sonic

I know what you mean and I agree that Marcellinus and Procopius would have used traditional, but archaic, forms of language. However, they were a continuation of a tradition and that tradition was still unbroken. That is the crux of the argument. The fact that any readers of the time would have had to have the same background education to understand the texts in their entirity is true, but then the same holds true for many academic works today: the average reader would have to dive for his dictionary at least once per page!!

The greatest single victory was the Battle of Dara in 531 under Belisarius. His tactics were absolutely superb. He got the Persians to do exactly what he wanted them to do and so wiped the floor with them. Pity he then lost at Callinicum the following year! As to campaigns, probably that of Heraclius, like the majority of responses.

Why do people always assume that buildings deteriorated -sure, they were no longer made of stone, but wood is equally as difficult to work in many respects and some of the larger wooden halls could have a lifespan of well over a century. I agree that the disappearance of coinage was a backward step economically, but the question remains of how widespread the use of coins in Roman Britain was. Did a farmer in the middle of Cornwall pay another farmer in coins when he bought his pig? Who knows?! Finally, a small point that I've never seen answered: it is still possible to walk along Roman roads that have not been repaired or remade in the last 2,000 years. Why couldn't the people of the 'Dark Ages' have used them? And if they could, why would they need to build new ones? And how long were they in use for?

For me, antiquity ended with the reign of Heraclius. This is because 'antiquity' to me means a reliance upon the use of 'classical' Latin and 'classical' Greek, with both languages being roughly equal and the traditions of both cultures being equally used by the educated people of both East and West. It is easy to see why Heraclius legalised the use of Greek instead of Latin in Byzantine documents - a gradual change that had been progressing over the previous centuries - but from his time onwards one aspect of antiquity became dominant whilst the other dwindled. The continued use of Latin in the West does not mean a continuation of antiquity, since Greek fell into disuse - except in very exceptional cases - and Latin itself cease to be a 'living' language, relegated from the medium of mass communication to a form of 'low' Latin that was a preserve of the clergy. Antiquity had definitely gone when the general population needed the clergy to read the bible to them! And when I say 'classical' Latin etc, I mean continuous use by a large percentage of the population of a 'living' language that changes over time. The Latin of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek of Procopius represented a language that had changed; Procopius is as much a part of the 'classical' world as Herodotus, and Vegetius as Julius Caesar or Virgil. Latin is now a fossil that has not changed for centuries.

It was never really practical. Although the Vandals and the Goths were relatively easy to beat, there was little chance of the Byzantines conquering the Franks in Gaul. The Vandals and Goths were Arians, the population Catholic, so the Empire was helped by the population. In France, the Franks were Catholic and so were the population, whilst the Empire was 'Eastern' (you can't really call it 'Orthodox' yet). The Empire would not have received any support from the natives. It could have got somewhere without Belisarius: Justinian actually had some superb generals, many of whom stand up well in comparison to Belisarius himself. Whether they would have gone about the invasions the same way and with the same effect will never be known. which other generals? Narses was good but all the other generals that justinian left to be in charge of italy rarely helped eachother and just squabbled. Thus Belisarius was recalled once again from the persian front Good question. Strangely, nobody seems to be aware of some of these men, although they are all mentioned in Procopius. Germanus, the cousin of Justinian was an excellent commander and used around the Empire to plug gaps. However, his relationship to Justinian probably meant that he would not be trusted with a large army - he was too likely to rebel. John the Armenian, who served under Belisarius in the Africa campaign. An excellent general, and trusted by Belisarius to pursue Gelimer, he was killed in a bizarre accident prior to Gelimer's surrender. If he had been in charge, he would not have been killed. However, we don't know whether he would have stood up to the pressures of a lone command. Dorotheus, commander of the foederati. Classed as a good general and liked by the troops, he died of an illness in Sicily prior to the landing in Africa. OK, so he couldn't really have taken much part, but the fact that I can name three off the top of my head shows that Justinian had many good generals in his service. It is possible that the main reason for Belisarius' success was the trust he had from Justinian. Let's be fair, he also squabbled with Narses and others, but he had the piece of paper saying that he was in charge!

