Discuss ancient history with an unqualified fool

[Cassius]

Well, understandably, the ancient world (interpreted as broadly covering the period between the emergence of the Sumerian civilisation and the fall of the Roman Empire in the west) doesn't get discussed very much on this forum, so, to set the record straight, here's a thread for the discussion of that period. Now, I have no qualifications in this field of history whatsoever; however, I hope to go on to study this subject at university, so I've read a fair amount and so on and so forth. So any points of interest that you might have, feel free to discuss them in this thread.

[Cassius]

Who's your favorite Hittite king?

A most difficult question sir. Probably Muwatallish II due to his successful defeat of the Egyptians at Kadesh. Whilst ancient sources differ in their views of tha battle, with an Egyptian victory, a stalemate and a Hittite victory all being postulated, I'd go with the latter due to Ramesses being forced to withdraw from his Syrian campaign.

[Cassius]

Why the Roman Empire "fell" is a worn-out subject, so how about the opposite question: why did the Roman Empire survive the Crisis of the Third Century, a period which saw it come within razor's edge of total collapse, especially in the 260s during Gallienus' reign?

That's a complicated subject; I think the answer simply boils down to the conditions required for the empire to collapse not being appropriate. If we look at how the empire actually fell (in the west) it can be seen that it was a very gradual process (taking place over an 80 year period between roughly 395 AD and 476-80 AD), caused largely by the gradual influx of more and more 'barbarians' (the Goths, the Vandals and the Franks being the chief culprits in this regard), whether forcibly or on invitation (Roman armies of the 5th century had a heavy 'Germanic' component). These groups gradually asserted their independence from Imperial authority in Italy, and so the empire lost control of some of its wealthiest provinces (such as in Spain and North Africa) meaning that it lacked the wherewithal to sustain a proper army and bureaucracy. This of course became a vicious cycle, as the funds and manpower avaiable to the Emperor decreased, the empire was forced to rely ever more upon Germanic mercenaries, who often proved disloyal. By 476 AD, the empire had essentially lost any authority outside of Italy, so the deposition of Romulus Augustulus and the assumption of the title of King by Odoacer was in a sense a mere formality, as there was very little left of the empire by this stage.

Now, during the crisis of the third century, I don't think the former conditions were present to really make sure that the empire fell apart. The eventual collapse of the Roman empire was possible due to the collapse in the power of the central government coupled with extreme external pressures on its northern borders from migrating tribes. The latter was not present to anything like the same extent during the third century; indeed, whilst civil wars of the fifth century often involved large numbers of Germanic mercenaries and client troops, those of the third tended to be a more purely 'Roman' affair. This is important because whilst there may have been consistent civil wars over the throne during this period, very few of the participants were actually fighting to free themselves from the control of the empire itself. Possible exceptions to this general rule are the so called 'Gallic' and 'Palmyrene' empires of the mid third century, which could indeed be described as breakaway states; however, it should be remembered that unlike, say, the Vandal and Visigothic kingdoms of the fifth century, these states simply saw themselves as defending the empire where the central government could not. Indeed, it is perfectly possible that Postumus (the first and most successful Gallic emperor) viewed himself as a co-emperor along the lines of the system that was created later on by Diocletian.

Whilst the civil wars of the third century severely battered the empire, it could be argued that the empire had a much greater 'margin of safety' than in later years, due to the absence of extremely serious pressures on its borders. Furthermore, it could be argued that the empire was lucky in the sense that it had a handful of competent emperors (such as Aurelian) who managed to prevent thing from getting too out of control. The empire in the fifth century had no such luck, being ruled by a succession of weak (and often very young) emperors, often heavily reliant on backing by military strongmen (such as Stilicho, Aetius and Ricimer) whose loyalty was on many occasions highly suspect. This lack of competent central authority was not aided by, as I have mentioned before, the disintigration of the empire as a contiguous political unit. By comparison, whilst the third century empire was wracked by civil conflict, it managed to hang together as one body (with two major exceptions as previously noted). The importance of luck should not be discounted; the third century empire was lucky to have men such as Aurelian and Diocletian around to pull it together; the fifth century empire had no such luck.

Sorry if I digressed heavily into why the empire did collapse, but I think that understanding why it collapsed then is important to understanding why it didn't before.

[Cassius]

Did the Hittites have the ability to become a major power?

