Northern Neil

...unless one considers the Huns, who were almost certainly Turkic, if not Turkish.

Another good source for your novel is the by now quite old book 'Rome in the Dark Ages' by Peter Llewellyn. This dates from about the '70's, but it does indirectly shed some light on the last days of the Senate, and (in my view ) suggests that the Roman Church achieved its definitive status as a result of a fusion between church and senate.

As far as I am aware, the population of Rome suffered a fall during the 'reconquest' of Justinian. Prior to that it was as populous and vibrant as it ever had been. The Lombard invasions of the 590's marked the next drop in population, and for many the hiatus between Rome's ancient and mediaeval periods. Henceforth Roman material culture was destroyed and the fusion of Roman Senate and Roman church had become final. But certainly, up to about 550 and possibly a few decades later, 'Roman' life carried on much as before. Complete with games and races. The above post states that the games continued in the provinces for a few more centuries; In Spain, As far as I am aware, the games continue, in modern, purpose built amphitheatres little changed from their imperial forbears.

I have just finished reading a rather old book (1973) by Peter Llewellyn, called 'Rome in the Dark Ages. He mentions one or two things I didn't know, some of these being: 1) Theodoric allowed more political involvement by the senate than they had enjoyed since the days of the principate. 2) Rome, although governed by the Ostrogoths (with much involvement from the senate) governed Italy, Pannonia, Raetia, parts of Gaul and Sicily - more territory than in the final decades of the Western Empire. 3) The Ostrogoths continued to maintain the City's monuments and fund the games for the mob, even though they considered the games a waste of time and money. 4) Everyday life and material culture in Rome was much the same as in the days of the Empire. This only ended when the Empire re-conquered and wrecked the City, ultimately letting the Lombards conquer a much weakened Italy, thus heralding the start of the middle ages (at least as far as Rome and Italy were concerned) and the rapid demise of Rome. Would it not have been better if Justinian had not bothered to reconquer in the name of the Empire? It seems to me that by now the Goths were well on the way to becoming Romans themselves, and it would only have been a matter of time before the Western throne was filled again. I really don't know which theory to go with. Certainly, Peter Heather in his 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' tells a tale of frightened provincials in Pannonia suddenly bereft of support from central government and fleeing to crude hilltop sites to avoid being taken as slaves, clinging onto a past only dimly perceived by themselves. A similar tale emerges in Britain, where the Romano Brits pathetically maintain their crumbling towns, turning hypocausts with mosaic floors into corn drying ovens and using unroofed forum buildings as open markets. By 600 AD, when the historical record re-opens, the Romano Brits have vanished. I'm not sure it was the same in Italy though, mainly for the reasons stated above. In this period one still comes accross 'real' Romans, and visitors to Rome still describe a vibrant, populous city. Take your pick.

Far from being 'anti - god', many people, including myself, are very 'pro - god' indeed, although we still agree with the view that post - Nicean Christianity borrowed heavily from paganism. Anyone with an objective and unbiased reading of the late Roman period would realise this, and understand fully the political reasons why it happened. Far from being anti - god, we feel it would be nice to know what the early Christians and Jesus himself actually said, rather than having to settle for the revisions of Constantine, Athanasius and others. It must also be said that the vast majority of christian writings on the history of their religion come from those who write history the best - in other words, the winners. It seems to me that if early christians were somehow transported forward into the time of Theodosius, they too would have been persecuted, much like the remainder of the pagans at that time. And probably for being pagans.

I think that one thing universal citizenship did was to give the auxilia parity of esteem with the legions. There was now no social difference between the two... probably another reason why Gibbon regarded this period as the start of the 'decline'.

...Furthermore, humans who were modern in every way (people like us) were fully evolved by 150'000 BC. 'Cro - Magnon man' as a concept died out in the mid 20th century - it is now better regarded as one of the many prehistoric cultures of modern humanity. The author seems to be confused between evolution of cultures and evolution of mankind itself.

I believe this idea is unsupported by any known facts. In many ways, this view shows the relevance of the opening post. ...Absolutely - this applies as well to the alleged extent and purposes of the other 'persecutions' (see other posts in relevent section). I seem to remember someone on another topic saying that most gladiator fights in the arenas actually didn't end in death. Our whole period of interest, it seems to me, is coloured by assumptions which are untrue, largely on account of hollywood films it seems, although theodosius 'the great' probably exaggerated the 'persecution' stories.

... and Christianity also was suspiciously similar to the worship of dionysius and Mithras. Depictions of Dionysius being crucified are contemporary with early christianity (early 2nd century).

Theodosius. He destroyed classical culture and set in motion the destruction of the Western empire.

