Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of My
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick and
Speaker 1: Rob do it. What's what's that sound? Is that the
Speaker 1: sound of us digging down a historical rabbit hole that
Speaker 1: you got interested in? What what are we doing today? Oh?
Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to talk about the fall
Speaker 1: of Valerian, Emperor Valerian of Rome. Uh, this is this is,
Speaker 1: this is gonna be I think a fun one, even
Speaker 1: though this is this is certainly gonna be more of
Speaker 1: a historical direction, not the first time that we've we
Speaker 1: we've gone down a historical rabbit hole, as you say,
Speaker 1: But I think, as always it's important to remember in
Speaker 1: this context, you know what histories are. It's kind of
Speaker 1: like you have you have, you know, histories within with
Speaker 1: capital aging, histories with the lower case h um. Histories
Speaker 1: in general, written his stories, oral histories, past down histories,
Speaker 1: resurrected histories are accounts of the past that very often
Speaker 1: have viewpoints, biases, agendas. They're constructed from memories, evidence, and
Speaker 1: pre existing accounts, all of which are subject to error.
Speaker 1: In short, interest in history is not only a matter
Speaker 1: of what happened, but also why did this version of
Speaker 1: what happened happen? Why is this the account that was
Speaker 1: written down or told to others? And um, these are
Speaker 1: all interesting questions to ask about the fall of Emperor Valerian,
Speaker 1: questions that still remain today about what actually happened to him.
Speaker 1: Also how did the defeat go down? But but mostly
Speaker 1: what was his ultimate fate? Ah. So here you're interested
Speaker 1: not only in a question of history, as in what's
Speaker 1: the best we can figure out what happened in the past,
Speaker 1: but a question of historiography. Why did certain historians of
Speaker 1: the past write about history in a certain way? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And I think ultimately this is a story that is
Speaker 1: interesting on both counts because it's also fascinating to to
Speaker 1: look at the various histories and piece together in your
Speaker 1: mind this story of just countless on the in the
Speaker 1: Roman imperial side, you know, just constant overthrow and backstabbing. Uh.
Speaker 1: This uh, this this era of chaos that sees just
Speaker 1: emperor after emperor fall, to all of the infighting in
Speaker 1: Rome as well as to some of the uh, the
Speaker 1: fighting on the borders of the Roman Empire, as well,
Speaker 1: and yeah, then there's also this this question of of well,
Speaker 1: what are these different stories regarding the fate of Valerian
Speaker 1: and what do they mean and how are we supposed
Speaker 1: to interpret them, uh from our modern standpoint. So I'm
Speaker 1: just curious, how did you get interested in this, in particular,
Speaker 1: this question about what happened to Emperor Valerian. I think
Speaker 1: this is one of those kind of just tangent steering
Speaker 1: research where I just I was working on something else
Speaker 1: and then I was curious. I was looking into maybe
Speaker 1: various um emperors and the fall of various emperors and uh,
Speaker 1: and then I started I think I initially just clicked
Speaker 1: on on just like a basic page about Valerian and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, and read some some grizzly details about what
Speaker 1: might have happened to him, and that got me thinking,
Speaker 1: It's like, well, this sounds this is really severe. You know,
Speaker 1: what were the ramifications of this? And then I started
Speaker 1: digging in a little deeper classic rabbit hole dynamics. All right, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: all right. So to begin with, let's talk about where
Speaker 1: we're gonna go in what time period we're traveling to.
Speaker 1: For the most part, here, we have to journey to
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire during a time that is known as
Speaker 1: the Crisis of the third century, a period of decades
Speaker 1: lasting from two thirty five to two eighty four CE,
Speaker 1: during which the Roman Empire was just defined by anarchy
Speaker 1: and strife, a time in which it nearly collapsed. One
Speaker 1: of the books that I was looking to for this
Speaker 1: is actually it's an older history book, series of popular
Speaker 1: history books came out many decades ago from Will Durant.
Speaker 1: Uh this is the Story of Civilization. And there's one
Speaker 1: section in the book that deals with primarily with the
Speaker 1: with the Romans, titled the Collapse of the Empire, and
Speaker 1: there's a great quote I want to read from that quote,
Speaker 1: we shall not repeat in bloody detail the names and
Speaker 1: battles and deaths of these impervors of anarchy. In the
Speaker 1: thirty five years between Alexander Severus and Orillian, thirty seven
Speaker 1: men were proclaimed emperors. I'm gonna say it, that's too
Speaker 1: many emperors. That's too many, is it is? It's that
Speaker 1: is just that is that has a lot of emperors
Speaker 1: to go through in such a short period of time,
Speaker 1: And like Will Durant, we are not going to go
Speaker 1: through all of them. We're gonna mention some of them,
Speaker 1: just to give you a little color for just how
Speaker 1: much turmoil, how much turnover there was. This was the
Speaker 1: time period during which there was there was really not
Speaker 1: any job security to being the emperor of Rome. You know.
Speaker 1: One thing that's always interesting to me about Roman history
Speaker 1: is not just that basically that all Roman emperors are
Speaker 1: bad leaders by modern morals and modern standards, but that
Speaker 1: most Roman emperors were bad leaders by Roman standards. Yeah.
