|
Grand Fromage posted:Probably little. The Assyrians were such gigantic, unbelievable assholes that they united the entire Middle East against them and were wiped out. Utterly, completely obliterated. They were wiped out so efficiently that barely any memory of them existed. The best evidence of this is in Xenophon, there's a part where the army is resting in the ruins of an unbelievably massive city. They ask the locals who built it and nobody has any idea. What we've figured out later is the city was Nineveh, the capital, and Xenophon is there two centuries later. Nobody remembered. What gets to me every time, everything about Assyria is unbelievable. The last empire reached from Egypt to eastern Turkey at its height, so there should at least have been a few traces left to find, even for Rome or Parthia or whoever else lived there afterwards, but apparently the Assyrians were hated so much, no one even wanted to talk about them much. It should be reasonable that at least a few sources from Egypt or Babylon talked about them, but most non-assyrian sources boil down to "the're evil and pray to demons". (Warning: My memory could be wrong, but Babylonian sources claim this.) And if I remember correctly, the second and first empire to expand from Assur (the ancient city Assyria has its name from) did exactly the same thing: Expanding until collapse. Assyria: Brilliant at war, but stupid at everything else. In a way, Assyria was Anti-Rome. The Romans included everyone, the Assyrians no-one. Which kind of explains why the Assyrian Empires never lasted long after they stopped expanding.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
To me the most interesting thing about classical navies is the abrupt way you have to change your thinking around if you want to truly comprehend them. Sail power is vastly more efficient, but it is slow and clumsy by comparison. By putting in rowers instead of sails, you drastically improve speed and maneuverability but at the cost that you now have possibly hundreds of men doing heavy labor. They are not only heavier than the sails ever would have been, you've also got to carry food (light) and fresh water (NOT light) to keep them alive and burning calories at an excessive rate. Eventually a point of diminishing returns is reached. Something as simple as a list of reliable coastal watering holes would have constituted a vital state secret in times of naval war. Marines are not thought to have been commonly transported or even used very much. Triremes (and fivers/sixers) were like the fighter jets of their era, all fuel and speed. Not alot of cargo space and much less range than alot of people often presume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Being a trireme rower would be an excellent weight loss method, that is for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
I remember listening to the audiobook "Lies my teacer told me." There was a brief bit but I don't remember the exact passage. So I'll steal it from this thread here. It mentioned Roman coins and pottery during a chapter on pre-Coloumbian contact with the Americas. I'm not convinced one way or the other. Just curious about your guys opinion. It's definitely possible that in all those years a crew made it there but not back? Or simply a ship made it's way there sans the crew. quote:Near Parahyba, Brazil, an inscription on Phoenician has been translated, in part, as: "We are sons of Canaan from Sidon, the city of the king. Commerce has cast us on this distant shore, a land of mountains. We set [sacrificed] a youth for the exalted gods and goddesses in the nineteenth year of Hiram, our mighty king. We embarked from Ezion-Geber into the Red Sea and voyaged with ten ships. We were at sea together for two years around the land belonging to Ham [Africa] but were separated by a storm [lit. 'from the hand of Baal'], and we were no longer with our companions. So we have come here, twelve men and three women, on a... shore which I, the Admiral, control. But auspiciously may the gods and goddesses favor us!" Then a possible Roman shipwreck in Brazil
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Those are all UFOs built the pyramids level stuff. I've never seen anything about classical era trans-Atlantic contact that was remotely credible. Ancient ships were not at all suitable for crossing the ocean. Like that Brazil one, there's never been any excavation because the evil Brazilian military covered it up and the men in black silenced him!!! That's literally the story why he has no evidence. Totally believable. It's not impossible but you'd need some actual evidence. I've never even found a picture of most of these supposed shipwrecks or inscriptions or whatever. Find me a L'Anse aux Meadows and we'll talk. E: Also my favorite part is when these guys say that it's being suppressed because Roman historians don't want the truth to come out and ruin them. I will go ahead and speak for all Roman historians here: finding hard, indisputable evidence that Romans traveled to the New World would be the coolest loving thing ever and we would all pop massive boners about it. