The Ancients - Decline & Fall of the Ancient World

Episode Date: November 16, 2025

Tristan Hughes invites Matt Lewis, host The Ancients's sister podcast Gone Medieval, for a lively debate with about the blurred boundary between the ancient and medieval worlds. Can Tristan champion Roman Emperor Justinian as an Ancient? What about Charlemagne? Which period can lay claim to the worst year in history? And was there a single moment when people woke up and realised they'd entered a new era?Watch this episode on our NEW YouTube channel: @TheAncientsPodcastMORE:541 AD: The Worst Year in HistoryListen on AppleListen on SpotifyThe Fall of Rome: OriginsListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Tristan Hughes. Audio editors are Rob Weinberg and Aidan Lonergan, the producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic SoundsThe Ancients is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://insights.historyhit.com/history-hit-podcast-always-on Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello everyone, I hope you're doing well and welcome to this latest episode of the ancients. And it's a special one because it is a crossover episode with my fellow history hit host, Matthew Lewis. Matt Lewis, one of the hosts of the Gone Medieval podcast. And it's fitting because the topic is we're exploring where the medieval world begins and the ancient world ends. This was really fun to do with Matt. We did it in our studio. It's also going out on YouTube. We had little cards with dates on.

to debate whether we say they are medieval in date or whether they're ancient. What do we mean by the beginning of the medieval world? How long a process is it? And so much more. This is also an episode where I really encourage you to comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it. Where do you agree with what Matt and I said? What you think about the end of ancient and the beginning of medieval, how you would define it. We'd love to hear from you. So definitely leave some comments as well all about this special episode today. Right. Without further ado, let's go. Welcome to the ancients.

Today we have a special treat because I am joined by my esteemed, but sometimes confused when it comes to dates, colleague Matt Lewis, historian and host of the Gone Medieval podcast, to have a frank discussion on the most awkward period in Western history. We're talking about a messy, 500-year-long process between 300 and 850 AD, which my people might call the decline and fall of the ancient world, the end of antiquity. His people, however, call it the early Middle Ages. We know this is a deeply nuanced and complex period that evolved uniquely across different places and at different paces. The world didn't just go to sleep one night ancient and wake up the next day medieval.

Listen, I know that. Matt knows that. You know that. However, our producers want to fight and have placed in my hand a stack of key people and events for us to battle over and claim for our own. We will be debating whether these moments represent collapse or continuity. This could get ugly, but HR is on standby. Matt, great to have you on the show. Are you ready for it? It's fantastic to be here. Let's go. Let's correct some of your theories, but also, your not confused most of the time. It's just I get competitive when it comes to this time period. How are you feeling? I've got the bruises to prove how competitive you get. Don't tell you. H.R. right there.

That makes me sound very bad. But okay, let's go straight into it. So we're going to talk through these dates and discuss do we think they're ancient, do we think they're medieval, and the whole process behind it. Fantastic. And it is such an interesting period. I must admit my main area being, I guess, outside doing the general interviews, being

much earlier on with Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period. But You know, still being fascinated in actually figuring out when antiquity ends and it being so often linked to ancient Roman and the Roman Empire and when the Middle Ages begins. It's a fascinating kind of period to talk about. It is. And I'm in the same boat in that if I'm an expert in anything, it's the late medieval period. So I'm working backwards to try and work out how we arrived at the late medieval period. But, you know, we've both spoken to a lot of incredibly clever people about this mushy area in the middle.

and I think we can hopefully try and glean what's yours and what's mine. Like you say, we've had fisticuffs before in the office about... We have. Stay away from this topic or that topic, isn't it? Always fair in love and war, that's the quote. I think also the fact that this will be our enthusiasts' opinions on the matter. There'll be lots of avenues for disagreement and encourage people to comment and, you know, give their thoughts as well. Yeah, yeah. Fight us in the comments. Absolutely.

The team have given us a number of cards. I don't know what's on them. I certainly don't know. you've had a peek. But my hunch is that there will probably be a series of dates and statements. We have to decide whether it's ancient or medieval territory and we can fight it out.

So with all that being said, shall we get into it? Let's get stuck in. All right. Okay. This feels like going quite far ahead. An 8th century date, first of all. We've got 732 AD. You're not having that. Get out. I don't think I can claim that

Anyway, and it's got the Basil of Tours and Charles Martel. So this is very much early medieval territory. I'm not going to fight this one. Yeah, so we're on the verge of the emergence of a Frankish nation and those kinds of ideas. They're coming together of those fractured small kingdoms that had emerged after the fall of Rome. And Charles Martel is fighting battles against Islam coming in from southern Spain and all of those kinds of things as well. So there's a little bit in there about the friction between Christianity and Islam early on, a little bit about defining nationhood and all of that kind of thing.