Speaker 1: There there's when you start talking about, well, who are
Speaker 1: the worst emperors, it's you can draw up a pretty
Speaker 1: exhaustive list, uh, and then that they're actually there are
Speaker 1: actually some some pretty pretty fun lists of the shore
Speaker 1: you can find on the internet. But a number of
Speaker 1: really bad ones do occur during this time. Some of
Speaker 1: the other really famous bad ones occur prior to this period.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the Crisis of the Third century runs from
Speaker 1: two thirty five to two eighty four, So that race
Speaker 1: was the question, what do these dates mean? Let's start
Speaker 1: with two thirty five. In the year two thirty five, Uh,
Speaker 1: the Emperor Severus Alexander is assassinated by his own troops.
Speaker 1: So Alexander was had been named emperor at age fourteen,
Speaker 1: and he was a progressive figure in many respects who
Speaker 1: sought to restore the power of the senate and the
Speaker 1: aristocracy and to weaken the dominance of the Roman military.
Speaker 1: So he built libraries, public baths, and other works in
Speaker 1: the empire. He engaged in various economic programs to bring
Speaker 1: down interest rates and also helped the poor. Now I
Speaker 1: say progressive in many respects because he also enforced various
Speaker 1: morality based laws that saw the arrest of prostitutes the
Speaker 1: deportation of homosexuals. Still considered that previous emperors included the
Speaker 1: likes of Caligula, Nero, and Commitists. Uh, these are all
Speaker 1: names that that probably ring a bell in everyone's head,
Speaker 1: you know some of the stories about these individuals. Even
Speaker 1: if that scene from the movie where Caligula chops off
Speaker 1: people's heads with the lawnmower didn't really happen in history,
Speaker 1: Caligula was a really bad guy. Yeah, it's still in
Speaker 1: the spirit of Caligula. So Alexander's immediate predecessor was an
Speaker 1: emperor by the name of a Lagabalus who had died
Speaker 1: at age eighteen following a short rain that's noted mostly
Speaker 1: for scandals and excess, though Durrant notes that something you
Speaker 1: have to keep in mind, I guess with a lot
Speaker 1: of these individuals is that at least some of these
Speaker 1: scandals were probably fabricated by enemies, of which um uh
Speaker 1: Alagabalus had many in the senatorial class. So just so
Speaker 1: one of one of the many examples will be pointing
Speaker 1: to in this episode where history and the truth is
Speaker 1: of course tweaked to serve some sort of an agenda,
Speaker 1: but by by all accounts, still not a great emperor.
Speaker 1: He hosted weird lotteries, and there's actually an excellent horrible
Speaker 1: history sketch from the historical Comedy of show on British
Speaker 1: television about this. Oh you shared this with me, but
Speaker 1: I'm sorry I did not have time to watch it yet.
Speaker 1: I'm I can't wait to once we're done here. Basically,
Speaker 1: I mean the story is that, yeah, he was like,
Speaker 1: well let's have a lottery, let's let's have some fun romans.
Speaker 1: But you might win some money or a house, but
Speaker 1: you also might win just a whole bunch of flies
Speaker 1: or a poisonous snake. Things. So it was, you know,
Speaker 1: in a way, it was it was kind of like
Speaker 1: very strange reality television of this time period. Huh. Um.
Speaker 1: So I remember Ella Ablis has come up on the
Speaker 1: show at least once before, because it was in our
Speaker 1: invention episode on the history of air conditioning. And there's
Speaker 1: a story told by I'm sorry, I forget the Roman historian,
Speaker 1: but somebody tells a story about Ella Ablas cooling his
Speaker 1: his orchard or his you know, the courtyard at his
Speaker 1: palace by having people bring down snow from the tops
Speaker 1: of a nearby mountain and pile it up just to
Speaker 1: like things cool in the summer, uh, which overall is
Speaker 1: very inefficient. But what I think we decided, well, if
Speaker 1: there's a huge block of snow that would actually sort
Speaker 1: of cool off the area, especially if there's like breeze
Speaker 1: blowing over it. Uh. So this is uh, I guess
Speaker 1: if that's true clever but also kind of kind of excessive.
Speaker 1: But then again, we we also addressed the question of
Speaker 1: whether or not that was true, because I think the
Speaker 1: historian who told that story was a marked adversary of
Speaker 1: the legacy of this emperor. M Yeah, it may have
Speaker 1: just been trying to make him look stupid, right and
Speaker 1: like and also if you're if you happen to be
Speaker 1: this teenage emperor of Rome. I mean, maybe you just
Speaker 1: asked that they bring snow to your house once, and
Speaker 1: then your enemies find out about it, and they're like,
Speaker 1: he brings snow to his house every day. It's the
Speaker 1: most extravagant thing I've ever heard of. Oh yeah, I
Speaker 1: remember when he created ice town. At any rate, about
Speaker 1: the only good thing to say about and it seems
Speaker 1: is that he did seem interested in spring religious freedom
Speaker 1: in the empire, if only so he could keep worshiping
Speaker 1: the Syrian god ball himself. So when Severus Alexander becomes
Speaker 1: emperor at age fourteen, the same as his predecessor, things,
Speaker 1: I guess seemed to be moving in a different direction,
Speaker 1: and his rule proves stable, lasting thirteen years, the longest
Speaker 1: reign of a single emperor in decades. At that point
Speaker 1: he was a temperate figure, and especially early on, his
Speaker 1: mother companion commanded a great deal of power through him,
Speaker 1: and I think was was always a powerful figure in
Speaker 1: his administration, if you will. Together they showed a certain
Speaker 1: amount of openness to the practice of Judaism and Christianity
Speaker 1: within the empire. They even lowered taxes. But of course
Speaker 1: he courted a powerful enemy in attempting to reduce the
Speaker 1: power of the Roman military, and Rome had many external
Speaker 1: enemies during this time, including the Sasanian Empire UH, sometimes
Speaker 1: referred to as the Uh Sassanid Empire or sometimes referred
Speaker 1: to as as a dynasty rather than an empire. This
Speaker 1: is located in Persia and at this point in time
Speaker 1: only recently established in two twenty four by the founder
Speaker 1: Ottashir the First, So about eight years into Alexander's rule,
Speaker 1: the Sasanian army under Ottashir In invades Mesopotamia and threatens
Speaker 1: Roman held Syria. So Alexander initially responds by basically sending
Speaker 1: him a statement condemning the violence of the invasion and
Speaker 1: telling him, look, everyone should be content with current borders
Speaker 1: and domains, and also kind of warning them, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna mess with Rome, you're not going to find it
Speaker 1: as easy as the wars you've been you've been waging previously. Now. Ottashir,
Speaker 1: perhaps interpreting this as weakness, then follows up by demanding
Speaker 1: all of Syria and Asia minor from Rome, and this
Speaker 1: results in a direct military response from Alexander, and he
Speaker 1: manages to push Sasanian forces of Mesopotamia by two thirty three.
