sonic

I agree. I've already spoken to my editor and he knows of my desire to cover the 3rd century at some point. All I've got to do is complete the books I've already signed for, plus the ones we have a 'verbal' agreement on, plus ... I wonder if I could clone myself? Or maybe just learn to type faster ...?

Very briefly, it is possible, though unattested, that immediately after the conquest Timasius was ordered to return East by Theodosius (before Theodosius' death). Shortly before Theodosius died, Stilicho was made parens (guardian) of Honorius in the West. If Timasius was still in the West, as both Honorius and Stilicho were now of a higher rank than Timasius, Timasius had no choice but to follow their orders and he was returned East. Stilicho

Hi all. I must admit that when it comes to Placidia, I dodged the bullet. Thankfully, her story is only an 'aside' in the story of Stilicho. In this period she was too young and had very little influence on events. We know that she grew up in Stilicho's household, but there isn't actually much known about her early years. Concerning the date of her birth, there are a couple of theories. It is possible that she was born 392-3. The date of 388 was proposed by Bury, available here (it's note 68). This is the theory accepted, with reservations, by Martindale (PLRE II, 'Aelia Galla Placidia 4; p.888). Oost, in greater detail, discounts dates between 389 and August 392, because Theodosius was in the West, and Galla is not mentioned in the texts surrounding the visit of Theodosius to Rome. Instead, using the Chronicon Paschale, he gives further credence to the idea that she was born in either late 388 or early 389. Although still theories, these are, to my mind, the strongest, which is why I reference Oost in 'Stilicho'. However, for anybody wanting to learn more about Placidia, Stilicho may not be the best book, as she isn't the focus. I'd suggest getting the new book by Professor Sivan shown earlier on this thread. Hmmm. I think I'd find it interesting to review that ....

It's properly called 'foot-ball', because you, er, 'kick' the 'ball' with your 'foot'. I'm sorry if this is a hard concept for you to grasp: after all, American 'football' only has one 'kicker'! Shouldn't it be called 'hand-ball'?? (Sonic ducks behind sofa and awaits incoming tomahawk cruise missiles.) Seriously, though, thanks for the feedback. The guy who did it spent a long time on the graphics, so thanks from both of us.

Just to let people know the status of 'Aetius', and other rather mundane matters!

Ok, I'll bite. How do the researchers know that the 'Germans' came across at the time of Hengist and Horsa? Is there dating evidence from the DNA?

Interesting. Viggen's already got me reviewing 'Between Empires: Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity'. I wonder what else he's got in mind .... Maybe:'Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch', or 'Britain After Rome: The Fall and Rise, 400 - 1070', or 'Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425'. He might even be thinking, 'Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Culture in the Early Medieval West'. Not that I'm getting typecast or anything ... Mind you, he knows which book I'd really want - and it's not even on the list!

I agree. Yet the fact that their opinions were accepted as the truth shows how influential they still are. Yet in my opinion the main reason to read them is because, on the whole, they had a far greater grasp on the original source material, both due to their training in Latin and Ancient Greek, and because they had more time in which to research and write their books. When doing research, I always consult the older books and religiously check their references (where given). This has resulted in the finding of little-known or forgotten snippets of information. I especially like Bury for this.

Hmmm. It would have to be a photo of someone I wished I looked like .... If I put up a photo of myself, I'd scare people away from the computer! Maybe a photo of Turf Moor? Thinks ... All updated as suggested, including a couple of blogs about life in general.

Hmmm. It would have to be a photo of someone I wished I looked like .... If I put up a photo of myself, I'd scare people away from the computer! Maybe a photo of Turf Moor? Thinks ...

Hi all, it gives me great pleasure to announce my arrival on the interweb. Ian Hughes MA Please, don't go there expecting something wonderful: it's early days yet. As a new member of the www community, any constructive criticism is welcome!

Well, I think you might just have topped Dread Zeppelin. That is weird!

Ok, so I've got my 'mainstream' musical preferences (Metal and Rock), but then there's the odd ...... oddity! Does anybody else have this strange compulsion to listen 'outside the box', or is it just me??

The assistant I remember from my youth ...

The problem is that there isn't much. We don't know which route they took, although it was certainly via Sicily. We don't know where they landed: all that Priscus has to say is that the Vandals advanced to a place called 'Azestus', near to Rome. Sorry.

It can be a real pain to find the modern name of a city from the name given by the ancient sources - even if it is known today. The best bet I've found is to buy a few ancient history books dating to the nineteenth and early-twentieth century. Although some of the arguments are sometimes outdated, they often (but not always!) included folded, pull-out maps which can be extremely detailed. It is then possible to use these to locate the place and from there trace its modern name. I wish there could be a nice, detailed, cheap map with all of the old names next to the modern ones!

Hard choice. I'd probably choose 'After Empire'.

They're the same book. The Orion edition was the one published in Britain, the Yale the one published (I think under license) in the US.

