Divi Filius

The fact is that the Vespasian revolt was occurring before Vitellius even entered Rome. He was marching towards the city and by the time he reached it, the Flavians had already made significant headway. Vitellius was also a lethargic one and seemed to not have been nearly as involved in the empire he just took over as he should have been. This falls well in line with the Flavian policy of ignoring the characters between Nero and himself. He wanted Romans to forget that age as much as possible. Btw, one of the reasons why nobody paid any serious attention to Vespasian could have been very much due to the fact that he was picked by Nero because Vespasian was notorious for being lethargic and lazy. Most of the circles around Rome knew that he didnt seem to have much interest in politics from his very birth. In fact, until he became emperor, most thought his brother would be the family highlight. Compared to his, Vespasians careers was filled with fluked and mediocrity. Nero, one of the most paranoid of all, felt safe enough giving Vespasian the province and 3 legions.

Hello again, Im sorry if my stay wasnt long. I havnt had any real time on my hands and even during the break then I was continuously looking around for ways to collect some cash for a planned trip. As for grades, I slaved last and this semester to maintain 4.0. Next semester Ill be taking my interest in Classics for a semester at Oxford University, where I hope to transfer should I prove myself able there(this is pretty much what Im saving for). Its been a very tough journey and my profs are assuring me that its not half over yet. Next semester Ill be planning with out of my profs for an undergrad presentation at a regional conference and planning for another honors thesis for grad school. Ill have to see how everything goes. Im sorry that I have been so absent, but I havnt forgot you guys. Now that summer is here I hope to contribute something during my free time. Im compiling some books I have read through these long semesters for review. I still have to thank this site for helping me realize just where my hidden passion was.

Kulikowski proposes the same thing.

The ultimate question comes down to: what is Roman? This was an empire that(if we use the term "empire", in the literal sense) started around the 2nd c. BC. It was an empire that underwent continuous change. Would a Roman citizen of the Principate find himself at home under, say, the Constantinian era? I doubt it. Rome was always changing as was the definition of "Roman". But, I cant consider the "Byzantine era" to be a phase of the Roman Empire simply because the changes are radical. A Roman from the republic could be placed in the principate and would be able to adjust himself. We could not say so for the Byzantine world. What I would say, however, is that the Byzantine Empire was a child of the Roman world, a descendant, but not direct continuation. It became a unique entity as it itself evolved throughout its centuries of life. It would be an injustice to the Byzantine studies also if we simply look at its entire period as a declining Roman leftover...

I believe that the Eastern Romans began to think of itself as more of what we may consider "Greek" when the differences between it and the Latin west became more and more apparent. Especially in the period around the 4th Crusade, when the western Latins became completely vilified. However, this is an impossible question to answer since its questionable whether the eastern portions of the Empire ever considered themselves truly "Roman" to begin with.

The mod is incredibly detailed. Unfortunately, I lost my interest in RTW about 5-6 months ago and found it difficult to get back into, but the changes are amazing. The crew did their best to implement a far more historical economy, units, buildings, etc. I really like it, however, it is far more difficult to expand now.