But I feel like that's firmly medieval territory and you need to back off. I'm completely. You've had the spread of Islam already, haven't you? And, you know, all the way to Morocco and then into Spain, if there were any Frankish leaders who I could contest and maybe say is in the ancient world still, maybe Clovis early on in the forming of the Frankish kingdom. But you're right, isn't it? It's that transition from that mosaic of different barbarian, Visigoths, Begundians, Frankish kingdoms

into something the more powerful, like the Frankish kingdom that becomes France. And I guess maybe you would put it in there because this is when the map of Western Europe starts to look a little bit more like something we would recognise. You can almost plot France on a map and that kind of thing. But I feel like there is a lot of medieval territory to get there. There's a statement here. It sets in stone the borders of medieval Western Europe. Do we think that's fair with the Basil of Tour?

seismic it is. I mean, they're always moving a little bit, but it is, in terms of, you know, the Muslims who are in southern Spain will remain there for 700 years after this battle. So it does settle the limits of where Islam is encroaching into southern Iberia. And as I say, around the time of Charles Martel, you've got something that looks very much like France beginning to emerge, but nothing else is very settled yet, I don't think. No, completely. I don't think we need to hand any more time on this because I'm not contesting it. That's your. there you go you can take it

but you get the ancients logo we keep in score is that 1-0 I guess that's 1-0 I think that's not really fair

though so let's see what the next one is okay this is more interesting and this is

one I certainly will fight for 476 AD now does that ring a bell so that's the fall of the Roman Empire

full of the Western Roman Empire well it's the date of I mean the last Roman Emperor

in the West Romulus Augustulus giving up his throne abdicating to Odoaka and then

there's no further Western Roman Emperor, but of course the Roman Empire does continue at pace in the East. I think it's Emperor Zeno who's ruling at the time, and Odoaka, of all people, actually then seeks kind of almost, dare I say, permission from the Emperor Zeno and what to do in Italy. So there's still very much respect to that Roman rule there in the East, and it's still as strong as ever, which is why I say, I would say that this is still ancient history. There's a tendency to say that is this actually the cut-off point? If people want to pinpoint a date

for the fall of the Western Roman Empire 476 AD is the traditional date. It's one of those really convenient pins in the map that you can put on a timeline and you can just hang the division between ancient and medieval on that. But if I was to suggest that that's becoming a medieval period,

I would suggest that we have previously had problems for Rome. Rome has been sacked. Rome is already a lame duck. It's just waiting to be put out of its misery, I guess. I mean, Caprily, I remember talking to Dr David Gwyn about this and another filmed episode on The Origins of the Fall of Rome, a series we did

earlier this year. And also Adrian Goldsworthy, you talked about this as well. Basically highlighting, as you say, the emperor is a lame duck by this point. It's the power of the Fiderati, you know, these people who are in the service of these figureheads, but they've had power for some time and they just, Odo Waka just decides there's actually no need for this little kid anymore. But it's certainly not the end of ancient history, I would argue, at that time because there's no kind of dissolution of Roman beliefs or values. The mosaic of kingdoms that emerges in Western Europe at that time, as we talk like the Visigoths in Spain. You ultimately get the Ostrogoths and Theodoric the Great in Italy and Clovis and the Franks. They still got

clearly like kind of embracing of Roman values and ideas. There's no kind of clear cutoff point. The only exception to that we might suppose later is Britain where there is a clearer cutoff point. So I would say that the whole of the 5th century, if we're taking a Eurocentric view, which I think we largely will be with terms like medieval and ancient, aren't we? In that sphere, I would argue that the whole of the 5th century on the continent, European continent at least, is to ancient history. It's a tricky one though, isn't it? Because what leads to Rome falling in 476,

it's the emergence of a different mindset, a different way of doing things that has been attacking Rome for decades by this point. So something has changed. Something in the way that people are living has changed. And I think it's important, we are going to be mainly in Western Europe. The medieval period is a term for Western Europe, really. And we're not talking about everyone going to bed wearing Togas and waking up in the morning and thinking, well, that's stupid. I'm going to put some hose on and dress completely differently. It's not like an overnight thing. but if I was going to make a claim on 4-7-6 tipping over into the medieval world

it's that it's a medieval mindset that has already emerged that is causing Rome to be dragged down. That is a good point and maybe that kind of harkens back to the overarching idea that it is a transitional phase over a long period of time. It is complicated, it's complex

and maybe 4-7-6, well actually almost likely, certainly it's nearer the beginning than the end of that whole transitional phase I'd argue which will go into the same, 6th century as well. I'm sure we'll visit it in time. So as you're right, the forming of the medieval world is certainly there about this point with those kingdoms that the Visigoths and the Franks and so on. But I wouldn't say that this is clear-cut medieval like that one is. So I would say

that yes, maybe it is in the transitional phase, but I would still put it in ancient territory. I'll give you a one-all. A one-all, okay. I mean, you're a Birmingham city fan, so you need every help you can get. So good. 111 points last season Not so good this season Too used to winning That's the problem

Right, should we move on to the next one? What have we got? Okay, I'm a bit more confident about this one We're going back to the third century So 286 AD So a bit of context Because I know this is really out of your comfort zone Okay

This is known as the end of the third century crisis So this is a time Kind of a period roughly of 50 years Where you've had More than 25 emperors rise and fall I think only one dies of natural causes the rest are done away with either assassinations, poisonings or killed in battle and usurpers and so on.

