History Discussing History: 3rd-5th Centuries & Dark Ages

[Evo]

I'm a bit disappointed that no actual threads on history have been started.

Some intersting periods to discuss would be the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries with the barbarian invasions that helped to bring down the Roman Empire. We have the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, the Vandals, Sueves and Alans. Britain fell to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, then there were the Franks & Burgundians in Gaul.

Which brings us to one of my favorite periods, the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages). The Anglo-Saxon Bretwaldas - Aelle of Sussex, Ceawlin, Aethelberht, Raedwald.

It's my nap time, but I'l post more later. Anyone interested in these time periods?

 

[arildno]

I'm definitely interested!
I read some time ago a book which concerned the time period 300-700 in the western part of the Roman Empire, and that had as its focus the elements of continuity in life there during and beyond the breakdown of the Empire and the establishment of Germanic kingdoms.
Quite an interesting book..

 

[Evo]

I'm definitely interested!

Super! After my nap I will hopefully have some memory restored.

I read some time ago a book which concerned the time period 300-700 in the western part of the Roman Empire, and that had as its focus the elements of continuity in life there during and beyond the breakdown of the Empire and the establishment of Germanic kingdoms.
Quite an interesting book..

Do you remember the name of the book?

 

[arildno]

Super! After my nap I will hopefully have some memory restored.

Do you remember the name of the book?

I'll have it by tomorrow; it was by some Australian historian, I think.

 

[EnumaElish]

Is the Dark Ages your favorite period because it was a transition between the slave society of the Roman Empire and the feudal states of Europe, or for some other reason? (Am I oversimplifying?) Was it when Rome was divided into a Western Empire and an Eastern Empire, or was that even before the D.A.?

 

[Evo]

The sacking of Rome by King Alaric of the Visigoths is a good story by Procopius of Caesarea. The Visigoths had the city of Rome surrounded, the inhabitants of Rome were cut off, but after a long and fruitless siege Alaric realized it was going to take too long and be too difficult to capture the city so he made a plan. He decided on what basically amounted to a human "trojan horse"

He told the Romans that he gave up and would be moving out. He chose 300 of his youngest warriors to present to the Roman nobles as slaves, of course buttering the Romans up and telling them how great they were (the Romans of course believed this ).

Alaric instructed the Visigoth youth that they were to obey their new masters without argument and serve them eagerly to gain their new master's trust. On a predetermined day, at noon, (a time when Roman Nobles normally napped), they were to head to the Solarian gate, kill the guards and open the gates so that Alaric's men could invade the city.

The plan went off without a hitch and Rome was sacked.

The Emperor at the time, Honorius, having heard of the barbarians initial approach on Rome, fled to the city of Ravenia. When Rome was destroyed by Alaric, a servant handed him a message stating that "Rome (Roma) was dead". The Emperor cried out "but I just fed him"! (the Emperor had a pet chicken named Rome) The servant realizing the emperor's mistake advised him that it was the city of Rome, not his pet chicken that had died. The emperor was greatly relieved saying "Oh, I thought it was my pet chicken Roma that had perished".

 

[EnumaElish]

Interesting, to say the least! I'd never heard this story.

 

[Evo]

Interesting, to say the least! I'd never heard this story.

That's what makes learning history so much fun. I'm hoping we can bring some fun, interesting historical information and discuss the accuracy of what the historical writer wrote.

Is the Dark Ages your favorite period because it was a transition between the slave society of the Roman Empire and the feudal states of Europe, or for some other reason? (Am I oversimplifying?) Was it when Rome was divided into a Western Empire and an Eastern Empire, or was that even before the D.A.?

What makes the era appealing is the lack of information about the period, although a lot more information has surfaced in recent years.

I'm interested in how civilization spiraled downward so quickly and so much culture and knowledge was lost for so long. It's also a time of myth and legend, King Arthur and Camelot for instance. It was a time of viking raids.

 

[EnumaElish]

Some questions that I wish I had the answers for:

-- Had Rome become Christian by the the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries?
-- Were all the barbarians non-Christian?
-- If Rome was Christian, then the barbarians were probably anti-Christian. Is that right?
-- Was there an Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople at that point?
-- What about Germans (Teutons)? Didn't they have a hand in defeating Rome? Remember General Maximus "Gladiator" Meridius, commander of the Felix Legion, "General of the West" (?), who was defeated in a forest in Germania, as depicted by the first scene of the movie? See also:

The Germanic invasion that Maximus defends against was the real Germanic invasion of Gaul in AD 406.

 

[selfAdjoint]

-- Had Rome become Christian by the the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries?

Probably a majority were Christians by the 4th. Constantine converted then.

-- Were all the barbarians non-Christian?

