Emperor Goblinus

Very well written.

If the major powers of the West had rallied big time to save Constantinople, as Constantine XI wanted, do you think that the Byzantine Empire could have been saved from the Turks? I think that it's possible, although it would have taken a major effort.

They do? Strange.

Thanks. I'll definitely check my college library to see if they have them. I do know that they have volumes and volumes on Byzantium.

I am of course well aware that the conquests of Charlemagne and his predeccesors are separate from those of the old Romans, that Charlemagne was not Roman in blood at all, and that his governmental organization was much different than that of the Roman Empire. However, I read somewhere that Charlemagne's Empire was, to paraphrase, "the last evolutionary step of the western Roman Empire." Do you think that to some extent, this is true?

Interesting. I know very little about the Byzantine emperors, and will have to do more reading.

If I remember correctly, she introduces him to St. Peter, he is eventually imprisoned and put into the gladiatorial ring, and in the end, although it's not directly stated, it's pretty strongly suggested that he converts. The movie portrays Nero accurately as a sicko tyrant, although he seems more goofy than dangerous at times, but when they describe his overthrow by Galba, the producers make it seem like everything was happily ever after once Nero died, but in fact Rome was thrown into civil war. Just a bit too much cinematic idealism.

Has anyone else seen this 60s movie about Christians during the time of Nero? I thought that it was quite good.

With Rome's emphasis on manly power and strength, I think that the disabled may have had some barriers put in front of them by society. But, there were always exceptions. Look at Claudius.

Did the Byzantine Empire have an emperor that measured up to someone like Nero in terms of sheer cruelty, perversity, and insanity?

True, but in terms of his legal business, he was quite good. He was very respectful towards the Senate and went to all of their sessions. He allowed a great deal of free speech, and even did not punish a senator who personally insulted him to his face. But like many Roman emperors, he had a twisted side, and would do things like give a sick friend a glass a poison when they cried out for water, and have death row inmates spared from their sentence, only for them to be executed in front of the emperor in an even more gruesome fashion than they had originally been sentenced.

To a large extent, yes. And if you consider the millions of Catholics, including me, spread across the world whose Church's headquarters is located in the Urbs, then I guess you can say that to some extent, Rome has indeed ended up conquering the world.

To meet: Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian, Constantine I, Justinian, Constantine XI To view from a very safe distance: Caligula, Nero, Galba, Commodus, Odoacer (I know he's not an emperor, but he'd be interesting to at least observe)

What had happened was that Galba, the man who replaced Nero, had grown extremely unpopular and was was being plotted against left and right. In the western provinces, the legions declared a popular general named Vitellius as emperor. But a confidante of Galba named Otho became disgruntled when Galba chose another man to be his successor. Otho revolted with the help of the praetorians and became emperor. He was very popular in the Rome and restored order. But Vitellius thought himself to be the rightful ruler and marched against Otho in a civil war reminiscient of the one fough between Caesar and Pompey. Eventually, Vitellius's general Caecina was victorious, and Otho killed himself. I don't think that Otho made any serious mistakes which led to his downfall, it's just that he had the bad luck of becoming the emperor when a man who had the backing of nearly all of the West claimed the throne. As emperor, Otho killed his immediate rivals, but made peace with both former Galba supporters and the armies who had been friendly to Nero. If not for Vitellius, I think that he would have had a long, successful reign.

If Otho had not been deposed by Vitellius 95 days after he took the throne, do you think that he would have gone on to be a famous, long-lived emperor? From the little that I've read about him, he wasn't a horrible ruler. His revolt in overthrowing Galba was gruesome, but that was just natural back then (doesn't mean it was right). In his brief term in office, the praetorians liked him, the Senate seemed to like him, and he seemed to be doing a good job of mending the wounds of the past, except of course with his rival Vitellius. But if he had not been dethroned, do you think that he would have been remembered as a great Roman emperor?

As we all know, the Roman army was merciless in punishing its foes and subduing uprisings, looting and burning cities to the ground, raping the women and carrying everybody that they didn't kill off into slavery. Then again, this was a common practice in the ancient world. Of course, just because something is a common practice doesn't mean that it's right. But how brutal were the Romans towards their enemies compared with other powers of the ancient world?

I stumbled across this book 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West and it looks very interesting. If anyone else here has read it, it is worth checking out from a library or possibly requesting it to my relatives as a Christmas present?

I'm currently a freshman at the University of Virginia taking Western Civilization. We are in fact studying the Roman Empire at this point. I stumbled across this site and thought it looked awesome.