Posts: 2,011
Threads: 41
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
57
To the above posters who claimed Stilicho never dared attack Alaric,
Buried in the texts, you'll discover Stilicho whomping Alaric, even capturing his wife, and Alaric retreated to Pannonia to lick his wounds. I don't know if he got his wife back... but then again, perhaps he slept better alone. :whistle:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Posts: 168
Threads: 9
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
Quote:[quote="Magister Militum Flavius Aetius" post=354051][QUOTE]. Still, the point is that Alaric wanted to be an ally of the Western army, not its conqueror.
.
Big difference between saying he did not want to destroy the western empire vs he wanted to be an ally. He wanted the best deal possible for him and his people. If he could get that deal by being an ally, he would do so; if he needed to sack Rome, so be it. I do not suscribe to the "Alaric the friendly barbarian" who just wanted to "participate in the empire until the big bad Romans screwed him over" theory.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Posts: 125
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
5
Quote:Big difference between saying he did not want to destroy the western empire vs he wanted to be an ally. He wanted the best deal possible for him and his people. If he could get that deal by being an ally, he would do so; if he needed to sack Rome, so be it. I do not suscribe to the "Alaric the friendly barbarian" who just wanted to "participate in the empire until the big bad Romans screwed him over" theory.
I don't see the difference. Alaric was a realist above all else. If he had to defeat the Roman army and sack Rome in order to get a good deal for his people, he was willing to do so. But if the Romans had been willing to treat him as a "friendly barbarian" participating in the empire's defense, he would have been happy with that ... e.g., giving him autonomy over Noricum and leaving him alone.
He probably didn't see the Romans as "friends" or "enemies" per se, just as a powerful entity on the other side of the bargaining table.
Posts: 2,011
Threads: 41
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
57
Quote:Alaric was a realist above all else...
He probably didn't see the Romans as "friends" or "enemies" per se, just as a powerful entity on the other side of the bargaining table.
THAT is a very accurate observation. ;-)
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Tim wrote:
But, I find Hughes' thesis that Stilicho lacked confidence in battle pretty convincing.
Tim can you provide the title of Hughes’ thesis and in which journal it was published in? It would be greatly appreciated.
Justin wrote:
He did, twice, in 401 and 402, and was defeated both times, but Stilicho allowed him to retreat instead of finishing him off.
I can understand Stilicho letting Alaric get away once, but twice smells of a conspiracy. But I must return to Rome’s 1200 year protection that runs out just before Stilicho burns the Sibylline Books. The question that has puzzled me is why the gods wanted to protect Rome for so long and why end the protection? Do the gods go looking for another civilisation to protect? This would be hard as most civilisations around the world already have their own gods. So basically we have a lot of unemployed gods.
However, reading through St. Augustine’s “The City of God” there is a treasure trove of information, especially in regard to Pythagoras. In regards to the god’s demise, St Augustine writes:
“For who does not see, when he thinks of it, what a foolish assumption it is that they could not be vanquished under vanquished defenders, and that they only perished because they had lost their guardian gods, when, indeed, the only cause of their perishing was that they chose for their protectors gods condemned to perish?”
There it is….it is the gods that will perish. Now this makes sense of the whole Pythagorean system or the religion of numbers as St Augustine calls it. St Augustine also includes the Phythagoreanism as being close in its beliefs of the Christian religion. This is not surprising as Pythagoras is recorded as being born from a virgin, and telling the fisherman to recast their nets which resulted in them catching fish.
Now returning to Stilicho and his betrayal of the secret. Stilicho’s accuser is Rutilius Namatianus, and most likely a pagan. During the sack of Rome, St Augustine records that the Goths spared the Christian temples and those who sort sanctuary in them. Unfortunately for the pagans, their temples were not spared. I remember once reading a long time ago, that the Goths would spare those that took sanctuary in their temples because the Goths, if they killed the people in the temples believed they would suffer retribution from those very gods the people took sanctuary in. I cannot remember if this was from a primary source or a secondary source, but what if Stilicho did make it known that the pagan gods were dead and burned the Sibylline Books to prove it. I find it very convenient that the Christian temples were spared during the sack of Rome, and considering most of the Roman senate were still pagans, what a brilliant manner in getting rid of the pagans in the city. Let Rome be sacked in order to destroy the pagans.
