Professor Peter Heather

In northern Italy or the western Balkans, protecting the sort of middle Danube frontier. And you get rival leaders. I mean, emperors are always generals, as it were. So these two army groups can put forward rival pretenders for control of the western empire. And we see conflict of that kind.

But again, as the sort of fancy sociologists would call it, these are centripetal, not centrifugal conflicts. We're not looking to break off a bit of the empire and run it separately. We've seen rival leaders for control of the whole thing.

But again, as the sort of fancy sociologists would call it, these are centripetal, not centrifugal conflicts. We're not looking to break off a bit of the empire and run it separately. We've seen rival leaders for control of the whole thing.

But again, as the sort of fancy sociologists would call it, these are centripetal, not centrifugal conflicts. We're not looking to break off a bit of the empire and run it separately. We've seen rival leaders for control of the whole thing.

And there is not any sign in the fourth century of the kind of thing that we saw in the third century, which is bits of the empire operating and setting up as autonomous units. So we had the Gallic Empire, we had Palmyra in the east in the third century. No repeat of that at all.

And there is not any sign in the fourth century of the kind of thing that we saw in the third century, which is bits of the empire operating and setting up as autonomous units. So we had the Gallic Empire, we had Palmyra in the east in the third century. No repeat of that at all.

And there is not any sign in the fourth century of the kind of thing that we saw in the third century, which is bits of the empire operating and setting up as autonomous units. So we had the Gallic Empire, we had Palmyra in the east in the third century. No repeat of that at all.

And the reason we don't have is that we've reorganized the military so that the most powerful military formations are around the imperial person. It isn't possible anymore for a regional general to set up an independent part of the empire. They can't do it. British usurpers try it. They get crushed in the late third, very early fourth century. And there is no repetition.

And the reason we don't have is that we've reorganized the military so that the most powerful military formations are around the imperial person. It isn't possible anymore for a regional general to set up an independent part of the empire. They can't do it. British usurpers try it. They get crushed in the late third, very early fourth century. And there is no repetition.

And the reason we don't have is that we've reorganized the military so that the most powerful military formations are around the imperial person. It isn't possible anymore for a regional general to set up an independent part of the empire. They can't do it. British usurpers try it. They get crushed in the late third, very early fourth century. And there is no repetition.

So, you know, if you think what does the fall of the Empire in the West means, it means the disappearance of a unitary state that runs from Hadrian's Wall to the Atlas Mountains of North Africa into a series of successor states. Can we get to that situation just with the pattern of Roman politics and Roman military organization in the 4th century? see no remote possibility.

So, you know, if you think what does the fall of the Empire in the West means, it means the disappearance of a unitary state that runs from Hadrian's Wall to the Atlas Mountains of North Africa into a series of successor states. Can we get to that situation just with the pattern of Roman politics and Roman military organization in the 4th century? see no remote possibility.

So, you know, if you think what does the fall of the Empire in the West means, it means the disappearance of a unitary state that runs from Hadrian's Wall to the Atlas Mountains of North Africa into a series of successor states. Can we get to that situation just with the pattern of Roman politics and Roman military organization in the 4th century? see no remote possibility.

And this is where the barbarians are crucial. They undermine that flow of revenues, which makes for that preponderance of the praesental forces around the emperor. So they take the revenue almost for themselves in the forming of their own kingdoms. So therefore, the preponderance of military power disappears from the Roman center. It can't keep everyone straight.

And this is where the barbarians are crucial. They undermine that flow of revenues, which makes for that preponderance of the praesental forces around the emperor. So they take the revenue almost for themselves in the forming of their own kingdoms. So therefore, the preponderance of military power disappears from the Roman center. It can't keep everyone straight.

And this is where the barbarians are crucial. They undermine that flow of revenues, which makes for that preponderance of the praesental forces around the emperor. So they take the revenue almost for themselves in the forming of their own kingdoms. So therefore, the preponderance of military power disappears from the Roman center. It can't keep everyone straight.

We get regional fragmentation, but around the barbarian dynasts, not around Roman military commanders. Because it couldn't happen around Roman military commanders. There isn't a regional Roman commander who has a powerful enough military formation to stand up to the central forces.

We get regional fragmentation, but around the barbarian dynasts, not around Roman military commanders. Because it couldn't happen around Roman military commanders. There isn't a regional Roman commander who has a powerful enough military formation to stand up to the central forces.

We get regional fragmentation, but around the barbarian dynasts, not around Roman military commanders. Because it couldn't happen around Roman military commanders. There isn't a regional Roman commander who has a powerful enough military formation to stand up to the central forces.

It's my absolute pleasure. I've been rabbiting on about these things now for about 40 years, but it doesn't lose my interest. That may be a reflection on me. No, absolute pleasure.