Well, by the standards of the day they were a major power. If you look at this map (a German one cribbed shamelessly from wikipedia), you can see that, by the time of the Hittite 'new kingdom', they were one of the three major powers of the Middle-East, the other two being the Egyptian and the Assyrian empires. Given that the 'world' according to the Hittites would have been a lot smaller than we now know it to be, holding sway over Syria and much of modern Turkey (in an age of slow communication and travel mind you) is no mean feat.



The Hittite Empire unfortunately fell victim to events. The emergence of the 'Sea Peoples' (raiders who are originated all over the shop, in Greece and western Turkey most likely) was particularly problematic for the Hittites, as their territories most often were prime targets for attacks. The loss of trade engendered by the Sea Peoples disruption of trading routes hurt the empire deeply, leaving it vulnerable to attacks from elsewhere, either from land-based migrants or from the Assyrians, who avoided the brunt of the assault by the Sea Peoples.

Favourite Roman Emperor?

Tough one. Probably Theodosius the Great, largely due to the work he did in Christianising the empire. Whilst Constantine (whom I also rather like) set the process into motion by effectively putting a stop to the persecution of Christianity, it was Theodosius who really helped set the Church up as an organisation with power, by making Christianity (of the Nicene variety) the state religion of the empire. I also rather like Augustus and Antoninus Pius.

[Cassius]

Thought I'd bump this thread.

[Cassius]

Thought I'd bump this thread.

Since I am a fan of the Late Republic in Roman History...

Do you agree with the usual narrative that has Brutus and Cassius as the sole masterminds and leaders of the conspiracy to kill Caesar? Personally I've always thought that Decimus Brutus and Gaius Trebonius were just as important, but faded into obscurity by dying earlier. And for that matter, do you believe Dolabella, Antonius and other dissafected Caesarians may have known about the conspiracy beforehand?

First of all, I would say that anything is possible. I'm sure that your aware of this, but one of the big differences between studying the history of the late Republic and, say, 20th century America is the sheer paucity of sources on the particular time period (in common with most other eras of history prior to, at a pinch, the 'Middle Ages'). Whilst there are a lot of primary and reasonably reliable secondary sources available for the late Republic (especially in contrast to other eras of Roman history, such as the Roman kingdom), one has to think of all the evidence that has probably been lost since then. There may well have been accounts which gave the roles of other 'liberatores' more prominence, but that, unfortunately, have been lost.

I'd probably argue that the usual narrative that you described is flawed to a certain extent (particularly in the way in which it has been reinforced through things like Shakespeare's play, 'Julius Caesar'). Men like Decimus, Trebonius and Cimber obviously played an important role in the execution of the plot; the liberatores weren't simply a gang of drones aimlessly following Brutus and Cassius (as they are often reduced to in popular interpretations of the assassination of Caesar). However, I would say that Brutus, and to a less extent Cassius, are cut above the rest of the liberatores due to the fact that they are the men that ancient sources zero in on as being the ringleaders of the plot. Also, ancient sources regularly comment upon how the reputation of Brutus was crucial when it came to encouraging disgruntled opponents of Caesar to join the plot, which does suggest a degree of leadership on his part (although whether that was 'active' leadership or more of a figurehead role is open to debate).

With regards to people like Antony and Dolabella, I think its pretty likely that they had at least some knowledge of the impending assassination (indeed, some accounts have Antony actively attempting to warn Caesar of the assassination attempt). There were some disaffected Caesarians who actually participated in the plot (Trebonius and Servius Sulpicius Galba being examples of these), so its clear that knowledge of the plot was not simply confined to those in 'Republican' circles. I would again say that since we are likely missing a lot of evidence (and that which we have is sometimes contradictory) we cannot know for sure what really happened. Nonetheless, I think that that which I have described above is a credible overview of what went on.

Why do you suppose that the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos was ultimately rejected or at least didn't catch on? He was certainly right that the Sun is larger than the Earth and further away, but it might be difficult to convince ancient people of his measurements and so on. Was it too esoteric or did it not pass the "eyeball test" well enough? By that, I mean that from Earth it does not appear at all that we are moving, even though the retrograde motion of the planets does not make much sense if the Earth is sedentary. That was one major thing that drove Copernicus and others at the dawn of the scientific age.

