were disbanded, while inactive units closer to Constantinople (and hence more of a threat politically) were maintained. That certainly helps to set the scene for the disasters that would soon unfold.

lol, it actually arrived a little while ago, but i've been AWOL from UNRV lately because of school work, and thus haven't had the chance to say that it had arrived.

I myself know little about the abilities of the Celts to besiege; all i can offer is that they weren't unfamiliar with fortifications; as mentioned above, the "Murus Gallica" walls made of intertwined timber and stone were extremely strong and made for formidable defense. Yes that probably has little to do with building them for besiegement, but i thought i'd mention it. Related; wasn't there in instance during Caesar's Gallic wars when the Celts used roman siege engines i.e. ballistae or catapultae, that they had captured from the rout of Sabinus' and Cotta's Legion and copied, against Quintus Cicero and his legion? This would suggest, at least, that they were adaptable to new ideas and were capable of breaking down fortifications.

Wasn't Aetius supposed to have been in a position to completely defeat the Huns and kill Attila at Chalons? Apparently, towards the end of the battle, Attila had a pyre built for himself, in case his section of the army was overrun. Thus he could cremate himself and stop his being taken prisoner or even having his body fall into the hands of Aetius' army. However, when Aetius had this position of strength, he decided not too rout the Huns; instead, he persuaded his allies to withdraw, and halted himself. He was supposed to have thought that if he completely eliminated the threat of the Huns, then the Visigothic and other barbarian allies whom he persuaded to help him would not need Rome anymore, and Rome would face yet another barbarian invasion. He desired a balance between his allies and the Huns, which he thought would give Rome time to get back on it's feet. I believe this shows quite an intelligent person in Aetius, but it also reflects exactly in what sort of position Rome was in at the time, and ties in with the usage of barbarian soldiers.

Well, i'm so slack that i have yet to say here that my book actually arrived, which it has! Thanks to the new school year, i haven't had chance to review it or even read too much of it, but i'll get a review out for the "History of the Byzantine Empire" as soon as i can. Please accept my belated thank you UNRV!

Obviously. What i'm saying is that such attacks as Favonius mentioned above could be easily thwarted before they reached the chain or at the chain if the Byzantines dominated the waves. It made it a great precautionary/psychological barrier against the enemy.

That is your opinion (which you are of course entitled to) and perspective; there are many different perspectives out there that find it only too easy to argue against Caesar. To a degree, it must be said that Caesar had his faults and made mistakes, as he was just as human as anyone else of the time. It can certainly be said that Caesar made up for this with his good points. Their are historical facts that support and condemn Caesar. That is what makes history (in my opinion) so alluring; the fact that the challenge of debate is always around when discussing history; again because of the different perspectives. One thing that strikes me constantly; wherever Caesar is now, if he could see the huge amount of controversy he's left behind that still exists over 2000 years after his death, i'm sure he'd be having a good laugh to himself

Wow, that's pretty good! Three cheers to our admin and contributors!

We've started that now..got a few biographies of Byzantine Emperors done.

Might i suggest, Arvioustus, that it is usually the victors that write the histories. To enhance a national or personal prestige, what historian or general wouldn't be tempted to add a few thousand to the number faced or subtract a number from their personal losses? We are led to believe by historians that Julius Caesar himself added a few more fantasy soldiers to the numbers he faced in battles (unless was a particularly bad estimator of numbers). But to analyze and define the skill of Rome's enemies by merely interpreting numbers is absurd.

As i said above, and as Neos said too, the principate worked well and caused advancement and improvement when a strong, capable and skilled person controlled it. Yes things started improving as soon as the principate come into being - because Augustus was a strong, capable and skilled (highly skilled) person, and he thus used the system to ensure peace during his reign, as well as pushing through reforms that he felt were needed. When an unstable or unskilled person took control of the system, the Empire would suffer tyranny, privation or general instability. Hence, the principate was only good if, and only if, a relatively gifted person controlled it. This argument about the principate is getting slightly repetitive now, so perhaps we should return to Sulla?

I was rather surprised the other day; i watched a news program on the Australian ABC, and it had an interviewer talking to some Hammas people (With the customary tea-towels around their heads, toting AK-47's) about an Australian hostage they took. They said that they didn't realise he was Australian, and when they did, they let him go straight away. These Hammas people ended the interview by saying that Australians are welcome in Palestine. For some reason, that's not much of an incentive for myself to go over there

Hmm, if you miss a few days on this forum then you miss out on a lot lol, i never saw any of this occur Still, i joined during the aftermath of Spartacus, so i suppose i don't need to see another one lol

As well, i believe the effectiveness of the chain probably worked in tandem with Byzantine naval domination; as long as they had a strong navy to support a defence of the harbour, the Chain was a precautionary method and a strong barrier, as the chain could be protected from such attacks as yours Favonius by the navy.

The thing about the Principate system is that it was only as good as the person who wielded it. Augustus was of a strong personality, was highly ambitious and was extremely skilled politically and competent militarily. He created the system, and could thus use it to full effect and advantage to the people, and himself. Thus, during Augustus' reign, Rome was at peace and advanced. However, the succeeding people of less ability i.e. Tiberius, Caligula, Nero etc. took over the system, Rome suffered, because they could not use the system to full advantage and the handle the people and the Empire simultaneously. Whereas when Vespasian became Emperor, Rome again prospered, because he had the ability to use the system properly, and so it went throughout history. The Republic gave all people the chance to be the best - or the worst. The republic essentially guaranteed stable succession, which the principate mostly failed in. Whilst it is true that the Republic sorely needed the reforms of Augustus, the principate system didn't guarantee that any ruler would guarantee continued peace and stability.

Er, Trajen 777, what was the point of that? I'll come up with a comprehensive reply to you soon Arvioustus

I've read a few things about Sulla in various articles, and i've also read above comments and agree with certain points of view: At the time of Sulla, Rome needed reform, albeit perhaps not at the price of murdering countless people that he saw as hindering his ambitions. He established a precedent, however, that would later be confirmed by many generals as a sure path to power if successful; that of marching on Rome. Later, Julius Caesar marched on Rome and gained power, many years later during the crisis of the first century A.D., one Vespasian marched on Rome and became Emperor etc. etc, and thus it was shown that the government or ruler of Rome could be overthrown with a strong army and a strong leader. Perhaps this precedent, which would later on in Roe's history cause much civil war, is indirectly one of the worst legacies Sulla left Rome. i.e. an Impartial perspective? (Joking)

So to the end being discussed, what does the term res publica (republic) mean? Does it mean the government of the people, or the government of the army?

I noticed that - i thought it was my brand new computer playing up already