sonic

That interview was pretty interesting, and motivating when he talked about living in Wales and going to the Roman ruins that he lived near by. This interview made me want to hear him even more. So damn you and thank you very much all at once At the moment he's writing a new book, so lecture tours are pretty much on the back burner. It also depends on who invites him to give a lecture. I know that he still gives papers around the world, but when he'll be back in the US I don't know. I'll ask him next time I speak to him.

I agree that the keeping of slaves in the South was a "crucial aspect" of the Southern economy. I'll also agree that it was wrong, whichever way you look at it. But what was the "crucial aspect" of the British "colonial system" to which you are referring? A quick look at the history of the period shows that the British were heavily engaged in a major European war and would shortly be faced with the threat of Napoleon. Wasn't this more of a problem than the rebellion of a few small states? Don't forget that only after the rebellion would the US become a superpower: at the time of the rebellion they weren't quite there yet!!

And gave Britain and France enough reason to remain neutral. One aspect of all of this that is forgotten is the effect that the war had on Britain. Once the war started the North put a blockade around Southern ports to stop the export of cotton and the import of either money or goods to help the South's war effort. Most people in Britain and America don't realise that this caused massive poverty and hardship to the cotton workers in Lancashire who relied on the South's cotton for their raw materials. The workers held meetings and discussed what action they should take (for example, pur pressure on the government to join the war etc). Despite the fact it would harm their own welfare, the workers voted to support the abolition of slavery and helped to maintain British neutrality in the war. Sorry this is slightly of topic, but I feel that this selfless act should be wider known. Do you think it's possible that the cotton workers also took the anti-slavery side because of their own self-interests in the debate? How can free labor ever compete with forced labor? They took this stance because the reports on slavery during the Wilberforce era had made the conditions in which slaves lived known to the population of Britain - and the people of Lancashire recognised that the slaves lived in even worse conditions than they did. I don't know what you mean by ' ... the cotton workers also took the anti-slavery side because of their own self-interests in the debate?'. There was no chance of the South ever making its own textile factories and competing with Britain: they didn't have the conditions, the capital or the navy to do so. Don't forget that Britain had outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and slavery within the Empire in 1833, well before the US civil war started in 1861, so there was no chance of slave-run mills in Britain. What do you mean?

And gave Britain and France enough reason to remain neutral. One aspect of all of this that is forgotten is the effect that the war had on Britain. Once the war started the North put a blockade around Southern ports to stop the export of cotton and the import of either money or goods to help the South's war effort. Most people in Britain and America don't realise that this caused massive poverty and hardship to the cotton workers in Lancashire who relied on the South's cotton for their raw materials. The workers held meetings and discussed what action they should take (for example, pur pressure on the government to join the war etc). Despite the fact it would harm their own welfare, the workers voted to support the abolition of slavery and helped to maintain British neutrality in the war. Sorry this is slightly of topic, but I feel that this selfless act should be wider known.

I agree: it's almost certain that the views of Germans varied widely, even amongst the lower classes. What I am after are primary sources showing that the views of some peasants etc differed from that represented by the majority of sources. This is an attempt to show that views towards 'barbarians' are more complex than that usually promoted by Classicists and Historians of Romans regarding the Germans et al as uncouth, uncivilised and unwanted.

I don't know of any empirical support for this view. In fact, the whole idea of "class solidarity" with the Germans sounds totally un-Roman. That's why I started this thread! If we are to believe Heather, there is an alternative corpus of evidence showing that the views of the lower classes towards the Germans was different. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to give the sources! Nor am I saying it was 'class solidarity': if you read the post again I suggest it's possible for the peasants to 'have identified at least in part' with the slaves/Germans. As for the idea that this is totally 'un-Roman', isn't this simply a reflection of the aristocratic sources that are repeated 'ad nauseam', giving us an unrealistic 'monolithic' view of the Empire and its inhabitants? What I want to find are the sources mentioned by Heather, as these could give a different viewpoint on Romano-'barbarian' relations to that endlessly repeated in modern histories of the Empire. Any ideas, anyone?

