What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Virilis]

Ian, I have heard rumours that Syvänne's book might include photos of the leading re-enactors of the period ...

[sonic]

Ian, I have heard rumours that Syvänne's book might include photos of the leading re-enactors of the period ...

There are quite a few photos of re-enactors, including one or two that look strangely familiar .... :whistle:

[sonic]

What attracted me to the Late Empire was the question of why something so big could collapse so quickly. AD 400, everything 'normal': 476, everything 'gone'.

[Renatus]

I'm currently copy-editing a book by Ilkka Syvanne, "A Military History of Late Rome 284 to 361", the first in a series of five on the Late Roman Empire.

Does this mean that this is the only book in the series dealing with military history and that the others deal with other aspects of Roman life, or will there be other books taking military history on from 361?

[sonic]

I'm currently copy-editing a book by Ilkka Syvanne, "A Military History of Late Rome 284 to 361", the first in a series of five on the Late Roman Empire.

Does this mean that this is the only book in the series dealing with military history and that the others deal with other aspects of Roman life, or will there be other books taking military history on from 361?

The others will deal with later periods of the Empire. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the 'end-date' for the series.

[Frank]

Does this mean that this is the only book in the series dealing with military history and that the others deal with other aspects of Roman life, or will there be other books taking military history on from 361?

Well, 284 to 361 is the interesting part. 8)
On the other side, I hope thats just a title. A book, which likes to describe and explain the transition of the imperial army, should start latest with Gallienus, and observe some measures of Septimus Severus and mention even actions as early as the reign of Marc Aurel.

[Nathan Ross]

I'm not sure of the 'end-date' for the series.

The author's PhD thesis was called The Age of Hippotoxotai, Art of War in Roman Revival and Disaster 491-636, so I think we can assume it goes late... Actually 284-636 almost divides into five 70-year periods, but it probably isn't that neat!

[Theodosius the Great]

What attracted me to the Late Empire was the question of why something so big could collapse so quickly. AD 400, everything 'normal': 476, everything 'gone'.

Ah, the old text book explanation. In reality, of course, two thirds of the empire's population didn't take notice since life continued as before for the next 150 years in the east.

I'm glad we have books like yours, Ian, to correct such thinking

~Theo

[Flavivs Aetivs]

What attracted me to the Late Empire was the question of why something so big could collapse so quickly. AD 400, everything 'normal': 476, everything 'gone'.

This is really frightening in regards to our modern-day civilization. Rome fell, and it fell HARD. If you turned off the electricity the world would go from Billions to only Millions within 5 years, I guarentee it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

What attracts you to Late Rome?


The cappucinos...... :evil:

[Virilis]

I have to say the world of late roman empire came as a shock to me first. I have been so used to the cool, stream-lined world of classical art and the highly stylized, orientalized late roman statues staring with blank eyes to the eternity looked awful and alien in this context. When I got used to the conventions of the late roman art / world they started to be strangely fascinating, combined with the late roman history when there definitely was not a dull day . Maybe there simply is just a morbid element to all this which appeals to my morbid mind :whistle: ...

[starman2012]

What attracted me to the Late Empire was the question of why something so big could collapse so quickly. AD 400, everything 'normal': 476, everything 'gone'.

Things were far from "normal" by 400 CE. Without much support from its own citizens anymore, it's no wonder the West went down the tubes so fast. In fact it could've happened a lot faster. Had Alaric not been stopped by storms, Africa would've been lost almost thirty years earlier than it was. That pivotal loss, of course, accelerated the whole process.

[sonic]

What attracted me to the Late Empire was the question of why something so big could collapse so quickly. AD 400, everything 'normal': 476, everything 'gone'.

Things were far from "normal" by 400 CE. Without much support from its own citizens anymore, it's no wonder the West went down the tubes so fast. In fact it could've happened a lot faster. Had Alaric not been stopped by storms, Africa would've been lost almost thirty years earlier than it was. That pivotal loss, of course, accelerated the whole process.

When I first began reading about the Late Empire in the 1970s and 80s it was still common to find the claim that when Theodosius died in 395 he left behind a strong and united empire. It is only more recent work that has demonstrated that by 400 the empire was already in 'terminal decline'.

[Frank]

When I first began reading about the Late Empire in the 1970s and 80s it was still common to find the claim that when Theodosius died in 395 he left behind a strong and united empire. It is only more recent work that has demonstrated that by 400 the empire was already in 'terminal decline'.

Theodosius reign was heavily overrated by christian historians due to his measures against pagans. Every important pro-christian emperor was called "the Great" and so they overlooked the real great emperors.
Looking to the Battle at Frigidus, you could call Theodosius I the gravedigger of the western field army and door opener for the Visigoths.

However, 400 AD and even after the first sack of Rome most romans believed not, that they lived at the eve of doom. Thats the interesting point about this era. Well, looking to the eastern provinces, they were actually correct.

[starman2012]

Looking to the Battle at Frigidus, you could call Theodosius I the gravedigger of the western field army and door opener for the Visigoths.

Stilicho didn't do badly in the first years of the fifth century. The East actually need his or western help. Much of the "gravedigging' was done by the anti-barbarian campaign following Stilicho's death in 408. It was bad enough that they couldn't get many citizen recruits. After 408 even barbarians were reluctant to serve in the regular western army.

However, 400 AD and even after the first sack of Rome most romans believed not, that they lived at the eve of doom. Thats the interesting point about this era. Well, looking to the eastern provinces, they were actually correct.

The East was fairly lucky in that most barbarians settled in the West, which meant permanent losses of territory.