What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Valerian Pertinax]

Might I suggest a separate thread to discuss the hows, whys, and whats of Late Empire Christianisation? I've long found that topic quite fascinating and certainly worthy of further discussion.

[Alexand96]

I am all in...at least to read other opinions about the Christianization of Late Rome. I doubt that I have much to contribute, as my knowledge of the period essentially rests upon the views and opinions expressed in a few documentaries.

[Timianus]

I am all in...at least to read other opinions about the Christianization of Late Rome. I doubt that I have much to contribute, as my knowledge of the period essentially rests upon the views and opinions expressed in a few documentaries.

This book is essential. http://www.amazon.com/Constantine-Roman-...ian+victor

Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor

It describes in detail how Constantine co-opted the iconography and symbols of pagan religions and turned them into symbols of Christianity. It also goes into some detail about how all the various aspect of Christian doctrine/dogma were already found in other religions that existed at that time. This is one of my favorite reads on the topic

[Nathan Ross]

Constantine co-opted the iconography and symbols of pagan religions and turned them into symbols of Christianity... all the various aspect of Christian doctrine/dogma were already found in other religions that existed at that time.

The degree to which Constantine consciously 'co-opted' elements of traditional religious practice is one of those eternal debates, and highly contentious. Pre-Christian Roman religion was not a unified monolithic system of belief, but a highly adaptable combination of state and private rituals, foreign borrowings, philosophies and cultic mysteries that evolved over the centuries. By the end of the third century popular devotion was approaching an idea of monotheism; you only need to look at the prayer issued by the (pagan) Licinius to his (pagan) army before his battle with Maximinus Daia in 313: addressed to an unnamed 'Supreme God', it appears to us now as Christian in all but name.

By the fourth century, Christianity was actually very close to what traditional 'paganism' had become. So rather than being alien or revolutionary, it seemed very familiar.

This is one of my favorite reads on the topic

It is good. Stephenson is one of the most approachable, and least partisan, of the recent writers on Constantine. His idea that Christianity flourished because of its care for the poor in times of plague is a bit debatable, as is his notion that the emperor adopted 'Victor' as a personal name. But for a good popular survey it's hard to beat.

[Valerian Pertinax]

Hello all. I created a thread specifically for talking about the Christianization of the Late Roman Empire. It is in Ancient Civ talk. I'm looking toward to your thoughts and contributions!

[ValentinianVictrix]

I became interested in the 4th/5th Century AD period of Roman history by default really. I took up wargaming in the 1960's and was always more interested in the Macedonian period. I then met Phil Barker of Wargames Research Group fame during the 1970's & 80's and we talked about why he was so interested in the Late Roman period and its armies and enemies. I decided to read up on some suggested works, Gibbon and Ammianus being the ones he advised consulting first. I became hooked! This lead me to undertake research into the Late Roman army and in my namesake battle. For me its all about how quickly the transition from Empire to fallen state can happen and trying to identify the causes of this and its impact on modern history.

[starman2012]

This was one of the reasons why Rome was always trying to expand; its leaders needed to show divine favor through military victory.

Claudius invaded Britain to strengthen his rule via the prestige of victory. But wars were almost invariably fought for very practical reasons.

Also, the whole reason that Christians were persecuted was because they failed to participate in the imperial cult worship.

Sure but it wasn't so much a religion as a kind of patriotic or civic duty. IIRC all it involved was a small sacrifice like pouring out a libation.

The importance of religion can be verified by the sheer number of "cult" religions that prospered during the late imperial period.

My old teacher was referring to the early Imperial period.

[starman2012]

What I find truly remarkable is how long the institutions in the west were able to hold out given the constant civil wars, poor leadership, plagues, etc.

Well, these things were far from constant.

[Timianus]

Sure but it wasn't so much a religion as a kind of patriotic or civic duty. IIRC all it involved was a small sacrifice like pouring out a libation.

The two were one and the same! It also involved recognizing the Princeps as the ultimate authority on all matters through the combination of his authority as pontifex maximus and consular imperium. Christians refused to do this.

[Timianus]

What I find truly remarkable is how long the institutions in the west were able to hold out given the constant civil wars, poor leadership, plagues, etc.

