Tag: Ostrogothic Italy

Creating Dynamic Networks in Gephi

~ Liam Greenacre ~ 2 Comments

I have been experimenting with Gephi again, with the aim of learning how to create a dynamic network (one which evolves over time). I have decided to turn my experiences into a tutorial, as it took me a while to create one. Furthermore, as a lot of the tutorials out there require you to code, I thought it best to show how to create one only using Microsoft Excel.

The first thing you will want to do is create your database. For the data in this tutorial, I am using my old undergraduate dissertation database on Cassiodorus’ Variae, though you will likely need to collect and input your data yourself. Networks consist of nodes and edges and you will need two separate sheets or documents in Excel to show these. Below you can see my nodes table. The crucial elements are the ID and the Label, Gephi will recognise these when you import the spreadsheet, and a column called ‘timeset’. The other columns, like gender and profession, are optional, but will become attributes you can analyse them in Gephi. In the ID column, assign a number to your nodes and label them in the next column, something that will allow you to identify them will be helpful in this instance. In the timeset column, enter the dates you want the node to exist for. If you want your node to exist, say, between 492 and 526, you must enter it the exact following format.

<[492.0, 526.0]>

Repeat this for the all nodes you want to assign a date, it will probably be useful to keep a note of start and end dates as you progress with the ID and Label columns, when you initially go through your data. A quick note- the dates I have entered for this example are for the purposes of the tutorial only, they are not meant to indicate the exact date the chosen individuals were around.

Next, you may want to assign a date to the edges (the links between nodes). If so, create a separate sheet or even document for the edges table. The easiest format for Gephi to recognise is a source-target table. In its simplest form, it involves a source (the first node in a connection), a target (the other node in a connection) and a weight (a measurement of the strength of a connection). The source and target should be the IDs you assigned in the nodes table. The fourth column should be named ‘timeset’ and again include the dates of a edge in the same format used for the nodes. You may find it useful to have a ‘source label’ and ‘target label’ column on this document. While not required (I have deleted them for the image below because of this), they can help you keep track of who is connecting to who, Gephi should treat them as attributes and so it should not alter the network itself.

You will now want to import your spreadsheets into Gephi. Firstly, click on data laboratory and then import spreadsheet. A box should appear which allows you to browse your files, click on your nodes table to import it to Gephi. An ‘import settings’ window should now open. On the first screen (below) make sure the nodes sheet is selected and that you have chosen import as ‘nodes table’. Click next and a second screen should appear. The next step is crucial, where it says ‘time representation’, make you click intervals. This should cause the box under the ‘timeset’ label to say ‘intervalset’. After this you can click ‘finish.’ Then another screen should appear and you should choose to append the imported data to the existing workspace.

Repeat the steps above, except this time import your edges data. Make sure import as edges table is selected and then on the second screen make sure interval is selected again. Finally, append the table to the existing ‘workspace’.

Go on overview and you should be able to seed your graph, with the nodes connected by the edges. I would then suggest running a layout algorithm to make your graph easier to understand visually. I selected the ‘Yifan Hu’ algorithm, you can choose this by going through window and then layout and then selecting the algorithm on the drop down menu that appears to the left.

Finally, you will want to know how to enable the timeline which allows you to view how the network evolves over time. The image above clearly shows ‘enable timeline’ towards the bottom. Another way to access the timeline is to go on ‘window’ and then ‘timeline.’ A box should appear at the bottom with a draggable animation interval, use this to select how quickly you will view the network evolve.

The images below show my network evolving overtime.

I hope this tutorial has helped anyone wanting to create a dynamic graph, please let me know if you need any help or have suggestions for my instructions.

Review: The Gothic War, Rome’s Final Conflict in The West

~ Liam Greenacre ~ Leave a comment

This post shall review Torsten Cumberland Jacobsen’s 2009 book, which is titled ‘The Gothic War: Rome’s Final Conflict in the West.’