Speaker 1: But that's when Rome's Germanic enemies to the north, the
Speaker 1: Alamanni and the Marcomanni, attack, taking advantage of the pleaded
Speaker 1: northern forces to attack Gaul. So Alexander and his mother
Speaker 1: they rejoined the army, having only just briefly celebrated um
Speaker 1: sort of victory over the Sasanians, and he leads the
Speaker 1: army to meet this new threat. On his mother's advice,
Speaker 1: he pushes for peace with the Germanic tribes, offering annual
Speaker 1: payments to keep them in check. His own troops reportedly
Speaker 1: see this as weakness. Uh. They also seem to, you know,
Speaker 1: have issues with his mother's presence. Uh, And so they
Speaker 1: and of course, on top of all this, they still
Speaker 1: hate him for his work against the military, and so
Speaker 1: they they mutiny against Alexander and they assassinate him, his
Speaker 1: mother and some of his his key people. And this
Speaker 1: is this is the point where we begin these these
Speaker 1: decades of chaos. This is when we began the crisis
Speaker 1: of the third century. Okay, so the young emperor, his
Speaker 1: mom are dead, they're they're they're they're out of power.
Speaker 1: Who's coming up next to who do they put in
Speaker 1: well a military man. Of course, they lift up um
Speaker 1: maxim minus thracks a sixty two year old commander, and
Speaker 1: his rule would last a mere three years because everything
Speaker 1: just to sends into civil war and death at this point,
Speaker 1: beginning the crisis of the third century in earnest and
Speaker 1: immediately bringing about the what is sometimes called the Year
Speaker 1: of Six Emperors in two thirty eight, when six different
Speaker 1: men claimed to be Emperor of Rome. Man you thought
Speaker 1: two popes at the same time was too much? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so the following decades, Yes, we're in fact bloody and chaotic,
Speaker 1: with again thirty seven different proclaimed Roman emperors during just
Speaker 1: a thirty five year time period. Internal factors weakened the state,
Speaker 1: foreign enemies threatened on every front. This period of crisis
Speaker 1: lasted until two eighty four, when the Empire was stabilized
Speaker 1: once more with the reign of Diocletian, who reigned twenty
Speaker 1: one years and then voluntarily retired and died of get
Speaker 1: this natural causes, um, All of this stands and start
Speaker 1: contrast to the short, bloody and doomed reins of most
Speaker 1: of the emperors preceding him. Diocletian is an interesting figure.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly no expert on his life, but I know
Speaker 1: one thing about him is that he actually had the
Speaker 1: the the the unusual seeming insight that maybe hereditary rule
Speaker 1: is stupid and causing a lot of problems because if
Speaker 1: you're just like handing trying to hand power off to
Speaker 1: your son, your son might not actually be good at anything,
Speaker 1: it might not be very smart. So instead, what you
Speaker 1: should have is a system where power is shared between
Speaker 1: I think the idea came up with was the tetrarchy,
Speaker 1: that there would be four rulers who would rule over
Speaker 1: different parts of the empire. They would make decisions together.
Speaker 1: Then then after they were in charge, they would pass
Speaker 1: on their office not to their sons, but to like
Speaker 1: basically people, their min tees, people who they had trained,
Speaker 1: uh allegedly on the basis of merit. Though I think
Speaker 1: that pretty quickly devolved into hereditary rule again with Constantine's
Speaker 1: father trying to pass stuff on to Constantine. Yeah. Yeah, this,
Speaker 1: this whole question over hereditary rule is interesting because I mean,
Speaker 1: from a modern perspective, we look at it and we
Speaker 1: and we say, well, this that is it's obviously a
Speaker 1: bad idea. Um, there's so much that can go wrong
Speaker 1: with and you look at these historical examples of a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old emperors and it just seems insane. Like,
Speaker 1: my son, I have to realize with horror, will be
Speaker 1: fourteen in four years. Um, I cannot imagine him as
Speaker 1: a fourteen year old emperor. That' but your son is
Speaker 1: so much nicer than any Roman emperor that ever lived.