I’m not by nature into conspiracy theories, but it could be that the Christians were involved in a conspiracy of genocide against the pagans, in which Stilicho was an instrument. Stilicho does not betray Rome, he betrays the pagans.
Posts: 168
Threads: 9
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
Quote:I don't see the difference. Alaric was a realist above all else. If he had to defeat the Roman army and sack Rome in order to get a good deal for his people, he was willing to do so. But if the Romans had been willing to treat him as a "friendly barbarian" participating in the empire's defense, he would have been happy with that ... e.g., giving him autonomy over Noricum and leaving him alone.
He probably didn't see the Romans as "friends" or "enemies" per se, just as a powerful entity on the other side of the bargaining table.
Ok.fair enough...we actually agree then.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Posts: 168
Threads: 9
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
Quote:Tim wrote:
But, I find Hughes' thesis that Stilicho lacked confidence in battle pretty convincing.
Tim can you provide the title of Hughes’ thesis and in which journal it was published in? It would be greatly appreciated.
.
His book: Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome (2010)
Its been a while, but from what I recall, Hughes argues that the only real "set-piece" battle Stilicho had experienced was Frigidus, which although a technical victory for the east, was a disaster in terms of loss of manpower. Hughes argues Stilicho was fearful that any subsequent set-piece battle with the goths would have similarly devastating results for his own forces and therefore adopted a "block, starve, ambush" policy.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
My one goal with research is to allow the primary sources to tell their story. I believe a historian should be an observer and not an emotional observer with a preconceived theory. I am uncomfortable if I have to present something as a hypothesis. Once such hypothesis I have presented is that the Pythagorean cosmos of the Romans must be moving towards the Monad (unity). However, what this is and what it actually means or does was not clear about until now. Lately I have been reading the works of the early Christian writers one after the other. For years I have laboured to discover and understand the Pythagorean system as applied to Rome, and here I find among the Christian writers is one account after the other of the internal workings of the Pythagorean system, and in more detail and clarity than any other ancient Greek or Roman writer has ever expressed. I feel I have been rewarded with a twelve step program that is telling me what to do. The writing on the last section of my book is literally a cut and paste exercise because the early Christian writers explain it all with great clarity. The earlier Christian writers talk about how to destroy the Pythagorean doctrine, others embrace it because it is close to Christian doctrine. They talk about the harmony of the spheres and many other Pythagorean doctrines and report from which countries Pythagoras learnt them. Everything they write integrates perfectly with the Roman Pythagorean system, and it should because Rome is strongly connected with the beginnings of Christianity.
Other comments by the Christian writers have caused me to go back to the early period of Rome and Rome’s belief in why it was destined to rule the world, a matter because of lack of evidence remained outside the focus of my work. However, I am now providing in the book, the reason why it was introduced, when it was introduced, how it was introduced, and by whom.
Then we come to the sibylline books which Stilicho is reported to have destroyed. The Sibyl, according to the early Christian writers is supposed to have predicted the events of Christ. Here the Christians have given a name to the Pythagorean monad, when in actuality Christ represents one third of the monad, with the monad also consisting of the dynad and the tetrad, which is expressed as the Holy Trinity.
I was worried about how to end this book but thankfully the earlier Christian writers have done it for me.
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Quote:I am uncomfortable if I have to present something as a hypothesis.
I'm afraid that we, modern researchers, are condemned to have to do just that. So much is often still open to interpretation. Frankly, I usually have problems with studies which present fact that cannot be facts because they remain open to interpretation (I'm of the old school, like Herodotus: "history is discussion without end"). In uni we were warned against presenting 'hard' cases, but I know that modern authors are often under pressure to present their stories without questionmarks.
Robert wrote:
In uni we were warned against presenting 'hard' cases, but I know that modern authors are often under pressure to present their stories without question marks.
