DecimusCaesar

You make a very good point there DF. The Huns became a great propaganda tool for the early church, as they could claim to have saved Rome (and therefore civilisation) from Huns, while the emperor and the army were impotent. The church still commemorated the event a thousand years after Attila's death with Raphael's paintings. It's interesting that Pope Leo I tried to reason with Gaiseric only a few years later. This deal wasn't as half as succesful as the one he'd made with Attila, and Gaiseric went on to sack Rome. Pope Leo did make sure that the Vandals kept their destruction to minimum levels though. Perhaps it was this lack of success when dealing with Vandals that lead to them losing their influence on later histories. Meanwhile the ferocity of the Huns is made legendary to increase the prestige of the Papacy. Still, we should take into consideration the destruction that the Huns caused the eastern empire. A lot of Byzantine chronicles mention Attila; and we shouldn't forget that Attila sacked many towns in the Balkans and very nearly marched on Constantinople itself. This would have blackened the Byzantines view of the Huns. The Vandals on the other hand were only able to launch pirate raids on Eastern territory, while later in the Sixth century, Belisarius managed to conquer Vandal Africa. This must have made the Byzantines contemptous of the Vandals. I think it's the combined weight of both the Roman and Eastern (Byzantine/Greek) view of the Huns which has brought them fame, while the Vandals - arguably delivering the worst blow to the western empire by taking Africa and sacking Rome - have become less (in)famous.

Happy Birthday Antiochus! May the Gods bring you lots of presents! Hope you have fun.

I have always wondered why Attila has become such a famous figure in popular imagination; Taking into consideration that Attila is the most famous figure of the Later Roman Empire. Why is it that his influence has overshadowed that of other barbarian leaders, like Alaric and Gaiseric? In E.A Thompson's book on 'the Huns',the controversial historian came to the conclusion that Attila, although a threat, was not the 'scourge of God' as he liked to see himself. Thompson even says that Attila was a failure: He never took Rome, never married Honoria, he lost the battle of Chalons in 451, and he failed to become the overlord of the Western Empire. As far as some historians are concerend, Attila was not a terribly good leader, rather a glorified raider. Others might argue that he was a great leader, considering that the Hun Empire needed his strength to survive. After he died it quickly collapsed under the rule of his sons. Peter Heather believes that the Huns made a devastating blow to the Empire, and that Attila really was a terrible threat. J.J Norwich claims that the fate of Europe hung on battle of Chalons, and the defeat of Attila is comparable to the defeat of Xerxes' army at Greece. Gaiseric the Vandal on the other hand, is unknown in popular culture. Yet he also devestated the Western Empire. The Vandals took control of southern Iberia, but worst of all, they captured Carthage and Rome's 'bread basket' provinces of north Africa. This was a huge blow to the Western Empire's economy. Yet Rome was unable to launch a counter-attack as Attila arrived on the scene to devastate Gaul. Gaiseric was therefore safe from any large scale offensive from the Romans. In 455, a few years after Attila's death, Gaiseric was able to launch a raid on Rome itself, sacking the city and looting the populace. Even after Gaiseric's death in 477, the Vandals remained a threat to the Mediterranean, as Vandal pirates raided as far as the coasts of Greece. Who was the most devastating force to descend on the Roman Empire? Does Gaiseric deserve greater recognition as the man who brought Rome to its knees, or does Attila deserve his title of 'Scourge of God' and a reputation for devastating the Western Empire? Who did the most damage to the Romans?

Happy Birthday Theilian! have a great one!

Great List Ursus. I have to agree that Handbook to life in Ancient Rome is an excellent resource. The amount of information they manage to squeeze into a relativily small book is astounding. It's always handy having the book at hand to check up a quick reference.

