I've just been given all eight volumes of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
but i don't know what to look at first, i just want to pass the time with something interresting...
any suggestions?
Printable View
I've just been given all eight volumes of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
but i don't know what to look at first, i just want to pass the time with something interresting...
any suggestions?
8 volumes?
i've been plodding through them for the last couple of months and i have the unabridged version. so difficult to find, and the version i have only has six volumes. don't tell me he wrote more? the thing is lenghty. i'm on chapter 50 and dude jibber jabbers a lot and writes these convoluted sentences that skirt with dancing around what he's trying to allude to. i know it was the writing style of the time for any man of letters in england but i'd rather have a little less 'wuthering heights' style in my history and more bluntness.
mine has maps
If your interested in the rise and fall of the empire you might find this interesting as well.
I was very interested in the events of Teutonberg Wald (9AD) and I found some books that deal with the topic that I thought might be entertaining for those interested in the Roman Empire.
(Teutonberg Wald is one of the most important events in history. Without the events in Teutonberg forest in 9AD there would be no Germanic dialects as the people would have been subjugated by by the Romans like the peoples of Gaul. There would be no Germanic peoples to influence the evolution of english language and no Saxons to invade Brittan. Infact, there would be no Vandals to sack Rome some 400+ years later.)
The books I found most interesting when looking into this topic were:
History of the Art of War Within the Framework of Political History Volume2 -by Hans Delbruck
The Great Battles of Antiquity a Strategic and Tactical Guide to Great Battles that Shaped the Development of War - By Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose JR.
Book One has a nice overview of the empire, and is probably a good place to start. Personally, I'm going for straight though, in order. On Book Two at the moment, got a bit bogged down in all that blither about Christianity.
yeah Teatonburg forrest (Wald ) is indeed interresting '' Give me back my legions ! '', never thought about the fact that it was a part of the cause of the sacking of Rome, good thinking about that one...I would also read about Ceasar, I think he was one of the most brilliant generals of al time, which explainse how he managed to conquer gaul in 9 years, with not a single motorized thing in his army
somehow caesar is all ways remembered for his gallic campaign
for me he is the greatest general ever because of his victories over his roman opponents , he is the only general who had never beaten and he is the first man in history to rule the lands and seas from the english channel to parthia
all the emperors were called "caesar" after him
yes i know , there was before him one , alexi but he is another story
:book:
Before Ceasar there was Lucius Cornelius Sulla who was likely Ceasar's role model even though publicly Ceasar is known to have accused Sulla of buying the Consulship and when Sulla threatened him Ceasar is said to have replied "Considering that you bought it, you are absolutely right to call it your own.” But just because they had one public argument does not mean Ceasar did not secretly admire the accomplishments of Sulla and Pompey was given the title of Magnus(great) by Sulla. Before Ceasar said the "die has been cast" and marched on Rome Sulla did so. Sulla becomes the first dictator not to step down after his 6 month term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayven1
sulla was a great roman general , yes , he ruled rome for several years , but (a big but) he did not beat mithridates and he did not cocquered all his enemies like caesar did
sulla had sertorius is spain
sulla did not have a vision of conquering the world , his main goal was the restoration of the old government
Sulla was indeed the first dictator, but the populace didn't exactly love him..as a matter of fact it were dark day's for Rome. so i've read.
Ceasar on the other hand was loved, for his victory's but also for the way he ruled.
and I don't think Sulla was really loved for starting the civil war with Marius, although there is no doubt that he too was a brilliant general.
however I thought Ceasar beiing a cousin of Marius ( yes the same as above, and the Reformer from the game )didn't see Sulla as a role model, I would say he hated Sulla because that was the man who killes his uncle.