Speaker 1: Well at this point he hasn't become emperor yet, has
Speaker 1: a tasted power. But but you know, the other interesting
Speaker 1: side of this, as I've mentioned earlier that uh, severals
Speaker 1: Alexander and his mother, one of their ideas was, all right,
Speaker 1: let's put the power back in more in the hands
Speaker 1: of the aristocracy. Uh, let's get it away from them
Speaker 1: from the military a bit. And apparently one of the
Speaker 1: arguments in this is, well, hey, at least with hereditary rule,
Speaker 1: there's a structure. You know, if you're looking at at
Speaker 1: an alternative that involves just sort of endless parades of
Speaker 1: soldier kings, uh, then you know, how are you supposed
Speaker 1: to work with that? And indeed, I guess you could
Speaker 1: look at the Crisis of the third century as an
Speaker 1: example of what happens when you're ruled mostly by soldier
Speaker 1: kings trying to murder each other or trying to narrowly
Speaker 1: avoid being murdered by your own soldiers. Not saying hereditary
Speaker 1: rule is a great idea, but I'm just saying you
Speaker 1: can see where people can maybe waffle back and forth
Speaker 1: as these different systems results in chaos. I think all
Speaker 1: of these stories are just a brilliant advertisement for liberal democracy. Yeah, alright,
Speaker 1: So these these various imp imperial stories we've looked at
Speaker 1: so far, these are mostly just to set the stage
Speaker 1: for the story of Emperor Valerian, who reigned to fifty
Speaker 1: three through to sixty right in the middle of the
Speaker 1: crisis of the third century, and his two is a
Speaker 1: tale of blood and doom, but also a good deal more.
Speaker 1: And and don't worry if you're out there, I know,
Speaker 1: listening to the show and thinking, well, I wonder if
Speaker 1: there'll be any science in this. Don't worry. We do
Speaker 1: have a short science paper that ties into everything later on. Alright,
Speaker 1: I'm going to read another quote from Will Durant, because
Speaker 1: that was another one that I thought was was rather nice.
Speaker 1: And this is again from the Collapse of the Empire
Speaker 1: and the Story of Civilization Part three. Quote the New
Speaker 1: Emperor Valerian, already sixty and facing war at once with
Speaker 1: the Franks, the Alamanni, the Marcomanni, the Goths, the Scythians,
Speaker 1: and the Persians, made his son ruler of the Western
Speaker 1: in higher, kept the East for himself and led an
Speaker 1: army into Mesopotamia. He was too old for his tasks
Speaker 1: and soon succumbed. Okay, so he's going east to fight, right,
Speaker 1: and it's not gonna end well. And granted durance covering
Speaker 1: a lot of territory in these books. So that's basically
Speaker 1: all he has to say about the episode with Valerian
Speaker 1: right there. But but there are other histories, of course
Speaker 1: that give us a lot more details, and and also
Speaker 1: some questionable details as we'll get into. So the crisis
Speaker 1: of the third century against all, a number of would
Speaker 1: be emperors rise up through the military ranks, and of
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of them were purely of
Speaker 1: military stock. Valarian, however, actually came from the senatorial class,
Speaker 1: so he would he was essentially a nobleman, and his
Speaker 1: roles in the state were largely more political for the
Speaker 1: most part earlier on, and it was only later that
Speaker 1: he was appointed as a ducks or leader in the military,
Speaker 1: and he had two sons, uh Galinus and Licinius. Now
Speaker 1: to set the stage for Valerian's rule, here's how the
Speaker 1: three previous rules ended. First of all, there's Emperor Decius,
Speaker 1: who reigned to forty nine through to one died at
Speaker 1: the Battle of Verona, one of the worst military disasters
Speaker 1: in Roman history. According to Durrant, either of wounds sustained
Speaker 1: against the enemy or he was assassinated by his own troops.
Speaker 1: There's there's some discussion over which it was. At home,
Speaker 1: he had sought to restore Roman morality and ordered the
Speaker 1: destruction of Christianity. This will become important later on. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: because so there, uh there. There has long been a
Speaker 1: sort of meme among Christians that Christianity was just fundamentally
Speaker 1: like illegal in the Roman Empire and constantly totally persecuted,
Speaker 1: which is not actually true. I mean Romans, the Romans
Speaker 1: were absolutely evil, and you wouldn't say tolerant generally, but
Speaker 1: they were broadly religiously tolerant. They didn't care what people's
Speaker 1: religion was most of the time, but there would be occasional,
Speaker 1: sporadic outbreaks of persecution of Christians for various reasons. They
Speaker 1: were accused of being responsible for various calamities because they
Speaker 1: were They were accused of being atheists, as in not
Speaker 1: believing in the Roman gods and not making sacrifices to them,
Speaker 1: and so you know, not contributing basically to the quid
Speaker 1: pro quo that kept the gods happy and kept everybody's
Speaker 1: fate good. But also I think they were sometimes accused
Speaker 1: of sort of disloyalty to the emperor if they wouldn't
Speaker 1: make a burned offering to Caesar Um. So occasionally these
Speaker 1: persecutions would break out, and I think under Decius was
Speaker 1: was if I recall some of the worst persecution of Christians. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: like you said, it kind of goes emperor to emperor,
Speaker 1: so you'll you'll have a period of and some of
Speaker 1: these periods, these rules are pretty brief, especially during this period,
Speaker 1: this this time period. But yeah, one emperor may just
Speaker 1: be like, oh, you know, it's all right whatever Judaism, Christianity, Uh,
Speaker 1: it's all good. I I'm busy with other things. And
Speaker 1: then someone will come along and say, well, one of
Speaker 1: the problems here is we have to return to Roman
Speaker 1: moral values or Roman traditions and Roman rights need to
Speaker 1: be preserved all right, So that that was one of
Speaker 1: the three preceding Valerian. The other was Gallus, who lived
Speaker 1: who have not lived, but reigned to fifty one through
Speaker 1: two fifty three. He was definitely murdered by his own troops. Uh.