I must admit a certain deficiency in knowledge with regards to the Gothic War. Mostly, I know about the Ostrogothic Kingdom during the reign of Theoderic the Great, but not after his death. Therefore, it made sense to me to try and find a secondary text that discussed the conflict. Jacobsen’s popular and mainly narrative account is such a suitable introduction.

The book starts by providing the context of the Gothic War. It covers events such as Justinian’s conquest of Africa and the Nika Uprisings. It therefore describes the beginning of Justinian’s so-called ‘reconquests’ of the Western Roman Empire. According to Jacobsen, the stabilisation of the Imperial borders after the chaotic events of the fifth and fourth centuries allowed this focus on reclaiming lost territories. It is notable that the author presents the wars with a ‘reconquest’ viewpoint. This is at odds with Arnold who effectively claims that Theoderic’s Ostrogothic Kingdom was essentially the Roman Empire restored. The introductory chapter also introduces Procopius, who was secretary to Belisarius, one of the main generals during the wars in Italy. Procopius’ History of the Wars is the main source for Jacobsen’s book and it is heavily quoted throughout. The next chapter provides the Ostrogothic context, after the chapter on the Eastern Roman Empire. It discusses early Gothic history and their earlier wars with the Romans. Furthermore, it describes their conversion to Arianism, as well as making other introductory points. The third chapter looks at Theoderic in Italy, including events such as his conquest of Italy from Odoacer, alongside giving a small glimpse into his reign. Interestingly, Jacobsen also writes ‘Theoderic was perhaps the most civilised barbarian the former Western Roman Empire would ever see.’ This would align with the view that Theoderic’s reign was not a period of darkness for Italy and the other possessions of the Ostrogoths. Although, Jacobsen still falls short of calling the kingdom ‘Roman’.

After discussing the early chapters of the text, it is worth highlighting how Jacobsen treats Gothic ‘ethnicity’. Firstly, he does not see it as static, biological and unchanging. In fact, he states ‘ethnicity in a tribe was fluid’ and ‘to be a Goth or to be part of the Gothic confederation was more a question of attitude than a question of race and ethnicity’. The author certainly does not fall into the trap of approaching ethnicity in a outdated manner. A second point to be considered is how Jacobsen describes the early Gothic migrations as ‘a gradual aggregation’ under the name ‘Goth’. There were apparently no great wars or single large migrations. A further noteworthy point regarding ethnicity is also raised later in the text, when the author describes how Goths and Romans often switched sides due to low morale. ‘Gothic’ or ‘Roman’ identities were not pivotal in the theatre of war, with loyalty to particular generals being more important.

After looking at the Gothic and Eastern Roman context, the book switches to a narrative of mainly military events. This is no surprise given the title of the book and its aims to provide a detailed account of the sixth-century Gothic War. Jacobsen initially writes about the early stages of the war, such as the Sicilian campaign and the Siege of Neapolis. He then discusses the deposition of Theodahad as King of the Ostrogoths and his replacement by Vitigis. After this, the first Siege of Rome is described in-depth. The treatment of this siege is particularly notable for how the author covers every minuscule particular of it. The Gothic attempt to retake Rome from Justinian’s armies was however disastrous with Vitigis only setting a full blockade of the city late during the course of the siege. The Goths, a recurring theme throughout the war, were not adept with regards to sieges and they preferred pitched battles instead. The next chapters describe the campaign for Ravenna and its eventual fall to the Romans. The attempts to siege or take certain settlements in Italy, such as Mediolanum and Ancona, are also covered in these chapters. The Roman campaign for Italy and its initial successes are therefore adequately described.

Next, the book switches to contextual events outside of Italy. It especially looks at events in Africa, such as the uprisings there as well as conflicts with the Moors, while also examining affairs on the eastern frontier with Persia as well. Jacobsen is keen to show here, as he does throughout the text, that Italy and the Gothic War cannot be viewed in isolation. The Late Antique world was heavily connected, especially throughout the Mediterranean. No part of it can be understood in isolation. This important point is reinforced by the author’s continuous description of events involving the Franks, who periodically intervened in the conflict between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ostrogoths.

