04-12-2008, 03:04 PM
I looked at the options for the scope of v.3, and had these thoughts:
1. ....about Rome's military only. Nothing else. I don't see Rome's military, or any, developing its characteristics in isolation.
2. ....about all warring civilizations up to 600 AD in North Africa, Europe and the Near East. This got my vote.
3. ....about all aspects of ancient civilizations. Not for me; this site and forum appears to have grown out of a vision of Ancient Rome's military rather than a passion for all ancient history.
4. ...about warfare in the ancient world up to 1453, the Fall of Constantinople and 5. ...about warfare worldwide up to 600/1000/1492. Not for me, for the reasons below*.
6. ...exactly the same as it is now. No - I think it's obviously healthier for the site's and forum's future development if parameters are agreed on.
*My decision and views rely on my (non-scholar's) vision of Ancient Rome - which is:
The Roman armies that:
. unified the Italian peninsula to the 2nd Century BC;
. gathered in the Mediterranean shores, Britain and deeper Europe; and
. eventually began to exhaust themselves against the East by the 5th Century AD;
seem to have been tools of a discrete culture that was born in the original tribal set that occupied Rome's seven hills. To me, the resulting behaviors, attitudes, values and social mores with their attendant social structures, formed a distinctive culture that I feel was "Ancient Roman" - as others have said, a succession of Mafia-like families and godfathers appropriating whatever resources they perceived as already "theirs" to aggrandise themselves and acquire more. Within this culture, nothing was ever static, all was in a continual state of evolution, there was cultural eclecticism, yet I feel it is still possible to throw a blanket over that whole and know it belongs together.
But, over the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD, the Western Roman Empire seems to lose - not just wars and territory - but the former values associated with pagan religion, fama (and family), client patronage and so on. It doesn't matter, I think, that the Western Roman armies could have been considered "Germanised" long before. They were still employed for "Roman" agendas by "Romans". I don't know what one calls the culture of the ruling-elite after the 4th Century, but it seems to become increasingly less what I've thought of as Roman. In the East, I can feel a lingering Romanism to the late 500s, but not much beyond.
And that's my thoughts for what they're worth. I just wish the knowledge base they're resting on was broader (lots!).
Cheers
1. ....about Rome's military only. Nothing else. I don't see Rome's military, or any, developing its characteristics in isolation.
2. ....about all warring civilizations up to 600 AD in North Africa, Europe and the Near East. This got my vote.
3. ....about all aspects of ancient civilizations. Not for me; this site and forum appears to have grown out of a vision of Ancient Rome's military rather than a passion for all ancient history.
4. ...about warfare in the ancient world up to 1453, the Fall of Constantinople and 5. ...about warfare worldwide up to 600/1000/1492. Not for me, for the reasons below*.
6. ...exactly the same as it is now. No - I think it's obviously healthier for the site's and forum's future development if parameters are agreed on.
*My decision and views rely on my (non-scholar's) vision of Ancient Rome - which is:
The Roman armies that:
. unified the Italian peninsula to the 2nd Century BC;
. gathered in the Mediterranean shores, Britain and deeper Europe; and
. eventually began to exhaust themselves against the East by the 5th Century AD;
seem to have been tools of a discrete culture that was born in the original tribal set that occupied Rome's seven hills. To me, the resulting behaviors, attitudes, values and social mores with their attendant social structures, formed a distinctive culture that I feel was "Ancient Roman" - as others have said, a succession of Mafia-like families and godfathers appropriating whatever resources they perceived as already "theirs" to aggrandise themselves and acquire more. Within this culture, nothing was ever static, all was in a continual state of evolution, there was cultural eclecticism, yet I feel it is still possible to throw a blanket over that whole and know it belongs together.
But, over the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD, the Western Roman Empire seems to lose - not just wars and territory - but the former values associated with pagan religion, fama (and family), client patronage and so on. It doesn't matter, I think, that the Western Roman armies could have been considered "Germanised" long before. They were still employed for "Roman" agendas by "Romans". I don't know what one calls the culture of the ruling-elite after the 4th Century, but it seems to become increasingly less what I've thought of as Roman. In the East, I can feel a lingering Romanism to the late 500s, but not much beyond.
And that's my thoughts for what they're worth. I just wish the knowledge base they're resting on was broader (lots!).
Cheers
Spurius Papirius Cursor (Howard Russell)
"Life is still worthwhile if you just smile."
(Turner, Parsons, Chaplin)
"Life is still worthwhile if you just smile."
(Turner, Parsons, Chaplin)
