barca

What's more brutal? Caesar cutting off the hands of numerous Gauls? Or Basil II gauging out the eyes of numerous Bulgarians?

Here's a trailer from the movie. I just obtained the DVD. Has anyone seen the movie. The popular lorica segmentata is actually appropriate for the time period.

I just saw the movie recently. I found it interesting even though it was not entirely correct historically. nevertheless, I believe that it captured the hostility that went on back then between the former establishment (pagans) and the fanatical side of Christianity. Some individuals have criticized the movie for being anti-christian, and i don't agree with that perspective. Christians are portrayed as a rather diverse group: a spectrum ranging from moderates such as Orestes to fanatical terrorists such as Ammonius. Here's an example of a somewhat negative review of the film: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html

Again that all sounds good in theory, but as mentioned before, carrying it out in the heat of battle is another matter altogether: changing conditions, being assailed from different directions, inadvertent compression of the of the units, resulting in an inability of the relief force to make it to the front line. I can easily see the retreating troops crashing into the relieving troops, resulting in chaos. I will be interested in seeing what you are able to glean from that book.

It was only a few years before when Julian's outnumbered army suffered an initial setback at Strassburg, but quickly regrouped and won a decisive victory against a the Alemani. One of the differences was that Fritigen's Goths had been rumaging around within the empire and had access to the armory, so they were able to equip themselves with up to date Roman arms and armor. There were also numerous defections of semi-Romanized Goths from the Roman army who joined Fritigen. The point being that Valens was probably facing a much more sophisticated force than a typical Germanic army.

It is said that the Epicurians discouraged involvement in politics. Can anyone give me a quote from Lucretius, Epicurus, or any other original source that supports this statemet. It is interesting that Thomas Jefferson considered himself an Epicurian, and he certainly was involved in politics.

Wasn't Decius the one whose army was annihilated by the barbarians in an Adrianople-like manner? Rome was fortunate that they were willing to return to their homes after taking plunder and accepting bribes. It seems to me that this was an important event that could have led to an earlier collapse of the empire.

They were certainly aware of the liabilities of the war elephants as evidenced by the Roman victories over Pyrrhus, Hannibal, Antiochus. Or to go back further, Alexander's victory over Porus. Elephants were somewhat of a novelty, and the Romans did experiment with them. They were used at Cynocephalae. where they seem to have contributed to the Roman victory. They were also used in more limited manner at Pydna. I believe that Caesar also experimented with them during his civil wars. They did not adopt them as wholeheartedly as did the Eastern Hellenistic Kingdoms. It seems to me that they were certainly not essential. I would think it would be a big expense to maintain a herd of elephants, as well as having all of the appropriate trainers, not to mention the logistical issues of keeping them in control throughout a campaign. The Roman learned from their opponents and they integrated new ideas into their legions, but they also wanted to streamline them by maintaining uniformity as much as possible. Their tactics were therefore simple yet very effective. Adding elephants would only complicate things and increase the risk of errors.

Has anyone read this book? It has good reviews on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848310706

I have not read your book yet, but I do plan to read it eventually. Arther Ferrill's The Fall of the Roman Empire implicates Stilicho as part of the problem, i.e. he continued the short-sighted policy of Theodosius.

Why not? It seems quite probable....If the army was presumably in the shield-wall formation then it's movement and appearance alike really looked like the phalanx. And we know the shield-wall was regularly used (Julian also used it at Strasbourg). Here's an artist's rendition of the late Roman army at Adrianople. Isn't it somewhat like a phalanx? http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8WIjkzT4POU/S-rx18NkeMI/AAAAAAAAAr0/fNTbV4mUDGw/Infanter%C3%ADa%20romana%20tard%C3%ADa%20siglos%20IV-V.jpg

Battlefield tactical discipline is not the issue with the argument I referenced above. The issue is allowing Roman generals who were also Germanic princes. Roman operatives with divided loyalties, commanding untrustworthy states-within-a-state, ultimately using their power base within the empire to carve out kingdoms for themselves. I understand what you are saying. I don't think that was much of a problem prior to Adrianople. Stilicho's father led a Vandal unit under Valens at Adrianople, and there were no issues of of divided loyalties there.