I must admit that I'm not particularly knowledgeable at the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate; however, I would say that your probably right in speculating that Aristarchus' theory was rejected because it didn't meet the 'eyeball test'. After all, in the ancient world, not only did they generally lack the technology to properly research in this area, but to most people the idea would have been simply preposterous, for the reasons that you pointed out. Also, from the little that I have read on this subject, I think geocentric theory had been around for longer and was better established, and since the Greeks lacked the tools to disprove geocentrism, this may have been a major factor in why heliocentrism failed to catch on (geocentrism was also important in certain variants of Greek religion, which could have been another reason).

What is your opinion of Cleopatra's nose and it's historical importance?

Could you elaborate

[Cassius]

I have come to the belief that there was likely significant civilization predating recorded history.  How crazy am I?

Putting my serious hat on, I wouldn't say that you were crazy, but it is extremely unlikely that any civilisation could be found to predate recorded history (especially if you consider how long we've spent digging around for 'lost civilisations').

What's your favourite pseudo history and why?

I quite enjoy pseudo histories entailing a surviving Byzantine empire (yes, I occasionally browse AH.com ), as well as ones discussing a parliamentary United States and a more successful Nazi Germany. Good pseudo histories are quite difficult to find; especially for the ancient period, since its far harder to construct an alternate timeline for a period of which our understanding is hampered by a relative paucity of sources. With regards to why, I guess I find Byzantine alt-hists interesting because its fun to see what might (but obviously wouldn't) have happened had the empire managed to survive beyond 1453 (mind you, this requires a POD that's well back from then). Everyone seems to like Nazi alt-hists (as cliched as they can be), and the idea of a parliamentary America is a really fun one to look at (given as to how parliamentary systems tend to turn out so differently to presidential ones).

[Cassius]

Did you ever read the Bronze Age New World stories?  I remember reading them back on the old soc.history,what-if newsgroup back in the days before the web became the preeminent form of the internet, and they can be found in various places on the interwebs today.

No I've never read them, but I'll definitely check them out at some point. Thanks for raising them

I guess I find Byzantine alt-hists interesting because its fun to see what might (but obviously wouldn't) have happened had the empire managed to survive beyond 1453 (mind you, this requires a POD that's well back from then).

I guess I'm able to understand that is funny speculating with an unlikely Byzantine recovery, maybe because that Hellenic Medieval civilisation fascinates me for some weird reason. However, I never visited AH.com (well, I've played with the Komnenos dynasty in CK) and I wonder, which is the usual starting point in those fictional recoveries of the New Rome's old glories? It seems to me that it'd be unrealistic starting after 1204. I think the empire was done after the deposition of Andronikos Komnenos in 1185, actually. Which would be the more feasible or realistic starting point for you and why?

I love the Alexius Comnenus scenario on that game . Its definitely more feasible to go with a Byzantine revival prior to 1204 (and probably prior to the reign of Manuel Comnenus) since after that the 'empire' would never really be an 'empire' again. However, I wouldn't rule out a Byzantine revival taking place, say, after the fall of the Latin kingdom, but after that point its very unlikely it would ever reach its former glory and be more than a small state based in and around the Aegean.

Do you think that, had Alexander taken the proper steps, his empire could have been preserved upon his death?

If not, do you feel like any of the Diadochi could have restored it?  Or was his vast realm essentially doomed to failure?

No, I don't think that he could've, at least not in 323 BC. Perhaps if, say, he'd died in the 290's, and his heir (presumably Alexander IV) had been competent, it would have been possible for it to survive (although given the vicious and internecine nature of Macedonian succession wars that often sprung up, the empire may well have broken apart). But in 323 his heirs, the baby Alexander and the demented Philip Arrhidaeus, simply didn't have the authority to hold the empire together. The appointment of Perdiccas as regent failed to improve matters, and in a very short space of time the more distant regions from the imperial capital, Babylon, began drift away from central control (partly due to, in the case of Greece and Antipater, their alienation by the Perdiccas regime). I certainly wouldn't rule out the possible survival of his empire upon the accession of a grown up, capable Alexander IV, but not when the latter was merely a small baby.

It is possible that one of the Diadochi could have reunified the empire (or at least most of it); Antigonus Monopthalmus came closest to this, taking control of most of the Asian provinces and threatening to seize Greece and Egypt. Paradoxically however, Antigonus' success proved to be his undoing, as it caused the remaining four other Diadochi (Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Seleucus) to align themselves against him and defeat him at Ipsus (where Antigonus was killed). After that point, it becomes very difficult to see how Alexander's empire could have been revived, as none of the remaining successors were quite strong enough to overcome the other (Seleucus came closest, defeating Lysimachus in the 280's and marching into Greece, only to be assasinated).