BTW correct me if I'm wrong here. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
Sulla did not kill Marius. Marius was jealous of Sulla. When Sulla wanted to take an army east to fight the King of Pontus Marius convinced the Tribune Sulpicius Rufas to force a vote in the peoples assembly that would give command of Sulla's army to Marius. Sulla had already left Rome with the army and upon hearing the news gathered his commanders and convinced them to join him in marching on Rome. Sulla marches on Rome with 6 legions and Marius flees. Sulla forces the senate and the peoples assembly(Comitia) to to do what he wants and leaves Rome in the hands of the newly elected Consul L. Cornelius Cinna. Now that Sulla has left Rome Cinna betrays him and allies himself with the outlaw Marius. Marius's forces retake the city and Marius is elected Consul along with Cinna. Marius now an old man dies shortly thereafter. Sulla eventually comes back to Italy rich with the spoils of his war in Asia and finds allies who assist him in his second march on Rome including Gnaeus Pomeius the younger(soon to get the title the great given to him by Sulla) and Marcus Crassus.
Ceasar has a brush with the dictator that nearly ends his life. Sulla hated Ceasar because he felt Ceasar was to much like Marius. What Sulla did'nt realize is that Ceasar was not at all like Marius. Ceasar was just like Sulla and yearned for the same things. Sulla condemns Ceasar to death because Cinna, the consul who betrayed him after he left Rome the first time, nominated Ceasar as Priest of Jupiter(Flamen Dialis). Ceasar left Rome slipping by the soldiers sent to kill him. Sulla eventually pardons Ceasar but comments on how much he thinks Ceasar is just like Marius.(Gotta look up the phrase. Can't remember now.) Sulla does however order Ceasar to divorce Cinna's daughter but Ceasar refuses. For this Sulla confiscates Cinna's daughters dowery.
From all of this we can see that Sulla is really the model Ceasar follows. You don't have to like a person to lust for what they have and study how they achieved it. Ceasar wanted to be just like Sulla and his actions mirror it. Ceasar himself says that he did not mean to emulate Sulla but his actions prove otherwise. Ceasar could fool the people but he could not fool the elite into thinking he was any better or his actions were any different than those of Sulla. Ceasar declared himself Patron of the people.. The people loved Ceasar because Ceasar would hand out money and food to them. Could you imagine a presidental canidate that at his election rallies gave out money to the potential voters? He'd be popular too I bet.
To answer one other person who posted here:
Ceasar did defeat all his enemies but he was not the only Roman to do so. Octavian is by far the most successful and first true Emperor of Rome.
"I see many Marius' in him" Talking to his trusted General, Just after letting him go.
Rayven1: I agree Lucius Cornelius, certianly hated Gauis Juilius.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla,
Real name Lucius; Surname Cornelius; Family branch, or nickname Sulla.
He was certianly not the first Dictator of Roma. There is a long line of them, including Marius himself.
The Emporers did not call themselves Ceasar.
They where Augustus Ceasar. You have to take the two words together to understand the meaning.
In truth, Augustus Caesar Augustus, or Octaivian, was not an Emporer, but a First Citizen.
Ceasar, pronounced, in Latin, (Latino), kaye-SARR. Went on to mean, a leader, or a King.
Where as Augustus means "Reverred one".
NOTE: Latino means a Latin, Someone from Romanus Latin origin, it does not mean a Hispanic from some place in the America's, as some like to claim.
The Best example to explain this, is the "Rule of four".
Two Augustii, or Augustus Caesar, and Two under-studies, Caesar.
Caesar in later writing, tends to lean more to King. Whereas, Augustus is an Emporer.
Remembering, that after Constantines offical Acceptance of Christanity, the Emporer's are also head of the Roman Church on Earth. With Power to appoint popes. Yes, Even the vatican.
Now days Caesar means Emporer in most general language. From Russian (Tzar) to German(Kaiser).