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Sep 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Christoff posted:I remember listening to the audiobook "Lies my teacer told me." There was a brief bit but I don't remember the exact passage. So I'll steal it from this thread here. Those stories seem very unlikely. The thing that limited where ancient ships could go was, as physeter mentioned, food and water. Triremes were packed completely full of crew, with only enough cargo space for maybe a few days. In order to resupply, the crews would make landfall and obtain supplies by hunting or foraging or pillaging or some other ad hoc method. (Other than that, ancient ships were perfectly capable of making such a voyage and it wouldn't have been an impossible feat of navigation, but "crew will dehydrate and starve to death within days" is a pretty significant limiting factor.) As for the ship in Galveston, I can't find any trustworthy records of the discovery or any analysis of the remains, or even a photograph or drawing of what was supposedly found. However, the sea doesn't preserve wood very well at all - almost certainly the only parts of a wooden ship which would remain after only a century are the ones completely buried in the sea floor or otherwise protected from the salt water. In two thousand years, a Roman ship would almost certainly have completely decayed, or, if parts of it survived, it would be so unrecognizable that its construction couldn't be said to be 'typically' anything. Basically, yeah, if there were any evidence, people would be all over this. It would be a career-maker in classics, archaeology, or history to be able to prove that there was a Roman expedition to North America, and if anyone could do it, they'd certainly become famous and have no problem getting grant money for future projects related to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:E: Also my favorite part is when these guys say that it's being suppressed because Roman historians don't want the truth to come out and ruin them. I will go ahead and speak for all Roman historians here: finding hard, indisputable evidence that Romans traveled to the New World would be the coolest loving thing ever and we would all pop massive boners about it. 100x this. What Roman historian, or any historian for that matter, wouldn't be absolutely fascinated by the idea of Rome interacting with Mesoamerica on some level? It'd be akin to the fascination with the Vikings in North America. The potential situations, conflicts, and interactions between two vastly different cultures is so loving cool to just day dream about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
It's so cool that even all the women in the field would pop boners. But it didn't happen (probably).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Forgive me if this has been asked before; I'm plugging through the thread reading as much as I can, but it's pretty long. I'm going through Suetonius' Twelve Caesars right now and I'm near the end. I've noticed a striking change from Vitellius to Vespasian and Titus. On the one hand, it seems as though this signifies a calmness, but I'm wondering - did Vespasian and Titus really represent that much stability and that much peace? Or was Suetonius writing with ulterior motives? Also, I read a bit in the foreword that Suetonius was fired by Hadrian and that may have influenced the work - any idea what all that's about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Vespasian and Titus were good emperors after the chaos of the Year of Four Emperors and the times of Nero. Also Domitian was generally hated, which made his predecessors look even better. Vespasian/Titus also put down the revolt in Judea, and Romans didn't like that kind of poo poo any more than any other empire. Every history has some ulterior motive. Suetonius grew up during the Vespasian/Titus reign and had a lot of poo poo for Nero, so that influenced things. Hadrian fired him for loving his wife but that was right at the end of his life, about the same time he published the Twelve Caesars so I don't think it had much of an influence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Every history has some ulterior motive. Suetonius grew up during the Vespasian/Titus reign and had a lot of poo poo for Nero, so that influenced things. Hadrian fired him for loving his wife but that was right at the end of his life, about the same time he published the Twelve Caesars so I don't think it had much of an influence. Hell, I think the fact that Hadrian didn't execute him on the spot would have had positive influence. Even if he hated his wife (and vice versa).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
Well, it helped that Hadrian and his wife hated each other. If Suetonius had been loving Hadrian's boyfriend, he might've cared more than the cursory "I kind of have to fire you" treatment that he got instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
It's not really debated that the classical world had more conventional sailing ships operating alongside their galleys. Galleys get the most play because they are well-preserved in the historical record. Kids today put posters of F-16s on their bedroom walls, not 747s. Galleys predominate in our thinking of ancient maritime operations for the approximately same reason. But because of the very tight cargo restrictions, any merchant worth his salt was not going to mess with galleys. It would have been like Fedex buying up Warthogs to carry packages. If nothing else, prohibitively expensive. Now, there will be exceptions to that. For example, Italy-Sicily was so short, traveled and well-known that even slave galleys would have been a good investment there. Local or high profit runs can do it. But bulk stuff farther than a single day will almost certainly be moved by land, or heavier sail ship. Could one of those more sail-powered, cargo-friendly craft have made it to the New World with a little help from luck and weather? Yeah, sure. I wouldn't bat an eye if reliable news of a find came out this afternoon. Partially because I do know an actual treasure wreck hunter so I have a decent idea of the way that works (there's way more wrecks than dudes with time and money to check them out). But if one had been found already we would definitely know about it. That dude with his 40 years of struggle against the Brazilians is full of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
I read recently that Caligula had a floating pontoon bridge built to prove a point, and triumphantly rode across it on his horse while reportedly wearing Alexander the Great's breastplate, I was just curious: Are there any contemporary accounts of how the Romans viewed Alexander the Great?