[Cassius]

Sorry for my tardiness in replying, but Latin and preparation for my next seminar are an absolute b!tch at the moment. Anyway...

I love the Alexius Comnenus scenario on that game . Its definitely more feasible to go with a Byzantine revival prior to 1204 (and probably prior to the reign of Manuel Comnenus) since after that the 'empire' would never really be an 'empire' again. However, I wouldn't rule out a Byzantine revival taking place, say, after the fall of the Latin kingdom, but after that point its very unlikely it would ever reach its former glory and be more than a small state based in and around the Aegean.

Well, a state covering between Syria and the Danube can be called properly an empire by medieval standards, and after all the Romaioi were the heirs of the imperial tradition in the East. Since the death of Manuel Komnenos, the disintegration of the state became evident, although the underlying causes can be traced earlier. If the issue is the mere survival of a Byzantine state around the Aegean Sea, perhaps a fictional success of the rebelion in Asia Minor led by Alexios Philantropenos -the so called "Belisarius of the Palailogian era" who ended blinded by the emperor's henchmen- might be an interesting startpoint for a storyline. Arguably that goal sounds too modest when I created the Kingdom if Rus twice, defeated the Mongols, Turks and other enemies and made the Mediterranean a Roman Orthodox lake in CK

Of course, in some games with the Byzantines you do have the advantage of the Turks (and the other Islamic factions) having a civil war every 6 months (at least that's what I've observed), a luxury that the Byzantines lacked to some extent . As for your first point, well that's true, my 'empire' comment was more referring to the restored 'empire' under the Palaeologi, rather than the empire during the days of the Comnenus family, which was indeed an empire.

Thanks for the good reply.  I read a book that translated and explained the writings of the roman general Arrian regarding Alexander's campaigns against the Persian Empire, but it only briefly dwelt on the Diadochi (I believe the same author has released another book focusing on these fellows though, which I need to pick up).  I found both Alexander's campaigns and especially the aftermath of his death very interesting.

Another question then, if I may.  This is straying a couple centuries outside of your criteria, but I figured you might have some interest in it, considering the current discussion.  The final war between the Sassanids and Byzantines wore down both empires, of course, so whenever the Arabs burst forth out of their peninsula bad times were to be had by all.  What are some of the reasons that the Byzantines survived and the Sassanids collapsed?  Was their land easier to defend?  Was it due to the leadership of their emperor?  Were the Sassanids just more depleted both economically and militarily?  I know that the Arabs twice laid siege to Constantinople, but never captured it.  So while they did do some major damage to the Byzantines, they never did manage to conquer them, and the Byzantines did rather well holding out as long as they did against the massive caliphates.

I've always found the successors more interesting than Alexander to be honest, because, in the end, its probable that they, and not Alexander himself, had a more long-lasting historical impact.

As for your question, I'd put it down to geographical distance to a certain extent. The heartlands of the Sassanid empire were far closer to the Arab world than Constantinople was, and thus they (along with the Byzantine provinces in the Levant and Africa) bore the full brunt of the Arab advance. By the time the Arabs reached Constantinople (and it should be remembered that Constantinople was a very well defended city at the time), they'd run out of steam a bit, and in failing to capture Constantinople, they failed to cut off the head of the empire, allowing it to survive. Of course, the Byzantine-Sassanid wars of the 7th century are an archetypal example of a disaster for both sides, but I think its true that the Sassanids were left a little bit weaker (bearing in my that they had done very well in the early stages of the war), and that this, when coupled with the vulnerable nature of their territories, proved to be their undoing.

[Cassius]

Was there organised crime in ancient societies? Namely is there any evidence for Mafia-like organisations in Rome or Egypt or elsewhere?

Sorry for getting back to you late on this, but the answer is a definitive yes. To take an example, many of the Roman 'collegia' (meaning an organisation of individuals joined by law), were in essence criminal enterprises, albeit ones to which Roman officialdom usually turned a blind eye (and even occasionally utilised, to deliver shipments or even collect taxes, as well as for the purpose of political intimidation). Many people would also be sold into slavery by criminal gangs that would roam the countryside looking for targets. I'm not as sure of the status of organised crime in Greece or Egypt, but I'd be pretty surprised if there were no similar organisations to the criminal segments of the Roman 'collegia'.

[Cassius]

Anyone have any queries on the Peloponnesian Wars? Given that I'm writing one of my essays on that topic (well, that and its aftermath) at this present point.