The Goths were converted to Arian Christianity, in which Jesus is divine, but not God the Son.

-- If Rome was Christian, then the barbarians were probably anti-Christian. Is that right?

No. See above. And it wasn'nt mostly about religion at that point anyway.

-- Was there an Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople at that point?

Constantine built a new capital on the Bosporus, called, natch, Constantinople. He appointed his two sons to be Caesars at Rome and Constantinople and divided the administrations into an Eastern and Western section of the Empire. Subsequent emperors continued this, and their came to be co-emperors ruling in the two cities. When the last western emperor, Honorius, was overthrown by Theoderic and his Ostrogoths, only the Eatern empire remained, and it evolved on its own thereafter. Italy was periodically reconquered by the Eastern empire and then lost again.

-- What about Germans (Teutons)? Didn't they have a hand in defeating Rome? Remember General Maximus "Gladiator" Meridius, commander of the Felix Legion, "General of the West" (?), who was defeated in a forest in Germania, as depicted by the first scene of the movie?

You can't depend on movie history, that was fictional. The Romans did lose a legion at the Teutoberger Wald, but that was very early; centuries of successful empire followed it. The tribes that overthrew the western empire and then fought among themselves were the Goths (east and west), Franks, and Vandals, all germanic in the broad sense but not teutons. The Visigoths wound up in Spain, the Vandals in North Africa, and the Ostrogoths and Franks duked it out with each other and the Eastern empire in Italy.

 

[russ_watters]

Which brings us to one of my favorite periods, the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages).

Yeah, the dark ages are fun - plagues, Catholicism, feudalism, no science to speak of. Fun!

I am a big fan of the Renaissance, though...

I'm interested in how civilization spiraled downward so quickly and so much culture and knowledge was lost for so long.

Was there any "civilization" to speak of, prior to the Middle Ages in northern europe, besides when Rome had some control?

 

[Smurf]

Was there any "civilization" to speak of, prior to the Middle Ages in northern europe, besides when Rome had some control?

Of course there was.

 

[arildno]

Evo:
The book I was talking about is "The Roman Empire Divided, 400-700" by John Moorhead.
Here's a link:
http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0582251117,00.html

SelfAdjoint:
It is very improbable that the majority of the population was Christianized at the time of Constantine the Great.
Throughout his reign, he sacrificed to Jupiter in front of his army (a VERY important symbolic function); the simplest explanation is that he catered to the ordinary soldier's piety, even though Constantine himself was Christian.

The sway of Christianity increased through the 4th century, and by the latter half of the century, a significant enough proportion of the population was Christianized so that Theodosius could declare Christianity as state religion in 395 AD.
Considerable portions of the citizenry remained heathen, however, and the ultimate victory of Christianity should not be placed before the middle 5th century.

 

[matthyaouw]

It always seems strange to me that everyone assumes that after the roman empire, all trace of culture, civilisation, art, and skill were lost. Just because the people did't make anything quite as obvious and lasting as say an amphitheatre, doesn't mean they were all savages.
Just take a look at some of the treasures found at Sutton Hoo and see how much skill and workmanship went into them: http://www.wuffings.co.uk/MySHPages/SHPage.html
Or how about the Lindisfarne Gospels: http://www.durham.anglican.org/reference/lindisfarne/johninitial.jpg

These things are works of art that to me rival anything the Romans made.
I'm not claiming that various things weren't lost with the fall of Rome, but I don't think the dark ages were quite as dark as people make out.

 

[arildno]

These things are works of art that to me rival anything the Romans made.
I'm not claiming that various things weren't lost with the fall of Rome, but I don't think the dark ages were quite as dark as people make out.

They definitely were not, and most professional historians would agree with you.

 

[Evo]

It always seems strange to me that everyone assumes that after the roman empire, all trace of culture, civilisation, art, and skill were lost. Just because the people did't make anything quite as obvious and lasting as say an amphitheatre, doesn't mean they were all savages.

It was the quality of life that took a huge step backwards in the Dark Ages. That's what is so interesting. They lost a lot of things like running water, indoor plumbing, bath houses, all of the social refinements and advanced feats of engineering that the Romans had brought with them.

Just take a look at some of the treasures found at Sutton Hoo and see how much skill and workmanship went into them: http://www.wuffings.co.uk/MySHPages/SHPage.html
Or how about the Lindisfarne Gospels: http://www.durham.anglican.org/reference/lindisfarne/johninitial.jpg

It is believed that this was the tomb of Raedwald.

These things are works of art that to me rival anything the Romans made.
I'm not claiming that various things weren't lost with the fall of Rome, but I don't think the dark ages were quite as dark as people make out.