I think it is time for me to put on my 'devil's advocate' hat. I think that what Mr Roller and others here are forgetting is both the context and the ramifications of the question: "Was Cleopatra 'Black'"? It seems to me that the question being asked here is 'Does it matter to our own ethnically-biased culture whether Cleopatra was 'black' or not: if she was, what specific origin were her ancestors, and what can the deduction achieve in our own times?' I agree that many modern historians have attempted to show that Cleopatra may have been 'black', but in too many cases there appears to be a hint of bias about the inquiry. It may be Egyptian historians claiming that she had Egyptian rather than 'pure' Macedonian blood in her, in this way attempting to claim her as 'their own', so showing that until the Roman conquest Egypt was still 'free and independent'. It would appear that in the US there are some historians of sub-Saharan descent who are attempting to claim that she had sub-Saharan ancestors, which would allow them to claim her as 'their own', as politically the example of a 'Black' queen would be highly useful, especially as an exemplar. Both of these attitudes are open to criticism, largely because the outcome of the investigation is tied to the historian's own wishes rather than being an investigation in an attempt to widen our knowledge. If the question "Was Cleopatra 'Black'"? is asked for the correct reasons, then it can have major ramifications for our understanding of the last years of Ptolemaic Egypt. If she had Egyptian ancestry, for instance, this could indicate that the dynasty she ruled had recognized that it was failing and that it had lost the support of the indigenous population. In that case, her descent might be evidence of her father's (or grandfather's) marriage to an Egyptian, or taking an Egyptian concubine in an attempt to foster unity within the population and so bolster the regime. If she had sub-Saharan ancestry, the ramifications are even more widespread. The 'marriage' would almost certainly represent a strengthening of political ties with the south. It may even hint at the establishment of a military, political and economic alliance with a sub-Saharan kingdom. On the other hand, her (grand)father or whoever may have simply taken a slave he took a shine to as a concubine and Cleopatra was the result. So the answers to the two questions are that 1) we will never know Cleopatra's True Racial Background unless new and unexpected evidence comes to light, and 2) yes it does matter, but only when looked at in the light of pure historical research unclouded by the personal desires of the researcher, however noble or otherwise. Right, I'm now crawling back under my stone ...

The whole question relates to the number of 'Emperors'. In the Tetrarchy, there were 'four' (two Augusti and two Caesars), so there were four 'capitals' - Trier facing the Rhine, Milan defending Italy, Sirmium facing the Danube, and Nicomedia facing the Persians. After the Tetrarchy there were usually two emperors. The Emperor in the East usually resided at Constantinople, as this was relatively central. Sirmium or Nicomedia were too far from the other frontier. Constantinople gave the emperor easy access to both the Orient, for wars against Persia, and to Thrace to defend the Danube. Just as importantly, its position greatly helped with the collection of information and the distribution of orders. In the West, the choice fell on Milan. Although it could be argued that Trier, or even Strasbourg, in Gaul were more 'central' to the frontier, this would have meant that Italy was not defended personally by the Emperor, and Rome was still the capital in the heart of the population. The result was that Milan, ideally situated to either defend the Alps against invasion or use the same passes to strike at invaders either to the east or the west, was the clear choice. Rome was half way down the Italian peninsula and so was not as suited to the collection of information and the distribution of orders as Milan. Ravenna was only chosen as the 'capital' after Alaric had invaded Italy and nearly captured Honorius in Milan while Stilicho was dealing with an invasion across the Alps. However, it's clear from the Theodosian Code that once Stilicho was killed the emperor travelled all over northern Italy, not simply remaining in Ravenna. Ravenna should be seen, not as the 'capital' in the modern sense, but as the default city of refuge should the emperor become threatened - for example between 408 and 410. Hope that makes sense, but I am a little pressed for time!

Well, that's my career as a writer finished.

Ammianus Marcellinus Don't forget the later empire.

I have not read the book yet, but I read the review. The following statement gets to the crux of the matter: "The senate also objected vigorously to Stilicho's use of barbarian troops, especially the wholesale recruitment of barbarians whom he had recently defeated. In fact, by Hughes' argument, it was a backlash against Stilicho's use of barbarian troops which eventually brought about his downfall." Wasn't that part of the problem? It was hard for Rome to recruit its own people. Perhaps the senators were right, and there should have been a greater push to recruit Romans or at least barbarians that were more romanized. It seems to me that Byzantium made its recovery when it decreased its reliance on barbarian mercenaries and recruited troops from within the Empire. Why wasn't the West able to do the same? I explain more fully in the book, but again to put it in a nutshell, the power of the land-holding aristocracy of the Senate demanded the deployment of a 'Roman' army. Unfortunately, they also refused to allow Stilicho to recruit from their tenants. So on the one hand they are castigating Stilicho for using barbarians, but on the other they are refusing to allow him to recruit in sufficient numbers to amass an army. Catch 22.

The Great Fire of Rome by Dando-Collins. Hopefully, the review will follow.