Northern Neil

It depends. If the Christians made a nuisance of themselves and set out to deliberately flout Roman Law in order to be martyred, then yes, he would have sought elimination of what he saw as a group of criminal fanatics. Later Christian emperors would no doubt state that this was a persecution, and that Augustus executed them simply for their beliefs. They would then use this as a pretext for burning pagans and wrecking their temples. Hold on a sec... isn't this what happened with the actual persecutions?

You mean the Goths... when speaking of Adrianople? Indeed, but the Goths simply followed a trend. The point I'm making is, when fighting an 'urbanised' rival such as Persia, the old legions were by far more useful troops than Barbarian foederatii, as the legions retained their skill in seigecraft and engineering. German troops - whether Goths at Adrianople or other groups within the Roman Army itself, were notoriously bad at taking walled settlements. This is why, I believe, there was an absence of them in Julian's campaign, and also why the Goths failed to exploit the Adrianople victory. I am, by the way, referring to the 4th century. By the 5th, things had obviously moved on a pace.

According to Ammianus Marcellinus, 'Legions' were still very much in evidence in 360, and it seems quite clear that they took on the Persians as equals in a very protracted and bloody war. Although cavalry was starting to become the senior arm of the army by then, the legions he referred to were still masters of engineering and seige warfare - something German cavalry were not (and incidentally why they failed to exploit their victory at Adrianople in the following decade). The legions referred to come from Gaul and Pannonia, places which had been Roman for nearly 400 years. No sign of 'Barbarisation' there. It was logistics and a backstab from an angry Christian which finally defeated Julian, not an inferiority in his troops.

...I believe that Mesopotamia was indeed a province during the time of Trajan, Phil.

Also, it should be noted that the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain was land given to them by the Romans... so perhaps to us it would seem 'lost land' but to the Emperor, they were acting as the garrison troops and defenders and still sent him his portion of the taxes... meaning they were the new governors... ..although after a few years the tax revenues no longer made it to Rome. From thence, the Visigoths had a kingdom which was independent in every way that mattered.

In 395, the Empire's boundaries were still much the same as in Trajan's time, with the exception of southern Scotland, parts of mesopotamia, the Rhine/Danube angle and Dacia (these were lost by 270). The excellent 'New Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History' by Colin McEvedy (Check Amazon for availability) provides a step by step series of maps in which the shrinkage of the Empire is marked at various intervals. Up until 420 the Empire's boundaries were still roughly equivalent to those in Augustus' day; by 425 the Goths had gained Aquitania; by 440 Northern Spain had been lost to the seuvi, and parts of Africa to the Vandals. The left bank of the Rhine had also been lost. By 460 much of Gaul and Spain had been lost, as well as the Balearics and Sardinia. By 470 the Western Empire comprised Italy and a stretch of southern Gaul. By contrast the east was virtually untouched.

At various times some christians made nuisances of themselves to the extent that they committed crimes against the state and deliberately set themselves against the law. In this instance, the state had to act, and some christians got the 'martyrdom' they wanted and deserved. I believe that some of the persecutions were not such at all, and that they were an attempt to control or eradicate what was believed to be a fanatical, criminal element. In any case, they lasted for relatively short periods, as compared to the persecution of pagans which ran from 495 up until the last witch trials of the eighteenth century. I heard anecdotally that the persecution of Nero did not in fact happen, and the writings which mention it have largely been discredited. Is this true?

We have a problem here, in that race, culture and language appear to be regarded as a single package. Take for example the Celts; This concept is a linguistic grouping, in which the Greeks grouped together a whole bunch of people who spoke a similar language, and thrust upon them an identity which has been confused with culture and race. But race, language and culture are not neccessarily linked; The Celts of western Ireland bear remarkable 'racial' similarities to the northern Italians (i.e. Raven hair, olive skin and grey eyes ). And both peoples were (and are) prior to the adoption of Latin, Celtic speakers. On the other hand, the Belgae were also Celtic speakers, yet racially (according to Caesar) fit into the 'Teutonic' or german racial type, in that they were tall and were blonde and had blue eyes. They also resided in the part of the Celtic world which was closest to Germany. Again, take the Bastarnae. Linguistically Celtic, yet adopting Germanic ways in terms of religion and culture. In later times, the Greeks (again!) classified the entire western peoples (Germans, French, English) as 'Franks' on account of the fact that they spoke a related language, and had a political legacy from the Frankish Empire (apart from the English). Recent theories state that, until the 19th century, migration wasn't nearly as instrumental in changing populations as was previously thought, and that prior to this date populations, in an ethnic sense, remained stable. What changed was the language and culture. In England, Anglo Saxon culture took hold from the borders of Scotland to the coast of Cornwall in about 200 years - yet the only people iin England who fit the 'Germanic' race type are from Essex and Kent, the initial areas of English settlement. The rest of the 'English', therefore, remain 'racially' celtic, but adopted the German (later, English) language as an expedient on account of its economical advantages. Much the same as the Gauls did, in adopting Latin over Celtic. My guess is that the Italian people in Roman times looked much the same as they do now, with the posible exception of Lombardia, where you do get a sprinkling of blonde, blue eyed types. Mosaics from Ravenna and other places show that the 'Italian' morphology was as extant then as now.

