Monthly Archives: December 2009

Books History

Theories on the Fall of the Roman Empire, No 211 – and not a bad one

Is it possible to write about the fall of the West Roman Empire without making it a lesson about your own day? Since at least Gibbon, that’s been the reason for covering the final centuries of Rome’s pre-eminence, and Adrian Goldsworthy’s The Fall of the West is no exception.

What does make Goldsworthy’s work different is that he attempts to tell the story of the empire in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, then draw the conclusions, rather than allow the explanation to infuse through the whole text, as was the case in one book I’ve recently reviewed, where the overconsumption of energy was the theory of choice.

Goldsworth has thus produced a rather old-fashioned narrative history – emperor follows emperor, usurper knocks out usurper, and the swirl around. That has its strengths – if you want to get the latest historical thinking on, say, the “end of Roman” Britain, Goldsworthy is drawing on the latest archaeology and thinking.

He’s clearer than many in setting out the structure of late 4th-century Roman Britain, “a diocese under a vicarius based in London and responsible to the praetorian prefect. The diocese was subdivided into either four or five provinces…The Comes Britanniae commanded a force of comitatenses consisting of three infantry and six cavalry units…The Dux Britanniarum commanded units of limitanei, mostly stationed in the north and including the garrisons of some named forts on Hadrian’s Wall. Finally, there was the ‘Count of the Sexon Shore’ controlling limitanei based around the east and south coasts.”

On the vexed subject of the “Saxon invasion” (did it happen? did it involve significant numbers? were the existing populations pushed aside?) he’s sensibly agnostic, noting that the academic fashion has swung, probably too far, towards denial. He challenges recent interpretations of “mixed” Saxon and Briitish cemeteries, noting “considerable caution needs to be used before assuming that a particular object automatically denotes someone of a particular race. Brooches were both functional and valuable. ..In the end brooches and belt buckles were there to hold up clothes more than to express identity.”

This section is relatively analytical – and addresses one of those questions that history can’t help worrying at – but the careful narrative approach in other sections can get rather monotonous and repetitive.

To take just a couple of pages: In March 238 the proconsul of Africa was proclaimed emperor, in resistance to the newish Maximus , who was too preoccupied in the west to deal with an attack by Ardashir a couple of years before. The Senate in Rome rejoiced, and accepted the usurper, but within weeks the governor of the neighbouring province had defeated his son and co-emperor in battle, and Gordian hanged himself. But the Senate couldn’t go backwards, so selected two of their number, Balbinus and Pupienus, as co-emperors, and they were immediately forced to co-opt a third, Gordian’s young grandson, aged just 13. Maximus got bogged down in fighting, then his troops killed him, but they didn’t fancy the two senators either, and soon killed them too, leaving the teenager as titular head of the empire, to be married to the daughter of his Praetorian Prefect Caius Timesitheus, effective ruler. He died at age 19, either at the hands of the Persians, or his own troops after a defeat by the eastern enemy.

It might make a good board game, but it is hard to get interested in this fast-moving, if shortlived, cast of characters, about which we learn little. So while as a reference this is a handy book, it wouldn’t be the best thing to take on a long train trip when seeking an engaging read.

So what of its grand theory? Well as you might expect from a narrative historian chiefly concerned with political history, it concerns political structures. Goldsworthy argued that the marginalisation of the senatorial class in the third century meant that the possible range of emperors, or usurpers, was greatly widened, and emperors had to fear practically anyone who got some sort of influence over some troops.
read more »

Blogging/IT

Britblog Roundup No 251

Here we are again – another week, another crop of political debates.

But let’s leave those for a while: start with some almost forgotten, frequently glossed-over history – Philip on English Buildings has been looking into the Sheela na gig at Kilpeck, Herefordshire. And yes, I might be a little biased in putting that first, since I was writing about them back in 2004, (but at least it proves I can truly wear a “veteran blogger” tag!)

Stay on architectural decoration, Ornamental Passions has been taking a close look at the frieze decorating the Saville Theatre on Shaftesbury Avenue, now the Odeon cinema, Covent Garden. Walking right around the building: parts one, two, three, four, five. What you get is a complete snapshot history of theatre.

And while we’re on institutions frozen in stone, here seems an appropriate place to point you towards Two Doctors questions for the Anglican church.

Flowing on (sorry!), we get to an introduction to the world of the narrowboat from Bristling Badger.

We can’t, however leave politics as in the bash and stoush stuff for too long, so let’s start with Charles Crawford’s interesting take on the Chilcot inquiry: is the inner, inner circle, dumping on Blair’s inner circle? And what should we think about that?

Staying traditionally political, Dodgblogium has a short and snappy take on the non-dom Zac Goldsmith.

Then getting down to street-level politics, Jim from The Daily (Maybe) was taking his (practical) hat (and coat) to the streets of London for The Wave, and summing up the subsequent reporting.

Staying with practical politics, Matt Sellwood looks at the issues raised by a community squat in Hackney.

And then hit the rails as Jonathan Calder on Liberal England considering one (of the many) problems with privatised train companies.

Meanwhile Kate on Cruela blogs points out the incredibly obvious problem with a police anti-rape campaign. Really, in the 21st century, blaming the victim? and Jo on A Week is a Long Time, looks at the latest abortion figures. Where is the role of men being included in this debate? she asks.

And on The F-Word, Laurie Penny says transphobic feminism makes no sense.

And on Go Litel Blog Go, Backwatersman is considered about the character of Bercow. No, not the Labour one…

Also, David Herzig guest blogs, on Is there more to life than shoes, about the Swiss minaret referendum. And Prodicus offers his graphical take on the climate change debate.

Okay, enough of the politics, back to real life: Random Acts of Reality explains ambulance life as it really, really is. Not great!

And The Magistrate takes on the blogging policeman on the issue of sentencing. This is what you call seriously lively debate.

Then, sorry, this is London, but an issue of public information: where has the London Evening Standard gone? Diamond Geezer finds there are heaps in some parts of the capital, and none in other parts.

But to finish off, let’s have some Christmas cheer – and Ruscombe Green reports that Stroud started the festive season in fine style, even if it was all a bit much for an old canal horse.

You might find in the roundup that I’m linking to places I wouldn’t usually link: that’s the rules of hosting, you take the nominations as you find them, and leave your readers to draw their own conclusions. Not always a comfortable rule, but, I think, a good one. More on the roundup.