Professor Peter Heather

Historians are sometimes very weird. They think that if you detect any problem in any society, it's about to collapse. Well, you know, look around you. Human life is not perfect. There are some serious issues. For various reasons, they've had to divide political authority between two centers, one in the West and one in the East. And there is...

fairly constant tension and occasional conflict between those two centers. Occasional civil war is part of the deal by the late imperial period, but that looks systemic and sustainable, as it were.

fairly constant tension and occasional conflict between those two centers. Occasional civil war is part of the deal by the late imperial period, but that looks systemic and sustainable, as it were.

fairly constant tension and occasional conflict between those two centers. Occasional civil war is part of the deal by the late imperial period, but that looks systemic and sustainable, as it were.

In the mid-fourth century, it looks pretty balanced to me. Obviously, as the West starts to lose control of its territories, the East emerges very quickly as more powerful. But actually, if you look at

In the mid-fourth century, it looks pretty balanced to me. Obviously, as the West starts to lose control of its territories, the East emerges very quickly as more powerful. But actually, if you look at

In the mid-fourth century, it looks pretty balanced to me. Obviously, as the West starts to lose control of its territories, the East emerges very quickly as more powerful. But actually, if you look at

The archaeological evidence from, well, even southern Britain, but also definitely central and southern what's now France, Gaul, then Spain, North Africa, which are all Western imperial territories, they're all flourishing. So it's not clear to me that there is an obvious imbalance between the two.

The archaeological evidence from, well, even southern Britain, but also definitely central and southern what's now France, Gaul, then Spain, North Africa, which are all Western imperial territories, they're all flourishing. So it's not clear to me that there is an obvious imbalance between the two.

The archaeological evidence from, well, even southern Britain, but also definitely central and southern what's now France, Gaul, then Spain, North Africa, which are all Western imperial territories, they're all flourishing. So it's not clear to me that there is an obvious imbalance between the two.

The line runs through the Balkans, and there's a bit of bickering between exactly where in the Balkans we should put it. But basically, the very nice bits of the Balkans, like what's now Croatia, the Dalmatian coastline, and Greece are usually part of the Western Empire. Bizarrely, you would think Greece would be in the Eastern Empire, but it's not in the 4th century.

The line runs through the Balkans, and there's a bit of bickering between exactly where in the Balkans we should put it. But basically, the very nice bits of the Balkans, like what's now Croatia, the Dalmatian coastline, and Greece are usually part of the Western Empire. Bizarrely, you would think Greece would be in the Eastern Empire, but it's not in the 4th century.

The line runs through the Balkans, and there's a bit of bickering between exactly where in the Balkans we should put it. But basically, the very nice bits of the Balkans, like what's now Croatia, the Dalmatian coastline, and Greece are usually part of the Western Empire. Bizarrely, you would think Greece would be in the Eastern Empire, but it's not in the 4th century.

They picked the term up from the Greeks. I mean, it's a term of abuse. We're used to it and we throw it around a lot. But to call someone a barbarian is to say that they are an inferior, indeed imperfect human being. The Romans inherit the sort of classical Greek view of what civilization is, and it's quite specific actually.

They picked the term up from the Greeks. I mean, it's a term of abuse. We're used to it and we throw it around a lot. But to call someone a barbarian is to say that they are an inferior, indeed imperfect human being. The Romans inherit the sort of classical Greek view of what civilization is, and it's quite specific actually.

They picked the term up from the Greeks. I mean, it's a term of abuse. We're used to it and we throw it around a lot. But to call someone a barbarian is to say that they are an inferior, indeed imperfect human being. The Romans inherit the sort of classical Greek view of what civilization is, and it's quite specific actually.

It comes down to a vision of how human beings are constructed, that we have a rational soul or mind in a very physical, irrational body. And barbarians are people in whom the rational faculties of the mind or soul have not been developed sufficiently to control the irrational faculties of the body.

It comes down to a vision of how human beings are constructed, that we have a rational soul or mind in a very physical, irrational body. And barbarians are people in whom the rational faculties of the mind or soul have not been developed sufficiently to control the irrational faculties of the body.

It comes down to a vision of how human beings are constructed, that we have a rational soul or mind in a very physical, irrational body. And barbarians are people in whom the rational faculties of the mind or soul have not been developed sufficiently to control the irrational faculties of the body.

Civilized people, the rational faculties have been developed sufficiently to control all those impulses that come from our physicality.