I believe it was only a matter of time as to when one or other of the mystery cults was to become crystalised into a state religion, complete with authoritarian doctrine. Christianity in its final, abridged form as adopted by the Roman world post 325 AD is undoubtedly an amalgamation of many of the mystery cults that preceded it. An exerpt from the Lord's Prayer was included in an earlier post on this topic; I have at hand a copy of the Lord's Prayer - not the version which was translated from the Aramaic, then the Greek, then the Latin, then the English which has become the standard, but a direct translation from the Aramaic. Although it is undoubtedly the same prayer, what it says is significantly different to that which has been passed down from all the multiple translations. It is also a prayer which was current many years (at least 400 years ) before the gospels were written. It runs thus: 'O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration. Soften the ground of our being and carve out a space within us where your Presence can abide. Fill us with your creativity so that we may be empowered to bear the fruit of your mission. Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance with our desire. Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share what each being needs to grow and flourish. Untie the tangled threads of destiny that bind us, as we release others from the entanglement of past mistakes. Do not let us be seduced by that which would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the opportunities of the present moment. For you are the ground and the fruitful vision, the birth, power and fulfillment, as all is gathered and made whole once again.' I suggest that the 'Give us this day our daily bread', quoted earlier, actually ran: Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance with our desire, as stated above. I may have shot off at a tangent here, but returning to topic, I think that this original version of the Lord's Prayer at least suggests that the original Christianity, whatever form it may have taken, is, or was, seriously at odds with the authoritarian religion founded by Constantine and regarded, today, as the 'true' Christianity.

I would be interested to know when the last recorded governor presided. Or even if the concept of a governor existed in this, and other provinces in the 5th century empire.

Does Ammianus Marcellinus count as a minor character? I think his history is great reading.

When did the concept of Roman Citizenship finally expire? Did it sort of wither away once Caracalla had it made universal to free inhabitants of the Empire, or did it continue as an institution prior to the Lombard invasion, when there were still 'real' Romans in Italy? or did it cease to become an institution during the third century crisis, as the definition between freemen, serfs and slaves became a bit grey? All ideas welcome!!

I refer people to my entry on the subject 'Roman Coins for Sale', Trajans Market.

I refer people to my entry on the subject 'Roman Coins for Sale', Trajans Market.

good site!

[quote name='phil25' Hollywood and many writers/TV documentaries strongly suggest that the gladiatorial combats in the arena were bloody and to the death. That makes them ghoulish and ghastly and attracts a certain sort of viewer, I suppose. Absolutely, Phil. Even as a child I used to watch movies such as Spartacus and Quo Vadis and think 'How could they afford to train and pay for gladiators if they got killed off at such a rate?' The recent film 'Gladiator' does nothing to dispell this; indeed, after weeks of training, the first fight out, and only Maximus, his German mate and the African guy survive out of a gladiator troop of about twenty. Unfortunately, novels and hollywood have had a great impact on not only this, but many aspects of our period. And not just among the public, which is what the Python film 'Life of Brian' was getting at. In 2004 when I visited the Colloseum and saw the Christian shrine, celebrating the martyrs who had according to theodosius and later emperors been thrown to the lions in their thousands, I felt very much like saying to the Catholic priests who were present '...but it didn't actually happen like that...'

Fantastic piece, Lacertus. I Notice the Bosporan Kingdom described as a 'Sleepy Roman Protectorate' in Colin McEvedy's excellent Penguin Atlas of Ancient History... but space constrains any further mention of it. It is (or was, prior to reading your excellent piece) very tantalising for me to see it appearing constantly in map after map from about 200BC to 300 AD, but to know almost nothing of it. Many thanks!

Whilst is is good for enthusiasts of our period to be able to own their own little part of the history of Rome, I urge people to be cautious in the extreme when purchasing such items as coins and other Roman artifacts. Here in Northern England, there is a wealth of Roman military sites dating from the Flavian period up to the reign of Valentinian I. To a greater or lesser degree, a lot of these sites have suffered from the predations of metal detector enthusiasts, few of whom have a particular love of our subject, but who are very adept at plundering archaeological sites and liquidising their assets on ebay, or opening websites advertising their booty. Hardly a week goes by in which some treasure hunter doesn't make a spectacular find - a hoard of coins, say, or an ornate metal object - only for this to be sold on at a profit, with no knowledge of the particular site it was found on, the dating of the levels concerned, or what might have been wrecked to obtain a relatively trivial find. I have personal experience of working on archaeological sites in my area, and keeping watch overnight with two or three other colleagues in order to guard against the coin diggers. In some instances we suffered abuse and assaults in order to protect what should belong to everyone, from these vultures. I recall an anecdote in which a Roman 4th century mosaic pavement in Dorset (England) was ruthlessly dug out, in order to retrieve what in the end constituted a haul of three rather poor bronze coins of Domitian and a few rotted iron nails. This is just one of a plethora of sad stories in which coin diggers have destroyed part of the history and archaeological record of our period, simply to line their pockets. In another instance, and nearer to home, a metal detector enthusiast in Lancaster back in the '70's went onto a site after the archaeologists had finished digging for the day, and managed to steal what was described as a signum head from a military standard. To this day, no - one knows which military unit was stationed at the fort there in the third century, or the fort's name. The information may well be on Ebay, or in some collector's cabinet, although sadly now it is untraceable to its original context. I do not wish for any enthusiast of Roman History to be put off owning their own little bit of it. Nor do I wish to cast a shadow on legitimate traders in such objects who ply their trade honestly. but please, please... consider how it got onto ebay, or whatever, in the first place before you buy. And wether or not you really need to fuel this trade. At the end of the day, I find it hard to believe that coins on such sites as have been featured - particularly the 'uncleaned' coins sites - can have been obtained other than by treasure hunters with little or no archaeological credentials. Put another way: If you loved Elephants, would you buy Ivory?

