No history discussions?

  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • #1
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
I'm a bit disappointed that no actual threads on history have been started.

Some intersting periods to discuss would be the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries with the barbarian invasions that helped to bring down the Roman Empire. We have the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, the Vandals, Sueves and Alans. Britain fell to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, then there were the Franks & Burgundians in Gaul.

Which brings us to one of my favorite periods, the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages). The Anglo-Saxon Bretwaldas - Aelle of Sussex, Ceawlin, Aethelberht, Raedwald.

It's my nap time, but I'l post more later. Anyone interested in these time periods?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
I'm definitely interested!
I read some time ago a book which concerned the time period 300-700 in the western part of the Roman Empire, and that had as its focus the elements of continuity in life there during and beyond the breakdown of the Empire and the establishment of Germanic kingdoms.
Quite an interesting book..
 
  • #3
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
arildno said:
I'm definitely interested!
Super! After my nap I will hopefully have some memory restored.

I read some time ago a book which concerned the time period 300-700 in the western part of the Roman Empire, and that had as its focus the elements of continuity in life there during and beyond the breakdown of the Empire and the establishment of Germanic kingdoms.
Quite an interesting book..
Do you remember the name of the book?
 
  • #4
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
Evo said:
Super! After my nap I will hopefully have some memory restored.

Do you remember the name of the book?
I'll have it by tomorrow; it was by some Australian historian, I think.
 
  • #5
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Is the Dark Ages your favorite period because it was a transition between the slave society of the Roman Empire and the feudal states of Europe, or for some other reason? (Am I oversimplifying?) Was it when Rome was divided into a Western Empire and an Eastern Empire, or was that even before the D.A.?
 
  • #6
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
The sacking of Rome by King Alaric of the Visigoths is a good story by Procopius of Caesarea. The Visigoths had the city of Rome surrounded, the inhabitants of Rome were cut off, but after a long and fruitless siege Alaric realized it was going to take too long and be too difficult to capture the city so he made a plan. He decided on what basically amounted to a human "trojan horse"

He told the Romans that he gave up and would be moving out. He chose 300 of his youngest warriors to present to the Roman nobles as slaves, of course buttering the Romans up and telling them how great they were (the Romans of course believed this :rolleyes: ).

Alaric instructed the Visigoth youth that they were to obey their new masters without argument and serve them eagerly to gain their new master's trust. On a predetermined day, at noon, (a time when Roman Nobles normally napped), they were to head to the Solarian gate, kill the guards and open the gates so that Alaric's men could invade the city.

The plan went off without a hitch and Rome was sacked.

The Emperor at the time, Honorius, having heard of the barbarians initial approach on Rome, fled to the city of Ravenia. When Rome was destroyed by Alaric, a servant handed him a message stating that "Rome (Roma) was dead". The Emperor cried out "but I just fed him"! (the Emperor had a pet chicken named Rome) The servant realizing the emperor's mistake advised him that it was the city of Rome, not his pet chicken that had died. The emperor was greatly relieved saying "Oh, I thought it was my pet chicken Roma that had perished". :uhh:
 
Last edited:
  • #7
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Interesting, to say the least! I'd never heard this story.
 
  • #8
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
EnumaElish said:
Interesting, to say the least! I'd never heard this story.
That's what makes learning history so much fun. I'm hoping we can bring some fun, interesting historical information and discuss the accuracy of what the historical writer wrote.

Is the Dark Ages your favorite period because it was a transition between the slave society of the Roman Empire and the feudal states of Europe, or for some other reason? (Am I oversimplifying?) Was it when Rome was divided into a Western Empire and an Eastern Empire, or was that even before the D.A.?
What makes the era appealing is the lack of information about the period, although a lot more information has surfaced in recent years.

