sonic

Get me some while you're at it ....

Just for once a balanced view of the archaeology, rather than the more usual headline-grabbing claims that are there to ensure continued funding! As it would appear that prostheses were made of wood or other organic material, the claim that the find is 'unique' is hardly surprising. What is useful is the further evidence that medical knowledge during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages was greater than usually acknowledged. Although the term 'Dark Ages' is only rarely used any more, there remains the concept that as soon as the Roman Empire in the West collapsed the majority of its knowledge was instantly lost. This may have been true of written material, but maybe the majority of the medical knowledge that remained was simply passed on by word-of-mouth? It is possible that even now we are influenced too much by interpretations made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when it was obvious that the Roman Empire was far in advance of other European cultures and that the successor kingdoms were backward in comparison. Finds such as this will hopefully bring a more balanced view to the equation.

Now you're following my line of reasoning - which I admit wasn't very clear! It was the middle ages that cemented the idea of Constantine being 'the Great'. Obviously those living in the 'city of Constantine' would look upon him as a founding father. But when was he first called 'the Great'? Was it during Roman times or was it later? I agree that Constantine's reputation has been greatly inflated by later generations, but was he called 'Great' at the time? And if so, was it an epithet along the lines of Augustus' title of 'The Revered'? And whether it is or not, why isn't it also the result of 'spin'? I have always been uncertain as to Constantine's credentials: was he the superb military commander that he is supposed to have been? What was his attitude to Christianity? The first is open to question and an in-depth analysis may give the answers. The second is not so much open to question, but open to furious debate given personal alliances the Christian Church and the individual's opinion of Constantine's place within that history. No definitive answers can be given due to the complexity of both the limited evidence and his ensuing legacy. Interesting debate!

I didn't say he was Christian: I said he was 'pro-Christianity'. Whether his stance was religious or political makes no difference. He was not known as 'the Great' during his lifetime, only afterwards. And it was afterwards that he was seen as being the first Christian Emperor. His success in war, his alleged adoption of Christianity, the halting of the persecutions etc all combined in order that later generations could see him as 'the Great'. As for the large statue, that was originally made in Rome, possibly under the eye of the emperor himself. It may be more a sign of his megalomania and the terror he inspired in the Roman citizens after his advance from Britain rather than being a sign of their 'respect'. Who knows?

A leader is called 'The Great' by being on the winning side and having his followers write 'hagiographies' about them. Constantine's legacy was that he accepted Christianity and his sons followed in his footsteps. The result was a pro-Christian emperor from 306/312/327 (take your pick) until 371. The further result was that Christians were given preference both for army and civilian posts, so converting to Christianity was an easy way to preferment. The short period under Julian the Apostate did not give enough time for the pendulum to swing the other way, so on Julian's death the individuals in position to assume control remained Christian. Consequently, Constantine's position as the 'First Christian Emperor' was assured and so the works of his followers such as Eusebius became the standard histories of the period. Their portrayal of Constantine as a 'saint' meant that he was always going to be 'semi-sanctified' - hence the appelation 'The Great'. Whether his actions and the reality of his rule justify this is a completely different question.

Sadly, the 'new' interpretations and analysis of Christianity and Rome is not known by many readers - largely due to the exorbitant price of many of the 'specialist' books in which new appraisals can be found. As a result the concept that by the time of Theodosius Christianity had won and any 'non-Nicenes' were sidelined still holds in some peoples' minds. I wish that 'Specialist' publishers would follow in the footsteps of Peter Brown's publishers and lower their prices, even if only a little bit.

I think that common perceptions concerning relations between Arians and Nicenes (Catholics) is much more complicated than is usually portrayed. The notion that after Theodosius Catholicism was triumphant and the Arians and Pagans almost completely eliminated is a mistake. There were Arian generals and probably Pagans in the administration for a long time after Theodosius. A good point of reference is the work of Peter Brown. As to the 'conversion' of the Goths to Arianism, it is likely that a large number of the Goths that arrived on the banks of the Danube had remained Pagan despite the missionary practices of Ulfila. This would explain the confusion in Jordanes' ascription of the conversion to Valens: Valens may have demanded that ALL Goths be converted, rather than just a part.