Aww shucks...thank you. I quite agree with The Augusta and it is perhaps a little sad that more young lads don't take some parts of their lives and dedicate it to learning things of this ilk. Thank you Wot for coming along and adding to the very interesting debates that went on over the three days. All contributions, no matter how small or large, were very valuable. I learned quite a lot over this last weekend and appreciate everything that was said. Once more... thank you all... I'll be looking forward to seeing the pictures and reading the reports from Augusta and Pertinax! I only wish I had been able to be there with you...Hopefully I'll be able to make it to the next meet.

Elton makes a rather convincing case for the superiority of the Roman army throughout the fifth century. And 'not a single true Roman'? Not even Aetius? What does it even mean? I belive that when MacDowall said that, he meant that there wasn't a single soldier from the city of Rome on the battlefield, although this is arguable. I think he was exaggeratting his case that by the the time of Chalons, the Foederati played a dominant part in Western Roman warfare. He said: "There probably was not a true Roman anywhere in Aetius' army, even those nominally Roman units would have been composed of German military settlers. - From 'Late Roman Infantryman AD 236-565' (pub. 1994) - Simon MacDowall. Would the majority of Aetius forces have been soldiers from Gaul? Afterall Jordanes does mention that Aetius' army consisted of Gauls and numerous other peoples, although he also mentions that Attila commanded Bastarnae, and we know that they were no longer in existance by the fifth century. Aetius had also been made 'Magister Militum per Gallias' in 425, so we know that he commanded troops in Gaul. It is likely that by 451, Aetius had already been given command of troops from other Roman provinces. Does anyone know what Roman troops (according to the Notitia Dignitatum) Aetius would have commanded? According to our sources the army of Gaul would have consisted of four units Vexillatio Palatina, and twenty-one units of pseudocomitatenses, plus numerous other units - fifty eight in all. Would it have still been up to this strength in 451? Perhaps on paper, but maybe not in reality. Maybe he commanded more troops. Anyone care to venture his army's strength? Jordanes also mentions that the Roman army was in poor condition at Chalons. He mentions Attila's pre-battle speech to the Huns and their barbarian allies, where he commands them to attack the Alans and the Visigoths as the Romans are 'poor soldiers...contemptible'. Whether this is another exaggeration or an outright lie by Jordanes is hard to tell. He isn't very reliable, yet he's one of the main sources we have on Chalons. Still this is an interesting topic. Even in the last few years of the Western empire, Ricimer was comanding several field armies. In 471 we hear that an army was sent from Italy to fight in Gaul, although it was defeated at Arles. Could we suppose that this army was made up of native units of Romans and Italians and not of German foederati? We can't be sure of their apperance but the carving of Stilicho posted by Divi Filius would give us a good idea. This is a re-enactor dressed as a late Roman officer. His costume might be from an earlier period, although it might be possible that the officers at Chalon woul have worn similar clothing: From Comitatus, a British late Roman re-enactment group.

An excellent review Augusta, I enjoyed reading it!

Considering that Romulus Augustulus was the last emperor of the Western Empire, he could be considered to be the last of the Romans. I personally would go for Flavius Aetius on that list, although I suppose you could argue that Constantine XI was the last of the Romans as he was the last to wear the Imperial crown. What about the rulers of the Empire of Trezibond? Considering that area was the last enclave of the Byzantines to fall to the Ottomans, it could be argued that Trezibond was the last seat of Roman government.

Here's a strange argument concerning Arthur that could probably fit nicely into pseudohistory: Arturius - Quest for King Arthur The site's creator argues that Arthur wasn't a Briton and that he was Scottish. He then dismisses all "Contempory Evidence" as being 'Worthless' and bases all of his information on one document which says that Arthur was the son of King Aidan, a Scottish leader. Considering that we can't be sure if Arthur even existed, it seems strange that this man claims that Arthur was definately a Scotsman. It seems most people can't agree if he was a Romano-British Warlord or a Dark Age King let alone a Scottish Warrior. As for the

I think that one of the prevailing views by archaeologists on the Venuses is that they represent a sort of 'Earth mother' Goddess. In the Neolithic temples on Malta there are several statues of large seated women to be found. Whether these have any connection to the Venuses I cannot say, but there are some strange similarities. Either way, there will never be a definite answer to the mystery, considering our Mesolithic and Neolithic ancestors left no written records.