I'm interested in how civilization spiraled downward so quickly and so much culture and knowledge was lost for so long. It's also a time of myth and legend, King Arthur and Camelot for instance. It was a time of viking raids. :devil:
 
  • #9
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Some questions that I wish I had the answers for:

-- Had Rome become Christian by the the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries?
-- Were all the barbarians non-Christian?
-- If Rome was Christian, then the barbarians were probably anti-Christian. Is that right?
-- Was there an Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople at that point?
-- What about Germans (Teutons)? Didn't they have a hand in defeating Rome? Remember General Maximus "Gladiator" Meridius, commander of the Felix Legion, "General of the West" (?), who was defeated in a forest in Germania, as depicted by the first scene of the movie? See also:
Wallace Breem's modern classic Eagle in the Snow (published in 1970 said:
 
  • #10
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
EnumaElish said:
-- Had Rome become Christian by the the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries?

Probably a majority were Christians by the 4th. Constantine converted then.

-- Were all the barbarians non-Christian?

The Goths were converted to Arian Christianity, in which Jesus is divine, but not God the Son.

-- If Rome was Christian, then the barbarians were probably anti-Christian. Is that right?

No. See above. And it wasn'nt mostly about religion at that point anyway.

-- Was there an Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople at that point?

Constantine built a new capital on the Bosporus, called, natch, Constantinople. He appointed his two sons to be Caesars at Rome and Constantinople and divided the administrations into an Eastern and Western section of the Empire. Subsequent emperors continued this, and their came to be co-emperors ruling in the two cities. When the last western emperor, Honorius, was overthrown by Theoderic and his Ostrogoths, only the Eatern empire remained, and it evolved on its own thereafter. Italy was periodically reconquered by the Eastern empire and then lost again.

-- What about Germans (Teutons)? Didn't they have a hand in defeating Rome? Remember General Maximus "Gladiator" Meridius, commander of the Felix Legion, "General of the West" (?), who was defeated in a forest in Germania, as depicted by the first scene of the movie?

You can't depend on movie history, that was fictional. The Romans did lose a legion at the Teutoberger Wald, but that was very early; centuries of successful empire followed it. The tribes that overthrew the western empire and then fought among themselves were the Goths (east and west), Franks, and Vandals, all germanic in the broad sense but not teutons. The Visigoths wound up in Spain, the Vandals in North Africa, and the Ostrogoths and Franks duked it out with each other and the Eastern empire in Italy.
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
21,950
8,984
Evo said:
Which brings us to one of my favorite periods, the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages).
Yeah, the dark ages are fun - plagues, Catholicism, feudalism, no science to speak of. Fun!

I am a big fan of the Renaissance, though...
I'm interested in how civilization spiraled downward so quickly and so much culture and knowledge was lost for so long.
Was there any "civilization" to speak of, prior to the Middle Ages in northern europe, besides when Rome had some control?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Smurf
396
3
russ_watters said:
Was there any "civilization" to speak of, prior to the Middle Ages in northern europe, besides when Rome had some control?
Of course there was. :rofl:
 
  • #13
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
Evo:
The book I was talking about is "The Roman Empire Divided, 400-700" by John Moorhead.
Here's a link:
http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0582251117,00.html [Broken]

SelfAdjoint:
It is very improbable that the majority of the population was Christianized at the time of Constantine the Great.
Throughout his reign, he sacrificed to Jupiter in front of his army (a VERY important symbolic function); the simplest explanation is that he catered to the ordinary soldier's piety, even though Constantine himself was Christian.

The sway of Christianity increased through the 4th century, and by the latter half of the century, a significant enough proportion of the population was Christianized so that Theodosius could declare Christianity as state religion in 395 AD.
Considerable portions of the citizenry remained heathen, however, and the ultimate victory of Christianity should not be placed before the middle 5th century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,185
5
It always seems strange to me that everyone assumes that after the roman empire, all trace of culture, civilisation, art, and skill were lost. Just because the people did't make anything quite as obvious and lasting as say an amphitheatre, doesn't mean they were all savages.
Just take a look at some of the treasures found at Sutton Hoo and see how much skill and workmanship went into them: http://www.wuffings.co.uk/MySHPages/SHPage.html
Or how about the Lindisfarne Gospels: http://www.durham.anglican.org/reference/lindisfarne/johninitial.jpg [Broken]

These things are works of art that to me rival anything the Romans made.
I'm not claiming that various things weren't lost with the fall of Rome, but I don't think the dark ages were quite as dark as people make out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
matthyaouw said:
These things are works of art that to me rival anything the Romans made.
I'm not claiming that various things weren't lost with the fall of Rome, but I don't think the dark ages were quite as dark as people make out.
They definitely were not, and most professional historians would agree with you.
 