All of the above reasons. Plus a continuous timespan from the 8th century BC until 1453. Half the languages in Europe owe their construction to Latin. The architectural style of the West is copied from classical styles. Arguably, it was the start of a western civilisation which has continued unbroken to this day... despite Mahatma Gandhi's remark, which if uttered by anyone else would have been labelled as an example of the lowest form of wit! Sorry, I digress...

I believe that to be the case. Traumatic though the events of the 5th century were, it seems to me that there was still a great deal of 'Roman-ness' around for a considerable time afterwards.

I think 'evolve' rather than 'fall' just about sums things up. The economic collapse that started in the third century continued unabated until about 800 - long after the 'fall' ( if you folllow the Gibbons hypothesis ) occurred. Only after then does the West start to revive. On the other hand, a recognisably Roman administration survived in the east until about 625, and thereafter the actual Roman state continued a further 800 years still. Roman material culture continued in Italy - along with 'real' Romans - until the Lombard invasion of 600. In 476, hardly anyone noticed that anything had changed - yet this date even now is generally regarded as when the fall reached conclusion. And yet, amphitheatres kept working, peristyle houses continued to be built and Odoacar, although the king of his people, believed he was governing Italy as a Roman province and accordingly sent tribute and tax revenues to Constantinople. It doesn't sound much like a fall, or an eradication of the Roman world, to me. As the evenue started to dwindle, and the germanic 'Governors' started to run Italy as a kingdom, Justinian redressed the balance with military force. Much the same as the Illyrian emperors did with Postumus and Zenobia in the third century. Our gift of hindsight sometimes hinders our view, as does the popularisation of history. The Roman senators who Odoacar believed himself answerable to in the late 5th century may not have worn laurel wreaths and togas, but they were Romans nonetheless. As the senate and the Roman church became indistinguishable round about 550, the late Roman variant of the toga continued to be worn by the clergy - as it does today. Along with correct, antique Latin Speaking as a Brit, I believe that my country is the same state as that which was (arguably!!) founded by William the first in 1066. But will history in 1500 years view it thus? After all, our army no longer wears chaimail and great helms, our religion is now mainly protestant and parliament has replaced the monarchy as the main executive power. When did our empire 'fall' or evolve into something different?

As with all things that evolve, there is bound to be a spread of opinion in which people differ to degrees, but all have valid reasons for stating their case. For example: amongst anthropologists, there is a great debate as to when hominids can actually be called 'human' and lots of differing viewpoints which hold equal validity. When Romulus Augustus abdicated, Rome had not been the seat of empire for at least 200 years: did the end then come when the emperors chose Nicomedia, or Milan or Ravenna as their seat of government? Did it end with Romulus' abdication, or when the Lombards destroyed Roman material culture in Italy a century later? As I've said in one or two other postings, the actual Roman state as founded by Augustus certainly carried on until 1453, in an unbroken succession of rulers. The question I ask is, during which cultural phase does one, with the advantage of hindsight, draw the line? My guess is with the reforms of Heraclius in the 620's, although even then the continuity of the Empire itself leaves me with a feeling I am in the wrong here...

The recovery in fact started under Gallienus and simply reached its conclusion in Diocletian's reign. The empire under Diocletian may have had differences from that of Hadrian, but then so did the Hadrianic empire from that of Caesar's late republic. In much the same way, 18th century England was still the same state as 15th century England, despite the reformation and changes in fashion and architecture. There is a common and to me old fashioned notion that the Later Roman Empire was a base version which had been revived from the ashes of the principate. Put quite simply, I believe that this is merely because people do not 'like' the later Empire and Roman culture as much as they like the High Imperial period. OK, the soldiers no longer resembled classical warriors from 'Quo Vadis', and classical style buildings were no longer built in profusion. But so what? What about the vast continuity that went on until the mid 7th century?

Nah, I say it did not end until the 15 century A.D, then again I am of the Byzantine-ilk. Absolutely!!!

It seems to me that Christianity in its final and current form is packed full of Roman traditions and elements of earlier paganism. That Rome shifted its seat of government from the senate house to the Vatican is merely a geographic debate.