Speaker 1: He also had two co emperors that died of plague
Speaker 1: or murder, We're not sure which. And then there's a
Speaker 1: Milianus who reigned June through September in the year to
Speaker 1: fifty three. That's a nice short one. He was, guess what,
Speaker 1: murdered by his own troops. So this is just a
Speaker 1: taste of how unstable again the position of emperor was
Speaker 1: at this time, as Valerian himself is named emperor by
Speaker 1: a Millanius, his own defecting legions. But even as internal
Speaker 1: strife at least temporarily slightly settled around this new emperor Valerian,
Speaker 1: and you have uh, you know, I guess a cessation
Speaker 1: of just in civil war. Uh, there are still plenty
Speaker 1: of would be usurpers in the Roman ranks. Plus Rome
Speaker 1: still faces threats from all of its external enemies, including
Speaker 1: the Sasanian Empire in the east. So Valerian he puts
Speaker 1: his son uh Galinas in charge of the West and
Speaker 1: occupies himself with the East and the threat posed by
Speaker 1: the Sasanians in Persia. And meanwhile at home, we should
Speaker 1: also know, coming back to the issue of of of
Speaker 1: Christian persecution, that Valerian is also remembered for the persecution
Speaker 1: of Christians in Rome. Uh. He had ordered that all
Speaker 1: must conform to Roman ceremonials and that Christian assemblages are forbidden.
Speaker 1: And then when Pope Sixtus the Second resists, the Pope
Speaker 1: is beheaded and seven of his deacons are executed as well.
Speaker 1: Christians at the time and even in times thereafter, really
Speaker 1: have a hard time letting this one go. Yeah, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: no pity for the pope killer. Now, at this point,
Speaker 1: I'd like us to turn to the Sasanian Empire, because
Speaker 1: a number of you might not be very familiar with
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here, and uh, and I wasn't
Speaker 1: that familiar with the Sasanian Empire either prior to to
Speaker 1: this research. So I turned in part to a book
Speaker 1: titled Sasanian Iran to twenty four through six one c
Speaker 1: by Turaj dari On, Iranian ironologist and historian at the
Speaker 1: University of California, Irvine. Um, he's published a number of
Speaker 1: books over the years, and you also, you know, can
Speaker 1: find very speaking engagements and and whatnot that he's um
Speaker 1: he's done concerning not only ancient Iran, but also the
Speaker 1: modern state or of Iran and global affairs and so forth.
Speaker 1: So in the openings of the book, um Dari points
Speaker 1: some things out about our understanding of ancient history that
Speaker 1: that I thought were very illuminating. He points out, of
Speaker 1: course that ancient history and the West especially is often
Speaker 1: very Eurocentric, with excessive energy focused on European, Greek and
Speaker 1: Roman cultures and histories, which can of course come at
Speaker 1: the expense of understanding other powerful and important cultures. And
Speaker 1: this is often, he says, utilized to set up this
Speaker 1: narrative that European and Western power is a kind of
Speaker 1: continuous success story that extends back through these cultures. But
Speaker 1: Dary points out that not not only is such a
Speaker 1: focused detrimental to understanding say, the nation's bordering the Roman
Speaker 1: Empire during this time period, but you also can't look
Speaker 1: at the Roman Empire in a vacuum. You have to
Speaker 1: you have to look at you have to understand the
Speaker 1: nations that it's interacting with and that it's warring with.
Speaker 1: Otherwise you're also denying yourself a full understanding of say Rome. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true in many ways. I'd say one of the
Speaker 1: most baseline is remembering that the Roman Empire when it
Speaker 1: during its great expansion, most of the people in the
Speaker 1: Roman Empire were not Romans. There were people living in
Speaker 1: conquered territories who were under Roman rule. Yeah, and and
Speaker 1: in many cases, individuals fighting for the Roman military are
Speaker 1: auxiliary troops that are that are brought in from regions
Speaker 1: outside of of Rome proper. Yeah, but I love this, Uh,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's kind of one of these these
Speaker 1: things where once it's stated, it seems so obvious. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like, um, it's like if you were to ask somebody, hey,
Speaker 1: what's your favorite boxer and they're like, oh, Muhammad Ali
Speaker 1: And then you're like, oh, what was your favorite opponent?
Speaker 1: And they're like, oh, I don't know any other boxers.
Speaker 1: I just know. Moment like, what you how much can
Speaker 1: you really understand this athlete if you don't understand the
Speaker 1: athletes he competed against and and and so forth. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, that's an oversimplification, but that the Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think this is a really valid point. And I have
Speaker 1: to say when I when I think back about when
Speaker 1: I was first learning about, say that decline of Rome,
Speaker 1: I feel like there was this feeling that Holy Rome
Speaker 1: is this wounded lion, and you have all these other
Speaker 1: kingdoms that are sort of snapping at its heels like hyenas.
