Enemies of Roman Empire

[guy]

When the IV Crusade sacked Constantinople, they also effectively destroyed a millennium-plus Empire, which they were utterly unable to replace with anything better than the absolutely inefficient so-called "Latin Empire" and its feudal dependencies.

 

The Nicean monarchy that eventually recovered Constantinople half a century later was just one among many residual states, which all together were only a shadow of the destroyed Empire.

 

Even more, without such definitive Roman defeat, it's quite unlikely that the Ghazi emirate that eventually became into the Ottoman Sultanate would have been able to thrive across the XIII and XIV centuries as it did.

 

I was thinking the same idea, too.

 

That said (and here comes my ignorance), it was the invading armies of Islam that destroyed most the remnants of the Roman world in Spain in the form of the Visigoth Empire and the great bastion of Christian scholarship found in Northern Africa. And I'm not so sure that was a good thing.

 

We are told (perhaps by historians with a politically correct bias) that the destruction of the Visigoth peoples and the suppression of Christian intellectuals in Africa was followed by a more tolerant and intellectually free Islamic presence. This may be true. It seems to me, however, that the threats posed by Islam resulted in a backlash in the Christianized Western world to suppress intellectual pursuits and scientific discovery. That could not have been good, of course. Remember, it was only after the suppression of the Islamic threat in Spain did the King and Queen of Spain feel secure enough to give their financial support to the adventures of Mr. Columbus. It was also this backlash that created the permanent fissure between the intellectual freedom and scientific curiosity of Ancient Rome and the more repressive, insecure, and inward looking medieval Western world.

 

I have to think more about about this topic, later. Hopefully, I will have time in 2010 to delve more deeply into the transformation of the late Classical Age into Renaissance Europe.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

[sylla]

I was thinking the same idea, too.

 

That said (and here comes my ignorance), it was the invading armies of Islam that destroyed most the remnants of the Roman world in Spain in the form of the Visigoth Empire and the great bastion of Christian scholarship found in Northern Africa. And I'm not so sure that was a good thing.

 

We are told (perhaps by historians with a politically correct bias) that the destruction of the Visigoth peoples and the suppression of Christian intellectuals in Africa was followed by a more tolerant and intellectually free Islamic presence. This may be true. It seems to me, however, that the threats posed by Islam resulted in a backlash in the Christianized Western world to suppress intellectual pursuits and scientific discovery. That could not have been good, of course. Remember, it was only after the suppression of the Islamic threat in Spain did the King and Queen of Spain feel secure enough to give their financial support to the adventures of Mr. Columbus. It was also this backlash that created the permanent fissure between the intellectual freedom and scientific curiosity of Ancient Rome and the more repressive, insecure, and inward looking medieval Western world.

 

I have to think more about about this topic, later. Hopefully, I will have time in 2010 to delve more deeply into the transformation of the late Classical Age into Renaissance Europe.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Northern Neil]

 

 

That said (and here comes my ignorance), it was the invading armies of Islam that destroyed most the remnants of the Roman world in Spain in the form of the Visigoth Empire and the great bastion of Christian scholarship found in Northern Africa. And I'm not so sure that was a good thing.

 

We are told (perhaps by historians with a politically correct bias) that the destruction of the Visigoth peoples and the suppression of Christian intellectuals in Africa was followed by a more tolerant and intellectually free Islamic presence. This may be true. It seems to me, however, that the threats posed by Islam resulted in a backlash in the Christianized Western world to suppress intellectual pursuits and scientific discovery. /quote]

 

This no doubt aided and completed the process, but I believe the separation of the Roman world from scientific enquiry was caused by the rise of monotheism generally, as highlighted by the lynching of hypatia and the closing of the philosophical schools by Justinian. After all, no one who views an ancient book as an absolute and accurate truth wants facts and new discoveries getting in the way of things.

[Northern Neil]

We are told (perhaps by historians with a politically correct bias) that the destruction of the Visigoth peoples and the suppression of Christian intellectuals in Africa was followed by a more tolerant and intellectually free Islamic presence. This may be true. It seems to me, however, that the threats posed by Islam resulted in a backlash in the Christianized Western world to suppress intellectual pursuits and scientific discovery. That could not have been good, of course. Remember, it was only after the suppression of the Islamic threat in Spain did the King and Queen of Spain feel secure enough to give their financial support to the adventures of Mr. Columbus. It was also this backlash that created the permanent fissure between the intellectual freedom and scientific curiosity of Ancient Rome and the more repressive, insecure, and inward looking medieval Western world.