Well for me, I had a feeling the Pythagorean system was moving towards unity, which the Pythagoreans associate with the monad. To have me write that is open to debate and not as powerful as an ancient source telling his reader that is exactly what the Pythagorean system is doing. It’s not my story, it’s there story coming from their mouths. And that gives me quite a buzz.
Posts: 125
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
5
Quote:Censorinus makes the claim that Rome had the protection of the gods for 1200 years.
Do you have the source for this handy? I'll take your word for it, I'm just trying to track it down.
Justin wrote:
Do you have the source for this handy? I'll take your word for it, I'm just trying to track it down.
Censorinus “The Birthday Book” translated by Holt N. Parker. Published by the University of Chicago Press. Chapter 17 Ages and Centuries. The Roman Secular Games: “Varro heard him say that if it happened as the Roman historians have recorded, that Romulus saw twelve vultures as an augury when he founded the city, then since the Roman people had passed 120 years unharmed, they would make it to 1200 years.”
You cannot calculate the 1200 years from Rome’s traditional founding date of 753 BC. The 1200 years is calculated on when Rome was conceived for which the Romans had a date. The actual time for when the 1200 years ends is around the time when Stilicho destroys the Sibylline books. I believe Stilicho did it to stop the decline in morale brought about by this prophecy of impending doom. St Augustine in the City of God mentions the end of the Roman gods. The whole Pythagorean system is about monotheisms, and this explains why the early Christian writers had a fascination with Pythagorean doctrine. As Scully keeps telling us, the truth is out there. 
Posts: 48
Threads: 8
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
0
Augstus burned all prophecies that foretold doom or disorder and the Aeneid which survives in full gives openly denies that Rome had any limits in time.
If there was a prophecy it was much later; so you shouldn't assume everyone or even large numbers of people believed it. The Empire itself was likely majority Christian in Stilchio's time anyway so why should Christians care about a very recent prophecy of doom told by pagans who didn't like them?
Dan
Dan wrote:
Augstus burned all prophecies that foretold doom or disorder and the Aeneid which survives in full gives openly denies that Rome had any limits in time.
Well I guess Augutus missed the one by Varro which Censorinus is aware of. Then there is Claudian, De Bell. Get., V, 265; Sidonius Apollinaris, Paneg., V, 357; and Cœlius Rhodiginus, XXVII, 8.
Dan wrote:
If there was a prophecy it was much later; so you shouldn't assume everyone or even large numbers of people believed it.
The Pythagorean system I have been researching for the last six years has been designed for a period of 1200 years, so I am not assuming anything. I have more evidence to work with that is not be known to you.
Dan wrote:
The Empire itself was likely majority Christian in Stilchio's time anyway so why should Christians care about a very recent prophecy of doom told by pagans who didn't like them?
It was the pagans who were worried. The primary sources state this. For me it explains why the pagans went out with a whimper, they knew their time was up.
Posts: 48
Threads: 8
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
0
Quote:Dan wrote:
Augstus burned all prophecies that foretold doom or disorder and the Aeneid which survives in full gives openly denies that Rome had any limits in time.
Well I guess Augutus missed the one by Varro which Censorinus is aware of. Then there is Claudian, De Bell. Get., V, 265; Sidonius Apollinaris, Paneg., V, 357; and Cœlius Rhodiginus, XXVII, 8.
Dan wrote:
If there was a prophecy it was much later; so you shouldn't assume everyone or even large numbers of people believed it.
The Pythagorean system I have been researching for the last six years has been designed for a period of 1200 years, so I am not assuming anything. I have more evidence to work with that is not be known to you.
Dan wrote:
The Empire itself was likely majority Christian in Stilchio's time anyway so why should Christians care about a very recent prophecy of doom told by pagans who didn't like them?
It was the pagans who were worried. The primary sources state this. For me it explains why the pagans went out with a whimper, they knew their time was up.
Interesting; are you planning to publish the your work soon? Over 2000 found and burned and he missed one. How much of a real effect however do you really think it had? Augustus did just literally burn thousands of prophecies so they clearly had some critics.
Dan
|