It's epitomised as a period of great instability where the Roman Empire could easily have fallen and wars close to falling. And there were certain points in the third century where the Roman Empire is divided into three. You have like breakaway states like Palmyra in the East with Zenobia and the Gallic Empire. Britain as well is cut away.

But it holds together because you do see and once again this is largely regurgitating the work of the brilliant Dr. David Gwyn who did a lovely

interview about this you have the works of figures like two particular emperors Gallianus and Orreelian who work hard to kind of reform

and sort out the empire when it's at its weakest in the two 60s and 70s and it unites so the Roman Empire does come through

this period of crisis and arguably or not arguably at all by the time you do get to the 4th century it's stronger than ever. And everyday Roman wouldn't have thought that their empire was in declined at that

point. Yeah. I was going to ask the question as to whether that could be viewed as the beginning of the end. If it was a moment of crisis that saw a lot of reshaping, but if the Roman Empire is coming out of it stronger, I guess it's more difficult for me to position it as the beginning of the end and perhaps the beginning of the emergency. No, but you are kind of right. Because this is kind of the clear Cassaf point where we say like now, this is late antiquity. Right. You know, this is away from your time of your

Marcus Aurelius, Septimius, Severus, Trajan, Hadrian. This is a time when Christianity is about to come to the fore. You have more clear-cut divisions of power, I would argue, as well. There's more often than not times where you have multiple emperors. The end of the third century is defined by the tetrarchy, which is Diocletian dividing the empire, first into two, senior Augusti, and then into four with two junior rulers as well. Which in some ways is a precedent for what will come later with the splintering of small petty kingdoms emerging, you've suddenly got this idea that there isn't one single figure who rules over everything in a divinely appointed kind of way. There is an idea that there can be a separation of all of that and that there can be more than one ruler ruling over

this whole territory, which is where the medieval mind gets to with the splintering of all of this and all the small petty kingdoms where the Roman Empire smashes apart. It's like a thousand pieces of glass and eventually it starts being pieced together. Yeah, I mean there will be some exceptions. I mean, the rule of Constantine the Great, of course, Theodosius the Great as well. But usually they find that the empire is just too big, that one person can't deal with it, the fracturing of it. And yes, that will then just kind of go to the next level as you get to the 5th century. And then, you know, it's funny, this idea of breakaway states is nothing new to the Romans by the time they get to the 4th century. As I mentioned Britain earlier, look at Corrosius, who led a breakway state in Britain right around this time, 286.

but as you say it just becomes more I guess the norm it sounds like there's a recognition from the centre as well rather than it being someone breaking away and Rome needing to drag them back into compliance there's a recognition at the centre in Rome that more than one person is maybe needed to rule all of this

yes and then sometimes there are times where they have too much on their plate that they can't I mean Roman Britain look to your own defences and all that kind of stuff right Seagrius and northern France sounds dangerously medieval Yes. This is the problem with dates. Because if I then said, you've also put a good argument there for like, you know, you can see kind of formations of medieval world even back in in the late third century. But if I've already gone for four, seven, six, we'd have to do renegotiation if you then say that this is medieval. I don't think that'd be quite fair. But what do you think about it? That's going to have to be an ancient date. But I think it really plays into this idea that it's a much longer transition than we think it is, that it's going to become harder and harder to hang.

it off one date, whether that's 4-7-6 or any other date, we're looking at a whole period of cultural, societal, political change and evolution, rather than a single cut-off date. It's going to make the rest of this chat quite tricky. I mean, completely, and I'd also argue a transition, but getting out of this linear idea that it's a downward decline consistently. The transition, you can argue, is starting by the end of the third century and into the fourth century. But Rome is, yes, although there's the division of power, yes, the army's different to the one you might think from Gladiator and the like, but is it actually weaker?

Do you argue absolutely not? You know, the amount of, you know, it's still a strong entity. It is just changing in its format. Key period, which will ultimately, you will see evidence of enduring into the medieval world. right okay on to the next one so 410 ad so this is one where we can kind of we can negotiate stuff around if we feel we need to do you know anything about 410 ad is this a sack of rome it is the sack of rome the first a sack of rome a sack of rome can do it more than one but psychologically this is the hammer blow like this is the first time rome has been sacked in some 700 years since the Gauls under a guy called Brennis in around 390 BC, right? So Rome has forged an empire in that time in the Republican period. It's defeated all the old great enemies like Hannibal, the Macedonians, Cleopatra, Augustus, the Trajan. All those big names have existed in that more than half a century since Rome itself was assaulted

and, you know, kind of subjected to a military attack. in what the Romans would have considered ancient history. And is this the Vandals? It's 410 the Vandals? Wash your mouth out with soap. How dare you? No. This is the Goths.