Damn it Caldrail, you nicked my post!

Yep. An inscription for the new book on Gaiseric I'm writing. Sadly, no photo - just the inscription text.

After all these years I am still using this guide to help me find inscriptions. Many thanks again Klingan: where would I be without this??

A much better article: more rational and explaining many of the complex ramifications. AND withholding judgement!

Yes, the publisher made a bit of a - er - mess of that. It took me some time to get it put right!!

OK, to be picky, the last title is wrong: no 'The' at the start. Apart from that, 'Pagans and Christians' looks interesting ...

Whoops! Sorry, links now in place! As to my next book, I'm already half way through: Gaiseric: the Vandal Who Destroyed Rome! (A counterpoint to "Stilicho: the Vandal Who Saved Rome"!)

Hi all, I am pleased to announce the arrival of my latest epic, this one on the last rulers of Imperial Rome: 'Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire'. The Pen and Sword link shows the book with the correct title and cover! http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Patricians-and-Emperors-Hardback/p/10944 or maybe: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Patricians-Emperors-Rulers-Western-Empire/dp/1848844123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441390046&sr=8-1&keywords=patricians+and+emperors Sorry, but apparently it's not out in the US until December: http://www.amazon.com/Patricians-Emperors-Rulers-Western-Empire/dp/1848844123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441390124&sr=8-1&keywords=Patricians+and+Emperors I hope that everybody buys a copy and that you all enjoy reading it!

Very small parameter date-wise then. I rest my case!!

I agree that the fact that it might be during the lifetime of Mohammed is amazing. That should be the headline. On the other hand, I know that Muslims believe that Mohammed received the Quran after a visit to heaven, and I know that non-Muslim scholars instead claim a 'genesis' from Judaeo-Christian traditions. As a non Muslim, I am more inclined to the latter, but to suggest that a C14 date 'suggests' that the manuscript pre-dates Mohammed is simply headline-grabbing rather than serious historical/archaeological research. Now if the C14 date had given a range wholly before Mohammed, that would have been a story! PS I don't think Keith Small is a professor! A quick bit of research suggest that he's a Manuscript Consultant to the Bodleian Library at Oxford University.

The biggest non-story for a long time. C14 dates are notoriously non-precise, and the dates given for the parchment lie within the dates for Mohammed. So there is no validity to the claim that the parchment 'could predate Mohammed'. Just a knee-jerk reaction from jounalists and 'historians' trying to make a name for themselves.

That's the one. I think they call it 'H2' now. Means they can't have complaints about the lack of History on the History channel.

Don't think I'll bother. This sort of thing belongs on the History Channel, along with all the Aliens and those strange US citizens in Alaska/buying cars/opening lock-ups etc.

I'm not here. I'm actually an alien controlling a body somewhere in Yorkshire, England!

Not sure of the 'important role of Judea' aspect. Surely any revolt would be known and hence there would be a need to publicise that it had been crushed?

Interesting article. Makes you realise how much archaeology has already been lost to erosion, and even more to human activity.

Isn't that the case for many emperors? I've just finished a book on the Patricians (Due out September 2015 ) and have concluded that most of the 'puppet' emperors of the fifth century were actually decent men who have been hidden from view by the lack of surviving sources.

I think it is either forgotten or, if the historian is interested in climate, it is placed at the forefront of any conclusions reached. It is then often dismissed as 'over the top' by some historians (sometimes probably with good reason). The difficulty lies in identifying how long any climatic change lasted and over how wide an area prior to estimating the effects it could have had. (For example, it is the experience of Charles Dickens' childhood, with several winters of snow, that played a part in his concept of Christmas in, for (obvious example) 'A Christmas Carol'. This has allegedly affected the way anglophones in the 'West' have seen Christmas, hence all Christmas films and cards etc. tend to have snow. But was this a widespread phenomenon?) It's the same with population and disease, especially in Late Antiquity. The population has first to be estimated, then the effects of the pandemic/endemic is estimated, and then it is put forward as a major reason for the Fall of the West. How accurate is this?