What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Frank]

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.

Actually, I did not read Goldsworthy (just some reviews), but a lot of german authors supporting a rather structural approach. And Yes, its a miracle. I guess its a good idea to read both Heather and Goldsworthy. That surely leads to maximum confusion or frustration. :grin:
As a third book Stephen Williams, Gerard Friell - "The Rome that did not fall" is a good read. He is a bit balanced, and answers in detail the question, which is often ignored by other historians: Why the hell, the East survived? But now we are deep in 5th and 6th century.

[Virilis]

Thanks Frank, didn't know about this book by Stephen Williams, Gerard Friell - "The Rome that did not fall" . I am waiting for Guy Halsall's book about arthurian world, so I am going well into the 5-8th c. AD too ..,

[Alexand96]

Virilis, about Zubkov's books, I am not sure. I'll try to check on that when I have the opportunity. I also really enjoy his art work.

Frank, I have not heard "shock therapy" used in this context, but can easily see how many of the events (that I know of) during the decline could be seen as exogenous shocks. I have yet to read Goldsworthy's take on the fall of Rome, although my father has (along with the Williams/Friell book, I believe). I truly believe that you would have a hard time comparing Rome circa 117 AD and Rome circa 5th century and then arguing that the Roman empire never fell. But once again, these are the kinds of arguments that will draw me into the debate, so good for them!

Eduard, I would agree that Late Rome seems foreign in a sense, but I just have a difficult time shaking the Medival feeling so much of the history of the period gives me. Honestly, I do not know enough of the Late Roman period and Medival era to make such a statement, but I have often wondered just when the one ends and the other begins.

[Nathan Ross]

I absolutely cannot stand Roman history post-Commodus... My true Roman love interest is the High Republic to Civil Wars

Like you, my first interest was the later Republic. I was introduced to Roman history about twelve years ago, after watching a History Channel documentary about the Gallic wars on a fuzzy little TV in a stinky hotel room in Hyderabad, India. For the next two years I was focussed entirely on the period between Caesar's first consulate and the death of Marc Antony - an era that seemed to contain everything.

Then I went to Italy, saw Pompeii and the monuments of empire, read Tacitus and Suetonius, and became fascinated by the Flavians. More recently, however, I've gravitated towards the later empire: specifically, the period between the rise of Diocletian and the death of Constantine. Like the late republic, this was a time of revolution and civil war. Roman society, culture and army were all in transformation. But while the changes of the late republic led to the (relative) stability and glory of the principiate, the gold and grandeur of the later empire appears against a darker background. Everything seems tinged with impending tragedy - an old-fashioned way of looking at it, perhaps, but it suits my taste for the dramatic!

More practically, there's a lot more of the later empire left to us. I first went to Rome looking for the late republic, and was dissappointed to find so little of it, and so much of the remains of later centuries. Now it's the later stuff that draws my attention - those hulking basilicas and overbearing arches. The majority of surviving Roman buildings and monuments are from the later era - we can see and appreciate the material fabric of the day, rather than just reading about it.

There's also literature. Ammianus Marcellinus is a great read, and has the benefit of being a participant in several of the scenes he describes. His work has an immediacy often lacking in the senatorial historians of an earlier age. Alongside him, there are panegyrics and letters and even novels that give us a fascinatingly fragmentary and distorted view of a culture and society often alien, but one that foreshadows our own. There's something creepily totalitarian in a lot of those later imperial writings.

I confess that I used to find late Roman military equipment offputting as well. You get used to it very quickly though, once you see it in the context of its time. Reconstructions like this one, I think, show very clearly just how imposing and impressive the fourth century soldier could appear!

[Frank]

Frank, I have not heard "shock therapy" used in this context, ...

"Shock Theory" not Therapy

I did not say, that I am fan of Heather, I just said, it is the other side of the same medal. Heather disputes a decline of the roman society and economy. He agrees that it was a different empire, but from his point of view it was not a less powerful one. And he is not alone with this opinion and has very good arguments. Very shortly spoken: The shock was the vicious-cycle of territory losses and tax-losses, which started in 406 with the invasion in Gaul.

I agree with him about this desastrous cycle in the 5th century, but I like to disagree about the capabilities of at least the western empire at this point of time in every department.