The Dark Ages is a very interesting period. Yes, they still had art mainly in the form of metal work, and many other things, a lot which I mentioned earlier, have just been discovered in recent years. There were no refined sculptures as was seen in Roman or Greek cultures though.

 

[EnumaElish]

The tribes that overthrew the western empire and then fought among themselves were the Goths (east and west), Franks, and Vandals, all germanic in the broad sense

What does everyone think was the problem with Germanic tribes, in the broadest sense? Why couldn't they play peacefully among themselves or read and translate books, instead of starting a trail of fire and blood of historic proportions? (This happened more than once, you know?)

 

[arildno]

What does everyone think was the problem with Germanic tribes, in the broadest sense? Why couldn't they play peacefully among themselves or read and translate books, instead of starting a trail of fire and blood of historic proportions? (This happened more than once, you know?)

The barbarian invasions during the 4th and 5th centuries was propelled by the Huns coming chasing after them. Effectively, the Germanic tribes fled and fought their way into Roman territory..

 

[Evo]

What does everyone think was the problem with Germanic tribes, in the broadest sense? Why couldn't they play peacefully among themselves or read and translate books, instead of starting a trail of fire and blood of historic proportions? (This happened more than once, you know?)

Initially, it was the Huns that migrated into the Visigoth lands (present day Romania) that forced the Visigoths in the 4th century to flee into the eastern Roman Empire. Then in the 5th century Attila's forces made things much worse, and they also invaded Roman territory.

It was the shifting of Roman troops from Britain to defend Italy's borders that allowed the Angles, Saxons & Jutes to take over Britain in 407. It also left a large area of the western Roman frontier poorly defended which allowed Germanic tribes to easily overrun the western provinces.

edit:I see Arildno beat me to it. That's what I get for stopping to eat breakfast during my post.

 

[arildno]

It should, however, be pointed out, that a very common, and SUCCESSFUL policy of the Roman Empire during the 4th century was to allow barbarian tribes to settle in border districts (often with low-quality arable lands) in return for military services rendered.
That is, most of the Roman troops that valiantly (and often successfully) fought against new barbarian invaders, was recently integrated "barbarians" (laeti).
Effectively, therefore, barbarians cherished inclusion in a FUNCTIONAL empire because of the benefits in terms of lands and trade that this gave them.

The disintegration of distinctly Roman rule cannot be solely be placed on the heads of Germanic tribes, but equally much on the Roman nobility who no longer bothered taking an active part in ruling the empire, but withdrew to their huge estates, latifundia, and sought to make themselves local overlords there, at the EXPENSE of the central, imperial authority.

 

[EnumaElish]

Initially, it was the Huns that migrated into the Visigoth lands (present day Romania) that forced the Visigoths in the 4th century to flee into the eastern Roman Empire. Then in the 5th century Attila's forces made things much worse, and they also invaded Roman territory.

The domino effect was operational even back then, apparently.

The disintegration of distinctly Roman rule cannot be solely be placed on the heads of Germanic tribes, but equally much on the Roman nobility who no longer bothered taking an active part in ruling the empire, but withdrew to their huge estates, latifundia, and sought to make themselves local overlords there, at the EXPENSE of the central, imperial authority.

In some sense, feudalism had started with these latifundia, hadn't it?

 

[arildno]

In some sense, feudalism had started with these latifundia, hadn't it?

Precisely; there was a continuous evolution from land-owners primarily oriented towards city life (the ancient world) to local overlords sitting within their small, fortified estates in the countryside.

First and foremost, the disintigration of the Empire was a disintegration of the urban culture back to a house-hold economy in the countrysides.

 

[EnumaElish]

This is how it seems to me:

If the Romans were smart and caring about future generations, they would try to integrate Germanic tribes into the empire to the greatest possible extent. Then, when Huns attacked, Germans would have defended Rome instead of destroying it! (Even Huns could not have been stopped at the border, German resistance would have given the attackers time to think twice whether the prize would be worth their heavy losses. In return, the Roman army could unite forces with Germans to push Huns back to wherever they came from.) Instead, Germans just fled and stampeded Rome, apparently because Rome hadn't given them a reason to not to.

 

[Evo]

If the Romans were smart and caring about future generations, they would try to integrate Germanic tribes into the empire to the greatest possible extent.

Actually Rome had allowed a number of people of Germanic origin to occupy Roman territory, mostly as farmers and mercenaries.

Then, when Huns attacked, Germans would have defended Rome instead of destroying it! (Even Huns could not have been stopped at the border, German resistance would have given the attackers time to think twice whether the prize would be worth their heavy losses.

Here you lost me. These aren't really Germans, so to speak. Yes the Huns drove the Germanic tribes into Roman territory. But it was the Visigoths under Alaric that sacked Rome, not the Huns, but this was due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.

