Emperor Goblinus

Could either of the Triumvirates have worked to be a more permanent system, or at least have been more successful than they were?

I'd have to g with Diocletian, for his hard work in rebuilding the mepire and warding off it enemies, or Justininian for his military ventures, and the Corpus Juris Civilis.

Which states specifically do you think should be expelled?

Favorite dynasty would have to be the Julio-Claudians. They're just classic. My favoirte emperor in and of himself would be Diocletian, except of his horrible track record when it came to Christians. So I'd have to say that it's a toss up between Augustus or Justinian.

From my reading, it seems to me that the provinces were more pro-imperial and Italy, especially Rome, clung to its old republican traditions and trappings. Why exactly was the imperial system more popular in the provinces?

My favorite is the Hydra which Hercules killed.

Another unsung hero is Narses, the man who picked up the work of Belisarius and defeated ultimately the Gothic power in Italy.

He doesn't have super powers, but Wedge Antilles.

It's interesting how, even through the 3rd century crisis, when the military propping up emperors left and right, most of them still sought the approval of the Senate. Even when it was clear that they lived under a monarchy, Romans loved their outward symbols of republicanism. I wonder how many newly-appointed emperors claimed that they were restoring "liberty?" I think even some of these symbols survived into the time of the Byzantines. Im kind of torn as to how to view Diocletian. He was an emperor in a time when the Roman world was in tumult and needed a strong guiding hand, and he provided that, and allowed the united empire to go on for quite some time. His snubbing of the Senate was wrong and probably illegal, but what was the Senate going to do? The army and the provinces supported the throne (or thrones, if you think of Maximian and later, the Tetrarchy). Although it's somewhat sad, I don't think that the empire had the luxury of indulging in republicansim, given the times. As for the introduction of Persian court ceremony, sprinkling gold into the emperor's hair, the kissing of the imperial robe, and other outward signs of monarchy may have been necessary to centralize power, bu I think were pure vanity. I think that the Republic, Principate, and Dominate all were necessary and good for their own times, but only for their time periods. Again, I prefer the uniqueness of the Principate.

Which imperial system do you prefer? The Principate which started under Augustus and lasted until Diocletian, where the Senate still had some real power, if not in name only, and the emperor had to pay homage to republican traditions and theoretically, derived his power from the Senate and the People of Rome. Or do you prefer the no-nonsense rule of the Dominate, starting with Diocletian and Constantine and lasting through the Byzantine period, where the emperor was the absolute monarch in both real power and custom, and was surrounded by all of the trappings of royalty, with the Senate having little or no say whatsoever? I for one am a fan of the Principate. Though the emperor was always the absolute ruler no matter what, the old republican traditions were what set Rome apart from other countries and empires back then. Though in some sense, the Dominate was more honest than the Principate in that it showed the imperial throne for what is really was and always had been, there was nothing setting it apart from Persian or other eastern kings, while the Principate was unique.

This one interests me the most. Historical events and politics interest me more than just straight forward military books, like many of them listed, are. Will Dr. Perkins be coming back to answer anymore questions?

I like Emperor Otho, in the Year of the Four Emperors. Though his rise to power was brutal, he was a very good ruler and I think would have undoubtedly gone down as a great emperor if he had not been defeated by Vitellius.

From 6th to 11th grade, I took Latin, and was immersed in ancient Roman history and culture, especially, in the firt two years. We did participate in local Certamens, but generally, we did not do so good, to put it mildly. In 10th grade in Western Civilization, we studied ancient Rome and I found it fascinating. Just this semester in college, I took another Westen Civ course, where Rome was ne of the highlights. I became more interested, and started reading some books on my spare time. I found this site looking for exactly what this is: a Roman history forum. At least from my experience, there aren't too many out there.

What exactly was the role, power, influence, and duties of the Senate in the Byzantine Empire?

I voted not sure. The Roman Republic was quite something in an age where any form of democracy or republicanism was unheard of throughout most of the world. But the republic was just not suited to ruling the vast territory, whereas the imperial system was, if imperfectly.