My Apolegies to all, i am on my way to a meeting and called in. Please forgive spelling, and it is just a general run down as i haven't time like i use too, and a full run down and proper explaination would take a page or so.
fenir
(back and Forth)
PS: I want to go back in time to uni.
what a mass
marius never became a dictator , sulla was the first dictator (in 82) since 201
marius wife was caesar aunt
caeser really saw in sulla model but just in the way he took power
again , sulla did not finished
all his enemies and not conquered mithridates
all the emperors took the name caesar with the title augustus
caesar was a name that became a title , augustus was a title that became a name
give me another example for a name , just a name that became a symbol of emperors , kings and even sha's
augustus successes came from only one thing - he was caesar only relative
caesar veterans choose octavianus as their leader just because caesar mentioned him in his will
all of augustus secseses were diplomatic , he was no general at all , he did not came to power by himself but again , on his adoptive father body
augustus was a great man but not a successful soldier , he lost some battles only to be saved by agrippa
please , there is only one history
:book: :book: :book:
i just learnt that the roman army (imperial or rebublic) used the pilum in a running matter, not as in RTW where your soldiers stops, picks the pilum, throws it and then begins the charge, instead they did the whole pilum throw in one (swift cant be right?) motion while running in formation. if this is true then wow, talk about skill :bow: anyway there the link where i found it:The Century's Charge
Really sorry if this is a bit out of the subject, because I have no idea about this part of the world's history, but what would be today's Armenia? What part did they take in the history of the Roman history?
Thaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by romeo_longsword
hi
armenia , from about 55 bce to the fall of the roman empire was a buffer state to separate the dominions of the romans and the parthians and then the persians
the two civilizations fought for centuries to control armenia
the armenians managed to stay independent because of their strategic location
:book:
Thanks caesar44.
Would you know what would be today's Armenia? Or what is Armenia's Land today?
Thanks again.
R
Caesar was defeated both at Gergovia and Dyrrhachium, which definitely classify as "beatings". His first expedition to Britain can also arguably be considered a failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Scipio Africanus the Elder laid the foundation for the Roman empire, fought one of the best generals of the ancient world, and was never defeated in battle.
His impact on Roman folklore was so powerful that more than a 100 years after his death, Caesar had to think off a stratagem to keep his soldiers from being demoralized during the fighting against Scipio's distant descendant in Africa.
Julius Caesar - A biography
Scipio Africanus - A biography
I never said Marius became or was a Dictator. "caeser really saw in sulla model but just in the way he took power" -- My point exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
"give me another example for a name , just a name that became a symbol of emperors , kings and even sha's" --- Augustus. The honor given to Octavian. August - adj. Inspiring awe or admiration; majestic: the august presence of the monarch. Venerable for reasons of age or high rank.
I agree that it does not ring through time the way the name Ceasar does though but you have to understand why Ceasars name is so popular.
Ceasar declared himself patron of the people! Ceasar started handing out money and food to the poor. This has gotten more then one person killed before Ceasar.(I do believe a senator was beat to death with the chairs that the patrons who were watching his speech were sitting on and his body was thrown in the Tiber) Remember that there was no such thing as a "fair" election the way we have them today. Your patron gave you food and money and in exchange you agreed to vote for him. Remember the power of the mob(as in lots of poor people not organized crime ~:) ) Ceasar appealed directly to the mob upsetting the elite and breaking from tradition. While the elite hated Ceasar for this the people loved him. The final straw was asking the people to elect him dictator for life unlike... The people loved Ceasar and found the leadership of the dictator to be more desirable than the empty promises of the republic. From this we can see the triggers that cause the civil unreset when the senate conspirators killed Ceasar. The Liberators as the senators called themselves thought they were doing the people a favor. The Senators could not see past their own station and could not associate the popularity of Ceasar with the failings of the republic.
-"augustus successes came from only one thing - he was caesar only relative
caesar veterans choose octavianus as their leader just because caesar mentioned him in his will
all of augustus secseses were diplomatic , he was no general at all , he did not came to power by himself but again , on his adoptive father body
augustus was a great man but not a successful soldier , he lost some battles only to be saved by agrippa"-
One could argue that Augustus the most important leader in Roman history. First Augustus learned well from the mistakes of Sulla and Ceasar and made good use of the lessons he learned. Like Sulla and Ceasar before him Octavian too marched on Rome securing the city and forcing his will upon the senate. Octavian was a general but that is not his main claim to fame or even what he was best at. Augustus was a master politican. Augustus was a man who realized that it was not only important to defeat the enemy in the field but it was important to address the underlying issues that caused the problems in the first place. More on Augustus another time since I have to leave work but he is seriously the most successful Roman in history if we look at all the things he achieved.
