I need some help to understand English sentences about Late-Romans and Vandals

I am not sure if my thread belongs here.

For the record English is not my first- nor second-language. For that reason I need some help.

In the 400s the western part of Roman Empire collapsed unlike the eastern part which remained for 1000 years more.

I am reading David Potter’s “Rome in the Ancient World”, and I am not quite sure that I understand the text fully:



What do “was expressing a desire for greater intimacy” and “evaded her brother’s clutches” mean exactly? - Did Honorius try to have sex with his sister?

And what does “ill-will” mean in this context?

And who is “the governor” that Galla summoned to fight Aetius?



I try to summarize it, and please correct me:

The Vandals were in Spain, and later the Visigoths arrived to the peninsula. The Vandals intended to migrate to North Africa.

Honorius married his sister, Galla, to Constantius III. The latter died. Then Honorius wanted to have sex with his sister (??), so Galla flee to Constantinople. Honorius died later. The officials in Italy tried to place John as the emperor, but Galla protested, and instead her son Valentinian became emperor of the western part of Roman Empire. But Aetius, a high ranked general during Honorius’ time, said no. So Galla summoned “the governor” (who is he?), and thus Vandals managed to take Carthage without trouble because the Romans were engaged in infight.

Have I undestood it correct? - If I have, then tell me who "the governor" is, and what "ill-will" means?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, English is my only language, sorry to say, and I am puzzled by the "desire for greater intimacy." The author might trying to soften the incest angle by using such a phrase. It does seem that he means incest to me, but I'm not sure.

Galla's "ill-will" came from being passed around as a sexual-political pawn, I'm guessing. Online, I see "ill-will" is defined as "animosity or bitterness" which sounds right.

Sorry to say I do not know who the governor is.

From just a quick perusal of the section you show in the post, I get the feeling the author is using ancient sources without a lot of questioning. I mention this because late empire sources are scanty and tend to be very biased. This is why, for instance, you will see references to Faustina I being sexually promiscuous, based I think, on a single fleeting reference from a single sketchy source. That Honorius had incestuous urges towards his sister may be the truth, but I wonder who said so and how many years after the events?

 

This is what Vagi* has to say:

"As unwilling as Honorius was to share his office, he no doubt was saddened when a few months later (September, 421) Constantius III died of what seemingly were natural causes.

"The childless Honorius was thus robbed of an immediate heir, but in turn received a future one, for Constantius III and Placidia had two children, one of whom was the future emperor Valentinian III. Ancient historians tell us of another part of Honorius' personality, for he was unnaturally fond of his half-sister. His public expressions of this love, which appeared blatantly incestuous to those observing, caused riots between various political factions in the streets of Ravenna. However, their love became strained and turned sour, causing Honorius to banish Galla Placidia and her children in 422 or 423."

~~~

*Vagi, David L. Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, c. 82 B.C.- A.D. 480. Vol. 1, Coin World, 1999, p. 544. See also p. 555.

 

Your use of English, Herberto is quite good. If the author sounds vague it is probably because the sources are so vague and his use of what we call circumlocutions comes from a desire not to use coarse or graphic language that might upset readers. You raise a very valid question when you remind us that only the Western portion of the Empire fell and that the Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire continued for another thousand years. Historians in English speaking countries do not spend that much time on Constantinople, either the Byzantine Empire or its people. They seem much happier delving into the Dark Ages in Western Europe and when the Byzantine Empire reemerges in the history books at the time of the Crusades it is usually presented in a negative light. I wish you much good fortune in learning more about the Fall of the (Western) Roman Empire and please write on this site more often.

 

Circumlocution! I was trying to think of that word. Thanks Kevin.

Online dictionary definition:

"the use of many words where fewer would do, especially in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive."

 

Hello once again. Thank you for the replies.

I have now another problem with an English sentence. I understand the word for word, but i am not 100% sure about the meaning. The word "yet" is very unsual from my non-English tongue.

I am reading "Barbarians, Marauders, And Infidels" by Antonio Santosuosso.

He writes about Theodoric the Great that:

"Theodoric never came to terms with the realization that the Italian population tolerated his rule yet considered the emperor at Constantinople their legitimate ruler."

Here the full text:


What does that mean exactly?

a: That the Italian population accepted Theodoric, but they also accepted the emperor at Constantinople as their legitimate ruler, and that annoyed Theodoric.

b. That the Italian population did NOT accept Theodoric, but they accepted the emperor at Constantinople as their legitimate ruler.

I am very sure "a" is the correct answer, but I want to be 100% sure.

Thank you for any help you can provide.





I think I will make another thread later, where I will explain why the Western Roman Empire fell based on academic sources.

 

Much closer to a than b.

 

They considered the emperor in Constantinople their ruler, but they tolerated Theodoric rather throwing him out, as long as he didn't push them too far, make them too angry.

You could rewrite the sentence as:
""Theodoric never came to terms with the realization that the Italian population tolerated his rule even though they considered the emperor at Constantinople their legitimate ruler."

 

Leaving her and the population of Rome to their fate with Alaric besieging the city, and running to Ravenna, must have made a very romantic impression.

 

They considered the German king their de facto ruler (for the moment) but the Byzantine emperor as their de jure ruler (whenever he could reassert his authority..

 

Is it any clearer if you replace "yet" with "but still" or "and still"? (It's hard for me to guess, because I unfortunately know only English and a tiny bit of German.)

 

Hello once again

Basically Byzantine Empire is still "Late Roman Empire".



There is a primary source called “Primary Chronicle” which deals with the conversion of Vladimir I of Kyiv. Muslims, Jews and the Christians arrived to his court to convince him of the truth of their own religion. The Christians of Constantinople eventually won him. But I don’t completely understand the whole details.


From: https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/russianprimarychronicle.html

It begins from “VLADIMIR CHRISTIANIZES RUSSIA”.

---------------------------
Then came the Germans, asserting that they were come as emissaries of the Pope. They added, "Thus says the Pope: 'Your country is like our country, but your faith is not as ours. For our faith is the light. We worship God, who had made heaven and earth, the stars, the moon, and every creature, while your gods are only wood.'" Vladimir inquired what their teaching was. They replied, "fasting according to one's own strength. But whatever one eats or drinks is all to the glory of God, as our teacher Paul has said." Then Vladimir answered, "Depart hence; our fathers accepted no such principle."
...........................................

Why did Vladimir refute them and said "depart hence" ? Because Vladimir did not like fasting? (Because the Greeks do it I think, and he picked their religion)

 

Here I will introduce to you a word not much used in English but which explains to me what was going on here, theological "gobbledygook", that is, a wordy jargon used by people trying to explain the inexplicable. Confusing nonsense. The whole story makes Vladimir look pretty intelligent.