In the late 4th century the Roman army was still a formidable force. Julian was able to use a relatively small force to defeat a much larger force of Alemani at Strassburg. I don't think that he could have done so without an element of the traditional Roman discipline. Many of the soldiers were of barbarian origin, but they were trained and led in the Roman manner. After Adrianople, Theodosius seemed more concerned about dealing with Maximus, and later Eugenius than dealing with the more rampant threat of the Goths. Perhaps he underestimated the danger of the Goths. Or as it has been suggested, he thought he could kill them off by having them fight his civil wars for him. The plan backfired. Many Goths were killed at the Frigidus, but they were not annihilated. They came out of the battle feeling that they deserved more recognition and demanded special treatment undeserving of their status. As Machiavelli pointed out it is not a good idea to injure an enemy without killing him because he will seek revenge, as Alaric did in 410. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." Niccolo Machiavelli

I saw the show just recently. One of the so-called experts stated that during Alaric's siege (410) the Romans continued to watch Gladiator competitions in the Colosseum. He didn't bother to mention that the Emperor Honorius banned these games in 404.

There was a discussion on this issue previously: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11040

Has anyone read Arthur Ferrill's The Fall of the Roman Empire? http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-Arther-Ferrill/dp/0500274959 His explanation is based primarily on the eventual collapse of the military as a consequence of bad decisions beginning with Theodosius and his policy of appeasement, which elevated the status of the Visigoths. Instead of trying to extricate himself from them, he sought their help to conduct two civil wars against Western usurpers.

Barca. Your first book link is the first book referred to in my original post. I recommend the book highly to anyone interested in the development of Christian doctrine. It changed forever my view of the theological forces at work during the late Roman empire. guy also known as gaius That was an oversight on my part. I also have the books by Jenkins that you recommended and I started reading the The Lost History of Christianity. Interesting information but somewhat laborious reading (for me, at least)--I'll pick it up again later. It does give a different perspective on Christianity, i.e. that it's not necessarily endemic to the Western World.

Here's a related work that i just picked up at the local book store. http://www.amazon.com/AD-381-Charles-Freeman/dp/159020171X I plan to read it when I finish my book on Julian: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Pagan-Julian-Apostate-Ancient/dp/1594772266

One of the ways in which Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome. Under paganism things were quite simple. All that was required was for individuals to offer a superficial aquiescence (offering a sacrifice) to the gods of the empire. With Christianity things got very complicated. It wasn't enough to declare oneself a Christian. One had to come to terms with the ideology of the faith. People could not agree on issues such as the nature of Christ, and they took these disagreements very seriously. Christianity became divisive and affected the unity of the empire.

I saw this video on another website The last part of the video describes the line relief system. I personally don't see how they could carry out such an orderly maneuver in the heat of battle.

Huns?? You mean Goths and Vandals?

Interesting theory, but it seems to me that they're reaching http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...o=feeds-newsxml

I seems that the prior to the Punic Wars the Romans used a sword something like the Greek xiphos. Sometime during the Punic Wars they replaced it with the gladius, presumably from their experiences in Spain, thus the name gladius hispaniensis. It is generally assumed that it was a superior weapon, and that is why they favored it over the xiphos. On the other hand it may have just been more cost-effective to produce, and its effectiveness may have been as you suggested, a function of the skill and training of the legionnaires.

Are you saying that cast iron has more carbon than carbon steel? If the Gladius was made of this relatively soft iron, what made it superior to other swords of its age?

As I recall, the bread and circus occurred when Rome was at its height, not when its economy was crumbling. It was a means of gaining popular support. Am I correct? Here's an article i found on this subject: http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/prog...do-with-it.html