 

[EnumaElish]

Here you lost me. These aren't really Germans, so to speak. Yes the Huns drove the Germanic tribes into Roman territory. But it was the Visigoths under Alaric that sacked Rome, not the Huns, but this was due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.

My point was that if the Romans were smart, they would integrate the Goths as part of the Empire in some formal sense. If that had happened, Goths would be there to take a hit for Rome when the Huns attacked. Instead, it appears like the Romans stupidly alienated the Goths by killing them in the thousands, and when the Huns pushed, the Goths did not have a reason to identify with and fight for Rome. They just "rolled over" toward the Roman heartland and squashed it.

 

[EnumaElish]

but this was due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.

Is this the massacre that the movie Gladiator alludes to? (Romans go after Maximus's family to rape, murder and burn the entire village.) Remember, Maximus is a Spaniard -- a barbarian.

 

[Evo]

Is this the massacre that the movie Gladiator alludes to? (Romans go after Maximus's family to rape, murder and burn the entire village.) Remember, Maximus is a Spaniard -- a barbarian.

I never saw Gladiator because I hate what's his name, the actor. I believe that the movie was supposed to take place during the reign of Commodus which was 180-192, much too early, Rome was sacked in 410.

 

[EnumaElish]

I never saw Gladiator because I hate what's his name, the actor.

Russell Crowe. Is the animosity personal (or reciprocal)?

I believe that the movie was supposed to take place during the reign of Commodus which was 180-192, much too early, Rome was sacked in 410.

And Rome did not become a republic "in the end," as the movie depicts.

What do you think about whether Roma could have turned the Goths into willing defenders of the Empire against the real outsiders, the Huns?

 

[selfAdjoint]

What do you think about whether Roma could have turned the Goths into willing defenders of the Empire against the real outsiders, the Huns?

But that's exactly what they did try (although the Huns didn't show up in Italy till later). But the Roman army in the 4th centrury was largely composed of Goths and other barbarian troops. There were supposed to be Sarmatian troops in Britain! Alaric was an army commander, and sacking Rome was a retailiation for punishments.

 

[EnumaElish]

it was the Visigoths under Alaric that sacked Rome [...] due to anger over the Emporer Honorius' killing of General Stilicho and the massacre of the families of 30,000 barbarian soldiers who had been serving in the Roman army.

Alaric was an army commander, and sacking Rome was a retailiation for punishments.

Does anyone know why they were being punished for? Massacring families sounds a little extreme if we are talking about army punishment for untied sandals or sword on the wrong side.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm a bit disappointed that no actual threads on history have been started.

Some intersting periods to discuss would be the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries with the barbarian invasions that helped to bring down the Roman Empire. We have the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, the Vandals, Sueves and Alans. Britain fell to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, then there were the Franks & Burgundians in Gaul.

Which brings us to one of my favorite periods, the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages). The Anglo-Saxon Bretwaldas - Aelle of Sussex, Ceawlin, Aethelberht, Raedwald.

Anyone interested in these time periods?

I am quite interested in these periods. I think we need to 'resurrect' this thread. Shame to leave it dormant for so long.

Coincidentally, just last night, I purchased "A History of the Middle Ages" by Joseph Dahmus. The book was copyrighted in 1968, republished in 1995, and was discounted to $8. The first Chapter is "Rome and its Decline" (with reference to Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) and the second is "The Rise and Triumph of Christianity".

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire

From Our Editors
The thousand years of history that lie between the twilight of the Roman Empire and the dawn of the Renaissance have come to be referred to (amorphously) as the Middle Ages; but in this study, the author makes a convincing case for ascribing wider boundaries to the era, tracing the continuity of medieval times with both ancient and modern history. With scholarly insight, Dahmus discusses such topics as the decline of the Empire; the triumph of Christianity; the turmoil of a Europe besieged by barbarians and Moslems; the emergence of nations; the rise and fall of dynasties; the development of the feudal system; the Crusades; and the founding of guilds, towns, and universities. In covering these issues, he gives us a new appreciation of how classical, Christian, and barbarian influences intermingled to form the basis of an emerging Western civilization. A cogent analysis that illumines the complex events, personalities, and events of the time.

From the Publisher
Joseph Dahmus recounts the decline of the Roman Empire, the triumph and ascendancy of Christianity, the turmoil of Western Europe besieged by barbarians and Moslem, the emergence of new nations, the rise and fall of kings and dynasties, the development of the feudal system, the waging of the Crusades, and the founding of guilds, cities and universities. In so doing, he gives the reader a new appreciation of how classical, Christian and barbarian influences mingled with each other, and with other elements, throughout the Middle Ages to form the basis of an emergent Western civilization. And he offers many insights that differ from the generally accepted ones: For instance, when discussing the disruption of the unity of the Mediterranean world in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., and the prevailing view that this was mainly caused by the barbarian invaders, he argues that these invaders were in fact largely absorbed without destroying that unity, and that the real break between the ancient and medieval worlds came much later, in the seventh and eighth centuries, with the rise of Islam.