  • #16
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
matthyaouw said:
It always seems strange to me that everyone assumes that after the roman empire, all trace of culture, civilisation, art, and skill were lost. Just because the people did't make anything quite as obvious and lasting as say an amphitheatre, doesn't mean they were all savages.
It was the quality of life that took a huge step backwards in the Dark Ages. That's what is so interesting. They lost a lot of things like running water, indoor plumbing, bath houses, all of the social refinements and advanced feats of engineering that the Romans had brought with them.

Just take a look at some of the treasures found at Sutton Hoo and see how much skill and workmanship went into them: http://www.wuffings.co.uk/MySHPages/SHPage.html
Or how about the Lindisfarne Gospels: http://www.durham.anglican.org/reference/lindisfarne/johninitial.jpg [Broken]
It is believed that this was the tomb of Raedwald.

These things are works of art that to me rival anything the Romans made.
I'm not claiming that various things weren't lost with the fall of Rome, but I don't think the dark ages were quite as dark as people make out.
The Dark Ages is a very interesting period. Yes, they still had art mainly in the form of metal work, and many other things, a lot which I mentioned earlier, have just been discovered in recent years. There were no refined sculptures as was seen in Roman or Greek cultures though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
selfAdjoint said:
The tribes that overthrew the western empire and then fought among themselves were the Goths (east and west), Franks, and Vandals, all germanic in the broad sense
What does everyone think was the problem with Germanic tribes, in the broadest sense? Why couldn't they play peacefully among themselves or read and translate books, instead of starting a trail of fire and blood of historic proportions? (This happened more than once, you know?)
 
  • #18
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
EnumaElish said:
What does everyone think was the problem with Germanic tribes, in the broadest sense? Why couldn't they play peacefully among themselves or read and translate books, instead of starting a trail of fire and blood of historic proportions? (This happened more than once, you know?)
The barbarian invasions during the 4th and 5th centuries was propelled by the Huns coming chasing after them. Effectively, the Germanic tribes fled and fought their way into Roman territory..
 
  • #19
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
EnumaElish said:
What does everyone think was the problem with Germanic tribes, in the broadest sense? Why couldn't they play peacefully among themselves or read and translate books, instead of starting a trail of fire and blood of historic proportions? (This happened more than once, you know?)
Initially, it was the Huns that migrated into the Visigoth lands (present day Romania) that forced the Visigoths in the 4th century to flee into the eastern Roman Empire. Then in the 5th century Attila's forces made things much worse, and they also invaded Roman territory.

It was the shifting of Roman troops from Britain to defend Italy's borders that allowed the Angles, Saxons & Jutes to take over Britain in 407. It also left a large area of the western Roman frontier poorly defended which allowed Germanic tribes to easily overrun the western provinces.

edit:I see Arildno beat me to it. That's what I get for stopping to eat breakfast during my post. :tongue:
 
  • #20
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
It should, however, be pointed out, that a very common, and SUCCESSFUL policy of the Roman Empire during the 4th century was to allow barbarian tribes to settle in border districts (often with low-quality arable lands) in return for military services rendered.
That is, most of the Roman troops that valiantly (and often successfully) fought against new barbarian invaders, was recently integrated "barbarians" (laeti).
Effectively, therefore, barbarians cherished inclusion in a FUNCTIONAL empire because of the benefits in terms of lands and trade that this gave them.