However it is a good read. History written like an adventure novel. And sometimes it is a good idea to read what you don't like to hear

If you like to hear how bad everything was and went to doom consequently, i reccommend: Ramsay MacMullen Corruption and the Decline of Rome. A real tragedy

[Frank]

Btw, could somebody recommend a real good scientific monography about the Late Roman Army? More about structure, ranking, tactics and not contemporary history. Also a collective volume of articles would be welcome. English or german doesn't matter.

I have read lately the new book of Yann Le Bohec: Das römische Heer in der Späten Kaiserzeit - 2010 (The roman army in the late empire), but it was a bit superficial. Well, perhaps the sources are really that lousy.

[foojer]

I get what you mean about the post-Commodian period, it seems there are far fewer likeable or respectable personalities in the middle and late periods!

I have to agree with what some of the guys said, the late army is much more interesting for me than that of the Principate. It's an army which is stretched, is being faced with more dangerous and complex enemies (for example the Sassanids, who are a big reason for me liking the late Roman period!) and struggling to meet these new threats. You see new technologies, new costume and tactics coming in (late Roman helmets are a lot more visually striking imo than Principate helmets). It's a really interesting mixing pot.

Also in terms of looking at institutions, ways of thinking, even the way history was written and viewed, you can see a long and gradual shift from classical to medieval, which is probably what attracted me first to the late Roman period. It's not a glamorous or clean-cut period, but in a way i think it makes it more human and relatable. You have people whining about taxes and government bureaucrats and bad military leadership, more mundane things, and it makes it all more real.

[markusaurelius]

My interest in ancient history started with the Greeks and then evolved to the Romans, specifically the 2nd century "golden era". Late Roman stuff is my complete passion now. For me it comes down to the following:

1. The under dog. Always loved them, and the late empire to me encompasses that.

2. Late Roman era is not as well known and there is lots to learn and explore, both in new finds and from a reconstruction point of view. There are also a lot of misconceptions about the strength of late roman armies, their equipment (ie the myth that they didnt wear armor)

3. Beautiful art (contrary to popular belief). Late roman helmets, mosaics etc.

I also enjoy seeing the early manifestations of european culture in the late roman period. How it took another 1000 years of what the 4th century rome had before things advanced further.

[Jack Jones]

Hey guys,

New around here and was looking around and came across this thread. I guess this is good intro thread also.

Love the Roman war machine. Just love the uniforms. When I was a kid I had a ton of Roman soldier miniatures and I used to go to war with them on daily basis. I just like history period. So many great characters in Roman history is what makes them unique.

Anyway, that's enough for a first post. Great forums here guys. History paradise . I feel kind of stupid with Jack Jones. I'm named after a I'm an unknown English Roman.

[M. Val. Naso]

Frank: try an oxford book, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425. I have my vote on this.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I find late rome to just be generally sexy. Like Markus said my original interest in the classical era came from the greeks, which I in particular got from the game "Age of Empires." In turn Barbarians II + Age of Empires II got me interested in late Rome. Attila the Hun campaign was soo much fun. :razz:

@Mark George

Is your unit the Felices Iuniores Gallia placidi valentinianici?

[starman2012]

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.

You could call it a "top-down" theory of disintegration. I think it was more "bottom up."

It is a miracle that the western empire didn't go down in the third c. AD.

IIRC Heather actually downplays the magnitude of the third century crisis. I wouldn't, though.

[starman2012]

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?

The gradual rise of Rome from an obscure city state c 500 BCE to a great hegemon by the second century CE, then its slow decline and fall, is a very fascinating story.

but I absolutely cannot stand Roman history post-Commodus.

It isn't so bad down to about the time of Gallus or Valerian.

To me, the entire period seems to be tainted with shades of the Medieval, both in terms of military tactics and equipment

Such as the rise of cavalry and decline of infantry? Again it wasn't so bad yet in the third century; look at the battle in 272.

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.

Yeah, and for me the worst of it is the replacement of a rather secular worldview with christianity.

[Virilis]

Good points, Tim! How can someone downplay the crisis of the third century is beyond me, too ! Take the situation what Gallienus had to face on every level, it is amazing. In fact I saw some years ago a bust of Gallienus in a museum in Bruxelles and I have to admit I have never seen such a worried impression depicted on a sculpture...

[starman2012]

Frank: try an oxford book, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425. I have my vote on this.

IMO add to that ROMAN INFANTRY EQUIPMENT and LATE ROMAN INFANTRYMAN.