User talk:Richard Keatinge/Archives/2012/June 2012

{{Chronological talk archive|%F %Y}

BAZUZ NOTES

1. 1st lead par.: "They sought reception in the territory of the Roman Empire, a political institution which, despite both new and longstanding systematic weaknesses, wielded effective power over large numbers of soldiers, over civil administrators, and over public finances, across the lands surrounding the Mediterranean and beyond." - I suggest simplifying to "They sought reception in the territory of the Roman Empire, which, despite both new and longstanding systematic weaknesses, still wielded effective power across the lands surrounding the Mediterranean and beyond."

2. "The height of power, crises, and recovery" section, 1st par: I suggest replacing "who had a large measure of control" with simply "ruled". I guess you want to point out that usually ancient states had in general less control over their population and less ability to extract resources and obedience than modern ones, but this might be lost on the reader, since the more straightforward meaning of the sentence is that Trajan contended for power with other, weaker, centers of power - this interpretation being rather wrong. Don't know if I made myself sufficiently clear in his remark.

3. Same section, same par.: Consider adding a wikilink like obligations so that the reader new to the subject will know what is referred to.

4. Same section, 2nd par.: "and for years the Empire was divided into a Gallic Empire, a Palmyrene Empire, and a Roman rump state." - seems too strong a statement for me. The Gallic and Palmyrene empires were very short-lived and didn't span the whole 3rd century crisis. Maybe something like "At times, portions of the empire coalesced into short-lived new entities, like the Gallic and Palmyrene empires, that given time would have probably developed into separate states." What do you think?

5. Also, it would be nice to add some statistics about the huge number of emperors (real ones, usurpers etc.) during the crisis and their short reigns.

Got to go, will continue later. Keep up the good work! Bazuz (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made use of all these comments. Feel free to add more. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

6. About the first map: Italy should be marked somehow differently, since it was not a province. I do not actually know how it was governed above the municipal level - there is information in the wikipedia about division into 11 regions - but definitely not a province. Otherwise, cool map. Bazuz (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, "Italia suburbicaria " and "Italia annonaria" would clearly be better, and I'll have a go. Are you any good with picture editing? I'm not, and the maps in this article are a miscellany of other people's work. Several need work - one obvious point is that the animated gif doesn't indicate the territorial losses due to Julian's defeat, and there are other issues. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

7. "The height of power, crises, and recovery" section, 3rd par: "Reception of barbarians" sounds weird, maybe "Incorporation and partial assimilation"?

8. Ibid: I'm note sure about the "unfree recruits". A real analysis is beyond my competence but I'd suggest either making it "involuntary recruits" or, better", wikilinking the whole expression so that unfree doesn't impart the meaning that we are talking about slaves.

I'm no sort of professional historian, but I have been a keen amateur for decades. I still need occasional reminders that I'm writing for a general audience who aren't familiar with the Latin term 'receptio', or with the various degrees of obligation short of outright slavery that have been common in Europe and beyond. Thanks again; I have rewritten and I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

9. Ibid: Consider writing "However, these settlements required a line of fortifications" for more emphasis.

Cheers. Bazuz (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

10. Same section, 4th par.: It seems that this paragraph is based almost entirely on MacMullen's book. Now, I wish to stress that I am not a professional historian so do not take my word as even a crude approximation of gospel, but...

Although I haven't read Macmullen's book, judging by the reviews of it on amazon.com it seems to subscribe to a very particular historiography. Nothing wrong with that, as every historian has his historiographic assumptions and I do not wish to cast aspersions on the book, apparently a good work of scholarship.

However, I think it is not correct for an encyclopedic article to full embrace a particular point of view. Do you agree? If you do, we'll have to think how to rewrite the whole paragraph.