Undoubtedly, but their views influenced their clients and so forth. Its entirely possible that scruffy plebs had different ideas, but I find difficult to see how different they would be. In any case, they generally didn't write books so its difficult to find what they thought as opposed to their better educated social superiors. But would their views have diffused down to the lower/lowest levels, or has this just been asssumed to be the case? Elements of germanic dress were adopted for fashion or practical reasons. Whats so unusual? Romans always adopted cultural ideas they thought worthwhile. That doesn't mean they were best mates with germans, it means they saw things the liked and copied them. I accept that the Romans would adopt any form of dress if it proved effective, but would a Roman in Italy really need to wear long trousers to keep the heat in? Isn't it more likely that this was a form of expression rather than utility? But surely this is a rather simplistic view? Wouldn't the lower classes of Rome have been mingling with 'German' slaves and forming their own impressions? As the treatment of peasants and slaves became more similar, wouldn't they have identified at least in part with the slaves rather than the 'effete and snobbish' landlords who prattle on in 'High' Latin, quoting bits of Homer and Virgil, and showing off their education? As you say, the situation on the frontiers may have been more extreme, with peasants identifying with Germans over absentee landlords, but, although Heather says that there is evidence from the sources from the Balkans about this, I don't know which sources he is using. Can anybody help? Please?

When talking about the Roman upper classes, they saw the Empire as both militarily and culturally superior. However, I was asking mainly about the social side of things. Is there evidence for the Roman lower classes' views on the use of Germanic troops? Were they more inclined to accept the Germans as equals/superior, simply because, like the Germans, they didn't have the education in Grammar and Rhetoric? A source would be useful - thanks. However, when you state that 'As a culture the Germans would be considered inferior. The Romans were entirely convinced theirs was best', isn't this the view of the elite writers throughout the Empire? Is there any evidence that the lower classes thought differently - as suggested by Heather - or that they shared this view? After all, didn't the Romans adopt Germanic dress - hardly likely if the Germans are perceived as being culturally inferior?

Hi all, wondering if you could help? We all know that, in general, 'barbarians' were regarded as inferior by the Roman elites. I also know that there is evidence that the lower classes had a different view: Peter Heather states as much in the preface to 'Goths and Romans 332-489'. However, he also states that he is not going to cover the topic in the book! To save me from ploughing through this book (and others!), is there anybody who can give me original sources for the views of the lower classes to the use of 'barbarians' within the army etc? I've just got hold of Augustine's Letters, but are there any others which can help? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help Sonic

If that doesn't work try: THIS But wait! I heard on the news that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. How could they let this happen? They learnt their intolerances from the Crusaders in the Middle Ages: it's hard to live in peace and toleration with people who kill anybody dressed in 'Saracen' clothes, even when they are Christian!!

I hope the book's clearer as well! I've drawn loads of maps so that everyone can follow the strategies of Belisarius and Witigis/Totila, so hopefully it will be a lot easier to understand. I've also found the real 'Narnia' - at least, at the time of the Wars it was called Narnia, now it's just Narni in Central Italy. As for signing it - that's all very well, but with all this typing I've forgotten how to use a pen!!

Yes! That's why, half way through writing my book on Belisarius, (due out later this year: don't fprget to buy it!! - I need the money!! ) I changed from using 'Roman' to 'Byzantine'. During the siege of Rome, Roman citizens joined the army of Belisarius and at that point I gave up and renamed the 'Easterners' Byzantines to avoid confusion. At no point is this a judgement on whether/when the Eastern Empire changed into a different cultural identity.

No, it was me who messed up - my sources say what you just said. I do have an excuse - I wrote that on my lunch hour at work and didnt have my books handy. One of the problems of writing things from memory; well spotted Sonic. But yes, although I transposed the gothic/Roman (Byzantine) damage to the city, the facts are that aqueducts were cut by one side, and monuments fortified and stripped of adornments by the other. In any event, the point being that it was a disaster for the city. I always refer to Imperial forces prior to 610 as 'Romans', in accordance with current convention. The people of Rome at this time seemed to regard them thus also, given that the Senate made the ultimate sacrifice as a result of supporting them. I only called them Byzantines in order to avoid confusion between the troops sent from the Eastern Empire and 'Romans' living in Rome!

Actually, although the mess was made during Belisarius' reconquest, it was actually the Ostrogoths under Witigis who cut the aqueducts during their siege of Rome. Under Belisarius and his generals, it was the 'Byzantines' who used the statues on the Mausoleum of Hadrian as missiles to foil the Gothic assault on the city. Units of both armies pillaged the surrounding areas during the multiple sieges. After recapturing the city, Totila even considered demolishing large parts of the city to make it unsafe for the Byzantines to re-garrison - although a letter from Belisarius persuaded him not to. All of this is taken from Procopius' account of the 1st siege. I don't know which of your sources claimed that the Goths defended the city and the Byzantines cut the aqueducts, but they sure messed up!!