(BTW: I'm hoping this is still a friendly conversation. I senced a bit of irritation there. I'm enjoying myself talking about this topic.)
hi rayven 1
talking about roman history make my wife crazy...
now , we agree that augustus was the greatest roman emperor (think about tragan who actually had the name optimus - the greatest of them all)
but we have differences about who was the greatest roman ever
caesar had many things that augustus did not have
1. a military genius
2. the ability to look at things with perspective (he did not took himself to seriously)
3. a philosophic/literaturic ability (his books , his responses to cato)
4. caesar acted many times as a gambler , and always with success , augustus on the other hand when his general lost in 9 ad decided to bring the roman expand to an end
and so on
:book:
1. in the bottom line caesar took gergovia so what are we talking aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Strategy
2. dyrrahachium was just a prolog for farsalus and we all know what happened there
3. a first ever expedition to britania and you call it a failure , caesar achieved exactly what he wants - to cut off the supply line from britania to gaul
when we talk about loosing a battle we should look at the outcome - crassus lost it in 53 bc , varus in 9 ad , but caesar always managed to get out of it with the upper hand
i think that scipio is one of the 3 great roman republicans ever (like momsen)
but we should remember that he beaten hanibaal 17 years after his italian expedition , in this 17 years the punics lost everything they had (italy , hispania , sicily most of africa and so on)
hanibaal of 201 is not hanibaal of 218 , wars are not football matchs (hanibaal vs scipio ets) to say that scipio won the second punic war is to ignore the achievements of fabius , marcelus and scipio own father and uncle
history ia not so simple
:book: :book:
In fact, he never did succeed in taking Gergovia.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
That was quite an ingenious answer. The loss of 32 standards, being forced to retreat into unfriendly territory, and the near entrapment and destruction of Domitius's forces says otherwise. So does Caesar, for that matter; even he was ready to admit that Dyrrhachium could have been the end of him.Quote:
2. dyrrahachium was just a prolog for farsalus and we all know what happened there
Question: If the first mission was such a success, then why did he have to go there again the year after? Even the Ancient authors (e.g., Plutarch who I quote on the subject in the article above) didn't buy that one.Quote:
3. a first ever expedition to britania and you call it a failure , caesar achieved exactly what he wants - to cut off the supply line from britania to gaul
Of course I almost forgot Ruspina; as usual glossed over in the Commentaries, but yet another battle in which Caesar is badly beaten and only saved from total destruction by the incompetence of his opponents. The battle apparently made the term "Caesar's Luck" proverbial for a while (cf. Appian).
And while luck is a great attribute for a General to have, it doesn't change the fact that Caesar was beaten - repeatedly.
And, this affects the discussion how?Quote:
but we should remember that he beaten hanibaal 17 years after his italian expedition , in this 17 years the punics lost everything they had (italy , hispania , sicily most of africa and so on)
True enough; Hannibal of 202 was a vastly more experienced commander than Hannibal in 218, and thus a far better General when Scipio met him at Zama than he had been at Cannae.Quote:
hanibaal of 201 is not hanibaal of 218 ,
Ive Gibbons *masterpiece* ive read most of it that interested me, and didnt find it to hot to be honest, i havent read it all and its a shortened version but still massive, however i just couldnt get into it.
Ceasar (Gaius Julius) was truly a great person. But to call him the greatest of all is mistake. He was not a master tactician nor a master strategist. For example; In one battle with the Gauls (can't remember where or when, sorry) his troops were completly surrounded. What he did was the probably worst thing he could do - he charged in both directions. Yet he got extremley lucky and got away with it. The sole reason the Roman troops didn't flee is because they knew if they deserted their whole unit would be tortured and some even to death. That's the reason for the success of their armies. Strict discipline and organization that nowhere in the ancient world could be found.