One thing of note is that if Rome lost a good deal of its territory outside of Italy, but its internal governmental structure kept going, Italy may have stayed a unified country up through the Middle Ages and possibly into modern times. If so, all of the unification efforts of the Italians in the 19th century would not have been necessary. Imagine if the monarchy continued and there were Caesars still ruling Italy to this day, although given the political trends, they would probably be at most a constitutional monarchy, with most of the power probably in a national assembly or congress of some sort. Maybe power would be reverted back to the Senate.

I've read part of Dante. It's clever how he made the lowest pit of hell an ice cave, instead of the steretypical "lake of fire."

I think that there could have been some major changes if the empire had ended in the 3rd century. First, I don't think that there ever would have been an eastern Roman Empire, just whatever state was carved out of the eastern provinces. In the West, areas that may have been more "Romanized" might not have been. We could have seen whole different "classical" thinking, culture, and philosophy separate from the Greco-Roman tradition. Also, radically different law codes may have been made far different from Roman law that influenced later European civilization. Political boundaries of future countries might have been much different. When it came to religion, I think that Christianity would have spread, but it would have developed differently. Constantine firmly set the stage for the clse ties between monarchical governments and the Church. Without this, Christianity may have gone on to become a more personal, localized religion. With more and more converts, it would be inevitable that some monarchs take the religion as their own and make it the state religion, but I don't think that the church-state relations we saw in the Middle Ages would have been so defined. There's a good chance that the papacy would not have been founded, or at least not achieved the power that it did, because of Rome's decreased political influence. The monolithic "Christendom" that pervaded western Europe in the Middle Ages may not have come about. The Christian Church may have broken up into possibly hundreds of local denominations, sects, and rites and never be united under one rule, intermingling and gradually converting more pagans, or possibly not. Without the massive efforts of bishops, missionaries, and crusading kings, large parts of Europe may have stayed pagan much longer, or may even never have been converted. When Islam gained prominence and power, it is quite possible that Arab Muslim armies may not have been stopped in their invasion of west Europe and Europe may have ended up being Muslim, or at least with a much larger Muslim population. The possiblities are endless. In my own opinion, I'm glad that the united empire went on for another hundred years or so. It wasn't perfect, but though some good may have come out of it, I'm glad that the Middle Ages didn't begin in the 3rd century.

I'm not a teacher, but I am an undergrad college student interested in ancient Roman history and culture. Is there any cost or obligations in joining it?

That is quite interesting. I'm curious as to how outlooks on the world might change if Germanic faith became more prominent. I'm a strong Christian and wouldn't take part in it, but it would be fascinating to see how thr world might change if old school polytheism came back in style on a large scale.

My avatar is that of Otho. I think that he would have been a good emperor if he hadn't been beaten by Vitellius.

Let's say that the powers that broke away from Rome in the 3rd century stayed independent, that territory was not reconquered and consolidated by men like Aurelian and Diocletian, and that the empire crumbled. What effect do you think that would have had on the development of the region in terms of culture, religion, politics, law, and other things?

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but another similarity between the US and the Roman Empire at its height is diversity. Rome for the time was a quite a diverse society, with people coming in from Africa, northern and central Europe, the Middle East, and even some from the Far East. Even the emperors were somewaht diverse, coming from all around the empire. The US in comparison is extremely diverse, with citizens coming from all around the globe. The highest levels of government have remained largely in the hands of white men until recently, but that's slowly changing.

Oh I know that, with the major rebellions and temporary states in Gaul and Egypt. I meant permanently and irrevocably. What makes you think Diocletian put it back together? Like Frankenstein, Diocletian simply cobbled together a medieval monster from the parts of a dead world. The spirit of "I am a Roman, and you are just a king" was gone; all that remained of Rome was an inertia-led zombie. How so? I know that all old vestiges of republicanism were gone, but the state that was reformed by Diocletian and Constantine was very powerful up till the end of the fourth century, and was much more than just a shell of its old self. It was very, very different than before, but still a powerful and unique empire unto itself

In a normal world, the Roman Empire should have fallen in the third century, or been at least greatly reduced in size. But it rebounded and lasted for more than a hundred years. What do you think allowed the empire to survive through those years long enough for Diocletian to eventually pull things back together?