It is clear from Jacobsen’s work, that the accession of Totila to the throne in 541, following the death of Eraric, marked a transition point in the war for Italy. Totila, unlike Theodahad, Vitigis and Eraric, managed to recover large portions of Italy for the Ostrogoths. Therefore, revitalising a cause that at one point had appeared lost. Following on this, the book details the second and third Sieges of Rome, as the Goths and Romans kept on exchanging blows. The accounts of these engagements are not as in-depth as the first one, but they nevertheless provide an insight into how siege warfare was conducted during the Gothic War. Subsequent to these chapters, another change of fortunes in the war is described, with the Romans on the advance again. Their march forward, as covered by Jacobsen, culminated in a battle at Taginae which was a disastrous defeat for the Goths. This battle effectively marked the end of the war for the Goths and so a full account of it is given. Gothic resistance did not collapse after Taginae, for example Teia succeeded the slain Totila to the throne, but it did end any hopes of a Gothic victory. Therefore, the history of the Ostrogothic Kingdom came to a crushing end.

One thing I believe worth noting in this review is how Jacobsen approaches certain historical figures. Belisarius, the Roman general, is shown to be a pivotal figure in Justinian’s attempts to conquer the Western Empire. Jacobsen writes ‘there would have been no wars of Justinian if Belisarius had not been available.’ and he compares the Roman general to figures such as Caesar and Hannibal. Totila is also highly praised, not surprising given his successful military campaigns. ‘He won almost all his battles’ and was ‘a wise politician’ according to the author. However, what is particularly interesting is Jacobsen’s treatment of the Emperor Justinian and his project in the West. His empire may have been enlarged by his wars, but ‘the provinces of the West may have been a liability rather than an asset’ due to the fact that they required soldiers from the East to guard them and also because they yielded insufficient revenue for their own defence. Furthermore, Justinian’s victories were only temporary. Roman Spain was attacked by the Visigoths, Africa by the Moors, and Italy by the Lombards. The portrait given of Justinian is therefore not completely favourable, unlike the accounts of Belisarius and Totila.

‘The Gothic War, Rome’s Final Conflict in the West’ also contains a number of appendices describing the structure of the opposing armies. One source used to do this is the Notitia Dignitatum, which contained a list of all military units in the empire. It therefore highlights the changes in Roman military set-up between the third and sixth centuries. Furthermore, Jacobsen writes about the different types of troops available, as well as logistics, recruitment and other practical factors. The appendix also looks at the Goths, it covers matters such their infantry and cavalry, while also reinstating the polyethnic nature of their army. It combined people, following the defeat of Odoacer, who were part of the Western Roman army as well Rugians, Sueves and Scirians, among others. Jacobsen therefore repeatedly shows that the war was not simply between Goths and Romans surrounding Italy, but rather that there were deserters on both sides, as well as allies from other ‘barbarian’ peoples in the two armies. Overall, the appendices are a welcome addition to the book, as Jacobsen somewhat forfeits analysis of military tactics, throughout the main narrative. The appendices successfully fill in this gap. Finally, a chronology of events is provided towards the end, it offers a helpful reminder of some of the important dates in the war.

To conclude, Jacobsen’s ‘The Gothic War, Rome’s Final Conflict in The West’ offers a good account of the series of military events it describes. Narrative is often used in favour of analysis, but the appendices help to counterbalance this. The author also makes some nuanced points regarding Gothic ethnicity and its relation to the war. Meanwhile, its approach to certain personas, like Belisarius and Justinian, is interesting and thought-provoking. The reminder to place the Gothic War in the context of the world of Late Antiquity is also well made. Therefore, to summarise, if one is looking for a text that describes the war in-depth then Jacobsen’s book is a good option.