I suppose the same could be said for Roman scholars and writers. Afterall, many of the Roman texts have very small writing that has no punctuation or gaps between words. Having to write several scrolls like that in darkened rooms by lamp light must have taken its toll on some Roman's eyes.

There is some archaelogical evidence that 'snow goggles' were in use by Eskimos in the first century AD, but as for glasses there is no mention of any device to improve sight before the 14th century. According to the 17th century writer Roberto Dati, eye-glasses were invented by Alessandro Spina a monk and scientist who lived in Pisa. Dati then confuses his readers by claiming that some unknown man invented glasses and that Spina copied the technique. As for eye problems in the ancient world, I can't say much, but the blind do feature prominently among the healed by Jesus Christ in the new Testament; which might go to show that in some cases, eye problems were quite common in the ancient world. Professor Robert Winston, a biologist and famous tv presenter (who himself wears glasses) discussed how terrible it must have been to our ancient ancestors to live without sight. He said that in the ancient world eyesight trouble wouldn't hae just been an incovenience, it might have been a matter between life and death. This might be especially true during the stone age. The Roman physician Galen did speak of a technique he used to rid people of cataracts. A needle would be forced into the afflicted's eyeball, where it was used to tear the cataract and fold it over so that it would no longer obstruct the person's view. Some of these eye needles have been discovered in doctor's graves in Italy.

Most of the forces that fought against Attila and his allies were Germanic soldiers. A lot of whom had a dubious alliance with Rome. Sangiban, King of the Alans, needed to be kept under watch by Aetius and his men at Chalons, for they feared that he and his warriors would turn against the Romans, as he had been on the verge of doing when Attila's forces besieged Orleans. Other's in Aetius army consisted of Visigoths (under the command of King Theoderic) and Franks. I agree that by 451 most of the soldiers of the Roman army were Germanic Foederatii under the command of their own tribal leaders. Most of the others were Bucellarii, soldiers that were hired by the Roman upper classes to serve them instead of the Emperor Valentinian III. S. MacDowall says for instance that there was not a single true Roman on the field of battle. This might be true. According to sources most Italians were conscripted to serve in local militia. The last of these conscriptions took place in the decade preeceding the battle of Chalons. According to some sources, Attila told his men before battle that the Romans were, "poor soldiers, who are utterly contemptible - the Visigoths and the Alans are the only worthy enemies."

I've never used this website as I've only come across it in the last few days, but they do have a selection on some of the rather obscure Roman titles, as well as the popular : Caliver Books

Kosmo has a point here. It wasn't so much that Western Europe became rural after the Roman period, but rather that technology and levels of comfort took a sharp decline. A lot of technology was lost as the new 'barbarian' administartion failed to grasp the technology of the Romans. Aqueducts, which had at one time given water to thousands fell into disrepair. One of the greatest examples of this is when the aqueducts of Rome were demolished by the Goths during the siege of Rome in the sixth century. As a result, the population of the city took a massive nose dive. How was it possible to water Rome's half a million citizens if there were no aqueducts? What's of greater significance is that the aqueducts were never rebuilt. The Goths (and later barbarian occupants of the city) simply did not have the technical ingenuity or orginizational skills to build aqueducts or any other type of building on a Roman scale. City population in Europe would not exceed First Century Rome's levels till the 18th Century. The same can be said for trade and travel, which remained very difficult and dangerous in the dark ages, as well as the later Medieval period. Without Rome's military system, banditry and raiding became endemic. Take Britain for example. The Roman military with it's system of limitanei supported by mobile field forces (Comitatenses), under the command of the count of the Saxon shore; managed to keep the Saxon raiders out of the British heartland. When Roman power collapsed, so did its permanent armies. The armed forces of the dark ages consisted of poorly armed and trained militia who were often slow to react to raiding. As a result the Vikings found it easy to swoop down on villages in Britain as there was no permanent military force to keep watch.

