What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Alexand96]

I have a rather strange question to put to you all who enjoy Late Roman history/military studies – simply put, what on earth attracts you to this period?

I have discussed this a bit with my father, who actually knows quite a bit more about this time period than I, but I absolutely cannot stand Roman history post-Commodus. He agrees with me to some extent, quite acutely describing this period as “distressing” for those who long for the long lost days of the Pax Romana. To me, the entire period seems to be tainted with shades of the Medieval, both in terms of military tactics and equipment as well as the general ethos pervading society. For whatever reason, I have never been able to hold more than a passing interest in the Medival world, and recognize that this feeling is behind my aversion to the Later Roman period.

However, I really am trying to find a way to bolster both my knowledge and appreciation for the period. So, what is it that draws you so much to this period? I’d really love to know…

[Tarbicus]

Germanii? Nothing.

:whistle:

[Virilis]

Good question, Alexander! I have always been interested in roman history in general. About ten years ago I found this forum and somehow got fascinated by the strange late roman world (thanks to Robert Vermaat and Fectio, for example). For me it is a bit too easy to join to "the triumphant legions of Trajan". There is some strange and exotic quality in the late roman world, not just the events and personalities, also the aesthetics seem to play a role here (armour, weapons, etc). It just may fascinate people who are willing to dig for information a bit more in the margins of the hobby, who knows? Anyway, the late romans have the biggest blades :twisted: ...

[M. Val. Naso]

The exotic quality is true, very true. Also, early principate is boring, and we have way too many (though not many of them are good) groups in that era. If there would be another roman era, which our group would choose, we would rule out the standard segmentata roman for sure. Late republic, or etruscan/roman hoplite. Now that's something.

[Epictetus]

Edward Gibbon. He was an absolutely fantastic storyteller. I read Decline and Fall and was mesmerised. This whole world opened before my eyes, strange and yet familiar, and I could see the cruel emperors and desperate generals and bloodied armies and fleets of storm-tossed ships and crumbling city walls being overrun by climbing vines. I was hooked.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Gibbon is an excellent Narrator.

What first got me was the History Channel. I was watching Barbarians II back in like 2006 or so and I thought it was pretty cool. In 2007 I found out about Aetius and was mesmerized by the "Last of the Romans" concept. Pretty soon I was learning all about the Late Empire to the point where I barely know enough to get by on this forums outside of the 5th century.

I still am mesmerized by the 5th Century. I find the army to be better-looking and stuff too. It's pretty.

[Alexand96]

Thank you, Gentleman, for your perspectives.

I already find some interesting ideas...Virilis, last year I read Simon James' Rome and the Sword and was duly fascinated by the development of the Roman gladius into the spatha. The late Roman spatha strikes me as very Medival, although I am basing that purely on aesthetics, nothing as detailed as production methods, or metallurgical composition. I would agree that many late Roman blades are very beautiful.

Mark - although I am not a re-enactor myself, I definitely understand what you mean about there being a plethora of 1st century AD groups (and some of questionable representation). I myself am tired of the same old seggy + mid-1st century Gallic helm representation we see over and over again. Not to disparage those who are engaged in re-enacting this period, but I enjoy individualistic variation! My true Roman love interest is the High Republic to Civil Wars, a period we see very, very few enthusiastic representations of. Perhaps someday I'll be able to give it a go. Early Roman/Etruscan hoplite would indeed be quite interesting...

Epictetus, I have never set myself to reading Gibbon. In fact, I have never read any of the original sources other than Caesar's Gallic Campaigns. I wonder if it wouldn't be best to read as many of the original sources through chronologically (subject matter-wise) before reading any more modern synopses?

[Frank]

Well, if you like to understand, why the glorious times of the 1st and 2nd century ended, it helps to look at the changes and measures in the 3rd and 4th century. From my point of view, some of these measures were simple mistakes, but others were reactions to basic misconceptions of the principate or to ongoing processes and structural changes of the the roman society starting already with Augustus or earlier. And finally I saw that these glorious first centuries were far away from being glorious

Also the 5th and 6th century and the question, why did East-Rome not fall, is very interesting. Again you get hints, what was wrong with the roman empire starting in the 1st century. And even more interesting and enlighting is the question: Why did the eastern empire fall in the 7th century, too? And why it seems to be a deja vu?