It is very old fashioned and takes everything that Procopius writes in his 'Histories' as true, and makes no attempt at either analyzing or evaluating either Procopius as a historian or Belisarius as a general. In short, it's just hero worship. That said, it's one of the few books available and is fairly cheap. I own a second-hand copy. To anybody interested, I am currently writing a book on Belisarius and, hopefully, it should be out either later this year or sometime in the new year. I'm not claiming that it will be brilliant, I'm just saying it will be there!! Well since I posted that comment I've bought and read that book and thought it was a very good biography of Belisarius, I know that Procopius could exaggerate the truth a bit, but I would be very interested in seeing your different interpretation of Belisarius and particularly your sources, bearing in mind that in that era the only reputable source you have are Procopius and the Greek historian Agathias which are both pretty favorable to Belisarius on the whole. Please let me know about the release date of your new book, I'll be very interested in reading it. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll let you know as soon as I know myself, but it won't be for quite a while yet. I'm trying to look at Belisarius from a military point of view, rather than simply repeating the sources. I haven't made up my mind yet what my interpretation is going to be - I haven't quite finished the book. Until I've gone through everything in as much detail as I can I'm trying to keep an open mind; I'm trying not to fall into the trap of bringing my own misconceptions into the story. We''l just have to see if I can manage it!

It is very old fashioned and takes everything that Procopius writes in his 'Histories' as true, and makes no attempt at either analysing or evaluating either Procopius as a historian or Belisarius as a general. In short, it's just hero worship. That said, it's one of the few books available and is fairly cheap. I own a second-hand copy. To anybody interested, I am currently writing a book on Belisarius and, hopefully, it should be out either later this year or sometime in the new year. I'm not claiming that it will be brilliant, I'm just saying it will be there!!

It was never really practical. Although the Vandals and the Goths were relatively easy to beat, there was little chance of the Byzantines conquering the Franks in Gaul. The Vandals and Goths were Arians, the population Catholic, so the Empire was helped by the population. In France, the Franks were Catholic and so were the population, whilst the Empire was 'Eastern' (you can't really call it 'Orthodox' yet). The Empire would not have received any support from the natives. It could have got somewhere without Belisarius: Justinian actually had some superb generals, many of whom stand up well in comparison to Belisarius himself. Wheteher they would have gone about the invasions the same way and with the same effect will never be known.

Who opened this can of worms? Oh well.... Northumbria was the 'Kingdom North of the Humber', as Andrew says, but no-one knows the meaning of the word 'Humber'; it is pre Roman and the meaning has long been lost (the same goes for 'Thames'). Also, when the Danelaw was set up, the Danes did not take control of any part of Scotland. In fact, there was part of Northumbria that escaped Viking control, and was sandwiched between the Danelaw and Scotland. The word 'shire' comes from Old English 'scir' (pronounced, er, 'shire') meaning 'district', therefore Yorkshire means 'district administered from York', Lancashire means 'District administered from Lancaster' etc. I'm sorry, but I don't think Dauntsey means 'Isle of the Danes'. It was recorded as 'Dometesig' in the year 850, and seems to mean 'Island of a man named Domgeat' (an Old English personal name). As to the fact that many words used in the North of England derive from Viking words, they do - but so do many 'common' words, such as 'egg', 'window' (Wind-eye) and 'skirt'. In the Viking languages there was a tendency to change the soft 'sh' sound to a harder 'sk' sound. Therefore, 'shirt' and 'skirt' originally meant the same thing. Only later has there been the divide into two separate items of clothing. Incidentally, the same happened to place names: 'Shipton' in the south of England has the same meaning as 'Skipton' in the north of England. Both have the same meaning; 'Sheep Farm'. The situation is worse in Wales, where often there is the name given in English, for example 'Swansea' and a different name in Welsh, 'Abertawe'. 'Swansea' means 'Sweyn's Isle', named after a viking who set up base there (I think), whereas 'Abertawe' means '(settlement at ) the Mouth (Aber) of the River Tawe'. Compare Abergavenny and many others! By the way, the county of 'Cumbria' (earlier 'Cumberland') in the North of England mean 'Lands of the 'Cumbrogi' or 'Welsh'. Compare this to the modern name given to Wales by the Welsh: 'Cymry'. The area was one of the last to be conquered by the English from the Celts. Oh, and 'Welsh' is the Old English for 'foreigner' or 'slave'. It's no wonder the Welsh aren't too keen on the English! For anybody really interested, there are many handbooks (usually classed as 'Dictionaries') of English place names. Try typing 'Dictionary of English place names' into Amazon, or any other bookseller list, and you usually get quite a few options. For those of you really interested, 'Signposts to the Past' by Margaret Gelling is a good starting point. Sorry this is so long, but you took me back a few years: I did an essay on place names for my Ancient History degree. Oh dear, it's all coming back to me now! Help......