Arthur is also mentioned in the North British epic poem 'Y Gododdin', which was composed around AD.600. He is only mentioned in one line, and it says nothing about him. There is no reason to believe that this is the Arthur of legend. Once again, he is not called King Arthur, but rather simply Arthur, which might imply that he was a great warrior rather than a ruler. 'Y Gododdin' also mentions Coel Hen, who is the "historical" King Cole, but like Arthur no information is given on him.

It's not hard to believe when you consider that there were men from (modern) Spain, France, Hungary, Germany, Belgium and many other places stationed at the wall from time to time.

I'm glad you enjoyed your trip! I've just been looking at your pictures in the Gallery and they were excellent. I have no doubt you'll be getting back to Rome again soon.

The Dark ages occured at different stages throughout Western Europe. Britain was one of the first places to go - falling out of the Roman sphere in the year 410. It's hard to pinpoint how quickly Roman material culture disappeared, but virtually all traces of Roman culture had gone by AD 800. The Roman civil structure, with its life centred around towns, began to disappear rather quickly - with Britons or Saxons setting up mud or wooden huts around the ruins of the Roman buildings. Gaul managed to hold on to its Roman culture for a longer period. But by the time Attila and his Huns turned up in AD 451, many barbarian tribes had already settled into Gaulish territory - among them the Burgundians. Flavius Aetius had get assistance from these tribes - especially the Visigoths and the Alans - in order to keep Attila out of Roman Gaul. Italy remained "Roman" for a longer period. It Wasn't till the sixth century for instance, that the Roman Senate was finally abolished (or rather it was destroyed at the hands of the Goths). Many of the Roman buildings were preserved, especially if some of them were converted to churches by Bishops. By the late sixth century the population of Rome had dropped to 30,000 due to several factors, including wars, plague and famine. Northern Italy came out of these troubles rather unscathed, with nearly all of its towns surviving. Southern italy on the other hand suffered terribly at the hands of the Lombards. Urban life in these areas were confined to the coastal cities, due to these invasions.

Happy Birthday Virgil - Hope your day was a lot of fun. I'm late as usual!

Thank you for the Update Augusta! There is a good chance that it might be aired around that time. How long has it been since series one was first brodcast in the UK? One year or two years? Either way it's been long. I sincerely hope that series 2 will be worth watching. I've been avoiding threads and news about it, although I have come across some bits and pieces here and there - and from what I've heard, it deviates from the historical record a lot more than the first series. Hmm... If it does do this, then I hope that they at least make it entertaining enough for me to ignore the errors.

I saw a repeat of this show on UKTV History a few weeks back. It was okay, although the Romans were demonised somewhat to make Hannibal look like the hero. It did keep to the basic outline of Hannibal's story, although like the Ancient Rome series that aired on the BBC a few months back; Many details were altered or exaggerated for dramatic purposes. I see that they have at least made an attempt at making (some) of the costumes historically correct.

Don't forget the Basques...they've laid claim that their whaling and cod-fish expeditions took them to the New World! And not forgetting the Chinese. One of the most famous examples of pseudo-history in recent years was the claim by a British sailor that a Chinese navy sailed to the Americas, New Zealand, Australia, Africa and Europe in 1421.

I've forgotten about this film in recent months. Checking up on it right now, I realise that the release date has been changed from August 28th to September 7th. It doesn't bode well that this film is constantly being delayed, especially when you take to consideration that they finished filming around summer 2006. They even showed previews of the film many months ago - and according to some sources - the feedback was very negative, or just mediocre at best. If it keeps on getting delayed I can't help but think we might get a straight to video release.