pompeius magnus

This is a difficult question to answer because it can have a two different ways of classifying the worst defeats. Do you judge it based on the number of troops lost, or, and this is the way I judge them, by the effects they had on rome. In my way I would view them as follows: 1.) Adrianople: even though it wasn't the sole reason for rome's fall, or even that rome fell afterwards, it was a precursor of sorts of things to come. It proved to the Goths what they could do if they worked together, however they were content with just having their own living area and wanted proper treatment. And the weakness issue of the eastern empire can not be applied here because the battle was fought in the western empire. What it did prove to some of Rome's traditional enemies, Italian inparticular, is that the empire was having problems managing all its territory and when Aleric invaded Rome, because of unfair treatment of his people and the wasting of gothic lives in battles, the italian enemies of rome sided with aleric, I guess it proves that old enemies die hard. Also there was something about this angry guy named Attila that helped Romes fall, I keep hearing good things about him. Any other ones did not have that kind of effect on Rome, but if i had to list other battles that were bad for rome: Carrae The various civil wars The defeat of Crassus by the Parthians, thus capturing several eagle fasces and forcing their recapture by Augustus, caesar was murdered the day before his expedition was scheduled for the Parthians. The throwing away of various noble lives before the conscriptions of marius, leading actually to the conscription ideas. Here is an intense discussion me and two other guys had on another board about the worst battle in roman history. Roman Army Talk It is on page two, however page one has another intense argument I had with several people on the composition and concept of the byzantine empire, page two has the Adrianople dispute. I am Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

Not to be a smartass or anything, but it technically is called the netherlands, holland refers to the area right around amsterdam. If that is the place you mean than disregard this message.

I'd have to go with Augustus, do i dare say his full name: Gaius Octavius Octavianun Augustus Julius Caesar, did I type that right. Then again I have not gotten to studing the empire in full yet. Still working on the early days and the republic.

Its interesting to think that one of Constantines battles led to his conversion to christianity one of the most important events in world history.

Us Americans live in a society where cultural diversity is stressed, yet learning many different languages at an early age is not, hense some of the discrepensies with learning languages latter in life. I just started Latin and am 21 years old. It is a lot more complex as far as the different endings go, a lot more complex than the French I had in high school, yet it is not too bad after you learn some of the patterns.

Yeah Zeke I am a Christian boy with family from Scotland, Sweeden, Germany, England, and the Netherlands so I my whole family is Christian. I was referring to how the alah of the Muslims, is the same god as my God of the Christian faith, but they worship him in a different way than I do and have different views of him. It was the same kind of comparision I was making about your polythestic gods compared to my monothestic god that we discussed earlier in this thread. Sorry for any confusion.

It is not a matter of being right or wrong, but a question of faith that is being discussed here, in which case you believe your gods are the true ones, whereas I believe my one God is. However, like I said earlier a way I look at it, your gods may be my one, but seperated into different forms, or parts. My God is also the islamic alah, even though they believe in him in a different way then I do, whereas our, the Christian religion, savior is Jesus Christ, and the islamic one is mohammad. And your points are very agreeable about the crusades, before my ancestors were protestand, they were catholics so by my slapping the catholics with my harsh words, it is in a way a slap at me.

The results of that horror would be too numerous and cataclamic to list. The what if question, even on the smallest of events, would change today in one way or another. A change such as that would change almost everything about the way we live today. There would be no month of July or August, Augustus doesn't become first emperor. An even more intersting fact is there is a good chance that Christianity doesn't find its way up to northern europe for a long time, if at all, as no Caesar means no conquest of Gaul. There are just a few changes, not too mention the difference in the calander.

Very good point Zeke. Now I am a Christian, a protestan, Presbyterian to be exact, so I have had my bitter dealings with the Catholics, some of whom still are bitter about the reformation several centuries in the past. The way I look at it is that the different religions are just beliefs by one person who has been able to get others to believe the same thing. Granted that I believe in God and have read parts of the bible, I could easily have been Pagan if I would have been brougt up to believe that there was not one God, but many that controlled various aspects of the universe. One way to look at it is that my God is a combination of all your gods into one. And I agree with you that those evil Catholics destoyed the Roman Empire, as well as caused the deaths of thousands, if not millions with their various crusades that accomplished nothing, jerusalem is still not in Christian hands, nor will it likely ever be, or deserve to be. Now I also understand that their are a lot of good and respectable catholics, but the fact is that the Catholic religion is the most corrupt religion in the world. Now since I have Catholic blood as well its hard to say this and not slap myself in the face, but my protestan blood out weighs the Catholic.

