Dr. David Gwynn

Exactly. The coinage. It shows ideology. We only know about trade and how widespread it was because of the material finds. Texts don't tell us. So it's not that we don't have evidence, but it's got some notable gaps, and inevitably, it's got some clear biases.

Exactly. The coinage. It shows ideology. We only know about trade and how widespread it was because of the material finds. Texts don't tell us. So it's not that we don't have evidence, but it's got some notable gaps, and inevitably, it's got some clear biases.

Exactly. The coinage. It shows ideology. We only know about trade and how widespread it was because of the material finds. Texts don't tell us. So it's not that we don't have evidence, but it's got some notable gaps, and inevitably, it's got some clear biases.

Exactly. They're statements of ideology. It actually makes them enormously valuable, just not for what happened. You can normally assume someone giving a speech in praise of someone won't blatantly lie, if only because it would just make the audience laugh. But these are set piece speeches. They follow set patterns. They always use many of the same images.

Exactly. They're statements of ideology. It actually makes them enormously valuable, just not for what happened. You can normally assume someone giving a speech in praise of someone won't blatantly lie, if only because it would just make the audience laugh. But these are set piece speeches. They follow set patterns. They always use many of the same images.

Exactly. They're statements of ideology. It actually makes them enormously valuable, just not for what happened. You can normally assume someone giving a speech in praise of someone won't blatantly lie, if only because it would just make the audience laugh. But these are set piece speeches. They follow set patterns. They always use many of the same images.

And yet they do tell us how individual emperors, for example, wish to be perceived. So in the case famously of Constantine, we've got a panegyric from before his Christian commitment, which talks about the old gods like Apollo. Then we've got a panegyric written after 312, and suddenly all the old gods have disappeared.

And yet they do tell us how individual emperors, for example, wish to be perceived. So in the case famously of Constantine, we've got a panegyric from before his Christian commitment, which talks about the old gods like Apollo. Then we've got a panegyric written after 312, and suddenly all the old gods have disappeared.

And yet they do tell us how individual emperors, for example, wish to be perceived. So in the case famously of Constantine, we've got a panegyric from before his Christian commitment, which talks about the old gods like Apollo. Then we've got a panegyric written after 312, and suddenly all the old gods have disappeared.

If you study classics at school or university, there's a tendency to stop in the year 200. The reason for that is the third century crisis, which is when the old classic Roman Empire very nearly did break apart. At the worst moment of the third century crisis, when the frontiers are crumbling and emperors are being murdered,

If you study classics at school or university, there's a tendency to stop in the year 200. The reason for that is the third century crisis, which is when the old classic Roman Empire very nearly did break apart. At the worst moment of the third century crisis, when the frontiers are crumbling and emperors are being murdered,

If you study classics at school or university, there's a tendency to stop in the year 200. The reason for that is the third century crisis, which is when the old classic Roman Empire very nearly did break apart. At the worst moment of the third century crisis, when the frontiers are crumbling and emperors are being murdered,

The Roman Empire, which traditionally spans from Hadrian's Wall in Britain to the Sahara Desert, out towards the Crimea and the Euphrates River, the Roman Empire actually broke into three parts. Britain and Gaul had broken away. Syria, the Persian frontier, had broken away.

The Roman Empire, which traditionally spans from Hadrian's Wall in Britain to the Sahara Desert, out towards the Crimea and the Euphrates River, the Roman Empire actually broke into three parts. Britain and Gaul had broken away. Syria, the Persian frontier, had broken away.

The Roman Empire, which traditionally spans from Hadrian's Wall in Britain to the Sahara Desert, out towards the Crimea and the Euphrates River, the Roman Empire actually broke into three parts. Britain and Gaul had broken away. Syria, the Persian frontier, had broken away.

It really did look like the Roman Empire, which, remember, dominated the Mediterranean from the 2nd century BC onwards, was actually going to fall apart. What's perhaps the most remarkable feature of the third century crisis is that it didn't happen. And indeed, one of the great questions, why didn't the Roman Empire collapse in the third century when in the fifth century the West will go under?

It really did look like the Roman Empire, which, remember, dominated the Mediterranean from the 2nd century BC onwards, was actually going to fall apart. What's perhaps the most remarkable feature of the third century crisis is that it didn't happen. And indeed, one of the great questions, why didn't the Roman Empire collapse in the third century when in the fifth century the West will go under?

It really did look like the Roman Empire, which, remember, dominated the Mediterranean from the 2nd century BC onwards, was actually going to fall apart. What's perhaps the most remarkable feature of the third century crisis is that it didn't happen. And indeed, one of the great questions, why didn't the Roman Empire collapse in the third century when in the fifth century the West will go under?

But crucially, in the third century, while there are major threat pressures on the frontiers, there aren't huge migrations moving into the Roman Empire. And over a long, hard-fought period, particularly between 250 and 275, The Roman emperors, Gallienus, Aurelian in particular, managed to retake all the lost territories, stabilize the frontiers. So the Roman Empire looked like shatterings.

But crucially, in the third century, while there are major threat pressures on the frontiers, there aren't huge migrations moving into the Roman Empire. And over a long, hard-fought period, particularly between 250 and 275, The Roman emperors, Gallienus, Aurelian in particular, managed to retake all the lost territories, stabilize the frontiers. So the Roman Empire looked like shatterings.