Speaker 1: But this is, you know, certainly not the case with
Speaker 1: the Sasanian Empire. So what was the Sasanian Empire um
Speaker 1: sometimes called the Empire of the Iranians or the Neo
Speaker 1: Persian Empire. Well, it all begins with the reign of
Speaker 1: Otdashir the First, also known as Otashir, the Unifier, who
Speaker 1: indeed unify the Iranian Plateau in two twenty four. You'll
Speaker 1: remember him from just a little bit earlier as the
Speaker 1: ruler who tangles with Severus Alexander. So Drey writes that
Speaker 1: it was an enormous undertaking to unite the Iranian plateau
Speaker 1: under one rule at this time, But the exact origins
Speaker 1: of the House of Sasain and Otdashir the First are
Speaker 1: somewhat shrouded in mystery. He apparently picked Susain as the
Speaker 1: name for his house, as it may have been the
Speaker 1: name of a protective deity, but I don't think we
Speaker 1: know for sure. Uh. And it seems that while Ottashir
Speaker 1: may have had a background in Zoroastrianism, so his father
Speaker 1: um pah Bag may have been a fire temple priest,
Speaker 1: he was still essentially an upstart. And I thought this
Speaker 1: passage from Dare is is rather illuminating quote. Furthermore, it
Speaker 1: was claimed that Oddashir was Odda Shir, that kand the
Speaker 1: son of pa Bag of the race of Sassain, from
Speaker 1: the family of King Dare. When looking at this line,
Speaker 1: one gets the sense that every possible connection to divinity, royalty,
Speaker 1: and nobility was evoked by artist Shir, which can only
Speaker 1: mean that he was none of them. So another example
Speaker 1: of the powerful tinkering with history right, the falsification of
Speaker 1: one's lineage to tie in with the noble, the royal
Speaker 1: in the divine. You know, sometimes when I look at
Speaker 1: these ancient rulers and I see them, I know there's
Speaker 1: a specific term for this, so I forget what it is,
Speaker 1: you know, the list of prestigious things that would be
Speaker 1: said after their name, so it's king whatever you know,
Speaker 1: And then all these associations with nobility, lineage, deity, royalty,
Speaker 1: and stuff. It reminds me of keywords stuffing in the like, Uh,
Speaker 1: you know that that era where you and I first
Speaker 1: started getting into digital content on the internet. Uh, and
Speaker 1: all these companies that we were competing with, we're doing
Speaker 1: this thing where they would try to rank higher and
Speaker 1: Google results by just loading tons of irrelevant metadata garbage
Speaker 1: into every page. So it's like, is this page really
Speaker 1: about Metallica? No, but it's in the meta Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: the meta keywords that list is longer than the actual post. Right,
Speaker 1: So out to share the first is definitely bringing the
Speaker 1: metadata here. But I but I should drive home he
Speaker 1: does have the power to back it up that this
Speaker 1: is just about securing the power, um, supporting the power
Speaker 1: by making these uh perhaps making these claims to uh divinity,
Speaker 1: royalty and nobility now and gaining this power though art
Speaker 1: to share the first uh possibly one this his rule
Speaker 1: through conflict not only with rival Iranian kings, were perhaps
Speaker 1: even family members. So in piecing together to history, He's
Speaker 1: uh dare mentions that artist Shar's father may have dethroned
Speaker 1: an important king and artist shir then then may have
Speaker 1: taken to the field of battle against his own brother,
Speaker 1: but his brother died unexpectedly before this battle could occur.
Speaker 1: This raises the specter of possible assassination. We're not we
Speaker 1: will never know for sure, but yeah, he's seemingly perhaps
Speaker 1: rebelled against his own father and against or against his
Speaker 1: own brother after his father's death. So there's there's infighting
Speaker 1: in the family on this ascension towards becoming the King
Speaker 1: of kings UM. He also has this decade long war
Speaker 1: against Artawan the Fourth UH, further expansions across the the
Speaker 1: Iranian Plateau, challenges from other local war lords. UH. Some
Speaker 1: of these warlords are fighting on our Tawan the Fourth
Speaker 1: behalf are to Shear the First also has to deal
Speaker 1: with challenges from other brothers, and finally, are Tawan the Fourth,
Speaker 1: his main rival, takes the field with his armies against
Speaker 1: are to Shear the First and parishes Artist Here, the
Speaker 1: First becomes the King of kings and the Sasanian Empire
Speaker 1: is born. Now, as we already alluded to, are to
Speaker 1: Share the First expands his territory from here and eventually
Speaker 1: enters into conflict with Rome over Syria and Asia Minor
Speaker 1: and there's there's really no clear winner to this conflict.
Speaker 1: Uh Now, certainly Alexander Severus and his mother, you know,
Speaker 1: celebrate that they have they have some sort of a
Speaker 1: victory here, but it sounds like both sides were somewhat
Speaker 1: reduced and exhausted by this whole um series of battles,
Speaker 1: and no one was truly victorious. But Alexander Severus is
Speaker 1: able to hold under Roman territory here in the in
Speaker 1: the Asia Minor, but after his death the Sasanians are
Speaker 1: able to then annex several regions. Dare notes, however, that
Speaker 1: are to shear. The first challenge to Rome was probably
Speaker 1: not mere expansionist hubris, as Alexander's letter alleges that it is,
Speaker 1: but that it was probably an attemp to stave off
Speaker 1: further Roman expansion into their region. This is one of
Speaker 1: the nasty problems of the imperial mindset, right. So you
Speaker 1: have empires with borders touching, you can always justify conquest
Speaker 1: and expansion of borders, which means killing people, you know,
Speaker 1: military expansion as defensive because it's like, well, I got
Speaker 1: to get more of a buffer, you know, out from
Speaker 1: my territory, because what if they do it to me exactly.