Sam Vimes - a bit like me, slow but steady and will get there in the end!!

The Goths and most of the other 'Germans' were Christians, although they were 'Arians' rather than 'Catholic/Orthodox' - the difference being in what manner Jesus was 'divine' etc. (Sorry no time to go into more detail! Wikipedia under 'Arianism' is a good start.) Theoderic, the 'Gothic' ruler of Italy, appears to have believed in a policy of moderation and cohabitation towards the Catholic Church. Shortly after his reign, the East reconquered Italy and both East and West shared the same religion - the final split between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East wouldn't happen until 1054 (I think!!). In fact, the only 'Germans' (ie. Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths etc) who didn't tolerate Catholicism were the Vandals, and their actions against the Catholic Africans was one of the pretexts for war that Justinian used for his attack under Belisarius. The Popes survived mainly because they did not oppose Gothic rule, since they had no reason to. And don't forget that it was only later that the Pope laid claim to the universal hegemony over the Church, so he was simply a very important 'Bishop' based in Italy. As for books, 'Theodoric in Italy' by John Moorhead or 'Barbarians and Romans' by Randers-Pehrson are good starts. They both also have bibliographies.

Is this the same thing you told me about via email? We're not opposed to advertising by any stretch (ie Google ads, related amazon links and such) as they certainly pay the bills, but we would like it to be content appropriate. Random advertisers trolling a forum membership list trying to buy or sell ads certainly isn't the sort of thing we like to deal with. I am in complete agreement.

It makes sense that the weak were more affected by the disease. The grave itself has a higher proportion of 'weak' than 'strong' people, but 'strength' is hard to quantify, as descriptions of who are 'strong' tend to be based around skeletal remains, which only contain some of the information about the deceased, not all of it. My greatest worry is that the entire course and effect of the Black Death is being analysed via one mass grave. I have seen somewhere that estimates of the population in the Middle Ages reach as high as 2,000,000 people. As a consequence, this single grave contains a very small proportion of the c. 600,000 people (one third being the usual estimate of the deaths caused!!) who died and is, as a result, not a numerically valid sample on which to base a hypothesis, however much it appeals to logic. It reminds me of the adverts for cosmetics being shown on British TV!! : "In tests, 75% of women agreed", then you read at the bottom that 95 women were asked for their opinion - hardly a 'scientific' approach!! Or maybe it's just that I'm a cynical old &*^$

That goes for me - they really are superb reading!! If you like Tolkien, chances are you'll like Pratchett!!

Actually, the King of England owned a large part of France and it was only in the 1200's that the French Kings began to make serious inroads and re-establish their rule!! I thought that was due to the Norman Conquest...so that it is true that officially the 'King of England' owned that land in France, it was really the Normans, who were on the throne, that were in control. Or am I off? (yes yes, technicalities) Difficult question.... In theory, it was the 'Duke of Normandy' that held Normandy, the ' Duke (I think!!) of Aquitaine' that held Aquitaine etc. etc., but these were all additional titles held by the King of England, some (e.g. Normandy) passed down from William I, others due to marriage (e.g. Henry II to Eleanor of Aquitaine). This resulted in the really awkward position of the King of England having to pay homage and fealty etc. to the King of France for the lands he held in France - which was more than the French King! Due to the complicated marital procedures of the Angevins (England) and Capetians (France), Edward III of England was able to lay claim to the throne of France in 1340. Eventually, after the 100 Years War, the French evicted the English and the Kings of England renounced their claim. However, the long wars with France have resulted in Anglo-French rivalry that continues to this day!!

Actually, the King of England owned a large part of France and it was only in the 1200's that the French Kings began to make serious inroads and re-establish their rule!!

A new writer of Ancient Historical Biographies. I've just sent a manuscript to the publishers and when it's due to be published I'll let you all know so that you can buy it!!

This is not the only mention of troop rotation in the ancient world. In his description of the Battle of Dara, Procopius has the Sasanid Persians rotating their cavalry as they become tired and run short of missiles. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain how this happened but the episode shows that it wasn't only the Romans that did this.

Stirrups were not needed by the Roman cavalry: their saddle took the strain. If in doubt, see the 'Why Romans Didn't Charge' thread on this forum. Sonic

Actually, the problem for Justinian was that he attempted to streamline the bureaucracy, forcing many of the middle- to upper-classes out of work. They joined the circus factions and were a cause of the 'Nika Riots'. Justinian can (possibly) be blamed for the faults in the 'reconquest', but he can't be blamed for the vast size of the civil service!!