 

This no doubt aided and completed the process, but I believe the separation of the Roman world from scientific enquiry was caused by the rise of monotheism generally, as highlighted by the lynching of hypatia and the closing of the philosophical schools by Justinian. After all, no one who views an ancient book as an absolute and accurate truth wants facts and new discoveries getting in the way of things.

[sylla]

This no doubt aided and completed the process, but I believe the separation of the Roman world from scientific enquiry was caused by the rise of monotheism generally, as highlighted by the lynching of hypatia and the closing of the philosophical schools by Justinian. After all, no one who views an ancient book as an absolute and accurate truth wants facts and new discoveries getting in the way of things.

I also think the dogmatic position of many early Christian rulers had a significant negative impact on scientific enquiry; however, to be fair this effect is difficult to asses, because such enquiry was seemingly declining long before the Edict of Milan; in Medicine, for example, there is essentially no recorded new research after Galen, who died circa 217.

Besides, as previously stated, some centuries later the Islam performed an impressive cultural and scientific revolution under another strict monotheism.

 

As a female scholar, Hypatia was an anomaly for virtually any pre-modern era and hardly typical of the Classical pre-Christian female status; her lynching had religious and possibly local political motivations, but in all likelihood not specifically anti-scientific.

Edited October 4, 2009 by sylla

[guy]

I also think the dogmatic position of many early Christian rulers had a significant negative impact on scientific enquiry; however, to be fair this effect is difficult to asses, because such enquiry was seemingly declining long before the Edict of Milan; in Medicine, for example, there is essentially no recorded new research after Galen, who died circa 217.

Besides, as previously stated, some centuries later the Islam performed an impressive cultural and scientific revolution under another strict monotheism.

 

As a female scholar, Hypatia was an anomaly for virtually any pre-modern era and hardly typical of the Classical pre-Christian female status; her lynching had religious and possibly local political motivations, but in all likelihood not specifically anti-scientific.

 

I think this was a very insightful reply. Any society, such as Rome during the "third century crisis," is less likely to make advances in the fields of science, architecture, art, and medicine. Rome was being pressured by such forces as insurrection, devastating disease, economic collapse, hostile foreign invasion, population contraction, etc.

 

It is unlikely that any society would be able to undergo a "golden age" faced with this pressures.

 

The Islamic "golden age" was as much a reflection of a stable society as anything. I think this criticism of that period of time is a little harsh:

 

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/789555/posts

 

 

Every society produces great geniuses and brilliant thinkers. Unfortunately, without political and social stability along with intellectual freedom and tolerance, these great minds never fulfill their potential. Ending the many conflicts and bringing stability to the region, the Islamic control of this region allowed the indigenous peoples to explore that potential. Remember, Rhazes and Avicenna thought of themselves as Persians, tracing their intellectual heritage to the previous Sassanian and Persian Empires. (Unfortunately, we in the West have too long stereotyped these great Empires as "barbarians.")

 

The idea that Islam preserved and transmitted Ancient Greco-Roman culture is as perverse a notion as the idea that white European settlers have somehow preserved and transmitted Native North American Indian culture. Destroying a culture, but keeping a few shreds of history is hardly "preserving" that culture.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

[Kosmo]

Every society produces great geniuses and brilliant thinkers. Unfortunately, without political and social stability along with intellectual freedom and tolerance, these great minds never fulfill their potential.

 

I believe that devastating wars and the suffocating peace of large empires are equally bad for development. Many periods when arts, science and technology flourished were times of turmoil and strife.

[sylla]

I think this was a very insightful reply. Any society, such as Rome during the "third century crisis," is less likely to make advances in the fields of science, architecture, art, and medicine. Rome was being pressured by such forces as insurrection, devastating disease, economic collapse, hostile foreign invasion, population contraction, etc.

 

It is unlikely that any society would be able to undergo a "golden age" faced with this pressures.

 

The Islamic "golden age" was as much a reflection of a stable society as anything. I think this criticism of that period of time is a little harsh:

 

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/789555/posts

 

 

Every society produces great geniuses and brilliant thinkers. Unfortunately, without political and social stability along with intellectual freedom and tolerance, these great minds never fulfill their potential. Ending the many conflicts and bringing stability to the region, the Islamic control of this region allowed the indigenous peoples to explore that potential. Remember, Rhazes and Avicenna thought of themselves as Persians, tracing their intellectual heritage to the previous Sassanian and Persian Empires. (Unfortunately, we in the West have too long stereotyped these great Empires as "barbarians.")