Speaker 1: And so you have all these these peoples in between
Speaker 1: these empires that are that are really seeing the some
Speaker 1: of the worst of it. And yeah, the imperial mindset
Speaker 1: on both sides, like you say, so the important thing
Speaker 1: to keep in mind. Know I'm throwing a lot of
Speaker 1: names out there, but yeah, Artishire the First, this is
Speaker 1: the beginning of the Sasanian Empire. Uh. He consolidates power.
Speaker 1: He is a true threat um, He's already engaging in
Speaker 1: warfare against the Romans. But then artish Or the First
Speaker 1: does again what is what seems may seem unthinkable at
Speaker 1: the time. He retired ars Uh and pass his leadership
Speaker 1: on to his son. And his son is shah Bur
Speaker 1: the First UH, and he Shabu the First, becomes the
Speaker 1: leader of the Sasanian Empire in two forty and this
Speaker 1: is the ruler that comes into direct conflict with Emperor Valeriana.
Speaker 1: Now note that it would be twenty years before Valerians
Speaker 1: fall at this point at the Battle of Edessa, and
Speaker 1: thirty years before Shahbur's reign ends due to death from illness.
Speaker 1: So while Rome is racked by instability and infighting during
Speaker 1: this time period, the Sasanian Empire is actually incredibly strong.
Speaker 1: Now that's not to say that there aren't dynastic squabbles
Speaker 1: going on uh in the Sasanian Empire under Schabur. There
Speaker 1: there are. Uh. He's still having to deal with with
Speaker 1: challenges from even some of his other brothers, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the other potential usurpers. So it's not not saying that
Speaker 1: the kingdom is peaceful, but during this time period it
Speaker 1: when there's so much turmoil, especially going on in the
Speaker 1: Roman Empire, the Sasanian Empire is pretty solid. Now. Schabur
Speaker 1: the First had been well prepared for Ruble, according to
Speaker 1: the sources I was reading here, especially dare Uh. He
Speaker 1: he had accompanied his father on the battlefield, ensuring that
Speaker 1: he was just ready to take the fight to his enemies,
Speaker 1: including whoever happened to be calling themselves Roman Emperor at
Speaker 1: any given moment. And of course it changes a lot,
Speaker 1: and of course battles continue between the two empires in Mesopotamia.
Speaker 1: In fact, in two forty three, Roman Emperor Gordian the
Speaker 1: Third invades Mesopotamia in an attempt to retake territory that
Speaker 1: had been previously held by Rome under Alexander Severus with
Speaker 1: an auxiliary army of mostly Gothic and German soldiers, and
Speaker 1: that following year, Gordian the third is dead, as Schabur
Speaker 1: the First claims that he killed the emperor in battle,
Speaker 1: but it seems like possibly the truth here, as the
Speaker 1: emperor or died away from many known battles and might
Speaker 1: have been guess what, killed by his own soldiers. But
Speaker 1: again we see the fluid and power serving nature of
Speaker 1: histories here. If you're Chabu the First and you know
Speaker 1: that during the conflicts that you're engaging in against the
Speaker 1: Roman Emperor, that the Roman Emperor is dead, might as
Speaker 1: well go ahead and claim that kill for at least
Speaker 1: your troops, if not you personally. And that was only yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that that'll back up your your power. And then after
Speaker 1: this the following emperor Uh makes concessions, essentially becomes a tributary,
Speaker 1: if you will, And this is the way that the
Speaker 1: Sasanians end up framing it. And and into sixty Schabur
Speaker 1: pushes further into Mesopotamia and comes into conflict with Emperor Valerian.
Speaker 1: So at this point, yeah, we're going to get to
Speaker 1: the Battle of Odessa. This is the crucial battle in
Speaker 1: this whole scenario, it counts among the worst Roman military
Speaker 1: disasters in history. On one hand, again, we have the
Speaker 1: forces of the Sasanian Empire under Shapu the First, and
Speaker 1: here we have Roman forces under Emperor Valerian. So one
Speaker 1: of my chief sources here was Udo Hartman's The Third
Speaker 1: Century Crisis from the Encyclopedia of Ancient Battles that came
Speaker 1: out in seventeen, which provides a nice summary of what
Speaker 1: we know and what some of the histories say concerning
Speaker 1: the Battle of Edessa and it's aftermath. So let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and hit the basics here. Okay, So where is
Speaker 1: this taking place? Uh? For the most part, we're talking
Speaker 1: about Edessa, an ancient city, and what is now Turkey.
Speaker 1: More precisely, this battle may have occurred somewhere between the
Speaker 1: cities of Kre and Edessa. When did this occur? This
Speaker 1: is again the year to sixty and it's spring, and
Speaker 1: then we have the two forces. Well, so let's start
Speaker 1: with the Roman forces. This is the one we actually
Speaker 1: have some numbers on whether those numbers are correct or not.
Speaker 1: As a matter of discussion, we don't know for sure
Speaker 1: exactly what the troop count was but Shabu the first
Speaker 1: puts it at seventy thousand, which is probably an exaggeration
Speaker 1: to enhance his victory. But um, but Deare gives us sixty. Um.