The Franks were also given a small piece of territory in the northern point of Gaul under the time of Julian on the basis that they would protect the frontier there -- which they did. However, like the Vandals, they then began their expansion from there. As the imperial sources were thinning, grants of such land to the barbarians was a way that the Romans could maintain their empire. Originally, these lands were still under Roman control and contributed what was then a very important asset to the empire: defense and soldiers. As time went on, the Franks began to expand and experienced much of the same thing that other tribes did. This is a very typical imperial method under decline. As the borders begin to be troubles and resources fail, many empires resort to sort of nominally-independent entities that are given extra freedoms in the hope of controlling the frontier. The Normans were given Normandy in the hope that they would defend it against further Viking(Norseman) raids. During the Byzantine Empire, various groups were settled in territories that the Byzantines expected them to defend these lands. In a very similar case to the Roman decline, around the 13-14th century Albanian tribes began invading regions around modern Greece. In an effort to bring them into his control, the Byzantine Emperor granted them land around many of the regions that they had settled in the hopes that they would now defend those lands(hitherto undefended) against further incursions, which they did. Roger Collins, in Early Medieval Europe: 300-1000, argues that this is actually a positive development as if often frees up valuable resources. In the case of the later Romans, Byzantines and Ottomans, as the empire heads into headlong decline, these independent entities serve their purpose by strengthening their individual provinces, thus allowing them to thrive again. Under the later Ottoman Empire, you had the famous Ali Pasha who created a semi-independent state in Epirus. The state actually became quite a power and was viewed as a bigger threat to European interests then the Ottoman Empire itself. Collins argued that as empires decline, its only logical that independent entities will spring up that would seek to centralize resources. We can find such cases in the Gallic Empire, which sprang up during the 3rd century. The problem with the Germanic Kingdoms is that they lacked the Roman skill for administration and bureaucracy. Other examples can be found in events such as the reconquest of Africa and Italy, which actually weakened the Byzantine state and the given provinces.

The First and Second Punic Wars are given great deal by J.E. Lazenby, who takes them on individually in "The First Punic War: A Military History" and "Hannibal's War: A Military History of the Second Punic War". Then there is also the famous "The Punic Wars" By Adrian Goldsworthy. After that there is a flood of biographies, articles etc. etc.

You could also bring up the argument that Romans most probably faced Greek troops, or heavily Greek influenced troops, as far back as the mythical era. The Etruscans had large contact with Greeks and it also became a place of exile for some of them. Its very likely that the Etruscan Kings had Greek troops in their army, especially since mercenarism among high among Greeks of the 7-5th centuy BC.

We should be careful about how we use sources such as Tacitus. He, being part of the elite and conservative Senatorial world, was not all that well disposed to either Augustus' heirs nor Augustus himself. Tacitus witnessed this mans successors drain the power of the senators and monopolize it all for themselves and sees Augustus as the precursor to all of this.

I always imagined that that was some kind of recliner. And old Etruscan one:

The instigators of migrations are manifold and often a mixture of everything rather than one particular reason. Perhaps overpopulation, perhaps natural reasons(drought or loss of resources), perhaps war, perhaps the chance of better opportunities, perhaps a black hole caused by the fall of a given people. The Goths seem to have been part of a greater movement; and once we answer the Goths, we ask ourselves: what caused the Huns to move?

Justinians military campaigns are now largely considered to be wasteful ones since they came at the cost of weakening the given provinces. The Italian Wars entirely devastated the peninsula and within just a few years, everything Justinian gained over a 20 year period was lost in barely 5 to Lombards. In Africa the wars weakened a system that was kept relatively in tact by the Germanic Vandals who conquered the region. This left the province ripe for the Islamic conquest. Within the empire itself the enlarged bureaucracy alienated a large part of the more educated classes, who saw the offices as devoid of significance. The push for orthodoxy and the oppression of the various eastern Christian groups altogether alienated almost entirely. Justinian may be credit with a lot of good things, but over all, I think the romantic image of him as an emperor who pushed to restore the full empire overshadows the mistakes of his reign. The empire simply could not hold such a vast empire anymore with the resources at hand. Many argue that today, perhaps Africa might have given an even stronger fight(though it did last far longer then others, but mostly due to the Berber resistance than anything else) against the Islamic push. In accomplishing what he did accomplish, Justinian worked to weaken his empire more then anything else.

Except for period where actual census records survive, all other numbers are mostly conjectural since they are based on archaeological readings. I wish I was still in campus for this, it would be interesting to look up what the various numbers are. The one above is the most common though.

Greek learning and the influx of Greek-Byzantine scholars started far earlier then 1453. There are a number of Byzantine teachers of Greek in Florence, Venice and Pisa around the 1300's and these decades saw an influx of migrants from eastern Europe, escaping the ottoman conquest. Among these groups were also Balkan mercenaries; and Byzantine nobility.