The disintegration of distinctly Roman rule cannot be solely be placed on the heads of Germanic tribes, but equally much on the Roman nobility who no longer bothered taking an active part in ruling the empire, but withdrew to their huge estates, latifundia, and sought to make themselves local overlords there, at the EXPENSE of the central, imperial authority.
 
  • #21
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Evo said:
Initially, it was the Huns that migrated into the Visigoth lands (present day Romania) that forced the Visigoths in the 4th century to flee into the eastern Roman Empire. Then in the 5th century Attila's forces made things much worse, and they also invaded Roman territory.
The domino effect was operational even back then, apparently.
arildno said:
The disintegration of distinctly Roman rule cannot be solely be placed on the heads of Germanic tribes, but equally much on the Roman nobility who no longer bothered taking an active part in ruling the empire, but withdrew to their huge estates, latifundia, and sought to make themselves local overlords there, at the EXPENSE of the central, imperial authority.
In some sense, feudalism had started with these latifundia, hadn't it?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
EnumaElish said:
In some sense, feudalism had started with these latifundia, hadn't it?
Precisely; there was a continuous evolution from land-owners primarily oriented towards city life (the ancient world) to local overlords sitting within their small, fortified estates in the countryside.

First and foremost, the disintigration of the Empire was a disintegration of the urban culture back to a house-hold economy in the countrysides.
 
  • #23
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
This is how it seems to me:

If the Romans were smart and caring about future generations, they would try to integrate Germanic tribes into the empire to the greatest possible extent. Then, when Huns attacked, Germans would have defended Rome instead of destroying it! (Even Huns could not have been stopped at the border, German resistance would have given the attackers time to think twice whether the prize would be worth their heavy losses. In return, the Roman army could unite forces with Germans to push Huns back to wherever they came from.) Instead, Germans just fled and stampeded Rome, apparently because Rome hadn't given them a reason to not to.
 
  • #24
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
EnumElish said:
If the Romans were smart and caring about future generations, they would try to integrate Germanic tribes into the empire to the greatest possible extent.
Actually Rome had allowed a number of people of Germanic origin to occupy Roman territory, mostly as farmers and mercenaries.

Then, when Huns attacked, Germans would have defended Rome instead of destroying it! (Even Huns could not have been stopped at the border, German resistance would have given the attackers time to think twice whether the prize would be worth their heavy losses.
Here you lost me. These aren't really Germans, so to speak. Yes the Huns drove the Germanic tribes into Roman territory. But it was the Visigoths under Alaric that sacked Rome, not the Huns, but this was due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.
 
  • #25
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Evo said:
Here you lost me. These aren't really Germans, so to speak. Yes the Huns drove the Germanic tribes into Roman territory. But it was the Visigoths under Alaric that sacked Rome, not the Huns, but this was due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.
My point was that if the Romans were smart, they would integrate the Goths as part of the Empire in some formal sense. If that had happened, Goths would be there to take a hit for Rome when the Huns attacked. Instead, it appears like the Romans stupidly alienated the Goths by killing them in the thousands, and when the Huns pushed, the Goths did not have a reason to identify with and fight for Rome. They just "rolled over" toward the Roman heartland and squashed it.
 
  • #26
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Evo said:
but this was due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.
Is this the massacre that the movie Gladiator alludes to? (Romans go after Maximus's family to rape, murder and burn the entire village.) Remember, Maximus is a Spaniard -- a barbarian.
 
  • #27
Evo
Mentor
23,924
3,261
EnumaElish said:
Is this the massacre that the movie Gladiator alludes to? (Romans go after Maximus's family to rape, murder and burn the entire village.) Remember, Maximus is a Spaniard -- a barbarian.
I never saw Gladiator because I hate what's his name, the actor. I believe that the movie was supposed to take place during the reign of Commodus which was 180-192, much too early, Rome was sacked in 410.
 