Bazuz (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. MacMullen is an eminent historian who expresses a particular point of view very well. I've used several of his more resounding phrases - like Gibbon's, his words stick in my mind. He is firmly in the mainstream of interpretation, but, you're absolutely right, there are others who would minimize his points and make others. (I have used Heather's excellent recent study a lot; he emphasizes barbarian invasion as by far the most important contribution to the fall and doesn't seem to support any ideas of worsening internal weakness.) I'll have to work on this so that the status of the various ideas is clearer. Perhaps I could preface MacMullen's ideas with something like "It has been suggested that" and follow them by "However, other authorities disagree..."? I have done a quick rewrite of some of it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

11. Sorry, maps are not my strong suit... :(

12. I am still not very happy with that paragraph, although I greatly appreciate your approach. What do you think about this attempt:

"The Empire has survived the crisis of the third century but survival came at a steep price. The legal fiction of the early Empire according to which the emperor was but the first among equals was disposed of and the emperors, beginning with Aurelian, openly styled themselves as monarchs and godlike figures. An elaborate court ceremonial was developed and obsequious flattery became the order of the day. Access to the emperor was no longer possible for commoners (cite here MacMillan pp. 110, 147.) and he received only information that was filtered through his courtiers.

It also became apparent that one man could no longer govern the empire uccessfully. Diocletian tried to solve this problem by establishing the curious system of Tetrarchy but his system broke down within one generation; although the Empire was again re-united by Constantine, towards the end of the fourth century the need for division was no longer disputed.

Diocletian attempted to reform the economy of the Empire but the only tangible result of his efforts was to create a state that was much more bureaucratic and much less flexible than before. At the same time, the government began to lose effective administrative and financial control over large areas as the richest senatorial families acquired ever wider estates that were immune from taxation and control by imperial officials (need a citation!). Soon private armies appeared. (citation!) This decline of imperial power was aggravated by endemic corruption, increasing cruelty by local officials (Macmullen p. 137-142.) and the gradual barbarization of the army, including the officer corps (Matthews 2007, p. 284.)."

I tried to incorporate most of your original content and to expand it. The one thing that I definitely dropped was the bit about the military elite becoming "provincial" as the elite (military and civil) had been thoroughly provincialized already by the start of the 3rd century and the process did the empire only good. Bazuz (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've had another go at it and tried to use the best of both our versions. I hope you think it an improvement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

13. "The fragile state: abuse of power, frontier warfare, rise of Christianity" section, 1st par.: consider replacing "wishing to win influence" with "vying for influence". The whole paragraph is very good but a bit longish - maybe you could split it into two.

Done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

14. Same section, 2nd par.: I don't understand how cutting taxes is a drive against corruption. Is there an ancient reference for this?

Yes though I'll have to check Ammianus. It seems that at least two-thirds of the total tax take was being embezzled. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

15. Ibid: maybe replace "return" with "safe passage".

Done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

16. Same section, 3rd par.: replace "continued" with "maintained".

Done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

17. Ibid: the paragraph seems heavily influenced by Gibbon; maybe this can be toned down. At the very least, Praetextatus can be dropped as his story adds little here.

Praetextatus is out. I really love Gibbon though and the quotation is perhaps one of his most famous. I hope I'm not being over-indulgent by keeping it in? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

18. Same section, 4th par.: Is the quote about Gratian necessary?

No, but it is relevant and it foreshadows later and worse problems under incompetent emperors. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Bazuz (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

19. I think now the re-written paragraph is quite good. I only wonder why you didn't include the edict on prices? Do you think it's too much of a detail for the overview? I'm not sure myself.

I think so at the moment, but it does illustrate the rigidity of Diocletian's reforms and an element of their failure. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

20. "376 to 395. Narrowing margins of safety: invasions, religious discord, and civil wars" section, 1st par.: an indication that the Goths bacame foederati would be useful.

Maybe they were. We don't really know what the legal basis of the settlement was. At present we have "they were either recruited into the imperial forces, or settled in the devastated provinces along the south bank of the Danube" which may suffice? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

21. Ibid: I'm not sure about "good staff work". It seems to imply that the the Roman staff was inadequate - which I think is not true. Maybe just omit it altogether or say something blander like "would have required time and considerable effort".

Good point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

22. Ibid: Is the Danube forces figure relevant? How was it arrived at? Maybe it includes the Goths, listed as foederati... :) I think you need to expand this point or to omit it.