The book's wide scope is of special pertinence and value. Because of his conviction that the medieval era can itself claim wider boundaries that those traditionally assigned to it, the author is able to trace the continuity of the Middle Ages not only with ancient but also with modern history.

This may go well with another book I started reading - Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

A very good history of Chrisitanity is Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History, by James Carroll.

I am quite interested in early human history prior to 0 CE, as well as what happened subsequently. Another good book is Historical Atlas of Central Europe Paul Robert Magocsi. The invasions from the east rippled all the way to France!

Another book that seems interesting is Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World by Hugh Pope. The influence of Turkic peoples from Central Asia has been significant. Just look at the Ottoman Empire.

Dahmus has written a number of interesting books including:

Seven Medieval Kings, "biographies of Justinian, Harun al-Rashid, Charlemagne, Henry II, Frederick II, Louis IX, and Louis XI--men who controlled areas of the world where rulers shaped the human community."

Seven Decisive Battles of the Middle Ages

Seven Medieval Historians

Also from Dahmus

"During the Merovingian centuries when most kings were weak, and brutal men fought over power and booty, ordinary folk, as well as many who were not so ordinary, again found themselves in desparate need of protection. The result was the appearance and wide extension of a practice called commendation. This involved a formal act by which one person offered his services, together with his lands if he had any, to a stronger man in return for his protection. The individual peasant might ask a more powerful man in his neighborhood to accept him and his holding and take them under his protection. That man in turn might approach one stronger than himself, perhaps the count or duke, and request a similar kind of protection. Given the weakness of kings and the turbulence of the times, most men stood in need of protection, from the meanest peasant to members of the landed aristocracy."

I still have to read through Dahmus's book but the quote would seem to imply the rise of feudalism.

Some background-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian

After the Merovingian kings came the Carolingian kings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian

In historiography, the term Dark Ages or Dark Age most commonly refers to the European Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 to 1000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

The early part of the 'Dark Ages' corresponds to significant migrations and invasion of peoples from northern Europe and Central Asia into the Mediterranean and Central Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

But there has always been pressure and tension among peoples.

 

[Anttech]

It could be argued that the Roman Empire never fell, it transformed into something else, the Catholic Church.

Although many people call the Eastern Roman empire just that, it was separate from the western empire in Language, culture, ideals. It was based around the Hellenic culture, rather than Latin Culture. Both were intertwined, but both were different.

 

[nannoh]

It could be argued that the Roman Empire never fell, it transformed into something else, the Catholic Church.

Although many people call the Eastern Roman empire just that, it was separate from the western empire in Language, culture, ideals. It was based around the Hellenic culture, rather than Latin Culture. Both were intertwined, but both were different.

I'm surprized that Sparticus doesn't get more mention with regard to Roman history. His contributions to history and to the initial cracks in the downfall of Rome are major. He is an enigmatic figure who spoke the many languages of the slaves. He is thought to have been Slavic (which is the Roman name given the people of the Russian Steppes meaning "slave"). How did this man win the hearts of slaves from so many different lands? In the first place, how did he communicate with them when there was so much oppression going on? He must have performed some remarkable actions to have word of his name spread to the slave galleys and prisons of Rome.

Does anyone know of an accurate record of Sparticus? Something written about him, his rebellion and his times (73bc)?

 

[Astronuc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus - which has Spartacus born in Thrace, so he could have been Bulgar or Slav.

Spartacus: leader of an army of runaway slaves that infested Italy in 73-71 BCE. He was defeated by the Roman general Crassus.

http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus.html

Plutarch on Spartacus
http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus_t01.html

http://www.unrv.com/roman-republic/spartacus.php

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/spartacus.html

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons2_n2/spartacus.html

I always wonder these days, which site has the original text, and which sites are copies.

Now this looks promising!

Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/papers/subject/subject/romanhist.html

 

[Anttech]

which has Spartacus born in Thrace, so he could have been Bulgar or Slav.

Thrace was Hellenic in those days (as it is now), hmmm. In fact most of the Balkans was.

 

[nannoh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus - which has Spartacus born in Thrace, so he could have been Bulgar or Slav.

Spartacus: leader of an army of runaway slaves that infested Italy in 73-71 BCE. He was defeated by the Roman general Crassus.

http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus.html

Plutarch on Spartacus
http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus_t01.html

http://www.unrv.com/roman-republic/spartacus.php

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/spartacus.html

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons2_n2/spartacus.html

I always wonder these days, which site has the original text, and which sites are copies.