Well, these things were far from constant.

A civil war nearly every generation qualifies as "constant" in my book. Often overlooked is the devastation caused by wars....skilled craftsmen are killed, crops are plundered or burned, cities sacked, infrastructure destroyed, trade and travel comes to a halt .....it takes a while for an area to recover from a major conflict.

Late Empire

Civil wars of the Tetrarchy (306–324), between the co-emperors of the Roman Empire, starting with the usurpation of Maxentius and the defeat of Severus, and ending with the defeat of Licinius at the hands of Constantine I.
Conflict between Constans and Constantine II: 340
Roman civil war of 350–351 AD, between Constantius II and Magnentius - victory to Constantius.
Roman civil war of 360–361 AD, between Constantius II and Julian the Apostate - victory to Julian.
Roman civil war of 387–388 AD, between Theodosius I and Magnus Maximus - victory to Theodosius I.
Roman civil war of 394 AD, between Theodosius I and Arbogast - victory to Theodosius I.

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

To answer the original question:

I came from the opposite end, dealing with the 5th century (mostly Vortigern and the sparse sources about a Britain in ruins, or o it seemed) and, in attempting to explain how that came about I was drawn back into the 4th century.
While being occupied with that, I was also drawn into reenactment. Naturally, it became 4th c. reenactment. By that time, RAT had also been founded and the rest, as they say, is history..

Late Antiquity, as it's also known, has a strange sense about it. The days of glory are, true, but looking back it's not hard to see why the days of Trajan et al were not really that much better or more superior to the centuries thereafter. The army is changing, true, although tactics are far more similar to the days of Hadrian and even Caesar than it looks at first sight. In that we are too much shaped by both Hollywood and Trajan's Column I fear, to recognise that the Roman army was a treasure of tactics used when necessary. Some see a degradation in armour and a rotting process, I see an age of hard fighting (indeed, I am also rooting for a doomed underdog) in which crushing defeats are also lit up by glorious domination. In the end there is a massive economic crisis strangling the life out of half the Empire, fascilitated by Rome's largest failure, the inability to create a stable and efficient state model.

Late Roman culture is changing massively: art is (indeed) becoming less refined, but different. Christianity is moving in, bnot forced as many see it, but embraced by the masses (it's often the underclass that embraces the new religion), forever changing the days of old. Society is, indeed, 'tainted' by Medieval shades (as you describe it), showing the first signs of a future Europe (as I put it) in transition from a Bronze Age tribal landscape into shapes and colours that are still recognisable today.

That's how I see the Romans, as a transitionary agent, an immense reaction vat in which tribal Europe is sqeezed, with Spain, Britain, France, Italy and Germany coming out at the end.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

5th Century is Late Roman too, Robert.

[richard robinson]

I think it was the Henry Treece novels and the BBC TV series "Arthur the young warlord" and Arthurian tales that were a great influence in my interest in Late Rome. But not just late Rome- the whole migration era as a time of great change and artistic brilliance. I prefer the look of a migration period sword and jewellery to any other period I think. The release of the osprey "Arthur and the Anglo Saxons" cemented my wish to assemble a kit and in more recent times Dan Petersons Roman Army, the availability of the notitia on the net and of course Fectio and Rat. Migration Spathae were the first thing I ever searched for on Rat and I still remember the jubilation that such a brilliant collective and resource existed!!
regards
Richard

[starman2012]

A civil war nearly every generation qualifies as "constant" in my book.

Plague and poor leadership weren't constant. A lot of third, even fifth century leadership was excellent.

Often overlooked is the devastation caused by wars....skilled craftsmen are killed, crops are plundered or burned, cities sacked, infrastructure destroyed, trade and travel comes to a halt .....it takes a while for an area to recover from a major conflict.

A lot of the civil wars were brief and limited in scope and impact.

[sonic]

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.

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. Although I'm not sure that I agree with everything claimed in the book, it does give a very detailed account of events and attempts to trace the evolution of the army.

I'm assuming it will be out later this year, but don't know the date yet.

(Once it's finished I'll be resuming work on my own book on Ricimer et al.)