Dr. David Gwynn

I remember meeting a number of Greeks who were very unhappy that people thought Gibbon was a starting point because Gibbon didn't really much like later Byzantine Greek culture. So other linguistic, other scholarly traditions, perhaps not so much. But yes, in the English speaking world,

I remember meeting a number of Greeks who were very unhappy that people thought Gibbon was a starting point because Gibbon didn't really much like later Byzantine Greek culture. So other linguistic, other scholarly traditions, perhaps not so much. But yes, in the English speaking world,

He is still influential, not because I don't think any modern academic historian would defend the exact interpretation Gibbon gives, but he raises the questions that matter.

He is still influential, not because I don't think any modern academic historian would defend the exact interpretation Gibbon gives, but he raises the questions that matter.

He is still influential, not because I don't think any modern academic historian would defend the exact interpretation Gibbon gives, but he raises the questions that matter.

One of the problems studying this world of the 4th, 5th centuries AD is very few detailed narrative histories actually survived. Writing narrative history is a Greek creation. It's a Greek and Latin tradition in the Western world. And yet there is a marked gap where we have no intact historical narrative that covers the third century and none that covers the first half of the fourth century.

One of the problems studying this world of the 4th, 5th centuries AD is very few detailed narrative histories actually survived. Writing narrative history is a Greek creation. It's a Greek and Latin tradition in the Western world. And yet there is a marked gap where we have no intact historical narrative that covers the third century and none that covers the first half of the fourth century.

One of the problems studying this world of the 4th, 5th centuries AD is very few detailed narrative histories actually survived. Writing narrative history is a Greek creation. It's a Greek and Latin tradition in the Western world. And yet there is a marked gap where we have no intact historical narrative that covers the third century and none that covers the first half of the fourth century.

The only great narrative historian to survive from the later fourth century, which is where events really begin to accelerate, is a man named Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek from somewhere near Antioch who actually wrote in Latin. And he is our key source on the arrival of the Goths and the first warnings of the Huns.

The only great narrative historian to survive from the later fourth century, which is where events really begin to accelerate, is a man named Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek from somewhere near Antioch who actually wrote in Latin. And he is our key source on the arrival of the Goths and the first warnings of the Huns.

The only great narrative historian to survive from the later fourth century, which is where events really begin to accelerate, is a man named Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek from somewhere near Antioch who actually wrote in Latin. And he is our key source on the arrival of the Goths and the first warnings of the Huns.

But his work, which originally covered the entire period from AD 96 to AD 378, is lost until the year 353. So all we've got is the last, probably biggest, block of his history, but not his summary of the events before.

But his work, which originally covered the entire period from AD 96 to AD 378, is lost until the year 353. So all we've got is the last, probably biggest, block of his history, but not his summary of the events before.

But his work, which originally covered the entire period from AD 96 to AD 378, is lost until the year 353. So all we've got is the last, probably biggest, block of his history, but not his summary of the events before.

Then we've got a lot of Christian historians, but the ecclesiastical historians know their job, and their job is primarily to tell the history of the church, not to tell the history of the empire. And then you've got an incredible array of individual texts, panegyrics, speeches given for a particular moment, orations that were written for circulation, letter collections.

Then we've got a lot of Christian historians, but the ecclesiastical historians know their job, and their job is primarily to tell the history of the church, not to tell the history of the empire. And then you've got an incredible array of individual texts, panegyrics, speeches given for a particular moment, orations that were written for circulation, letter collections.

Then we've got a lot of Christian historians, but the ecclesiastical historians know their job, and their job is primarily to tell the history of the church, not to tell the history of the empire. And then you've got an incredible array of individual texts, panegyrics, speeches given for a particular moment, orations that were written for circulation, letter collections.

And then we've got the inscriptions, the artwork, the architecture, the archaeology, which is so crucial for economic affairs, for example.

And then we've got the inscriptions, the artwork, the architecture, the archaeology, which is so crucial for economic affairs, for example.

And then we've got the inscriptions, the artwork, the architecture, the archaeology, which is so crucial for economic affairs, for example.