Kathleenb Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 I see many references to this letter or Rescript from Honorius to Britain, and a couple of sites have referred to Zosimus or Gildas as being the source for this letter... but I can't find the reference in any text of Zoximus or Gildas posted online. Can anyone point me to the primary source for this letter? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 I see many references to this letter or Rescript from Honorius to Britain, and a couple of sites have referred to Zosimus or Gildas as being the source for this letter... but I can't find the reference in any text of Zoximus or Gildas posted online. Can anyone point me to the primary source for this letter? Thanks. Indeed its Zosimus. Here's an English copy online at Vortigern Studies. The passage is in chapter 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Goblinus Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Just a comment, but if Honorius had really wanted to, he could have martialled the western armies and saved the empire. Things were still not beyond the point of no return then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleenb Posted March 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Primus, thanks, saw this after you posted but didn't get back to say a proper thank you and then it drifted down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Just a comment, but if Honorius had really wanted to, he could have martialled the western armies and saved the empire. Things were still not beyond the point of no return then. very true... i think he was more interested in hes pet chickens then the empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Goblinus Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 A full mobilization of the large western army could have secured all of the borders, and if he had been bold enough, he could have shaken off the German influence at the imperial court, like the eastern emperors managed to do. The western empire could have fully rejoined the empire, and it might have been able to do things that the eastern empire alone couldn't have, like stemmed the tide of the spread of Islam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Absolutely. Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) says that in 406 the Empire 'was at last going somewhere' for the first time in years. Then they blew it. A second chance at revival apparantly came in the mid 5th century, but Marjorian wasted the Empire's strength on a fruitless campaign against the Vandals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caius Maxentius Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Absolutely. Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) says that in 406 the Empire 'was at last going somewhere' for the first time in years. Then they blew it. A second chance at revival apparantly came in the mid 5th century, but Marjorian wasted the Empire's strength on a fruitless campaign against the Vandals. Why was it a waste? It was a tragedy that it didn't work out, but as Heather suggests, regaining Africa was key to getting the all-important tax revenues and grain flowing again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 It's very easy to suggest that all that was need was to field an army and see off the vandal threat or whatever. I don't actually believe it was as simple as giving an order, even if it came from Honorius (who wasn't the strongest ruler the romans had). In some cases, such as Valens prior to marching on Adrianople, considerable persuasion was necessary to get roman soldiers to agree to go on campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) Just a comment, but if Honorius had really wanted to, he could have martialled the western armies and saved the empire. Things were still not beyond the point of no return then. very true... i think he was more interested in hes pet chickens then the empire. For all we know, Honorius seems to have been a terrible ruler; however, as usual, we are probably giving too much credit to the personal abilities (or the lack of them) of any Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire (both included) has been by then a centuries-long mature administrative and bureaucratic unit that has survived from many huge threats, notoriously the III century military chaos; its government tended to thrive even under nasty rulers. After all, Arcadius in Constantinople seems to have not been a far better ruler than his brother. The complex processes that eventually determined the Fall of the Western Empire were presumably quite advanced by the early V century. As Mr. Ward-Perkins suggested, there was probably no absolute point of no return until the Arab conquest of Syria and Egypt by Umar in the VII century, when the Roman Empire was definitively deprived from the economic input required for massive military movements. Edited May 23, 2009 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 A terrible ruler? I don't really see him as that bad, it's just that he had a ton of problems to deal with and didn't have the same influence over his legions that Stilicho did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 A terrible ruler? I don't really see him as that bad, it's just that he had a ton of problems to deal with and didn't have the same influence over his legions that Stilicho did. He did however have Stilicho murdered, and antagonise Alaric, who could've become a new Stilicho. We all know what followed. To what extent his hand was forced, and the emperor by that time rubber - stamped the decisions of the courtiers and administrators, is hard to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) He did however have Stilicho murdered, and antagonise Alaric, who could've become a new Stilicho. We all know what followed. To what extent his hand was forced, and the emperor by that time rubber - stamped the decisions of the courtiers and administrators, is hard to say. This seems to be a fair veredict on this unfortunate ruler from RW Mathisen: "As for the feckless and timid Honorius, he generally took little part in public affairs. He was generally passive in nature, except when he was motivated to act by fear. He left military operations to his generals, but he did become involved in a controversy over the choice of a bishop of Rome in 418... He left no issue, which resulted in the proclamation of Johannes, the Chief Secretary, after his death. Not until 425 did his nephew Valentinian III... restore the legitimate dynasty. Even though the unity of the western empire was shakily maintained during Honorius' reign ... he left a legacy of fragmentation and feeble, lackluster leadership which eventually would result in the dissolution of the western empire." Edited May 24, 2009 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 (edited) Indeed its Zosimus. Here's an English copy online at Vortigern Studies. The passage is in chapter 10. I would like to flag up the point that the authors of the Vortigen Studies have outlined several concerns which academics have about the common reading and consequently the interpretation of the 'Rescript of Honorius' as it relates to Britain. Including elswhere on the site (http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/zosim.htm) stating the following: " Britain Because he was so far removed in both time and space from Britain, he seems a poor witness for events that concern Britain in the late fourth and early fifth century. This is even more of a problem, because Zosimus is the main source for two major events in British history Edited May 25, 2009 by Melvadius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Given this very compelling evidence, why has the record not been revised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.