WARDUKE fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Sep 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
He was the greatest conqueror of all time. Upper class Roman warrior types practically worshiped him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
monkeyharness posted:I read recently that Caligula had a floating pontoon bridge built to prove a point, and triumphantly rode across it on his horse while reportedly wearing Alexander the Great's breastplate, I was just curious: Are there any contemporary accounts of how the Romans viewed Alexander the Great? If you mean contemporary to the Romans, Plutarch wrote a biography of him in his Parallel Lives, which you should be able to find at a library or online. Biography is perhaps the wrong word for the Parallel Lives, but it's something like that - maybe more along the lines of consulting Shakespeare's histories to find out what Englishmen thought about Richard II or Henry IV, in the absence of any other data. (Shakespeare cribbed much of the details for his Roman plays straight from Plutarch, which is why I chose him as my example.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Thanks for the information, folks.Tao Jones posted:If you mean contemporary to the Romans, Plutarch wrote a biography of him in his Parallel Lives, which you should be able to find at a library or online Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I will have to check that out. When I look at my own age, and compare it to what Alexander the Great was able to accomplish in his mere 32 years....well, I'll just leave it at that. It's no wonder there was a bit of hero worship of him by the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
monkeyharness posted:Thanks for the information, folks. Romans did the same thing; while he was governor of Spain, Caesar, in particular, famously lamented his relative lack of accomplishment compared to Alexander at roughly the same age. That being said, it's not a very fair comparison for either yourself or Caesar to make. Alexander was born to power and his father died just as Alexander reached maturity after setting his son up with a very strong kingdom and obvious routes to pursue for more conquest. Comparing him to a Roman, who couldn't even (legally) hold the office of consul until after the age that Alexander died at, is selling the Roman short because there were much greater hurdles to overcome to even have the opportunity for power - the same is basically true in democracies today. Democracy tends to select against youthful greatness through age minimums on offices and that kind of thing; one of the only advantages of monarchy is that it allows for greater, younger leaders, but then again it also allows for Charles II of Spain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Well, it helped that Hadrian and his wife hated each other. Come on now, I think hate is a bit str... quote:Sabina was said to have remarked that she had taken steps to see she never had children by Hadrian because they would "harm the human race". Nevermind! Jazerus posted:Romans did the same thing; while he was governor of Spain, Caesar, in particular, famously lamented his relative lack of accomplishment compared to Alexander at roughly the same age. People really underestimate Philip's role in Alexander's rise. Alexander was basically given an army, finances to support it and a stable kingdom (as well as subdued Greek states) to leave behind combined with a near perfectly planned invasion route. All that was needed was an skilled tactician. And Alexander, of course, was possibly the greatest tactician in existence, which didn't hurt. Anyway, I consider Augustus' achievements to equal Alexander's, of course not in the military sense but in the sense that they were both at the top of the world at a very young age. And Octavian had nothing but his brains, name and Agrippa behind him when he started. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
If Philip hadn't died we'd probably be talking about Philip the Great and maybe about Alexander being his top general or something. But of course Alexander did a great  job of getting his own message out. Bringing your own personal propaganda team with you as you conquer everything and start invading semi-mythical lands is a good move if you want to be remembered well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:If Philip hadn't died we'd probably be talking about Philip the Great and maybe about Alexander being his top general or something. But of course Alexander did a great Not to mention founding and renaming cities after yourself. How many Alexandrias and Alexandrettas and so forth were there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Golden_Zucchini posted:Not to mention founding and renaming cities after yourself. How many Alexandrias and Alexandrettas and so forth were there? Like 30? loving everywhere. The only still inhabited ones I know of offhand are Alexandria in Egypt obviously, and Kandahar in Afghanistan. I think there are a couple others but I don't remember what their names turned into. Alexandria Eschate was the furthest away, in what's now Tajikistan. It probably had contact with China, which was likely the first time Europeans and Chinese had direct contact. E: Wikipedia says Ghazni and Farah in Afghanistan were also Alexandrias, so those are the four still inhabited ones. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Anyway, I consider Augustus' achievements to equal Alexander's, of course not in the military sense but in the sense that they were both at the top of the world at a very young age. And Octavian had nothing but his brains, name and Agrippa behind him when he started. I was just listening to the History of Rome today at work, and it got to the part where Octavian has Alexanders body brought out to him. Augustus is probably one of the only people in history who could reflect on ALexander's life, and feel he stacked up there with him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Guys Alexandria Eschate was REALLY far away from Greece. Here is a nice map. Alexander was pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