Ceasar was only special that he was the first of many generals that would use his own troops against Rome herself. Yes, his own troops. He took every drifter, petty criminal, vagabund he could find and give them food, shelter and training. He made men out of nobody. After they were too old to fight he gave them land in newely conquered areas thus expanding Romes power directly. In the ancient Rome, if you didn't have land, you were nobody. That's why his troops were loyal to him instead of senate. Caeser inventioned pension plan... When he was called to Rome, and was specificaly told to leave his troops behind, he knew that his greatest rival general will kill him, the rest is history...
If you ask me what's the greatest person from Roman times, it has to be Cinncinatus. For those of you who don't know, he was a noble man that lived a life of simple folk. One day he got elected for the dictator to defend Rome from the enemy. He dropped his plow and took his sword. Once he banished the enemy, he still had a couple of months left to rule and govern all roman people as he wished. Since he had power over every life and death in Rome he could have ordered that everybody must be painted blue and walk the streets on their hands if he wanted so, and he could get away with it too. However, on the day of his victory he stepped down from the office of dictator and returned to his plow.
What made Rome itself great? It wasn't the fact that they ruled whole know world in their day... It was the fact that an etruscan king made the first census in the world. After they got rid of etruscans, Romans sweared that they'll never be under a king again. They used the census to know how many people Rome had, thus general public voting became a possibility. A truly organised republic. Of course the greeks had republic long before Rome was a collection of mud shacks, but Rome wasn't a simple collection of small bickering tribes. The ability for a state to be that highly organized is what made Rome great. Of course the Greece was conquered! Each greek army had 10 or more generals that could give out orders with equal importance. They needed a lengthy counsel each time to perform a simplest flank!
wow
caesar was a failure , he was beaten repeatedly , repeatedly
this is new history
caesar was beaten repeatedly...
you could have an argument until now
let us rewrite history - caesar did not conquered gaul , did not beat all of his enemies including pompey the great , did not took egypt with 3,000 man , did not invade britania (for the only time in 100 years) , did not rule an empire alone tor the first time ever , did not became a common hero as a dictator , he did not establish an empire for centuries , no no , he was beaten repeatedly by the gauls , by the britons , by ahenobarbus or calvinus or something like that and most of all - by the descendants of scipio in mauritania or numidia or africa
oh plutarch , cicero , saliustius , appianus , dio cassius , paterculus ets
did you not noticed that caesar was beaten tepeatedly
i rest my case
:wall:
by the way , caesar was kidnapped by pirates in 75 , you could add it to his defeats
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
LOL!! I liked the 75 pirates thing. I don't think anyone is trying to say Ceasar was a failure. Ceasar was a great general but he was bad at politics and had very little tact when it came to pushing his domestic agenda forward. He tried to change to much all at once. To Ceasar's credit he was a big success when it came to destroying the republic ~:)
" he did not establish an empire for centuries , no no "
Actually your right about that. Augustus established the principate. Ceasar mortally wounded the republic but Augustus finished it off and established the empire.
BTW: Someone said Augustus was no General. That person would be very wrong. Augustus was incharge of operations during the civil war and he beat Anthony , Sextus, Lepidus and the Liberators that remained. Regardless of reverses ultimate victory would always fall to Augustus. It was under Augustus that we see the Pax Roma.
Ok, I know someone will mention that while Augustus was emperor we see the destruction of 3 legions in Germany in 9AD under Varus. Remember that at this point Augustus had nothing really to do with the day to day operations of the military like he did during the civil war. Also remember that it was while Augustus was Emperor that Drusus subjegated the Germans in the first place and if it was'nt for Tiberius's fear of a Roman general controling troops for years on end Germanicus would have re-conquered Germany more than likely. If we look at the supply routes along the Lippe established by Germanicus we can see that he solved Drusus's supply problem and gave Aliso a line of supply and communication back to Vetera(Roman fort on the Rhine)
For those interested is some short quick stories on world history on the below sites that are easy to read
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/
http://www.thehistorynet.com/
Some that apply to this time persiod
http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blhannibalrome/
Hannibal's Epic March Across the Alps to Rome's Gates
In 218 bc, Hannibal Barca left Iberia to take the Second Punic War to Rome -- leading a disparate 84,000-man army.