It's estimated by MacMullen from the Notitia Dignitatum, and I don't think it includes foederati, the Notitia generally didn't. It's presented as relevant in that the Romans could only scrape up one-tenth of the troops supposedly available to actually fight. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

23. Ibid: What exactly does "the final Gothic settlement was acclaimed with relief" mean?

This seems to be the universal view of all my sources, ultimately going back to the panegyric of Themistius who emphasizes the official view that the settlement was a very good thing even though the Goths were not really subdued.

24. Ibid. Theodosius seems to have gotten along particularly well with the Goths. I recall his being called "Friend of the Goths" or something but don't remember he source or context. But I did find mention of such an event as Massacre of Thessalonica which might be included here. What do you think?

We certainly could. Personally I wouldn't because (like Praetextatus) it's difficult to make it directly relevant to the Fall. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Friend of the Goths sounds like something from Themistius, based on the fact that Theodosius failed to massacre or subdue them as he would have liked, so had to make concessions. We will come back to this one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

25. "Persecution of all religions but one": "private worship" is better than "private honor".

Mmmmm... "worship" to me sort of implies a Christian or at any rate monotheist approach, not the totality of pagan ritual, animal sacrifices, secret rituals and whatnot. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

26. "Finances": "numerous campaigns" instead of "widespread campaigning"?

"Expensive"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

27. Is the whole Finances section in its place? It's geared to closely to Theodosius. I think it could be either expanded into a general discussion or omitted altogether.

It's a specific comment on his situation; the Empire overstretched its tax base later. Under Theodosius it was merely under strain. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

28. "Civil Wars": I don't understand the context of "To compensate the Western court for this, Theodosius ceded the diocese of Dacia and the diocese of Macedonia to their control."

Good point. I hope it's clearer now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

29. Ibid: This is when the final division of the Empire occurred, but it's not said so.

Now in, thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

30. A general thought: There is controversy as to the size of the army during he Dominate. Was it larger or smaller than under the Principate. Do you want to delve into this?

We could do. There are even some figures, but there is no agreement on the number of effective troops. At present I've left it rather vague and personally I'd prefer to leave it that way for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bazuz (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

31. "395 to 406: the process of failure", 2nd par.: Maybe "claimed stewardship" instead of "claimed control"?

This would be a perfectly good synonym. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

32. Ibid, 3rd par.: Alaric is introduced without any explanation. And the mention of the Battle of Frigidus is cryptical.

I hope it's clearer now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

33. About Stilicho: I think you underestimate him. Why is he called an "not an inspirational leader"? If there is a reference, it needs to be cited, if not, I wonder why you characterize him so.

It's a direct quotation from the reference, Burns. Stilicho for all his merits was one of those unfortunate "leaders" who one day found that he had no followers. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Even so, rethinking your point, the comment clashes with the rest of the article. It's out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

34. Ibid: What does "master recruiter" mean?

Again it's a comment by Burns, but we don't need it. It's out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

35. Ibid: Maybe "whos was then controlling Arcadius" instead of "who then controlled Arcadius".

"who controlled Arcadius "? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

36. Ibid. "magister militum per Illyricum" needs a wikilink of some sort.

I've put in two. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

37. 4th par." wikilink "laetus".

Done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

38. 4th par.: "skin-clad savage" is obviously a figure of speech. At the very least, it should be in scare quotes. Maybe even a footnote might be helpful. Also, perhaps it needs to be mentioned that Synesius was giving advice from the sidelines...

I hope it's clearer now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

39. A general point: The whole Gainas-etc. saga is too drawn out, in my opinion. It slows down the story. I'd suggest trimming it down or summarizing. I am less familiar in detail with this period so hesitate to offer my own version.

OK. Could we leave that for later? The complexity and the backstabbing violence of the power struggles arguably is the story here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Will continue later. Thanks! Bazuz (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I will make more detailed comments later, for now I'd like to return again to #39 and explain what I meant - it's up to you of course. I agree that the backstabbing and bickering is important to describe, but it's a matter of choosing the right scale for description. You have done a great job there describing the intrigues and infighting but in my opinion what you have there is the makings of a separate detailed article about 395-410, whereas the main article should run more swiftly. The tempo of the previous sections was just right and these two are much slower.

Also, I think that the detailed political and military description crowds out the economic aspects. For example, it would be nice to include some statistics about then state of Italy after the whole Alaric saga played out.

Anyway, it's your call. If you want to keep it this way, I'm fine with it. Or I can try to write a briefer summary for you to review, if you wish. Bazuz (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is to tell the story in a way that illustrates the main themes and theories, rather than pontificates about them in the abstract. I do think it will be useful to illustrate the fact that the East was at some points just as unstable and weak as the West, so I'd rather keep the business in the Eastern court in some form. 395-410 is a pivotal period, it also has more ancient sources than 410-476, and I think it deserves more detailed coverage of the critical decisions and events - exactly how detailed we may well debate. I'd be delighted to see your ideas, and some economics would meet with my enthusiastic approval.

I'll get this article ready for mainspace as soon as I can. Can you identify a good DYK hook? Thanks again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll come up with a version next week (will be travelling over the weekend+bank holiday and have less time to work on history). As for a hook, I first thought that Galla Placidia could be perfect: "Did you know that Galla Placidia was married to both a barbarian chief and a Roman Emperor?". But, alas, that would be hooking to the wrong article. Bazuz (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I shall look forward to it. Have a nice weekend.

We do indeed need a hook that relates specifically to the subject of this article. What about "that barbarians invaded almost every province of the Western Roman empire in the fifth century, while the richest parts of the Eastern empire remained under Roman control"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a start. Let me know what you think of it.

New Version

Puppet Emperors and babarians

Neither Honorius nor Arcadius ever displayed any ability either as rulers or as generals, and both lived as the puppets of their courts. [53] Throughout their reigns, individual generals and court officials strove to establish their own personal power, based on control of one of the emperors, and on control of such troops as they could find. The result was a complicated series of conspiracies, betrayals, and rebellions, interspersed with barbarian invasions.

This picture is highly reminiscent of the Crisis of the Third Century, described earlier, with one crucial difference: the troops on whom the conflicting generals relied were no longer predominantly Roman but barbarian. These troops, as the Roman elite were soon to find out, had their own needs and ideas how to cater to them.

Sort of. I've expanded the comment on various interest groups and on the requirements (later) of the Gothic rebels. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As an example, in 400 Stilicho was forced to press into service any "laetus, Alamannus, Sarmatian, vagrant, son of a veteran" or any other person liable to serve.[59] He had reached the bottom of his recruitment pool.[60] The Bishop Synesius, wrote a poem in which advised the emperor to remove a "skin-clad savage" (probably Alaric) from the councils of power and his barbarians from the Roman army. We do not know if the advice ever reached the Emperor, but even if it did, he could not have followed it.

Stilicho was boss of the Western empire at the time, and while the laws were the Emperor's they were written by Stilicho. He was giving himself fresh authorization to do what he had to do. If I remember correctly Synesius became a bishop - indeed a Christian - only later, on his return from Constantinople. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Gothic Question

The most pressing political problem facing the Empire at the moment was the "Gothic Question". After the battle of Adrianople it became clear that the Empire would not be able to assimilate the Goths on the old pattern of "receptio". The Goths, under their new leader, the young and ambitious Alaric were in dire neccessity of finding land on which to settle. However, they were not suited to becoming farmers and would therefore have to be fed by the peasant population, in addition to the regular heavy fiscal burden on them.

Theodoisus died before he could even begin to seriously address the problem and under his unworthy successors the Gothic question became hopelessly enmeshed with palace intrigue and civil strife. The Goths provided a military force whose support was sought by the various factions joustling for power, in return for promises for settlement which were never kept. The result was that the Goths constantly "lived off the land", despoiling and crippling the economy of the provinces in which they were stationed (list?).

Good points, which I have rewritten in turn.

It is important to point out that the Goths were not trying to destroy the Empire at this stage, rather trying to obtain a plum position within it. Alaric's goal throughout his entire career was to attain the dual status of a Gothic tribal leader and a high Roman official, both roles re-inforcing each other.

I'm not sure the above is quite optimal. I have used it, but rewritten it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

East-West rivalry

In the immediate aftermath of Theodosius's death, the magister militum Stilicho, married to Theodosius's niece, asserted himself in the West as the guardian of Honorius. He cemented his hold over Honorius by marrying him to his daughter, Maria, and after her death to her sister Aemilia Materna Thermantia. According to some sources (which??), both marriages were never consummated.

Zosimus. "Cemented" is a bit strong - Stilicho was overthrown when his second daughter was empress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Stilicho also claimed stewardship over Arcadius in Constantinople, but the man on the spot, the magister officium Rufinus, had already established his own power there. Stilicho moved with his army into Greece, threatening Constantinople. Rufinus, who lacked troops to oppose Stilicho, enlisted Alaric and his men, and sent them to Thessaly to stave off Stilicho's threat, which they successfully did.

The next year, 396, Stilicho again invaded Greece, intent on dominating the Eastern Empire. Rufinus was dead by then, murdered by the Gothic officer Gainas. Real power in the East was shared by the eunuch Eutropius (who controlled Arcadius "as if he were a sheep".[56]) and Gainas, whom he had appointed magister militum for Thrace. Once again, Alaric's Goths were providing the muscle for the Eastern court to oppose Stilicho and the latter had to turn back without achieving his goal.

In 397 Alaric was rewarded by Eutropius with the appointment as magister militum per Illyricum. However, his success was short-lived as his patron Eutropius was deposed and killed by Gainas, during the suppression of Tribigild's revolt [62]. The eastern court, dominated now by Gainas, simply signed off the province of Illyricum to the West, without making any provision for Alaric himself or his men [63].

This left Alaric again without Roman legitimacy, though still heading the only remaining force in the ravaged Balkans; he may have been addressed as "king" at this point,[64] and may have had to resort to extra-legal confiscation of supplies, but his best prospects lay in again achieving Roman office.

We probably don't need the details of his titulature here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Gainas did not hold on long to power. By the beginning of 401 Gainas's head rode a pike through Constantinople and Fravitta became consul.[65] A massacre of Gainas's followers followed, as had become the custom of the day.

Sort of, but the fact of massacre is worth mentioning. It has been praised as the way that the East got rid of the "Gothic menace". Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Stilicho, Radagaisus and Alaric

Stilicho had to abandon for a while his plans to take over the East. In 401 Stilicho travelled over the Alps to Raetia, to scrape up further troops. (ref?) Early in spring, Alaric, probably desperate,[67] invaded Italia, and he drove Honorius westward from Mediolanum, besieging him in Hasta Pompeia in Liguria.

Stilicho returned as soon as the passes had cleared, meeting Alaric at Pollentia without decisive results. Alaric retreated to Verona where another indecisive battle took place. Neither of their principal areas of recruitment could produce enough men for a decisive advantage and the Goths, weakened, were allowed to retreat back to Illyricum where Alaric was again given imperial office [by the West, presumably?], though only as comes and only over Dalmatia and Pannonia Secunda rather than the whole of Illyricum.[68]

Stilicho must have supposed that this pact would allow him to put Italian government into order and recruit fresh troops.[58] He may also have planned with Alaric's help to relaunch his attempts to gain control over the Eastern court, now again in turmoil after the fall of Fravitta to court intrigue in 404.[69]

However, Stilicho's attention was diverted by a fresh invasion of Northern Italy by a new grouping of Goths, fleeing the Huns, led by one Radagaisus. Radagaisus and his horde devastated the north of Italy for six months before Stilicho could master enough forces to take the field against them. To supplement the units from Italy and the Rhine he had to recall most of the Roman army in Britain (which was never returned there). He also had some Gothic auxiliaries commanded by Sarus and Huns commanded by Uldin].

I'd rather leave out "most" - we don't actually have figures and Constantine managed to get a significant force from Britannia a year or two later. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Radagaisus was defeated and executed and 12,000 of the prisoners were drafted into Stilicho's service. Meanwhile more trouble was stirring in Gaul, where brigandage was rife and once again a separate government was formed under Constantine III]. Sarus was sent over the Alps to face Constantine, but he lost and barely escaped, having to leave his baggage to the bandits who now infested the Alpine passes.[73]

Alaric remained in Illyricum during the struggle against Radgaisus, bidding his time. Now Stilicho made overtures to him, perhaps planning to use his forces in the resubjugation of Gaul. This policy was deeply resented by the Senate. In 407, when Alaric marched into Noricum and demanded a large payment [why?]

Burns suggests that he'd made expensive preparations for action at Stilicho's request.

, the Senate, “inspired by the courage, rather than the wisdom, of their predecessors,”[71] called for war. One senator famously declaimed “Non est ista pax, sed pactio servitutis” (This is not a peace, but a pact of servitude).[72] Nevertheless, Stilicho paid Alaric four thousand pounds of gold .[73]

In the East, Arcadius died on 1st May 408 and was replaced by his son Theodosius II; Stilicho seems to have planned to march to Constantinople, and install a regime loyal to himself.[74] He may also have intended to give Alaric a senior official position and send him against Constantine. Before he could do so or even put himself at the head of an appropriate army, a bloody coup took place against Stilicho's supporters at Honorius's court, then at Ticinum with the main army.[75] It was led by one Olympius, who owed his career to Stilicho.

Bazuz (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to use as much of your text as possible, adding some overview and suppressing what seems to me as relatively minor details (such as Mascezel). The result so far is more similar to your version than I'd expected - which is good! I'll continue tomorrow. Bazuz (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than copy and paste I have used your ideas, in ways that I hope you find fruitful. Please continue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

More numbered notes

Hi!

I really like the rewrite you made. The first paragraph is truly lovely. (I'm also glad you're not copypasting my stuff as I wrote it, it was just a draft).

For now I'll do more numbered notes as I think the "408-410. The end of an effective regular field army, starvation in Italia, sack of Rome" section has the right structure and needs no big rewrite.

40. "408-410. The end of an effective regular field army, starvation in Italia, sack of Rome", 1st par: It's too long, I suggest splitting into two paragraphs. Or even three.

Done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

41. Ibid: The change in Alaric's position is not clearly explained. Maybe instead of "became the enemy" write "was declared the enemy"?

Done Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

42. General point: you use "Italia" throughout, which is historically correct, but isn't the usual English usage "Italy" (anachronistic as it is)?

Yes - but it is anachronistic. To the extent that modern boundaries don't quite coincide with the ancient ones this is convenient and gives the phraseology a degree of future-proofing; we won't need to waste time explaining to some patriotic nitpicker that Portugal and Gibraltar and Andorra were not politically separate at the time and that Istria may hav been part of Italia then even if it's not part of the Italian state now. So I'd rather stick with the contemporary names, thus Hispania, Gaul (which we could even change to Gallia), Britannia etc. And perhaps Africa should be explicitly "Africa Province" or "Roman Africa" throughout? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

43. Ibid: The wikilink to the siege should be something like Sack_of_Rome_(410)#First_siege.

Done Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

44. 3rd par.: "his demands were inflated by the messenger" requires a citation, in my opinion. It's hard to tell what really happened there (maybe the demands were intentionally outrageous or maybe it was a case of differing perceptions) so it's important to flag this point for a reader with a citation.

Burns again, he;s particularly good on this specific period. I'll get the page this evening. It's an interesting sub-story which does illustrate the abysmal incompetence of Honorius and possibly double-dealing by his subordinates, but we probably don't need it in any more detail. It would mean bringing in yet another name and we already have a lot of new names for the general reader. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

45. Ibid: I'm not sure I understand this sentence: "Alaric ravaged Italia outside the fortified cities (which he could not garrison)". Shouldn't that be "take" rather than "garrison"?

Well, he did take Rome - but only by starvation, which didn't help his specific logistic situation at all and probably was more to express frustration than anything else. I presume he could have done the same to any other city even if he had no siege-engine technology. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

46. re: Alaric. I think you should mention at some point that he was an (Arian) Christian.

We could probably find a source, but I don't think that any ancient source mentions it, he may have been a Nicene, and in any case it doesn't seem to have affected his actions or the responses he got. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

47. Ibid: The dynamic playing out between Alaric and the Romans (in the meaning "the guys in the city of Rome" :) is not clear here. Apparently, they first cooperated and then fell out and Alaric proceeded to lay the siege. This is not made clear. Or do I get the story wrong? (I'm not checking the sources here myself, just saying what I infer from your text).

A very useful comment. You have indeed got it right; the Senate in Rome loathed Alaric but was not in a position to give him what he wanted, namely food. Honorius's court seems to have been prepared to see the entire Empire starve rather than negotiate with Alaric. I hope it's clearer now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

48. Ibid: what is "a marker of threat and illegitimate claims"? By the way, do we know precisely what sort of ghastly death he got?

Attalus eventually had a few bits chopped off - hand or fingers I think - and was exiled to the Lipari Islands where he died. Better than most usurpers got. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

49. 4th par.: I think the psychological impact of the fall of Rome needs to be stressed more, probably in a paragraph of its own. St. Jerome's stock quote is also probably a must for inclusion.

Which one? In http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_VI/The_Letters_of_St._Jerome/Letter_127 I find "The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken; nay more famine was beforehand with the sword and but few citizens were left to be made captives. In their frenzy the starving people had recourse to hideous food; and tore each other limb from limb that they might have flesh to eat. Even the mother did not spare the babe at her breast." Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

50. Do you have more information about Generidus? I'd love to know more about him. Also, it's not cleat why the penal laws were so abruptly restored? Was the reason the fall or death of Generidus?

I don't think so, he was simply out of sight and out of Honorius's tiny little mind. I'll check PLRE this evening. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

PLRE knows nothing of him after 409. Sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Will continue later, keep up the good work! Bazuz (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'll get a copy of the Ward-Perkins book from the library today. As far as I remember, it has interesting economic statistics we can use.

Bazuz (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting, didn't have time to write properly those few days. But I've got the book now! Bazuz (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back. Sorry once again for disappearing.

51. last par. of "Stilicho's attempts to unify the Empire, revolts, and invasions": the phrase beginning with "Before he could do so" is a bit convoluted. I'd suggest something like "However, Stilicho's time has run out. While he was away at Ticinum at the head of his army, a bloody coup against Stilicho's supporters took place at Honorius's court, led by Stilicho's own creature, one Olympius".

52. "405-418 in the Gallic provinces; barbarian tribes and usurpers, loss of Britannia, partial loss of Hispania and Gaul", 1st par: I think "invaded Gaul and defeated forces loyal to Honorius led by Sarus." is better.

53. Ibid: maybe instead of "wandered" say "would wander" and change the Romans accordingly.

54. Ibid: "complicated series of usurpers" - maybe replace with "a number of competing usurpers"?

55. I think the story about Constantine III and the other usurpers can be compressed (no surprise here, I guess, I'm almost always for compressing...:). I think the details there are a bit overwhelming and may obscure what i consider to be the main picture - that the Romans instead of trying to expel the barbarians were always calling them in and giving them more leverage. So i tried to get this point in explicitly in the end of the 4th par. below.

Please let me know what do you think.

Very useful, thanks. Again, I've tried to use this, and also your new version:

New version

The Crossing of the Rhine in 405/6 brought unmanageable numbers of German and Alan barbarians (perhaps some 30,000 warriors, 100,000 people[96]) into Gaul. They may have been trying to get away from the Huns, who about this time advanced to occupy the Great Hungarian Plain.[97] For the next few years the barbarian tribes who had crossed the Rhine would wandered in search of food and employment, while Roman forces fought each other in the name of Honorius and a number of competing usurpers.

The most successful of the usurpers, Constantine III, managed to rule for a while Gaul and Britannia, with his capital in Arles. The peak of his fortune was in 409 when he was officially recognized by the central government and made consul together with Honorius. Soon afterwards, he fell out with Honorius and faced with a revolt by his principal lieutenant Gerontius he lost power and was killed.

The long-term effect of Constantine's rise and fall was the removal of Roman troops from Britannia, with Honorius instructing the population to look to their own defence. While the British may have regarded themselves as Roman for several generations, and British armies may at times have fought in Gaul, no central Roman government is known to have appointed officials in Britannia thereafter.

Anbother usurper, Jovinus, took over part of Constantine's troops on the Rhine. Jovinus relied mainly on the support of Burgundians and Alans to whom he had promised lands. He also drew to his side Sarus who never tired of switching allegiances. Jovinus was defeated however by Constantius III, Honorius's new and effective magister militum, whose military muscle was provided by Ataulf's force. This campaign ended Sarus's career - his severed head ended up on display in Carthage. More important was, however, that the Burgundians were settled on the left bank of the Rhine and Ataulf began operating in the south of Gaul, sometimes with short-term supplies from the Romans.[99] Thus, the defeat of usurpers saw not the restoration of central Roman control but rather the settlement of even more barbarian groups within the empire on their own terms.

In January 414 Roman naval forces blockaded Ataulf in Narbo, where he married Galla Placidia. At the wedding he famously declared that he had abandoned his intention to set up a Gothic empire because of the irredeemable barbarity of his followers, and instead he sought to restore the Roman Empire.[100] He handed his puppet emperor Attalus over to the Romans for mutilation, humiliation, and exile, and he moved out of Gaul entirely, to Barcelona. There his infant son by Galla Placidia was buried, and there Ataulf was assassinated by one of his household retainers, possibly a former follower of Sarus.[101]

14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

418 Settlement

I think this section gets the emphasis wrong. It reads more like a section about Constantius - who deserves his own section, perhaps. But what needs to be fleshed out is that this was the first time a barbarian "kingdom" was established within the empire on a permanent basis (historians do debate the details and the interpretation, of course, but you'll probably agree that this was a watershed event). Right now it sort of gets lost. Maybe material from Visigothic_Kingdom#Federate_Kingdom can be used - there is also a nice map there. So I suggest to split off Constantius to a separate section and enlarging upon the settlement itself. What do you think? Bazuz (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Good points. See what you think now.

I've put the map in for the time being - it slightly confuses the situation I feel, showing the Alans and Vandals in areas they had allocated to themselves earlier and had been largely thrown out of by 418. I'm toying with the idea of redoing all the maps for the entire article, with a standardized base such as is used by the animated gif at the start. I'll have to teach myself a bit about colouring maps though. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Even more notes

56. The wikilink from patrician should be to Patrician_(ancient_Rome)#Late_Roman_and_Byzantine_periods I think. But this is rather arguable.

Mmm - maybe. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

57. Bonifacius needs a wikilink.

Done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

58. What are "Suevic bandits"?

Sueves. Their "kingdom" had very little internal cohesion and their idea of collecting taxes seems to have been sending out gangs of armed robbers. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

59. Add a wikilink to "his empire crumbled" - "his empire crumbled".

I think it might be time for mainspace now. How about this hook: "Did you know that only half of the Roman Empire fell in 476?" Probably we can do better, though.

I hope so. Let's keep on thinking about it. Could I also have another few days to fill out, and for us to agree on, the period 433-480? It is essential and I'd rather present something that may be imperfect but is at least close to Good Article standard. Many thanks again for all your help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers,Bazuz (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Page disappeared?

Hi,

I've just came back from traveling in Spain I (did you know that there is an Ataulf Street in Barcelona?). I thought you'd moved the page to mainspace but it doesn't show up in a search? Did the title change? Thanks! Bazuz (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I hope you had a good trip. It's at Fall of the Western Roman Empire and there's a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of the Western Roman Empire. On that you're credited as co-author, which I trust you find appropriate. Some alternative hooks would be welcome. I have put links to your contributions on the talk page, but if you want we could paste the whole lot onto the talk page.

I hope to work towards GA status, maybe even FA, and I look forward to any help you may be able to provide. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Now I see it. Congrats on going mainspace! I really liked the hook. I think you can safely archive my notes, they have little value in themselves. I'll work on it more, now that I have some time. If you don't mind, I was thinking of writing more notes for you here. Or would you rather prefer me to edit the mainspace? Bazuz (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it! As it's in mainspace now and I have no privileges over it, I'd suggest editing it like any other article; bold edits if you're reasonably sure, or introducing ideas on its talk page if not. But as you wish... Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)