Absolutly. I'm also in the midst of reading The Beginnings of Rome by T.J. Cornell and would be happy to do a review of that book if one has not been done already.

Upon reading this biographical type book I thought I would write a review about the book and what my thought on this book were. Well here we go. Cicero: Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician Lets start things off with a brief synopsis of the book contents. In a nut shell the book is a chronological outlook on the life of Cicero, from his days as a pupil, to his dominance in the courts, to his controversial speeches, and his end at the hands of Anthony's goonies. The author seems to be very biases in Cicero's favor, so the way he writes about Cicero may be in question but that is what history is all about, creating your own interpretations on historical facts... ...read the full review of Cicero, The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician by Anthony Everitt

my bad then didn't mean to go off. Good day to you.

I also study the Byzantine empire, however I am talking about the impact of chrisitanityon the fall of the roman empire.

The best orator in Rome was Marcus Tullius Cicero, he was also a damn good lawyer and a fair politician. I myself like to srudy about the founding and the mythology of Rome. Also the decline of the empire with the barbarians. After I get my phd in about 10 years or so I want to write two books about the effect of the fall of both the Roman empire and Byzantine Empire called 476 and 1453.

Well the main reason I don't live in Europe is because lack of money. I am currently a student studying ancient history at the Univ. of Iowa. I have no money to go. I have visited Europe many times but a long term stay is not in the cards right now. After I establish myself as a leading historian on the Roman and Greek eras then perhaps I will live in Europe for an extended amount of time, however I would have to return to the States as my heart is in America and I would miss American politics too much.

Nothing against my homeland of America, but I love the rustic feeling of Europe so I would like to live in the places my ancestors lived so Scotland, England, Netherlands, Germany, and Sweeden. Also Athens and Rome would be ideal.

Read my post on Christianity and its impact on the Roman empires demise and you will see how I feel about the Christian Romans. I do not like the adoption of christianity by the romans, even though I would not be christian today if not for that. Don't get me wrong I am a semi-religious guy, but don't like its effect on Rome. If you would like to discuss this more please feel free to email me at kslice2k2ataol.com

When they refer to Italia it is most of the time either mentioning the people living outside of the Latium region, which was where rome was in, so for instance the people of Etrusca, Campania, Saminum. Even though they had roman citizenship they were not roman. It also refers sometimes to the whole pennisula, discluding italian gaul which is north of etruscia and umbria, it was the latin word for Italy I believe.

If its quotes you want look no further than Cicero's witty and sarcastic descriptions of his associates. Perticullarly Marcus Anotonius during their rivalry.

Will do. Do you know when his augustus book is coming out or if it already is.

Should I type it here or start a new post.

I'll be done with the book in a few days then I will write a review about it sometime next week.

Don't count communism dead yet. Communism is still alive and in the shadows in Russia and if there is a crisis in russia, they will go back to communism. Also I tend to believe that parts of communism are part of every government, even the American system.

I am almost done reading a good book called Cicero: Life and Times of Romes greatest politician. Even though I disagree with part of his title it is a really good book and a good change after several months straight of McCulloughs books. It recounts Ciceros life from the beginning and really focuses on his various writings such as On the State and some of his other writings. It gives a different perspective on Cicero and his dealings with Gaius Julius Caesar, as well as Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. It is by Anthony Everett who is also in the process of writing a similar style book on Augustus, can't wait for that one.

How can you say that Christianity had no impact on the fall of Rome. The Roman Pagan gods had an extremely important part in their society even after the fall of the republic in 27 BC, the year Octavian became Augustus. Casear and Sulla owed their military victories to the god Fortuna, even though more military skill was involved. and most important of all it changed the view from being Roman, to being Christian, a tremendous hit to the empire. I will give you that there were other factors involved and that the empire was weakening but I argue that the most noticeable weaking started with the adoption of Christianity. And in my view the Roman empire died in 1054 with the great schism when it became the Byzantine empire, a greek and middle eastern empire, not Roman.