The goths. Visigoths, I guess you could say, visigoths is more later. We would just say the Goths. The Vandals is later though, and you do hit an important point. I think that's 4-5-6. But Rome is sacked twice in the period of 50 years.

And actually that Vandal's sack of Rome by Gaiserick and the Vandals is worse than the four. 410 sack in regards to the devastation and destruction. But the 410 one by Alaric and his followers is, as it's psychologically a hammer blow because it's that first time Rome has actually been attacked and sacked. I don't think the sacking is that brutal. I'm sure people will disagree.

It said, I'm not a leading expert. I'm just trying to remember what David Gwynn told me, as he's one of the leading lights in this. And Peter Hever as well, we interviewed both pretty recently on it. But it's the fact of Rome being sacked, not how badly it was sacked. It's the fact that there is now a rival making its way into the very heart of the Roman Empire, which again, as we talked about before, 7,6, this plays into the idea that something has already changed and happened for the Goths to be there to assault Rome.

Are the Goths are medieval people? Because if there are medieval people attacking Rome, are we in the medieval world? Well, are the Goths are medieval people? I don't think you could say that. But it's like the beginning of a trend of mass migrations into the Roman Empire. the Roman Empire's dealt with migrations before and brought people in, there's been trouble on the frontiers before, they've always brought people in, but it's the scale of them now that's, you know, sending them over the edge. Poor decision-making as well. I mean, the reason that Alaric and the Goths ultimately end up there is they've already had quite a gazump, I'm sure you say, or a blitz around the Balkans and the Eastern Roman Empire, the defeat of the Valens at the Battle of Adrenople a few decades earlier. But the point I was going to say is it's not that brutal attacking.

You know, they don't attack the churches. The Goths are Christian. Alaric had been trying to avoid a sack of Rome. He'd been negotiating with the emperor. The emperor's not there. Rome has lost its kind of, part of its importance is gone by the early fifth century. Ravenna and Milan have been kind of new centres of power for the rulers in the West. Rome is symbolic.

It's the symbolic nature of it that is so devastating. But I think there's a point there in the fact that, you know, it is the start of a trend. It feels like maybe 410 is the alarm clock going off and the Roman Empire kind of rolling over and hit and snooze. Yes. But maybe they should have woken up a bit earlier. I think so, well, whether they could have, because, of course, by 4-10, you've also got other groups crossing the Rhine

a couple of years earlier. Does Rome have the capacity in the West to deal with all these different threats? You have the Huns as well. They'll also invade Italy. Attila will evade Italy as well for a bit as well. So, as you say, it's the start of a process where Italy is no longer the safe area.

You know, no one can touch. It's the flourishing centre. It does hammer away the invincible nature of Rome and this idea which I think was very much there in most people's minds, apart from a select few, I think Augustine of Hippo's one, no one could fathom the Roman Empire falling. You know, it just wasn't in their vocabulary. And then this maybe sets a few more alarm bells ringing that maybe we're seeing the transition into something different, which maybe could that kind of go into the point of a medieval world coming? Yeah, yeah, the medieval world is coming for Rome,

and this is entering Rome, sacking Rome, and proving itself a rival for Rome. Have you got any other thoughts on this from your medieval mindset? It's tricky, isn't it? I mean, I guess part of the question is what are we talking about changing when we think about changing to the medieval world? And there's a degree to which it's about a little bit of trade and commerce and stuff as well in that it feels to me, as a complete non-expert, like Rome has become the centre of consumption,

but it produces absolutely nothing. So we're moving to an economy in which rather than rich people producing everything that they need on their own villas and estates, and buying in everything from abroad, we're changing to a place in which people are indulging in commerce and trade on a much wider scale and producing things and making things. And has that happened yet? I don't think it has.