Now this looks promising!

Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/papers/subject/subject/romanhist.html

Very nice! Thank you Astronuc. A wonderful Christmas present!

It'll be a while before I get through these links... many thanks again!

It must have been quite inspiring for those people oppressed by the Roman occupation of so many nations. I read once that Sparticus actually sent funds to the Hebrew liberation movement to help with their cause of sovereignty. This seems a bit impossible considering the dates.

 

[Astronuc]

Digressing back to the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries - this is an interesting period.

I was reading Dahmus's book last night and it gives a summary of the 3rd century with the progression of Roman emperors - known as the Barracks Emperors - those who came up through the military and the majority who we killed, sometimes by their own troops. Here is Wikipedia's article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks_Emperors and the article on the turmoil of the 3rd century - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

The troubles began in 235, when the emperor Alexander Severus was murdered by soldiers at the age of 27 after Roman legions were defeated in a campaign against Sassanid Persia. As general after general squabbled over control of the empire, the frontiers were neglected and subjected to frequent raids by Carpians, Goths, Vandals and Alamanni, and outright attacks from aggressive Sassanids in the east.

Finally, by 258, the attacks were coming from within, when the Empire broke up into three separate competing states. The Roman provinces of Gaul, Britain and Hispania broke off to form the Gallic Empire, and two years later in 260, the eastern provinces of Syria, Palestine and Aegyptus became independent as the Palmyrene Empire (with Sassanid backing), leaving the remaining Italian centered Roman empire proper in the middle.

An invasion by a vast host of Goths was beaten back at the Battle of Naissus in 268. This victory was significant as the turning point of the crisis, when a series of tough energetic soldier emperors took power. Victories by the emperor Claudius II Gothicus over the next two years drove back the Alamanni and recovered Hispania from the Gallic Empire. When Claudius died in 270 of the plague, Aurelian, who had commanded the cavalry at Naissus, succeeded him as emperor and continued the restoration of the empire.

The Roman empire was faced with rebellions or attacks from all over - Britain, Gaul, Germania, Dacia, Syria, Palestine and Aegyptus, and Mesopotamia and Persia.

The Barracks Emperors were followed by the Illyrian Emperors, of whom Diocletian was the first and Constantine (I) the fourth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_Emperor

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concis...Rulers_during_the_Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

Jumping a bit ahead to the latter part of the 4th Century, the Gothic War (377–382) (which could be considered the second Gothic War) is considered the first of a series of events the would lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire. In particular, the second Battle of Adrianople (now Edirne) is often considered the start of the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century.

Adrianople has been the site of several significant battles over the last 1700 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople_(disambiguation)

 

[Astronuc]

. . . Spartacus born in Thrace, so he could have been Bulgar or Slav.

Strike the Bulgar since they were not in the Balkans until 200 years after Spartacus's birth date.

I was wondering if Spartacus was Thracian (or Dacian), and if so from Hellenic Thrace (south of Rhodopian mountains) or from north of the Rhodopian mountains, e.g. around Plovdiv or Varna or . . . . or was he already a slave in Thrace, i.e. of some other ethnic group from the east or north.

 

[Evo]

Astronuc, can't wait to discuss these periods with you, I've just been so busy.

 

[Astronuc]

Two significant writers/historians of the period (4th cent) are Ausonius and Ammianus Marcellinus. Before that were Tacitus and Plutarch (1st-2nd cent), which makes me wonder about those of the latter second and third centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausonius (born at Burdigala (Bordeaux) and lived nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammianus_Marcellinus (possibly born/lived in Antioch (now Syria))
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~drijvers/ammianus/biography.htm
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~drijvers/ammianus/

http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/ammianus_bio.html

Another version of the Battle of Adrianople (378)
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/378adrianople.html

Dahmus ponders - had Valens only waited for Gratian to arrive from the west. The motivation for the Goths to move south at this point was the Hun invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#2nd-5th_centuries

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521846331/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (Key Conflicts of Classical Antiquity) (Hardcover)
by Michael Kulikowski


http://www.roman-emperors.org/bd306.htm - Major Battles

http://www.roman-emperors.org/Index.htm - Maps

I think one has to look at internal and external sources of the decline of the Roman empire, which seems to apply to most large (overextended) societies. In short - internal decay undermines the ability to withstand external pressures.

As for the Goths - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/jordanes-goths20.html - rather disappointingly short.