  • #28
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Evo said:
I never saw Gladiator because I hate what's his name, the actor.
Russell Crowe. Is the animosity personal (or reciprocal)? :smile:
Evo said:
I believe that the movie was supposed to take place during the reign of Commodus which was 180-192, much too early, Rome was sacked in 410.
And Rome did not become a republic "in the end," as the movie depicts.

What do you think about whether Roma could have turned the Goths into willing defenders of the Empire against the real outsiders, the Huns?
 
  • #29
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
What do you think about whether Roma could have turned the Goths into willing defenders of the Empire against the real outsiders, the Huns?

But that's exactly what they did try (although the Huns didn't show up in Italy till later). But the Roman army in the 4th centrury was largely composed of Goths and other barbarian troops. There were supposed to be Sarmatian troops in Britain! Alaric was an army commander, and sacking Rome was a retailiation for punishments.
 
  • #30
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Evo said:
it was the Visigoths under Alaric that sacked Rome [...] due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.
selfAdjoint said:
Alaric was an army commander, and sacking Rome was a retailiation for punishments.
Does anyone know why they were being punished for? Massacring families sounds a little extreme if we are talking about army punishment for untied sandals or sword on the wrong side.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,867
4,840
I'm a bit disappointed that no actual threads on history have been started.

Some intersting periods to discuss would be the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries with the barbarian invasions that helped to bring down the Roman Empire. We have the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, the Vandals, Sueves and Alans. Britain fell to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, then there were the Franks & Burgundians in Gaul.

Which brings us to one of my favorite periods, the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages). The Anglo-Saxon Bretwaldas - Aelle of Sussex, Ceawlin, Aethelberht, Raedwald.

Anyone interested in these time periods?
I am quite interested in these periods. I think we need to 'resurrect' this thread. Shame to leave it dormant for so long. :biggrin:

Coincidentally, just last night, I purchased "A History of the Middle Ages" by Joseph Dahmus. The book was copyrighted in 1968, republished in 1995, and was discounted to $8. The first Chapter is "Rome and its Decline" (with reference to Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) and the second is "The Rise and Triumph of Christianity".

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire

From Our Editors
The thousand years of history that lie between the twilight of the Roman Empire and the dawn of the Renaissance have come to be referred to (amorphously) as the Middle Ages; but in this study, the author makes a convincing case for ascribing wider boundaries to the era, tracing the continuity of medieval times with both ancient and modern history. With scholarly insight, Dahmus discusses such topics as the decline of the Empire; the triumph of Christianity; the turmoil of a Europe besieged by barbarians and Moslems; the emergence of nations; the rise and fall of dynasties; the development of the feudal system; the Crusades; and the founding of guilds, towns, and universities. In covering these issues, he gives us a new appreciation of how classical, Christian, and barbarian influences intermingled to form the basis of an emerging Western civilization. A cogent analysis that illumines the complex events, personalities, and events of the time.

From the Publisher
Joseph Dahmus recounts the decline of the Roman Empire, the triumph and ascendancy of Christianity, the turmoil of Western Europe besieged by barbarians and Moslem, the emergence of new nations, the rise and fall of kings and dynasties, the development of the feudal system, the waging of the Crusades, and the founding of guilds, cities and universities. In so doing, he gives the reader a new appreciation of how classical, Christian and barbarian influences mingled with each other, and with other elements, throughout the Middle Ages to form the basis of an emergent Western civilization. And he offers many insights that differ from the generally accepted ones: For instance, when discussing the disruption of the unity of the Mediterranean world in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., and the prevailing view that this was mainly caused by the barbarian invaders, he argues that these invaders were in fact largely absorbed without destroying that unity, and that the real break between the ancient and medieval worlds came much later, in the seventh and eighth centuries, with the rise of Islam.

The book's wide scope is of special pertinence and value. Because of his conviction that the medieval era can itself claim wider boundaries that those traditionally assigned to it, the author is able to trace the continuity of the Middle Ages not only with ancient but also with modern history.

This may go well with another book I started reading - Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

A very good history of Chrisitanity is Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History, by James Carroll.