I think you're quite right. I think, but it is just one of those standout dates, isn't it, that we often associate with the end of ancient Rome. And I'm as guilty as anyone to love a solid date for something. It's like if you want to pinpoint a date, We talked earlier about 4-7-6 being like the end of the Roman Empire in the West. I think 4-10 is another one of those

because, as you say, nothing completely different has changed as such. The Goths will go away, but they will then pave out their own kingdom in southern France. You know, that lays the future for the Visigoths in Spain, right? And so that's very medieval times. From my perspective, it would be interesting to see what people think. 476, if you did an episode on 476 on Gone Medieval,

I might be like okay but I get it I completely understand it because I can see the point being made that it's a date which we pinpoint

to the end of antiquity it's certainly now actually within that transitional phase to what you see as in the medieval times 410 I'd probably be a bit like not sure about that

it's almost like you're doing an episode about the worst year to be alive in the 6th century maybe we'll get to that in a bit yeah yeah exactly you're quite right

or even maybe events in the early 7th century in West Asia. I think I'm going to have to let you keep that one though. I think I'm going to have to take another hit on this. I'm piling up quite a few here at the moment but and lo and behold another card has appeared Emperor Justinian

yeah this is all bets are off fisty cuffs you could be coming for me with this one yeah make your case. We've done an episode on gummed evil. Oh is that it? That is my case hand it over. Justinian is a really really interesting one so

by his anti-emperor, effectively emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. So we have to concede here that the Roman Empire still exists in its eastern form. Justinian is really interesting. He goes through phases of trying to recapture the Roman Empire, but only parts of it that are economically important. So around the Mediterranean fringe, the south of Spain and Italy, and the north of Africa. He seems to have recognized that you need to cut some of the provinces loose that aren't bringing in enough money and he focuses his efforts on getting back definitely Italy which is you know the spiritual heart of the roman empire but the rest of his efforts are focused on the bits that make money north africa isn't it that area yeah yeah and southern

spain and he's really keen to get those back in order to fund his own imperial exercise in the east justinian is really interesting though because i think we have someone here who is thoroughly and devotedly christian in a very medieval sense so So lots of the early doctrine that we get and lots of the early theological debates about medieval Christianity come from Justinian's court. What we think of largely as a lot of Roman law and jurisprudence is what Justinian distills it down to. And it again emerges from his court.

So Justinian law will form the basis of European civil law for more than a millennium after him. You know, it's still the basis of some systems of civil. law in Europe today. So here is a man who is literally sitting in his office with a bit of paper designing the medieval world. So interesting, isn't it?

God, when you put it like that, it's he is seismic for that change and everything he goes to as well. It almost feels like part of it, he is harkening back to the ancient Roman heyday and, it said, reclaiming those lands, seeing him just as the clear successor.

But him personally, transforming the world around him. Yeah. And his background, I think, is interesting as well. You know, he comes from an incredibly impoverished family in the Balkans. His uncle goes off to the imperial court, rises in the imperial guard, calls for his nephew, you know, I can get him a job over here, get him a good education. And so he rises from complete obscurity and poverty to become the emperor of the Byzantine Empire. And there's a medieval story in that, because what is the early medieval period? But the first, the first of the first. But the first,

fight for the right to rule everywhere, where almost anybody, if you're smart enough or strong enough, can become a king. I would argue you can see that also, though, in the late period of ancient history as well, with usurpers and the like. But maybe, as you say, Justinian is just another, like, a case of that to an extreme because of how powerful, you know, an empire he rules. It is interesting to think of whether the change from antiquity to medieval period you kind of really, you really see a big spark in that during Justinian's reign and by infamous events like the Justinian plague, the plague Justinian that breaks out

because of how devastating it is, because of how something like that it is a black death plague, isn't it? Carried by the fleas on rats and it's... What's more medieval than a plague? Well, I mean, that's thing, but it does, I mean, the law code and everything as well, I'm no expert on this, but it does feel that you have that conglomeration of

game-changing events that happen in his long reign, that you do see Rome is never the same again in a way, right? I would also concede here that the ancient world kind of never goes away in the medieval world. Medieval people

would never have called themselves medieval. They wouldn't have been looking for dates like this. They see a degree of continuity and they are obsessed with ancient Rome, with the architecture with building in stone as a projection of power, that never ever goes away. Particularly later in the medieval period, when Western Europe comes back into contact with ancient Greek and Roman writings after the Crusades, they are absolutely obsessed with all of that. And we get Romanesque architecture, building castles and churches, because they're

obsessed. So it isn't that people suddenly turn away from the ancient world. The question is, is this a medieval man living in an ancient world, or ancient man living in a medieval world. That's so interesting. And I would argue that he is a medieval man who is reshaping his empire to fit with the new medieval world that is around him. I think that's spot on. I can see the logic of that, but I can't say I think that's spot on from a degree of authority, but I can see what you mean. It is the case, isn't it? When I think of Justinian, I might also think of the Nica riots. But, you know, of course, that's a chariot race, isn't it? It works for a chariot race, and you think chariots think ancient Rome. So you can see the ancient

element still there. I think Belisarius is sometimes dubbed what, like the last Roman, but there's always so many people who are dubbed the last Roman, but in that kind of, I think, a classical ancient sense, that last attempt to retake those former Roman lands in the heartlands of North Africa and Sicily and Italy. And the success it brings, you know, for a time, they retake Rome, I think 5, 3, 6, so symbolically 60 years after the deposition of Romulus Augustulus. So there's a clear link there, something very symbolic there, an idea to say, oh no, we're

going to get things back to normal. You know, you've had these Ostrogoths in Italy, but we're back now. I think with Justinian, what you get is a desire to still connect with all of that from the past, but a recognition that there's now a new way of doing everything. The fact that, you know, it doesn't last,

because you have all those other new powers who were much stronger than they were before, north of the outs, the Lombards and Franks and so on and so forth, who, you know, kind of make that not be the case that they lose Italy quite soon afterwards. I think I can give you this. I think so. I think that's more.