Meanwhile in the east - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/vopiscus-aurelian1.html


Dahmus indicates that while the tribes (e.g. Goths) were "inferior in number, in terms of warriors they were not, since all able bodied men fought." In fact "they fought with devotion of fathers and husbands anxious over the fate of their families, as constrasted to the many halfhearted, self-serving soldiers who joined the Roman army for a means of livelihood." Elsewhere Dahmus address the fact that the Roman military, particularly on the frontiers, because increasingly reliant on non-Romans for military service, and this likely had the effect of undermining a commitment to Rome and the Empire.

Internally, as emphasized by the majority of scholars, there was a gradual decline in the 'public spirit' and 'morale' and a growing unwillingness of members of the citizenry to serve in the army (military). Public spiritness was replaced by corruption of the Senatorial aristocracy and imperial bureaucracy, and the 'love of country/empire' was replaced by apathy of the masses.

There were constant political struggles between the central authority (Emperor/Senate) and the outlying provinces, which would assume some level of autonomy depending on whomever ascended to governor of the local area.

Might as well add this to the discussion -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths#Kings_of_the_Visigoths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataulf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigeric (king for seven days in 415 CE) - seems Visigoth rulers were also assassinated - not just Roman Emperors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoric_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilicho

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chalons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes - Historian from 6th cent.

 

[Astronuc]

Also, add a discussion on the Juthungi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juthungi - an Alamannic tribe.

The meaning of their name is “descendants”, and refers to the ancient Suebian tribe of the Semnoni.

The Juthungi invaded Italy in 259–260, but on their way back they were defeated near Augsburg on 24–25 April 260 by Marcus Simplicinius Genialis (this is recorded on a Roman memorial stone found in 1992). At this time the Roman Empire lost the Limes area in this region. Between 356 and 358 the Juthungi and the Alamanni invaded the province of Raetia, and destroyed Castra Regina (the Roman capital of the province, and one of the biggest Roman military camps in south Germany, with massive stone walls and a village). A second invasion of Raetia in 383 was repelled by an army of Alans and Huns. Between 429 and 431 the Roman general Aëtius also fought against the Juthungi in Raetia.

There doesn't seem to much else about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamanni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans - an Iranian or Persian people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals


There are lots of peoples/tribes/clans from the Iberian peninsula to the Central Asia/Steppes to Persia and Mesopotomia/Arabia and Egypt/Ethiopia - and it is complex to say the least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

 

[Astronuc]

More interesting references -

Chris Wickham, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199212961/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (Paperback), Oxford University Press, USA, New edition (January 12, 2007)

Julia M. H. Smith, https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199244278/?tag=pfamazon01-20, Oxford University Press, USA (September 15, 2005)

Michael McCormick, https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521661021/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (Hardcover), Cambridge University Press (February 11, 2002)

Thomas Noble, https://www.amazon.com/dp/0415327423/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (Paperback), Routledge; 1 edition (April 12, 2006)

Walter Goffart, https://www.amazon.com/dp/0812239393/?tag=pfamazon01-20, University of Pennsylvania Press (June 30, 2006)

and

Peter Heather, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195159543/?tag=pfamazon01-20, Oxford University Press, USA (December 1, 2005)

The death of the Roman Empire is one of the perennial mysteries of world history. Now, in this groundbreaking book, Peter Heather proposes a stunning new solution: Rome generated its own nemesis. Centuries of imperialism turned the neighbors it called barbarians into an enemy capable of dismantling the Empire that had dominated their lives for so long. Heather is a leading authority on the late Roman Empire and on the barbarians. In The Fall of the Roman Empire, he explores the extraordinary success story that was the Roman Empire and uses a new understanding of its continued strength and enduring limitations to show how Europe's barbarians, transformed by centuries of contact with Rome on every possible level, eventually pulled it apart. He shows first how the Huns overturned the existing strategic balance of power on Rome's European frontiers, to force the Goths and others to seek refuge inside the Empire. This prompted two generations of struggle, during which new barbarian coalitions, formed in response to Roman hostility, brought the Roman west to its knees. The Goths first destroyed a Roman army at the battle of Hadrianople in 378, and went on to sack Rome in 410. The Vandals spread devastation in Gaul and Spain, before conquering North Africa, the breadbasket of the Western Empire, in 439. We then meet Attila the Hun, whose reign of terror swept from Constantinople to Paris, but whose death in 453 ironically precipitated a final desperate phase of Roman collapse, culminating in the Vandals' defeat of the massive Byzantine Armada: the west's last chance for survival. Peter Heather convincingly argues that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of social or moral collapse. What brought it to an end were the barbarians.

The part I bolded doesn't really sound original, but simply seems to paraphrase Joseph Dahmus and others. Even Dahmus indicates that earlier historians pretty much reached the same or similar conclusions.

 

[Astronuc]

One more reference on the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis)
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/adrianople.html

The Battle of Adrianople on 9 August AD 378 was the beginning of the end for the Roman empire.