[Caballo]

I think it was having small children and then teenagers that made me interested in preserving civilisation in the face of the barbarian .... .....

[Alexand96]

Well, if you like to understand, why the glorious times of the 1st and 2nd century ended, it helps to look at the changes and measures in the 3rd and 4th century. From my point of view, some of these measures were simple mistakes, but others were reactions to basic misconceptions of the principate or to ongoing processes and structural changes of the the roman society starting already with Augustus or earlier. And finally I saw that these glorious first centuries were far away from being glorious

I think that these questions are what will eventually enable me to dive headfirst into this period. What, in general at least, do you mean when you say the "first centuries" were not glorious? The political and military upheavals in the 1st century AD? I am intrigued by the idea that the Roman system itself was doomed from the inception of its foreign, territorial empire (international conquests and provinces), as the system itself was inadequate in its ability to effectively rule such large areas in perpetuam.

Evan, I gues it must just be subjective, aesthetic tastes then with regard to what "looked pretty." You see, I inherintly find something "un-Roman" with historical scenes such as these cataphracti on parade in Rome:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=...angpair=ru

While more "traditionally Roman" scenes such as this please me a great deal:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=...angpair=ru

Of course, even I know that such a statement is ridiculous in light of the fact that almost all of the Republican Roman military tactics and equipment are just as bastardized from foreign contacts and enemies as they are in Later Roman times. To each his own I guess

[Alexand96]

Ah, well I see that the links only take you to the translated home page....the images I was referring to can be found (if interested) as follows:

The cataphracti "Osprey Publishing" "Late Roman Cavalryman" the image of the 5th(?) century parade through Rome

The Republicans "Images of Ancient Armies" "The history of the Roman army (Zubkov N.)" the image of the Republican Roman infantry circa Punic Wars

[Virilis]

Alexander, I wonder if it is possible to get these books by Zubkov somewhere?

[Frank]

I am intrigued by the idea that the Roman system itself was doomed from the inception of its foreign, territorial empire (international conquests and provinces), as the system itself was inadequate in its ability to effectively rule such large areas in perpetuam.

If you believe that, than you should read Peter Heathers "The Fall of the Roman Empire". It is a good start to get familiar with the late empire (just 500 pages :grin: ). He focusses on late empire and will describe a fully different late empire, than you imagined.

Heather is a representative of the so called "Shock-Theory", and these historians will disagree with your view. The opposite school, I would call it the "Structure-Theory", would perhaps agree with your point but remark, that this is just one point of many and the reasons why size was an issue are very complex.

I believe in the meantime, that both shock and longterm processes are just 2 sides of the same medal. One without the other does'nt work and is not sufficient to explain the Fall of Rome.

[Virilis]

Frank, I liked Peter Heather's book on the fall of the western empire a lot. Anyway what surprised me even more positively was Adrian Goldsworthy's take on the subject. Nothing fancy, just well based views on the inner weaknesses of the roman system like the never-solved succession of the emperors etc. It is a miracle that the western empire didn't go down in the third c. AD.

[koechlyruestow]

Alexand, the attraction of really late, early Byzantine Rome (late 5- early 7th centuries CE) is exactly that it is so foreign. The principate has been internalised to such an extent that it has become a part of our culture, however false the picture might be.
The foreign character of late Rome is especially (but not exclusively) in the military sphere, warfare dominated by mounted combat and the bow, entirely foreign to us and, to my opinion, entirely misunderstood. It is historically speaking still a new frontier to explore. And all this against the backdrop of a world where the buildings and landmarks of ancient antiquity had yet hardly been ruined by the onset of decay, fascinating! Who could not be interested in this period? :woot: