Ask The Expert - Dr Bryan Ward Perkins

We are happy to announce that Professor Dr. Bryan Ward-Perkins has agreed to answer questions from our forum members. Every forum member can ask one question only (to make you think hard), no follow up replies to keep the thread clean and to make it easier for the Professor to go through the questions. After a week or two (depending how many questions we have) Professor Dr. Bryan Ward-Perkins will answer some of those which are best suited to his area of expertise.

(Professor Dr. Bryan Ward-Perkins is a lecturer in Modern History at the University of Oxford, and Fellow and Tutor in History at Trinity College. His research concentrates on the period of transition from the Roman world to that of the Middle Ages, above all in the Mediterranean region. He has published widely on the subject, most recently 'The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization', and is a co-editor of The Cambridge Ancient History.)

If this "Ask the Expert" Experiment turns out to be the success we think it will be, we will approach further experts in roman history to make it an ongoing event at Unrv.com

Hello Professor!

What would be your advise to someone who is thinking of pursuing a career in "classical history"?

thanks for your time

viggen

Hello Professor,

I've just spent a year studying Ancient Roman History at Melbourne University (with Ronald Ridley being my tutor- you may know of him)? I am fascinated with the classical world, but fear that subjects such as 'Ancient Rome' and 'Classical Athens' are becoming threatened in Australian universities due to cuts in funding. There seems to be a push towards career focused & vocational learning (eg. IT, Marketing, Commerce) as the pursuit of intellectualism or 'learning for learning's sake' is viewed as less important. Do you agree that this is an impending problem that universities of the future face and have you noticed any changes to the quality of the education system during your years of learning and teaching?

Thanks for your time,

Catherine

Professor,

I would like to know your general views on the foundation of Rome from the beginnings. In terms of religion, culture and society was Rome really that influenced by Etruscan and Greek culture? How much can we say is purely 'Roman?' Was the domination by Eturia a reality or a confusion of the history of the times?

Many thanks!

Jason

Hi Prof,

As many of us are aware ancient rome has/continues to influenced the world. i.e. law, architecture, etc... In respect to english common law and the concept of starre decisis. Isn't this the concept of mos maiorum in principle? I always assumed common law to have developed uniquely within the brit isles. But after studying ancient rome it appears that the two concepts are practicaly the same, despite the 800 something years between the departure of rome from Britain and 1215. Your input would be appreciated.

Clodius

Professor Ward-Perkins,

First thank you for participating and welcome to our humble little community of Romanophiles.

As for my question, this community once had a rather lengthy discussion concerning the attitude of the post-Roman 'barbarian' successors and the corresponding political relationships. The general consensus seemed to indicate that the fall of Rome in AD 476 is only a date that matters in our linear modern perspective, and to the people of the time the sack of the city was only another event in a chain of ongoing transitions.

Simply, wouldn't neighboring 'barbarian kings' and even the eastern Romans have viewed Odoacer as either a continuation of the status quo, or at very worst an usurper (in Zeno's perspective) and certainly not an end to western tradition? And for the common people in central Europe it seems that life would not have changed much at all until much later developments?

Professor Ward-Perkins,

which author brings Rome most directly alive to your imagination?

Pertinax.

Professor Perkins, I did read your fascinating work recently on the fall of Rome and did review this for the Forum members and others who may be interested.

My question relates to the 4th century AD where the success of Christianity and the displacement of pagan religions was probably closely tied to the demise of the Empire in the west. This diversion of resources from Rome's military to support the new clergy and the institutions that were developing caused a severe financial strain on the economy, as lower taxes were remitted to Rome and even these were unsustainable in later periods, as evidenced by the tax relief measures that were put in place, which proved that these excessive forms of taxation were becoming a real burden for many of the provinces that were under Roman rule. Do you think that the success of Christianity was in itself a cause for the demise of the Empire or was it just another contributing factor.

I had the impression from your book that while Christianity's success and the relative burden it imposed from a financial perspective (by diverting funds for the church instead of being used for the army) was certainly one of the reasons, it was not the sole reason per se, as some others have argued. There were also the civil wars, the constant attempts at usurpation of the throne and also the development of a leisure class, one disengaged from the military and other technology of the times, forcing them to depend on fewer specialized type of industry for their needs and when these broke down, it was that much harder for them to regain their former strengths. One particular argument that I found interesting was that smaller societies which were not as technologically advanced as the Romans survived in pockets with little or no impact to their way of life, while large parts of the Roman empire in the West were utterly devastated as they lacked the resources to be self sufficient and had forgotten or lacked the knowledge to rebuild and survive.

Perhaps the very specialization that the Romans sought, in order to get maximum efficiency, was the cause of their demise. I find that no other book I've read addresses this aspect as lucidly as you have done in your detailed account on the Fall.

Dear Dr. Bryan Ward-Perkins

I apperciate that you come to our humble forums and allow us to ask you questions.

My simple question is seeing as how you are from Britian and teach at the Universtiy of OxFord and there is alot of "Celtic" influences in your country,

"What type of Culture did the Romans develope with the Celtic Tribes that lived in area, what was their general religion, goverment, how were their homes built, what phrase could you use to sum up Gallic/Roman Culture? Finnally how did Roman/Celtic culture effect the empire as a whole.

Thank you very much for comming to our forums.

Zeke

My question - What were the three main causes of the fall of the Western Empire? Was it due to exterior pressures (e.g encroaching civilisations etc), or was it from within? (e.g social, political, economic issues etc). Thanks.

Professor, could you please talk a little about the decline of the cities in the latter Roman Empire? Specifically, could you discuss how the growing centralization of the Imperial beaurocracy (with its many forms of corruption) and sieuzures of civic lands by a string of Emperors led to an environment where people wished to avoid service in their local city governments?

Also, at the risk of sounding like I am asking a follow up question, can you recommend any good books that cover this subject in greater detail than the works of AHM Jones?

Hullo Professor

I am currently studying the Roman Republic and am especially interested in the study of the ancient agricultural economy. However, my question is a little more general.

Do you think that we can study the ancient world through its economy or does this approach raise problems in that the ancients themselves had no concept of an all-encompassing interconnected economy?

Thanks

Sulla Felix

Professor Ward-Perkins

This is a 2 part question,

First, Do you believe, and why that Carthage used the sarissia (besides mercenary use), mainly for their Civic militia and liby-phoenician troops.

Secondly, Assuming Carthage was not defeated by rome at zama, do you think that Carthage would have evolved a roman type soldier. Hannibal rearmed his men in italy with caputered roman equipment, and there is the case of the chain mail carthage gave up right before the 3rd punic war. But I am very interested in heearing your take on this.

Professor Ward-Perkins

i hope you will peruse my question.

After the reconquer of Judea and defeat of Masada.

The House of David direct 'discendant members' was (genocide) exterminated all. ( 3,000 people )

( is there any one who can claims a discendant of David )

and almost all the Jewish population of Israel was "Sold" to Slavery.

how it happen? why they survive as a race without state? after almost 2,000 years?

here is my main question.

could you give us a short story line of this momentous event and its effect to Israel?

my regards, rad dulay

First of all, your book was a fantastic read, and helped put the way cultures in Europe changed after the fall of the Western Empire in a new light in my mind.

Onto the question: I am currently undertaking an self-study project, on which I have chosen to study the Later Roman Legions. My full question is:

The Roman Legions, once the most feared and sucessful army in the western world, was, by the 4th century AD thought to b e a shadow of its former self. To what extent can Vegetius' please for a return to the old style legions be justified, and would this have helped relieve the problems of the Empire?

This however, for the sake of the project is split into three sections, linking in to the various parts of the main question. The third segment of the project is possibly the most difficult one, and the one that I think requires some outside thought from my own, this segment, in the form of a question being:

To what extent were the problems too deeply rooted in the empire for effective changes to be made by the late 4th century?

For this I am focusing on the problems of the armies organisation and deployement in relation to the Romans attitude to war i.e. did Rome care anough about the organisation of the army as other factors came into play (Christianity's teachings, unrest/civil war, cultural changes etc)? Does the fact that figures later in history took Vegetius' advice (despite the fact that they fought a TOTALLY different form of warfare- i.e. heavy cavalry based, where De Re Military encourages the use of heavy infantry) show that the Roman Elite (bar the Generals) cared little for warfare, even when it was neccesary for a true peace?

I hope that's not too long (or indeed too many questions!) for the "rules".

Many Thanks, Greg Wild