sonic

In my opinion it was a combined effect of multiple problems. Civil wars, the refusal of the rich to pay the taxes needed to fund the army, the loss of recruiting areas, multiple attacks on various fronts, the loss of loyalty around the fringes, amongst others. Oh, and the birth of Gaiseric - the only man whose actions helped speed the decline!

Actually, a more relevant book would be the one on Gaiseric: https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Gaiseric-Hardback/p/13684

Not fond of "one". Strangely, it's the hook and the riff of the Ghost song that have caught me, rather than the lyrics.

A bit darker ....

Oh, and I'm almost certain that Stilicho and Alaric were not 'friends'. They probably saw each other as individuals who could help them reach their personal goals, but as their goals were not the same, it would be more of a political balance rather than a friendship. Alaric was twice defeated by Stilicho, and Stilicho wanted to use Alaric for his own agenda. I don't think Alaric, twice defeated and with his own ambitions stymied by Stilicho, would count Stilicho as a friend. They both wanted the Roman senate to accede to their demands, so it's probably better to see them both as thinking 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' in this case. But I could be wrong!

To put it mildly, and this is not a criticism - it's impossible to cover so long a period in a short video - the video is simplistic, leaves out many cogent details, and the maps with arrows plus those with large areas settled by the barbarians can be very confusing. The video has some areas where I disagree, but have to accept that other interpretations are possible. Specifically, although I agree with the assumption that the Battle of the Frigidus was a major factor, and Stilicho almost certainly withdrew troops from the frontier to defend Italy, there are other factors either attributed without evidence, overlooked or skipped over. For example, the Romans were never seen as 'invincible', but were acknowledged as extremely dangerous and an attack was likely to provoke a response. At least until later. If seen as invincible, no one would have dared to attack. And there are several defeats throughout the period (upcoming: Hughes, probably late 2022/early 2023, but covering Rome's existence). Also, there is no contemporary evidence that the Rhine was frozen (although this is acknowledged in the video). However, overlooked is the fact that the numbers of people crossing the Rhine was probably far smaller than previously thought, and although there is the acceptance that the loss at the Frigidus was a major factor, the video covers neither the loss of the Illyrian recruiting grounds to the Eastern half of the Empire, nor Stilicho's plan to use Alaric in an Invasion to recover Illyricum, which would also account for the focus being away from the Rhine. In my opinion, these are just a few things that should be borne in mind. (Other opinions are available!!)

Stilicho's seeming inaction in 406 is also explained by his proposed campaign in Illyricum, as part of which Alaric would be dispatched.

'Roman propaganda'? How dare you - the Romans are always fair and reliable!! 🤣 I'm not great at Persian and Armenian sources, but thankfully many of them are now translated. These are also slightly biased, and, as written later, can be difficult to relate historically.

Not a bad idea. Not sure if the sources would give the information needed, but the idea deserves some thought.

I am currently writing the last book for which I have a contract ('Thirteen Roman Defeats'). If I ever decide to write another, is there any subject members would like to see covered? No guarantees ....

Chuff me!! I wish I could afford one ....

Finally, the last in the series of books covering the last century of the Western Roman Empire is now available for pre-order: Constantius III Cheers

Next screen play? I've not written a first, yet!!

Mutter has to be one of my favourite albums of all time!

His main significance is that he tried to reverse the damage and proved that, if correctly led, it was possible for the Empire to respond to the threats facing it. The fact that his taxation resulted in defeat led to his downfall. But the fact that his taxation proved that the Empire was still, at least in part, financially viable if the aristocracy did their bit, demonstrates that the West was not wholly doomed to die.

There were a few ancient sources on Constantius III, plus a few coins. Archaeology, not much! Strangely, given his period as patricius etc., there isn't anything specifically about him - no panegyrist like Claudian or Merobaudes. His main notices concern the wars with the Goths and the settlement in Gaul. Oh, and thanks for buying the books!

Finally, the last in the series of books covering the last century of the Western Roman Empire is now available for pre-order: Constantius III Cheers

I research mainly the later empire and I agree with Caldrail. By the later date the shield patterns may have been more heavily unit-based, but the equipment would depend upon the production of the different arms factories which produced the weapons etc. I am also wary of weapon typologies: some of these weapons could have been produced at the same time by different factories, rather than fitting into a neat chronology.

Source interpretation in History is incorporated into English education at the latest from the age of 13. Sadly, most easy-read text books include stereotypes rather than a more detailed debate due simply to the nature of the text.

There is also the account of Procopius where a man named Koutilas was struck in the middle of his head by a javelin but kept fighting, even with it still in his head, and a man named Arzes who was hit with an arrow in his eye socket (?) which went all the way through to the back of his neck who also continued fighting. Koutilas died when they tried to remove the javelin, but a surgeon realized that a protrusion on the back of Arzes' neck was the head of the arrow and that it would be easier to cut open the neck and pull the arrow through than attempt to pull the arrow back out through the eye socket. Arzes survived.

I agree that the concept of a hoard specifically sunk must remain conjecture. I would also question whether the dating to the Alans 'or other barbarian peoples'. The question of why such hoards are hidden remains a mystery. If it is due to barbarian activity, it could as easily have been to the later attack of the Vandals during the reigns of Gunderic or Gaiseric. By the way, I completely disagree with the map. The 'barbarians' took control of parts of the provinces allotted to them, not all.

Ouch!! 😂

Not sure that the article is an unbiased piece of history, rather one attempting to damn Elgin: "Elgin had gotten what he had lusted after so long." " Elgin’s workers literally butchered one of the most important monuments on the earth." 'Lusted' and 'butchered' are not words to be used by dispassionate and unattached reporters. The article obviously supports the return of the marbles.

The other problem is that later historians sieve through the ancient sources and make suggestions as to what really happened. These theories are then accepted by the next generation before becoming accepted as fact by the third generation. Obviously, the third generation then build their careers upon the theories, meaning that any revision could nullify their careers. This can sometimes result in a strong resistance to overturning established 'facts'.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't think he relied on luck. I think the Vandal kingdom losing its way at that specific time and having Belisarius at hand was lucky.