Review: Theoderic and The Imperial Roman Restoration

~ Liam Greenacre ~ Leave a comment

Was Theoderic the Great considered as a Roman emperor by his subjects? Did the early sixth century see a revival within the Roman Empire? These are the central arguments in Johnathan Arnold’s 2014 book ‘Theoderic and The Roman Imperial Restoration.’ This post will review this work and assess how successfully it makes these points.

Arnold’s evidence mainly comes from Ennodius and Cassiodorus, so he starts his argument by introducing their major works. In particular, Ennodius’s Life of Epiphanius and Panegyric on Theoderic, as well as Cassiodorus’ Variae. These chapters, in part one of Arnold’s book, serve as useful introductions. As I already have a degree of knowledge about the Variae, I found the section on Ennodius more helpful. However, this was not due to the fault of the author, the chapter on Cassiodorus was still serviceable enough, even if it is not the most expansive account. Part one also establishes some other key components of Arnold’s thesis. It introduces the idea that the fifth century saw a period of decline within the Roman Empire- which is pivotal when arguing Theoderic’s reign saw a period of revival. This period of decline was not just under the rex Odovacer, who deposed Romulus Augustus, but had been endemic to a series of leaders throughout the past century. Whereas, Arnold also discusses the extent to which the categories of Roman and Barbarian were becoming conflated during this period. For example, Ennodius, at times (though not always), saw the barbarian Ricimer as more civilised and arguably more Roman than the Eastern Roman Anthemius during their conflict with each other. Part one thus acts as an introduction to Cassiodorus and Ennodius, while also sowing the seeds of some of Arnold’s later arguments.

Part two of ‘Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration’ further elaborates Arnold’s discussion. In particular, the first chapter of this section discusses Theoderic’s relationship with the Eastern Empire, as well the titles used by Theoderic. The latter topic is especially interesting, the terms for a ruler of the Western Empire had to some degree lost their meaning. Theoderic did not need to be called Imperator to be considered as a emperor, over titles such as rex and princeps were still suitable. Theoderic often employed the latter as, according to Arnold, it evoked images of the ‘glory days’ of the first century, when the emperors were considered as first citizens in a republic. The section on terminology is thought-provoking addition to Arnold’s argument, as it denounces the idea one had to be called ’emperor’ in order to be recognised as one. In terms of Theoderic’s relationship to the Eastern Empire, Arnold suggests ‘Theoderic promoted the traditional idea of imperial and unity and fraternity with the East, yet staked a claim to the West’s separate existence as one of two Roman republics.’ Naturally, he also altered his portrayal of the Eastern Empire depending on whether he was in contact with them or alternatively Italo-Romans. Part two of Arnold’s work focuses on Theoderic’s imperial image, in particular it consults the visual sources available to do this. Apart from the possible absence of wearing a diadem, Theoderic, according to Arnold, presented himself in a way that Italo-Romans would expect of an emperor. It sections such as these it can sometimes feel like Arnold is in danger of overstretching the evidence, in particular surrounding his Imperial image, however thankfully Arnold’s study is reflexive enough to avoid this.

The first chapter of part three of Arnold’s work firstly analyses Gothicness and its role in the Roman Empire. This section was especially interesting for me, due to the fact that my undegraduate dissertation argued for the irrelevance of ethnicity in Ostrogothic Italy. Nevertheless, Arnold argues that there was indeed a distinction between Goths and Romans under Theoderic, but also that Gothicness became just another form of Romaness available. In other words, Goths were not seen as ‘barbarian savages’ most of the time, but as representing martialism and old Roman virtues. They were symbols of the revival of old Roman values. The next chapter focuses on Theoderic’s Greek upbringing and education and how this might have made his life easier in Italy (even if still occasionally alienated some Western Romans). Arnold also covers Theoderic’s Amal descent in this chapter and discusses how this was also used to legitimise his rule and helped the idea of revival.

