They settled on a junior officer, Diocles, whose background is largely unknown. Acclaimed in AD 284, Diocles took a new name: Marcus Aurelius Gaius Valerius Diocletianus. Carinus himself would be betrayed to Diocletian. The empire returned to the control of one man. Diocletian, however, had no interest in suffering the same fate as many of his predecessors and ushered in a period of profound change. With Diocletian the curtain was brought down on the crisis of the third century, and imperial history passed from the Principate to the Dominate.
Researchers used spectral imaging to enhance the fragments, making it possible to read them. The analysis suggests the fragments were copied in the 11th century A.D. and are from a text that was written in the third-century A.D. by an Athens writer named Dexippus.
The historical record shows limited external challenges, civic peace, and relative prosperity from the establishment of the Principate (27 BCE) to the late second century. At the same time, the sheer number of barbarians increased considerably through the early centuries CE. Population growth in barbarian Europe was both extensive and intensive. Between the first and third centuries, west Germanic groups transitioned from shifting cultivation to intensive cultivation with heavy plows and manuring of fields, and settled in more stable villages. East Germanic groups would follow after a lag of several centuries [18, 45, 46]. After 400 CE the Korchak and Penkovka archaeological cultures, probably ancestral to later Slavs, abandoned scratch plows for more productive heavy plows .
In the late third and fourth centuries, the empire confronted multiple invasions, from Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Suevi, Alans, Burgundians, and Franks. The invaders were sometimes bought off with grants of territory and a status as foederati; more often they forcibly seized what they wanted. In any case, when territory ravaged or occupied by barbarians was lost as a source of revenue, the army could no longer be paid. In less than a century the Roman empire in the West unraveled completely. After two more centuries, the empire in southeastern Europe unraveled. No decisive battle ended the empire; it became unaffordable .
Political changes accompanied the demilitarization of the imperial core and the militarization of the periphery. Emperors from Trajan and Hadrian on found themselves spending increasing amounts of time close to the frontier, and the effective capitol shifted from Rome to Milan (286 CE) and then to Ravenna (402 CE). The old Senatorial elite of Italy, the clarissimi, continued to be extremely wealthy, but were edged out politically by a new senatorial elite. The crisis of the third century and subsequent recovery partly reflected these changes. In the third century, military units on the frontiers vied with Rome, putting up a bewildering succession of barracks emperors. Eventually a more settled situation developed as one frontier region, Illyria, came to monopolize the imperial succession.
Throughout the third century, the Roman Empire reaches from present-day Spain, through Northern Africa, across Asia Minor, and touches the edge of Saudi Arabia. The religious life of third-century was compiled of cults and their interactions with other cults. There was an emphasis on individuality and personal practices of piety.
The reviewer is however less sympathetic about the total lack of Spanish and Italian scholarship in such an enormous work. The thirty-nine page, 800 title bibliography (546-584), which is meticulous enough to reference Michael Kulikowski's Rome's Gothic Wars in both the English and in the German editions, entirely misses literature in spanish (two titles), and in Italian (four titles, inclusive of the collection of Muratori 1697-1713). Even French scholarship seems underrepresented (ca. 109 titles, inclusive of publications produced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) when compared to the German and English literature. (I do not refer here to the editions listed at 537-546, because the Monumenta and some other series are still standard and contain most of the Quellenforschung upon which this study rests). This is unfortunate, because in Chapter Two Stadermann has shown how relevant the sources from late fourth to early sixth centuries are for the Merovingian authors. Striking is also the lack of Italian and Spanish literature in Chapters Three and Four, where we read in the footnotes quotations from Cassiodorus's Variae, Jordanes, the Excerpta Valesiana, the Liber Pontificalis, the works of Gregory the Great, the sources on Byzantine Italy, and Isidore of Seville, John of Biclaro, the Vitae partum Emeretensium, and the other sources of Visigothic Spain. In addition, relying almost entirely on German and English literature, Stadermann approaches extremely complex and well-studied topics like the end of Roma aeterna (165-172), the eschatological question of the ordo temporum (the World's six ages which goes back to Augustine: e.g. 270, 387), the translatio imperii (see in Chapter Four), the imitatio imperii, and Augustine's idea of bellum iustum. Absent in the bibliography is the name of Bruno Luiselli, the founder of the journal Romanobarbarica, who has provided important philological investigations on these sources, including his almost 1,000 page Storia culturale dei rapporti tra mondo romano e mondo germanico, Roma 1992. The same can be said for the works of Andrea Giardina, the coordinator of the new translation and commentary of the Variae and author of important studies on the end of Antiquity, on Cassiodorus' political activity, and on the genesis of the regna Gothorum (cf. \"Le origini troiane dall'impero alla nazione,\" in Morfologie sociali e culturali in Europa fra tarda antichità e alto medioevo, Spoleto 1998, 177-209). Angela Amici, Jordanes e la storia gotica, Spoleto 2002, would also have been important for this study. (These names represent a very short list.) Stadermann's lack of acknowledgment of this scholarship strongly contrasts with the length of his dissertation and his meticulous analysis. Goths were among the protagonists of the Late Roman Empire; of the gentes they are the most testified in the sources, and in my opinion they are the most significant of the tribes for the history of the Empire between the fourth and mid-sixth century. Stadermann's decision to focus on the literary / representational level should not cause him to omit \"nationale Forschungen\", which are very important for the reception of traditions. The reviewer hopes that such a lacuna is not motivated by an intentional dismissal of the large scholarship on barbarians and their sources produced by the many historians and philologists of the \"Latin Europe\". 781b155fdc