I have no regrets about doing 541 AD the worst year in history on the ancients podcast because I think you can say that there is still an ancient world before the bubonic plague. And I think Justinian is an interesting figure to hang a discussion around the fact that that transition from ancient to medieval must happen in different places

at different times at different paces. Again, we're not talking about, you know, The sun goes down on one day on an ancient world and rises on a medieval one. Yeah, completely. Should we do the next one? Yes, go for it. Oh, this should be quite easy. Charlemagne, I'm not claiming him.

You don't want it? No, not at all. When is he? How much further on is he? So we're around 800 here. He's his coronation in the year 800. And I guess why he's in there is because he will have himself crowned as a Roman emperor. You know, he is making the first maybe serious effort.

to reconfigure, to rebuild what was once the Western Roman Empire. You know, he has what we would call today all of kind of Germany to France and all of the bits and pieces in between. He brings all of those back together and is keen to identify himself as a successor to Rome. So clearly in Charlemagne's mind, the ancient world still means something. It's something that you still want to recapture. It still symbolises power and authority and connoissees. continuity and certainty and strength and all of those things that are a king and emperor will

want to project. But again, is he just using all of those notions to give him a step up in the medieval world? Yeah, I think they're just further affirms that this is very much a medieval period because they're hearkening back to the memory of something now gone. And also, who crowned Charlemagne? The Pope. The Pope, exactly. Something completely alien to ancient rulers, I'd say. So I've not disputing that at all. He's clearly a medieval figure. I guess one of the big titans of early medieval history, right? He is. He's absolutely huge. And, you know, engaging in thoroughly medieval battles, what we would recognize as medieval battles. How big are these battles? Are they on the scale

of ancient Rome? Probably not, no. We're in a time period. It's hard to get numbers for medieval battles. It's probably easier for some Roman battles than it is for some medieval battles. They're notoriously bad at giving us numbers. And so it gets really, really difficult to pin them down. But you're in this kind of period, you're quite often talking about handfuls of knights on horses. You know, it could be 20, 30 people who are the serious elite involved in the fighting here. So you're talking about small-scale battles most often. Charlemagne does, you know, he's, again, he's working to push back the Islamic presence in southern Iberia. So, you know, he's recognizing that there are boundaries to his empire and wanting to push back

and push around. I think he's using the ancient world. but he's a medieval man. I think this also harkens to another thing that I commonly associate with medieval versus ancient, which is the clear decline in army size and the complexities of certain military exercise. and campaigns. Now, I can't say that, you know, for everything, because I don't know. But from an outsider looking in, it feels like when you get to the early medieval period that the armies, they're not on the scale of earlier Roman imperial expeditions against Parthia or Sasanian Persia and the like, which, as you said, is that testament to that

new, I'm not using the dreaded F word, feudal word, until there, because that's me being an idiot. But maybe, you know, the system's a power, right? I mean, you can use the F word. But I think the key thing there is that the key marker is that Rome has a standing army paid for by the empire. Throughout the medieval period, you simply don't have countries till very, very late, having anything that resembles a standing army. You're raising the feudal levies. You're calling in people who owe you allegiance and owe you military service to act as your army. So there's a clear divide there, I think, between the ancient world where regimes had standing armies that they trained and paid for and could... deploy wherever they wanted to and the medieval world where this is a much more kind of

makeshift you don't incur the cost of a huge standing army do you think that's also what makes belisarius's expedition to north italy and and italy ultimately um so remarkable because it feels like an ancient history military expedition you know but in a changing world but this idea that you could send i mean you might not see until maybe the crusades later or something like that, where you can get an army from a power, you know, to ferry across the Mediterranean and then start a campaign afresh. I'm hearkening back also to doing Rome two total war and the Belisarius campaign. But I hope you know what I mean. It's that idea that such an idea may feel unfathomable to early medieval periods. I'm sure they're like the Normans

and Sicily might be a contrast, but I don't know. But it does lean into again what we're saying that the ancient world hasn't gone away. People are recognising that there's a need to do things in a new and different way. But that doesn't mean you can't try the old stuff. You know, throughout the medieval period, the prevailing military wisdom is Vigetius from the end of the Roman Empire. You know, they will completely and utterly lean on him

until the end of the medieval period. So there is still a recognition that the ancient world knew how to do some things. Very true. All right, well, let's keep going on. Okay, this is an interesting one. Emperor Constantine, so early 4th century. Wait, did you just steal Charlemagne?