 

The idea that Islam preserved and transmitted Ancient Greco-Roman culture is as perverse a notion as the idea that white European settlers have somehow preserved and transmitted Native North American Indian culture. Destroying a culture, but keeping a few shreds of history is hardly "preserving" that culture.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[guy]

In ethnic terms, Rhazes was Persian, but Avicenna was a Sogdian (an Uzbek, in modern terms); they were both Muslims at the same time, simply because Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. The scientific and cultural achievements of both authors are considered as

[sylla]

It saddens me to see, for example, that many people have accepted the prejudiced Western notion (perpetuated by modern Islamofascists) that the Sassanian Empire could not have contributed to any intellectual movement. (I will write about this later in some other subforum.) Nor do I accept that the rather racist view that an "Islamic Golden Age" could not have benefitted from the contributions by Byzantine Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. (Pesky infidels, all of them.)

 

To its benefit, the European Renaissance openly admired and emulated Greco-Roman culture.

 

Sassanian contributions have long been forgotten and suppressed.

 

Finally, most scholars I have read accept Avicenna as being of Persian descent. He was not Arabic. To deny this would be akin to saying Herodotus and Galen weren't Greek despite their being born in Asia Minor. On this issue we will agree to disagree.

 

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[guy]

Last but not least, the above mentioned Watson's article was not trying to dignify the memory of the Sassanian culture in any meaningful way; his obvious and seemingly only purpose was to denigrate what he perceived as the historical roots of modern Arab and Islamic prides.

 

Sylla: I agree with you on that point. (I wrote in my post that I thought the article was a little harsh.)

 

Thank you for your other thoughtful replies to my previous posts.

 

Here's a more thoughtful article about which I would like to know your opinion. It was written by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh who wrote the most excellent book,

Shadows in the Desert--Ancient Persia at War. (I've given my highest recommendations for that book in earlier posts.)

 

http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Antholog...kh/farrokh7.htm

 

 

An interesting quote from the article:

 

 

"Of far greater significance is the following quote that vividly describes Sami Shawkat

[sylla]

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful assessment of this article. Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has changed my entire view of modern Iran and the great Persian Empires that preceded it: Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanian.

guy also known as gaius

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Echo_of_your_past]

Hi all!! I'm new in the forum!! So, I'd like to ask your opinion about the peoples who attack the Empire: I think that the most civilizated peoples after the romans were the Persian and the Dacians, but they weren't so much strong for a full-scale victory against the romans; for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

 

Hannibal (Carthage) was a definite thorn in Romes side and could have changed history

 

Sandra

[diegis]

Hi all!! I'm new in the forum!! So, I'd like to ask your opinion about the peoples who attack the Empire: I think that the most civilizated peoples after the romans were the Persian and the Dacians, but they weren't so much strong for a full-scale victory against the romans; for you, who was the greatest military menace for that Empire??

 

p.s.: sorry for my bad english, I'm from Italy : )

 

Well, in my opinion the empire becomed weaker military because of its internal problems, endless fights for power betwen throne pretenders, fall of internal economy and of the martial virtutes among its population. I think that Dacians was the strongest enemy during the peak of the empire power (late I century AD, early II century AD). Persians was a strong enemy as well, but the fact that they was too far from Rome make them less dangerous. Germans become a real menance just when Empire start to fall from the inside, and they wasnt transformed before in a roman province (the teritory betwen Rhine and Elba) not because Teutoborg episode (Germanicus entered after that in that area whenever he wished and go whenever he wanted, beating Arminius everytime when germans didnt run back in the forests), but because there wasnt anything worthy, just swamps and forests, no important agriculture areas, no cities or fortreses, no roads or natural resources (gold, silver), no strategic position. This was the luck of germans in fact (without to not recognize their martial virtutes too, ofcourse), they lived in an area who wasnt attractive for the others, so they manage to live in a relative peace, without too much interference. And anyway, Goths was a mix of several peoples, Dacians, Sarmatians and Germans, formed around III century AD and with even a Roman influence.

[Centurion-Macro]

I suppose to a lesser extent, the Saxon raiders who attacked Britain were a great menace. As troops were removed from Britain and sent to other places, the Saxons became a great menace and used to destroy many coastal towns and villages. The Roman's were forced to build a fleet and The Saxon Shore Fort network to repel the invaders. But that drew manpower away from the already depleted Roman forces in Britain and so the Scotti and Picts upped their attacks on Hadrian's wall, and in 367 AD the wall was overrun by Picts, Scotti and the Saxons. The Roman beat them off, but many men were killed and I think it was because of the Saxons who drew manpower away from Hadrians wall.