The Roman empire weakening, then the barbarians were on the rise. Rome was no longer in its prime, yet it still could muster a tremendous force.

The western empire at the time was ruled by Gratian, meanwhile in the east was ruled by his uncle Valens.

If it wasn't this battle, it could have been another. The Roman Empire was so big that it was subjected to pressure on many fronts.

Several Germanic Tribes from the north and west, actually many, were attracted to the warmer weather, the culture, the wealth, and the military conflict. Slavic and Turkic tribes from the east were migrating, especially once the Huns invaded from the far east. In the south and south east, there were pressures from Persia, and later Arabia and Turkic tribes.

Internally, emperors and generals plotted against one another. During the early Middle Ages, emperors and generals were are constant risk of assassination.

And another resource on the Middle Ages - http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/firsteuro/chapter.html

 

[Astronuc]

Putting the third century in perspective -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century

 

[Francis M]

I love history. It was my favorite subject in HS, and still is. You folks are way over my head in the level of details and information on most of this stuff it would seem.

 

[Evo]

I love history. It was my favorite subject in HS, and still is. You folks are way over my head in the level of details and information on most of this stuff it would seem.

Not at all, an absolute novice at history can join, which is all we are, we're just citing online references for the most part. Most of my reading of history was before the internet, so mostly from books, some magazines. The internet really broadened my horizons because for the first time I could read about things that weren't in my local public library branch.

Feel free to join in or add references.

 

[Astronuc]

I love history. It was my favorite subject in HS, and still is. You folks are way over my head in the level of details and information on most of this stuff it would seem.

As Evo mentioned, jump in. This is the place to share resources and insights.

I just started reading Stephen Mitchell's, "A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284-461," the period beginning with the ascension of Diocletian and ending with the death of Heraclius. I quite enjoy it because there is an introductory discussion on the process of reporting history and some commentary on sources. The second chapter is a discussion of the 'The Nature of the Evidence' in which Mitchell discusses the types of ancient writings and their perspectives. It's too bad the more of the pagan and secular writings were not preserved.

In Mitchell's book, there is a reference to the Cambridge Ancient History, a multivolume set. I looked on line and the entire set is about £1800 (~$3600US)! , but the individual volumes are £120 (~$240 US). Volumes 12-14 cover the late Roman Period.

Volume 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337
2nd edition
Edited by Alan Bowman, Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey

Volume 13: The Late Empire, AD 337–425
Edited by Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey

The Cambridge Ancient History
Volume 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425–600
Edited by Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Michael Whitby

http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/uk/browse/browse_all.asp?subjectid=1009088

But wait! At Amazon the full set is only: $2,835.00 (1/13/07) - get it while supplies last!

Meanwhile, I found this interesting discussion -
http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1999/rhodes.html

See also - http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/
and
http://www.dur.ac.uk/classics/

I do find the internet very useful, but I still prefer books.

 

[Francis M]

Well Thanks you two. I haven't read up much on these periods, but I'm goign to try and find more inforamtion on them. I also find interesting the early period of Rome's rise and developement. In essence it's start (when it was a bunch of separate city states) when it was still developing into the ROme that everyone is familiar with.
The last book I read was "The Russo-German War 1941-1945" I rather enjoyed it because it detailed both the battles and the politics and policies within both the Russian and German military machine at the time. It practically laid out how the seeds for the destructuion of the Wermacht was planted before the war was ever opened on that front. But I've digressed. There's been plenty documented about WWII, on to other subjects!

 

[Astronuc]

The Dark Ages - History Channel

After the fall of Rome and before the rebirth of the Renaissance, Europe survived six centuries of continental revolution characterized by famine, plague and bloodshed—a time known as the Dark Ages. At its worst, life in the Dark Ages was miserable, brutish and—for the fortunate—short. But through the darkness shone scattered rays of light, men and women who tended the flame of progress while the world around them descended into chaos. Those points of light brought about the footprint of modern Europe both politically and culturally. The two-hour special THE DARK AGES explores the unprecedented period spanning the fall of Rome and Europe’s “medieval awakening.”

The Dark Ages on the History Channel - premieres Sunday, March 4, at 9 p.m. ET/PT
http://www.history.com/marquee.do?marquee_id=53127

Should be interesting.

It'll be interesting to see which persons are considered significant by the creator/author.

 

[light_bulb]

the problem is that the romans would invade gaul, kill whoever then when fighting with persia employ the tribes they sacked previously. this backfired more than once until they prefected the technique of getting everyone to do the killing and/or marrying into anyone who threatened the city. one thing that sticks out in my mind is the location of italy and that rome is quiet or complacent when a war breaks out.

thanks history channel