The next section focuses on how the province of Liguria and the city of Rome both saw a revival under Theoderic. These areas had suffered heavily during the period of decline already mentioned. Liguria also needed attention due to the damage caused by the war between Odovacer and Theoderic, which meant its loyalty to Theoderic may have been precarious. By consulting the Life of Epiphanius again Arnold describes how Theoderic gained the support of this region. He also discusses the improvements Theoderic made to a number of northern cities such as Verona, Como and Parma. In the chapter on Rome, Arnold emphasises how the city had been neglected by his recent emperors, with the capital either being Ravenna, Milan or Pavia. The city was thus graced with an extended Imperial visit in 500, which Arnold describes in some detail, while he also mentions a number of restoration projects in The Eternal City. Furthermore, to these points, Arnold also shows how Theoderic showed respect and deference to the Senate, therefore fitting in with his ideology of being a princeps or first citizen of a Roman republic.

The final section in ‘Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration’ focuses on the Ostrogothic reconquest of Gaul. This is a welcome addition, as there is not much in the secondary literature on this subject. However, it is a shame that Arnold does not cover Theoderic’s other additions to his ’empire’ in this section, but this is somewhat understandable due to the little amount of information on them in the primary sources. The first chapter focuses on Italo-Roman attitudes to Gaul and how these manifested in a number of ways. These included old stereotypes, such as of the province being more ‘barbarian’ than Italy to more positive images based on their literary culture. The last chapter of this section focuses on the actual conquest of Gaul and how Theoderic gained the loyalty of his new subjects in his new province. It therefore also mentions some of the new administrative structures put in place as well, such as a Prefect of Gaul and a vicar.

Overall, ‘Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration’ is a solidly argued and nuanced book. At times it might risk overemphasise or even sometimes the opposite, but overall its discussion is very convincing and elaborate. It therefore seems we may need change how we see the fall of the Western Empire, with it no longer ending in 476 with the deposition of Romulus Augustus. As Arnold puts it ‘there was no need for Justinian to restore the Western Empire: Theoderic had already done so.’

New Blog, New Beginning

~ Liam Greenacre ~ Leave a comment

Since 2013, I have kept a blog at https://liamslookathistory.blogspot.com/. While I enjoyed running it, I now feel the time is right for a new beginning. I started it as a secondary school student and since then I have come a long way- I am starting an MA in Medieval Studies at the University of York in September. However, this also means that the credibility of the posts on my old blog is highly variable. I chose a bizarre topic for my first post on that one- the history of Antarctic politics. I also wrote about the interests I held as a teenager, the Swedish Empire and my undying support at the time for Edgar the Atheling as the true heir of Edward the Confessor. More recently, my posts began to narrow down a lot; focusing on early medieval history. In particular, over the last year it has acted as a journal for my undergraduate dissertation on network analysis and Ostrogothic Italy. By starting a new blog, I am not disowning the old one. It is a testament to my development from GCSE to the end of an undergraduate degree.

Nevertheless, now is the perfect opportunity to try something different. There are several motivations for doing this. I am currently in the process of preparing for a potential PhD application, so it will act as a sort of catalyst for developing ideas and concepts. My hope is to carry out research on sixth-century Italy, partially explaining the title for this blog.

I am not going to have any strict rules for the content on this blog. It will focus on my academic interests and will likely evolve depending on what I am researching, reading or learning about at the time. As the blog’s title suggests, there will likely be a bit of philosophy as well. Particularly, if I pursue one of my ideas. I may also upload some of my relevant undergraduate essays to act as an online portfolio for future applications, with the aim of demonstrating my ‘way of thinking’.

On a concluding note, it is possible someone could be wondering why the site logo shows Theoderic the Great, rather than say an actual philosopher like Boethius. I felt hesitant to imply that Boethius was an Ostrogoth by using his image. Despite, the fact that my network analysis of Cassiodorus’ Variae questioned the importance of ‘ethnicity’ in Ostrogothic Italy. Furthermore, I feel ‘Philosophical Ostrogoth’ represents my interests better than the more broad, but equally possible ‘Philosophical Roman’ blog title.

I hope this introductory post has given some insight into the thought processes behind starting a new blog and it has given insight into its possible content.