There is no real evidence for the Roman Army being mainly German at this early date What evidence there is is misleading and open to misinterpretation. It is likely that there were many 'Romanised Germans' in the army, but the majority were still likely to be Roman citizens - although we should remember that 'Roman' now applied to all freeborn members of the empire, whether from Britain, Germania, Africa, Asia Minor, etc. etc. The most likely period for the large-scale recruitment of barbarians was after the Battle of Adrianople, when the manpower shortage caused by the losses resulted in Rome needing large numbers of men very quickly. Also, the Gothic cavalry only made a dramatic difference because they arrived late (they had been out foraging), they were not seen because of the huge amounts of dust thrown up during the battle, and they attacked the Romans from an unexpected direction. The Roman legions continued to fight long after the battle was lost, maintaining their discipline until the end. The idea that Roman troops did not wear armour is also highly suspect. It is based on two main sources. One is sculptures/monumental evidence, which tends to be stylised, highly conservative, and does not necessarily display up-to-date fashion or real-life equipment. The second source of evidence is Vegetius. However, reading Vegetius gives the impression that the man was an armchair theorist, and had no connection to the army, instead basing his opinions upon the guardsmen with whom he was familiar. As any soldier will know, ornamental guardsmen seldom wear armour: it's too heavy and dirty for their pretty uniforms!

The Romans gained much of their knowledge of medicine from the Greeks. The Greeks had early realsied that men who were kept in a clean and airy environment recovered from wounds and illnesses more than those on dirty, fetid environments. Although they did not know about bacteria etc, the Greeks were intelligent enough to go with the flow; and the Romans were also intelligent enough to keep hospitals etc as clean as possible. Many of the surgical implements used in modern medicine have an equivalent in Ancient Roman medicine. I'd rather be injured on a Roman battlefield than any during the Middle Ages or even up to quite recently. The English Army only began to take things seriously after the efforts of Florence Nightingale in the Crimean War. And for those interested in military medicine, try looking up the history of Mary Seacole (I think I've spelt that correctly). She worked at the same time as Nightingale, but didn't get the same recognition. Find out why for yourself!

The Huns did not use the metal strrup. The first people to use metal stirrups in the West - that we currently know of - are the Avars. It was introduced into Byzantium and then the West in the 6th/7th centuries. A form of leather stirrup may have been in use earlier, but they don't survive in the ground except under extreme conditions (eg. waterlogged, frozen etc), so we don't know when or where they were used. The stirrup only really became common in the West much later, possibly in the 8th or 9th centuries. The Roman saddle had four horns which held the rider in place: according to those who have reconstructed one and ridden horses using it, such as Peter Connolly, the only way to fall out of these saddles is to jump. Stirrups are really only useful for mounting and dismounting if your saddle is designed correctly.

What is the evidence for the Roman army being largely German? None. It is all circumstantial and has been collected and issued as proof by historians writing between the 1930's and 1970's. The most influential of these were Hoffmann and Alfoldi. Their views are now taken as being self-evident, but a closer look at their arguments shows that the vast majority of the troops could have come from anywhere in the Empire, not just the German tribes on the northern frontiers. If anyone has any specific questions on this, either post or email me. Sonic

It all depends on who you believe. if you follow the traditional historians, the greatest victory has to be Ad Decimum under Belisarius. According to the traditional view, the Vandals fielded an army of 160,000 men (see for, example, Harbottle's 'Dictionary of Battles' under 'Carthage 2'), but I don't know where they get the numbers from . According to Procopius, Belisarius won the battle with only 5,000 cavalry! Odds of 32:1. Beat that!!