One of my favorite historical what ifs is what might have happened had Alexander invaded India like he wanted to. Iirc he stopped just before there because his army was tired of campaigning. Are there any interesting Roman what ifs related to invasions, etc? I know the Romans in America one was mentioned. Then there's also that primitive steam engine thing. Anything else the Romans might have done that could have dramatically altered history had they decided to do it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Alexander did invade India. They just didn't really push at it because the army was sick of it and wanted to go home. But there was a strong legacy, look up Greco-Buddhist art. The reason there are human depictions of the Buddha is because of Alexander's invasion. The Greco-Bactrian kingdom is a big interest of mine but there's so little information. Almost no written material and there have been virtually no archaeological explorations. A French team had started it in the 70s, but then the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and everything has been hosed since. When sites are discovered they get looted and sold immediately. It's tragic. Fun fact, the largest hoard of ancient coins ever discovered was a hoard of Greek coins found in Afghanistan. There were so many coins that they were sold off by weight rather than number. Literally tons of coins. All gone now, and the site is destroyed so we'll never know what the gently caress they were doing there. What-ifs, hm. There are stories that Trajan wanted to push east, finish off the Parthians and invade India. If they hadn't gone Christian that would've changed things just a little bit. There was an expedition to Ireland, if they had decided to press on that it would've changed Irish history. Scotland too, if it had been worth the effort there might've been just a united England instead of multiple nations. And if Germany had been worth conquering and they held it long enough to Romanize the area it would've had long lasting effects. You can still see the Germanic/Latin divide in modern European languages, cultures and history. They also could've really gone after their Chinese contacts and tried to forge something more extensive and lasting with China instead of just trade and an occasional embassy. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Fun fact, the largest hoard of ancient coins ever discovered was a hoard of Greek coins found in Afghanistan. There were so many coins that they were sold off by weight rather than number. Literally tons of coins. All gone now, and the site is destroyed so we'll never know what the gently caress they were doing there. It's stuff like this that makes me want to scream with frustration at humanity in general, but then I realize the only reason history is so interesting is because people are just... people all throughout it I have similar feelings about the burning of the Library of Alexandria but I realize that one was an accident. Also I never realized Kandahar came from Alexandria 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
The other crazy thing is how much of a long term impact it had. People mentioned Assyria earlier and they had a whole set of expansion drives which left essentially nothing behind whilst Alexander spread "Greek" culture far and wide in a way which still left a mark today. As an aside, he conquered a lot very quickly. How the hell was it administered? Could you actually call it an Empire in an actual meaningful sense? How much local control did they actually have or was it just nominal since Alexander kicked oout the guy at the top?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Like 30? loving everywhere. The only still inhabited ones I know of offhand are Alexandria in Egypt obviously, and Kandahar in Afghanistan. I think there are a couple others but I don't remember what their names turned into. Ghazni, Afghanistan Merv, Turkmenistan Iskandariya, Iraq Butte, Montana One of those cities may have not in fact been founded by Alexander the Great, I don't remember which one though. WoodrowSkillson posted:I was just listening to the History of Rome today at work, and it got to the part where Octavian has Alexanders body brought out to him. Augustus is probably one of the only people in history who could reflect on ALexander's life, and feel he stacked up there with him. "About this time [30 BC] Octavian had the sarcophagus and body of Alexander the Great brought forth from its inner sanctum, and, after gazing on it, showed his respect by placing upon it a golden crown and strewing it with flowers; and being then asked whether he wished to see the tomb of the Ptolemies as well, he replied, 'My wish was to see a king, not corpses.'" Badass. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 12:43
|
|
|
Munin posted:As an aside, he conquered a lot very quickly. How the hell was it administered? Could you actually call it an Empire in an actual meaningful sense? How much local control did they actually have or was it just nominal since Alexander kicked oout the guy at the top? That was the problem, Alexander died before they could really build any kind of administration. Essentially he killed the king and became the new king of Persia, and just inherited the whole administrative machine. But there was never any time to consolidate, which was why the empire fragmented before his body even cooled off. The successors were the ones who established administrations. Then the Romans conquered all of them except Bactria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 12:50
|
|
|