Yeah, sorry, I did. My bad. That's yours. Yeah, that wouldn't look good, would it? You've got your three there. You've got Justinian, Charlemagne, and Battle of Tour. Okay, good. I've got my power here.

Yes, Emperor Constantine. What main achievements? Yes, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. What's he most associated with Christianity? And it would always be debated, you know, why he embraces Christianity, the Milvean Bridge. The Cairo story, Eusebius, and so on. But he does. He's part of the tetrarchy, that rule of four, that mentioned earlier.

but then after a series of civil wars becomes the sole ruler of Roman Empire in the 4th century obviously his other big legacy is the founding of Constantinople, the renaming of Byzantium to Constantinople and then making his own seat of power although it will not straight away be like the great centre of the Roman Empire

once again David Gwynne encyclopedia on this stuff saying how Theodosius the Great so much later in the 4th century is more that Constantinople is clearly at the centre. But the question here is, like, does he lay the foundations, I guess, for the Eastern Roman, the Byzantine Empire? I would be tempted, controversially, to make a hard play for Constantine. Would you? Interesting.

So you're going to make a play for three, two, eight, you know, early 14th century? In that, what is the medieval period, but the story of the emergence and the ascendancy of the Roman church? The adoption of Christianity is the beginning of that process. And when I said earlier that, you know, as far as I'm aware, you know, Rome has this economy that doesn't kind of produce and export anything, the sudden realization that it needs to produce and export something comes along. And what does it export? It exports religion, Christianity. And who starts that Constantine does. Here is a man who is realizing that Rome needs to change. Here is a man who realizes that Rome needs to change, even though Christians are just like 5% of the empire's population at the time. I guess he's ahead of his time I know I think he's David Potter interviewed one of the first interviews ever did on the podcast

but I remember him saying this I mentioned how he thinks Constantine was hedging his bets you know you'll see coins you know he's clear linked to Christianity only gets baptized when he's on his deathbed so in the 3 30s you also have coins

of Constantine I think it's with Solimvictus and the like so it's still say it's a transitional faith I get what you mean now but he's also set in motion yes the things that will ultimately define the medieval period. He does. I think you could do a legacy of Constantine

and that would be medieval because he's such a big figure. I couldn't say I would not be allowed to get away with saying that Constantine the Great is a medieval figure ahead of his time because he's still very much in that imperial system. He reverts to one-man rule of the entire empire and he's successful largely because there aren't any big threats from the Persians or on the Rhine at that time. I'd also say someone who's, you know,

there's a couple of other kings around him until he beats them up and becomes sole ruler is very medieval. Would you? Well, yeah, yeah, but Rome also has precedence for doing that with, you know, rival claimants for the throne. You've got so many civil wars. I just feel like you're getting too many here.

Just making a bid for Constantine. Put them in the middle. In the middle. All right, fine. You'd have to think very carefully how you did a gone medieval episode about Constantine the Great. That's all I'll say. Otherwise you'd ambush me in the office again.

Who did what? This is a very interesting one, though. 628, 630s, West Asia, which, you know, is the Arab conquests. Rise of Islam. Would you like to say something first about it? I think this is perhaps one of the most interesting things, because I think lots of people will immediately think that has to be medieval. But the rise of Islam on the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire is fascinating.

because the medieval world, like I say, after the crusades, when the medieval world in Western Europe comes back into contact with lots of the teachings of Rome and Greece, they get that from their Muslim enemies. And I think the Muslims would argue there's this kind of mini-enlightment in Western Europe when all of that knowledge and power comes back. I think Muslims in the Near East would argue

that they never forgot all of that ancient wisdom in the way that Western Europe had. they come into contact with the Eastern Roman Empire and as far as they're concerned it's still the Roman Empire I think there are lots of ways as much as I hate shooting myself in the foot I think there are lots of interesting ways in which the Arab world has a stronger connection

to the ancient world than medieval Europe does by this point it's interesting because we're doing that geographic shift aren't we this is the first one when we're kind of talking beyond Europe and the Mediterranean basin and you do make the point how you know before that

you have a situation in West Asia that has been there for centuries the fact that you've got west of the Euphrates the Romans and east of the Euphrates the Persians right and it's been that kind of

fighting back and forth for centuries whether it's Sasanians Parthians well those are the main two with the Romans aren't they so it is very interesting interesting that you have that context of, you can argue, two ancient superpowers. So when we did do this episode on the ancients recently, we kind of framed it as of such, you know, this is the story of the fall of one of those superpowers in the Sasanian Persians