By Daniel A. Fournie
A powerful army stood poised to cross the Ebro River into northern Spain, comprising soldiers from many peoples and cultures. Yet heterogeneous as the force was, most all of them were veterans of two decades of continuous warfare. It was a cohesive army built for speed and shock, and it answered to one man and one will -- Hannibal of Carthage. Swift light cavalry from the desert plains of Numidia screened the main body from curious or hostile eyes. Past this barrier the army stretched for miles: massed squadrons of Iberian cavalry and infantry; mercenary Balearic Islanders, trained from childhood in the art of the sling; archers; javelin men from the tribes of North Africa; mighty elephants plodding forward like mobile watchtowers; veteran Libyan spearmen -- more than 80,000 men all told.
Hannibal Barca of Carthage had brought this army to the banks of the Ebro in a fateful year, 218 bc. Ten years earlier, the Senate and people of Rome had forbidden the Carthaginians to cross that river on pain of war. Now nothing could please Hannibal more. The young general was resolved not only to cross the Ebro but also to conduct an epic march across the Pyrenees, on through Gaul, over the Alps and into Italy to threaten Rome itself.
and this one
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...oman/fall.aspx
Dreams of Empire
The Fall of the Roman Republic (Part 1)
by Addison Hart
"The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice." - Cicero
Introduction
Early in the first century BC, a Roman teenager from a minor patrician family visited Nicomedes, King of Bithynia. On his return trip to the city of Rome, the historian Plutarch tells us that “he was captured by pirates near the island of Pharmacusa. At that time there were large fleets of pirates, with ships large and small, infesting the seas everywhere.” When the boy was first captured, the pirates demanded that the family pay twenty gold talents for his safe return, but it was soon upped to a good fifty talents when the boy told them that they did not understand the importance of their new prisoner. The boy sent most of his companions away to earn the money, and he was left alone with the pirates. The boy was not at all intimidated by the villainous pirates, and for thirty-eight days he lived with them, and they grew to respect the boy, and they even began to grow a sort of bond with him. The boy once, in a jovial manner, said to them that he would one day have them crucified. They laughed with him then.
The boy was released when the pirates received their ransom money, and he made his way to the city of Miletus, governed by one Junius. There he demanded that the pirates be pursued, and they were surprised on their island and captured by the Romans. The boy then ordered Junius, governor of Asia, that the pirates “be brought forth and crucified.” So says Plutarch, “Thus he carried out the threat which he had often made to the pirates when he was their prisoner. They had never imagined that the boy should be taken seriously.” That boy was Julius Caesar.
can read more of the stories there
hhhmmm
nice
~:cheers:
Yes, as already pointed out. Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, and Ruspina are all Caesarian defeats. He won a lot too; but that doesn't change facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
And actually Caesar:
- Did not beat all of his enemies (The Pompeian faction survived Caesar; Aggrippa was the man who put an end to the last of them - Sextus Pompeius).
- Did not conquor Egypt (Cleopatra remained ruler of Egypt until it was annexed by Augustus).
- Did not conquor Brittania and basically achieved nothing worthwhile during his visit there (except get some good propaganda material).
- Did not rule an empire alone; the first thing he did upon his arrival in Rome was to call into being the Senate. His power as dictator was no greater than that wielded by Sulla (and actually less - Sulla simply killed those who opposed him; Caesar refused to do so).
- Did not establish an empire for centuries; Augustus was the one who did that.
- Was in fact rather unpopular at the time of his death (as Plutarch also notes). He was considerably more popular fater hid assasination than prior to it, and that was partly through the manipulations of Antonius.
Yes they did. Assuming you've read any of them, you'd notice too. :book:Quote:
oh plutarch , cicero , saliustius , appianus , dio cassius , paterculus ets
did you not noticed that caesar was beaten tepeatedly
Even Caesar notices that Caesar was beaten, though he likes try and cover it up. :embarassed:
What case was that? That Caesar was a failure? I think you'll have to find better arguements than those (though the case can be made - he did after all fail to reform Rome with ruinous consequences for himself and the Republic).Quote:
i rest my case