I'm holding every single one of you in this thread responsible for depleting my paltry funds in an effort to buy pretty much every book about Roman history ever made. Well, at least the ones suggested earlier in this thread. And when, roughly, did the Western European nations decided that they weren't part of the Roman Empire any more? That's something I've never been able to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Mach5 posted:I'm holding every single one of you in this thread responsible for depleting my paltry funds in an effort to buy pretty much every book about Roman history ever made. Well, at least the ones suggested earlier in this thread. Depends. Roman legions withdrew from Britain in 410, so that one's easy. I don't know other things like that off the top of my head, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
If you've ever wanted to play Rome: Total War, today is the day for you! Today's Steam sale has Rome: Total War Gold (original + first expansion + patches) for $1.00! http://store.steampowered.com/app/4760/ Are you excited? I'm excited! Be sure to also check out the Europa Barbarum mod, it adds in tons of historical awesomeness. http://www.europabarbarorum.com/ Instructions for how to install it on the Steam version: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=200524
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you've ever wanted to play Rome: Total War, today is the day for you! Extended Greek Mod is my go-to mod for RTW. It adds in a lot of historical accuracy, but does not mess with the game as much as EB does. The core gameplay is the same, and its not much more complex then vanilla. It also has the same huge map as EB I believe. It reworks the Hellenistic (?) factions a ton, making them far more period accurate. No more hoplite phalaxes for the Greek cities. Instead you gets pike phalanxes, Thoratiki(sp) and a bunch more. It also redoes the factions, adding Bactria and creating an indie Greek and Eastern Cities catchall factions for stuff like Massalia. THe only couple gameplay changes are a culture system (think religion from MTW) and area of recruitment units like Galatian swordsmen or Scythian horse The Egyptians are now a successor state themed army instead of the silly ancient Egypt stuff in the vanilla game. God dammit I'm playing RTW tonight instead of Borderlands 2 aren't I?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
I am so checking that out! Learning history the fun way! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
So did Western European nations recognize Eastern Roman Empire as a direct continuation of Rome? Did they still look admiringly at Roman achievements and success and want to emulate them? Or did the whole mess of migrations really just confuse the poo poo out of everyone and people didn't start going all "Yay Rome!" until the Renaissance hit? I just find it funny to think that people were all "Man, Rome was awesome, huh? I wish more countries were like Rome." and Constantinople is going all "HEY WE ARE STILL HERE!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I am so checking that out! Make sure you install one of the mods that changes things to be a little more accurate, then. Vanilla RTW would have you believe that Ptolemaic Egypt was exactly like Pharonic Egypt and that's just the tip of the iceberg really. Still a really fun game, and I think my favorite thing about having played it is that it gives you a much better sense (sort of) of how ancient warfare worked. Reading about classical tactics is a lot more fun and makes way more sense when you can think about how that would look and work in RTW, even if it's a very scaled-down and rough approximation of the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So did Western European nations recognize Eastern Roman Empire as a direct continuation of Rome? Did they still look admiringly at Roman achievements and success and want to emulate them? Or did the whole mess of migrations really just confuse the poo poo out of everyone and people didn't start going all "Yay Rome!" until the Renaissance hit? Nope! Remember, when the pope crowned Charlemagne in 800, he was crowned as the Emperor of the Romans in a deliberate "gently caress you" to the Eastern Roman empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So did Western European nations recognize Eastern Roman Empire as a direct continuation of Rome? Did they still look admiringly at Roman achievements and success and want to emulate them? Or did the whole mess of migrations really just confuse the poo poo out of everyone and people didn't start going all "Yay Rome!" until the Renaissance hit? Some of both. It was frequently called the empire of the Greeks, and I believe Rome was used too--not sure what other names might've existed. It came up less frequently as time went on and Europe moved on, but Charlemagne was a big deal when he crowned himself Roman emperor. The actual Roman emperor in Constantinople was understandably miffed at Charlemagne and the Pope usurping his title and that's really when the east and west started drifting apart. They were all aware there was a Roman Empire out east, and for a few centuries aware that it could walk all up and down their asses if they really wanted to, so most European kings didn't provoke them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:They were all aware there was a Roman Empire out east, and for a few centuries aware that it could walk all up and down their asses if they really wanted to, so most European kings didn't provoke them. Then why didn't they? Was later medieval Rome more of a conservative, isolationist state than the raging empire of earlier Rome? Also, does anyone have any cool stuff like the History of Rome Podcast for post-476 Rome? I'm about 2.3rds of the way through THoR and I'd love to keep going until Constantinople falls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 00:23
|
|