I am quite interested in early human history prior to 0 CE, as well as what happened subsequently. Another good book is Historical Atlas of Central Europe Paul Robert Magocsi. The invasions from the east rippled all the way to France!

Another book that seems interesting is Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World by Hugh Pope. The influence of Turkic peoples from Central Asia has been significant. Just look at the Ottoman Empire.

Dahmus has written a number of interesting books including:

Seven Medieval Kings, "biographies of Justinian, Harun al-Rashid, Charlemagne, Henry II, Frederick II, Louis IX, and Louis XI--men who controlled areas of the world where rulers shaped the human community."

Seven Decisive Battles of the Middle Ages

Seven Medieval Historians

Also from Dahmus

Joseph Dahmus said:
"During the Merovingian centuries when most kings were weak, and brutal men fought over power and booty, ordinary folk, as well as many who were not so ordinary, again found themselves in desparate need of protection. The result was the appearance and wide extension of a practice called commendation. This involved a formal act by which one person offered his services, together with his lands if he had any, to a stronger man in return for his protection. The individual peasant might ask a more powerful man in his neighborhood to accept him and his holding and take them under his protection. That man in turn might approach one stronger than himself, perhaps the count or duke, and request a similar kind of protection. Given the weakness of kings and the turbulence of the times, most men stood in need of protection, from the meanest peasant to members of the landed aristocracy."
I still have to read through Dahmus's book but the quote would seem to imply the rise of feudalism.

Some background-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian

After the Merovingian kings came the Carolingian kings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian


In historiography, the term Dark Ages or Dark Age most commonly refers to the European Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 to 1000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

The early part of the 'Dark Ages' corresponds to significant migrations and invasion of peoples from northern Europe and Central Asia into the Mediterranean and Central Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

But there has always been pressure and tension among peoples.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Anttech
228
0
It could be argued that the Roman Empire never fell, it transformed into something else, the Catholic Church.

Although many people call the Eastern Roman empire just that, it was separate from the western empire in Language, culture, ideals. It was based around the Hellenic culture, rather than Latin Culture. Both were intertwined, but both were different.
 
  • #33
nannoh
202
0
It could be argued that the Roman Empire never fell, it transformed into something else, the Catholic Church.

Although many people call the Eastern Roman empire just that, it was separate from the western empire in Language, culture, ideals. It was based around the Hellenic culture, rather than Latin Culture. Both were intertwined, but both were different.

I'm surprized that Sparticus doesn't get more mention with regard to Roman history. His contributions to history and to the initial cracks in the downfall of Rome are major. He is an enigmatic figure who spoke the many languages of the slaves. He is thought to have been Slavic (which is the Roman name given the people of the Russian Steppes meaning "slave"). How did this man win the hearts of slaves from so many different lands? In the first place, how did he communicate with them when there was so much oppression going on? He must have performed some remarkable actions to have word of his name spread to the slave galleys and prisons of Rome.

Does anyone know of an accurate record of Sparticus? Something written about him, his rebellion and his times (73bc)?
 
  • #34
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,867
4,840
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus - which has Spartacus born in Thrace, so he could have been Bulgar or Slav.

Spartacus: leader of an army of runaway slaves that infested Italy in 73-71 BCE. He was defeated by the Roman general Crassus.

http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus.html

Plutarch on Spartacus
http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus_t01.html

http://www.unrv.com/roman-republic/spartacus.php

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/spartacus.html

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons2_n2/spartacus.html

I always wonder these days, which site has the original text, and which sites are copies.

Now this looks promising!

Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/papers/subject/subject/romanhist.html
 
  • #35
Anttech
228
0
which has Spartacus born in Thrace, so he could have been Bulgar or Slav.
Thrace was Hellenic in those days (as it is now), hmmm. In fact most of the Balkans was.
 

Suggested for: No history discussions?

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
853
Replies
0
Views
202
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
430
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
343
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
382
Replies
0
Views
229
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
869
  • Last Post
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
170
Top