and also the continue, well, you know, the decline of another one, West of Euphrates. And the story, how that power balance, two superpowers ruling Mesopotamia, Syria, area, that thing that's been there forever, and people expected, you know, would just return to as it had been before, is completely derailed by the Arab conquest, by the taking of Persia, by the uniting of both sides of the Euphrates under one calendar. I think the tricky thing is, if you said 635 in the rise of Islam, people would say medieval. If you said a rising Arab superpower that fights the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire, that sounds incredibly ancient. I think it stretches both, which once again shows how permeable medieval, medieval, ancient is, and you can't put a direct date on it. But the fact is, you know, the spread of Islam so quickly in those armies after that, Egypt, and then as you mentioned earlier, all the way ultimately to Morocco and southern Spain,

that is clearly medieval. So if we've conceded Constantine belongs somewhere in the middle, do we think this probably belongs somewhere in the middle as well? Yeah, go on then, I think so. But it's funny, isn't it? Once again, it shows how you've got someone from the fourth century there, someone from the seventh century there. I will always say that Constantine is still ancient

but I can see the conception of it potentially being there But last one is got to do a quick fire A bit of a curveball But we've been talking about how we've been focusing on Europe And West Asia Mesoamerica Does ancient medieval crossover Does it apply to Mesoamerica

I don't think it can I don't think it can either It's so tricky because I think if you said Aztecs and Mayans people would think you're talking about ancient civilizations. Oh, I disagree. I think Aztecs know because they have direct contact with the Spanish. Aztex and Inca, I would never, I would hesitate against doing on the Ancients podcast

because I think it's so, you know, it's within 600 or 700 years or so, isn't it? Yeah. But the others, yes, I don't know. But it's tricky then to put a date on when do you medievalize that because you can talk, you know, late 15th century when Europeans arrive, but that's suggesting that somehow the Europeans are bringing something new and brilliant rather than destroying what's already there. So I think South America, the Americas are one of those places where it's really, really difficult to periodise history in the same way as we do in Europe.

Because you've done Kohokia, haven't you? And I must make Kohokia in North America, you know, great earthen mound and a great city, wasn't it, in North America, you know, is one I would, I have thought once in a while about doing, but I still think it was too far ahead that I hesitated to do it and say it was ancient history. Yeah. It feels like it should be medieval, but that's us sitting in Europe probably

projecting our ideas across. And, you know, there are places like China, Japan that we could talk about where they just simply wouldn't recognize the periodization of history that we use in Western Europe. And I think probably the Americas is the same. But it's interesting with China and India's other ones.

China is like sometimes they love a big date. You'll put like the end of the Han dynasty, so third century or the beginning of the Tang one of those dynasties that that's the medieval period in India they might say it's the fall of the Guptas and then that from on

is the time of medieval period so it almost feels like there's more clear cut because of that Eurasian landmass yeah and there is connection I think that there is more easy to put a pinpoint between ancient medieval

with India and China whereas Mesoamerica different yeah I think China the Tang dynasty in the 7th century starts to feel very very medieval that very quickly moves

its way the principles of that to Japan as well and they get the Taika reforms in Japan in the kind of mid-seventh century and it starts to feel much more like a feudal what we might recognise as a medieval society but again it's just tricky to do it everywhere all at once well that's it

I will put that as once again kind of an undecided one in the middle how do you feel? The score is the only important thing I've got three I would claim constant time but I'm going to put constant time there for them fine we do a school job all right all right diplomatic end to the chat.

But yeah, that was good fun. I think it's been really interesting and very, very interesting to actually think about some people who you might think of as medieval, might have actually lived before people that you think of as, or events that you think of as ancient.

And just how blurry and porous that border between us is. So maybe you should stop beating me up in the office and we should just be friends. I know, I know, I'm just too competitive in that regard. But no, it's been great. And finally, we've had you on the podcast, my friend.

and you know it's always nice to a history hit crossover when we can especially for time period podcasts where it's more difficult to get those crossovers but it feels like a nice topic to do friendly conversation and lots of room for people to debate so let us know your thoughts in the comments because I'm sure you've got quite a lot Matt it just goes to me to say thank you so much for taking the time I've been an absolute joy thank you Tristan well there you go I loved doing that discussion with Matt

And I hope you guys did too. It was really fun, really lighthearted, and we'd love to hear what you think. When do you think the ancient world ends and the medieval world begins over how large a period of time, when and where? We'd love to hear from you, so make sure to leave a comment on Spotify if you're listening there or on our brand's new ancients YouTube channel, because this episode was filmed, and it will also be up on YouTube now. my thanks also to Matt and shout out to his brilliant podcast he is one of the hosts of the gone medieval podcast also from history hit now finally thank you to you for listening to this episode of the ancients please follow the show on spotify or wherever you get your podcasts that really helps us and you'll be doing us a big favor if you'd also be kind enough to leave us a rating as well well we'd really appreciate that now don't forget you can also listen to us and all of history hits podcasts add free and watch hundreds of teams of TV documentaries when you subscribe at historyhit.com slash subscribe. That's all from me. I'll see you in the next episode.