Just a little addition to this... According to Colin McEvedy's 'Atlas of Mediaeval History' (Penguin) the Slavs got as far as Crete. According to another book I read - unfortunately I've forgotten what the actual book was - there are seven places in Crete today who'se names have Slavic origins.

Hmm... I was once active in battle re - enactment (Anglo-Norman, not Roman) and at times we conducted research into this. I can state categorically, and with first hand knowledge, that it was very difficult indeed to cut through thick, hardened leather (about 6mm thickness) with a sword or dagger. This can be tested: Try getting a piece of conveyor belt leather and stabbing it wih a large, sturdy kitchen knife, with a mediumly soft object behind the leather. What will happen is that the knife will slide off, causing an unsightly yet superficial graze. It was actually more effective than mail at stopping a spear thrust, although the spear did protrude enough to wound. Against blunt weapons, it absorbed just as effectively as mail, depending to a degree on the garment underneath. Our conclusions were that it was just as effective as mail, the only problem being it had to be thrown away after a battle or practice.

Absolutely. Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) says that in 406 the Empire 'was at last going somewhere' for the first time in years. Then they blew it. A second chance at revival apparantly came in the mid 5th century, but Marjorian wasted the Empire's strength on a fruitless campaign against the Vandals.

One of the best I've seen!

The huns. According to Peter Heather - and I agree with him - were it not for the Huns, the whole volkwanderung would not have taken place, and Germans of whatever name would not have sought sanctuary in Roman lands.

This seems to me to be a move by a government which has truly lost control of a region. A bit like inviting the Visigoths to 'govern' Acquitania when they have acquired it anyway...

Hi folks... just thought I'd inform you of this great site, which is focused primarily on Hadrian's Wall, and in particular the fort at Wallsend (SEGEDVNVM). it also has a forum, reached via the home page. The guy who runs it is keen as mustard, and needs a little support... http://www.segedunum.com/

This is a scenario I have often considered, and a smallish area such as Ireland springs to mind (I believe that Julius Agricola was considering this). I think I would try to set up a puppet regime using local chiefs to govern, and giving them financial inducements to become a Roman province. The most powerful chiefs would be approached, and as well as Roman goods and a nice villa each they would be given meaningless titles and preferential trade status. It is believed that the Fishbourne villa in the South of England was an example of this. A vexillation of legionaries - say, three cohorts with an assortment of auxilia (Including some cavalry) would be kept close by, both to lend muscle to the new puppet governor and as a reminder to the rest of the locals to behave. They would be housed in a vexillation fortress at some strategic point close to the chief/governors seat of power. In the meanwhile a legionary fortress just across the water at, say, Stranraer in Scotland would provide both the legionary vexillation and more muscle if it were needed. On the other hand, its lack of presence on the Irish side would reassure ambivalent locals that full scale conquest was not imminent, and perhaps preventable if the line were towed. If the chief/governor then revolted, embezzled imperial funds or was deposed by anti - Roman elements and killed, that would then be a pretext for full scale invasion. And lets face it, the likelihood of one of those three outcomes is pretty high. So for the Romans its a win - win situation. The local governor keeps order in the new province and taxes go into imperial coffers, Romans are happy. If the Governor fails in this respect by revolting, 'financial irregularities' or by being deposed and killed, then the Romans are still happy because they then get an excuse to turn a protectorate into a full - blown province. Meanwhile, the legionary vexillation and their auxilliary pals have already mapped out the region, marked down undesirables likely to become dangerous, and had them murdered. Perfect.

Circumbendibus.

York (EBVRACVM) was apparantly given the status of COLONIA in the late 3rd century. It possesses an impressive set of city walls built in Mediaeval times, some of which incorporate the legionary fortress walls. Although the legionary fortress walls are well attested, there has always been some debate as to the extent of the colonia and various maps and reconstructions have been drawn up suggesting that other parts of the mediaeval wall circuit overly the walls of the Colonia. ( http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/secrets/roman.htm ). To date, however, this remains speculative, and unless new discoveries have been made of which I am not aware, there is no evidence of structures such as theatres. The reconstruction on the link is the conventional view; however, there remains little evidence apart from a scattering of buildings to suggest that the area south of the river was anything more than the civil settlement of the Legionary fortress itself. I thus believe that mostly people are looking for something that simply isn't there. My view is that the Colonia and the Legionary Fortress are in fact one and the same. During the time that York was given the title of 'Colonia' the army was undergoing re-structuring, and the strength of a legion, I believe, was reduced to a thousand. This would suggest to me that suddenly a lot of space in the fortress was freed up for civilian use, and that thereafter it assumed a duel civil and military role. Has anyone else got any ideas on this?

The fact that he was a supporter of Christianity and Christian historians thusly labelled him as Great for his deeds regarding religion. ...But apart from that, very little.

I remember reading somewhere that the Huns have been established as being a turkic people.