Speaker 1: It does seem that Valerian had pretty strong numbers, bolstered
Speaker 1: by troops originally stationed to the north of Rome to
Speaker 1: deal with Germanic threats, and so essentially the troops here
Speaker 1: under under Valerian, it's going to be some makeup of Roman,
Speaker 1: Germanic and Gothic troops. That seems a safe assumption. Okay,
Speaker 1: so tens of thousands at least that this is They're
Speaker 1: not playing around. Yeah no, but I haven't seen anybody
Speaker 1: suggesting that this is just a small ragtag group. Now
Speaker 1: this is. This is a large army led by an
Speaker 1: emperor of Rome, so you know, it's it's it's not
Speaker 1: to be underestimated. On the other hand, we have the
Speaker 1: Sasanian forces here and this numbers here seem to just
Speaker 1: be unknown. I haven't even run across the source that
Speaker 1: ventures a guess at what the numbers were. Uh though
Speaker 1: I suppose we you know, you could probably loosely speculate
Speaker 1: if you roll through some of the possible scenarios about
Speaker 1: just how large the force might need to be to
Speaker 1: pull off the victory. Though we have to remember that
Speaker 1: troops size alone is not necessarily a determinant for victory
Speaker 1: nor his fighting strength. UM. I try I go back
Speaker 1: to um some of the writings of of Brett Devereaux,
Speaker 1: who has a wonderful history blog about ancient battles uh.
Speaker 1: And he always points out, quote the question is always
Speaker 1: achieving strategic objectives and that that is ultimately more important
Speaker 1: than the fighting strength. So you'll have certain ancient armies,
Speaker 1: for example, that you can say their fighting strength was
Speaker 1: was greater than this other force, but are they able
Speaker 1: to pour pull off strategic objectives? Are are the other
Speaker 1: mechanisms of warfare working in their favor? Devereaux's blog, by
Speaker 1: the way, is a collection of unmitigated pedantry UH, well
Speaker 1: worth checking out if you're interested in ancient warfare, as
Speaker 1: well as sort of the echoes of ancient warfare that
Speaker 1: you find in things like The Lord of the Rings,
Speaker 1: the books in the movies, or the movie three hundred
Speaker 1: for example, things of that nature. He he does a
Speaker 1: great job dissecting them and talking of out like what
Speaker 1: the history actually tells us. You know, this also reminds
Speaker 1: me of something that came up in episodes we did
Speaker 1: a few years ago about warfare between aunt colonies, which
Speaker 1: is a principle in warfare scholarship sometimes known as Lanchester's laws,
Speaker 1: Lanchester's linear law, in Lanchester Square law. They're not actually laws,
Speaker 1: they're not laws of nature. They're just approximations modeling how
Speaker 1: different types of battles tend to work in reality. And uh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna gloss over some of the details here, but
Speaker 1: basically my memory is that it found that, you know,
Speaker 1: really like, the individual effectiveness of units and tactics are
Speaker 1: usually more decisive in ancient combat than they are in
Speaker 1: modern combat. Because in shooting wars, where where individual you know,
Speaker 1: tanks or or or soldiers can basically shoot in any
Speaker 1: direction at any time, can engage in any direction at
Speaker 1: any time, what you always want is to have overwhelming numbers.
Speaker 1: You know, you would rather defeat the enemy in detail,
Speaker 1: so attack small units of theirs with larger units of
Speaker 1: yours so you suffer minimal losses and do that over
Speaker 1: and over again. But in ancient combat, uh, like, individual
Speaker 1: little tactical decisions could swing things wildly in the favor
Speaker 1: of smaller armies. Yeah, and then if you throw in
Speaker 1: additional factors that are definitely in play during this time,
Speaker 1: including potential mutinies from your own troops, plague and illness. Uh,
Speaker 1: and some of the some of the other factors that
Speaker 1: will get into that may have been in play, particularly
Speaker 1: at the Battle of Odessa. Go back and listen to
Speaker 1: the ant Wars episodes if you want more detail on
Speaker 1: the Lanchester's laws. Thank Alright, So at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: you might you might wonder like, okay, are they going
Speaker 1: to really get into the nitty gritty here about the
Speaker 1: movements of the troops and so forth. This is going
Speaker 1: to be like one of those battles that they teach
Speaker 1: where they talk about, all right, this is where Valerian
Speaker 1: went wrong here and here this is these are the
Speaker 1: advantages that the Sasanians had tactically. Uh no, uh. This
Speaker 1: is one of those battles where even if we wanted
Speaker 1: to get into into those sorts of details, we just
Speaker 1: don't have them. Um. We we don't know exactly how
Speaker 1: the battle proceeded. There are some different versions of how
Speaker 1: it might have gone, and we'll get into that. However,
Speaker 1: the immediate outcome is not in question. The Sasanians secure
Speaker 1: absolute victory over the Roman forces. Emperor Valerian and some
Speaker 1: of his senators and soldiers are taken as prisoners. And
Speaker 1: while the Sasanians seem to have suffered minimal casualties, the
Speaker 1: Roman losses, I mean, some estimates put them at like
Speaker 1: sixty thousand or so. Um, it's uh so, it's just
Speaker 1: again a complete military disaster for the Roman forces. And
Speaker 1: so you're probably wondering, okay, even in an age full
Speaker 1: of emperors and kings, and in which emperors and kings
Speaker 1: are are are often present at the battles and sometimes
Speaker 1: die in battle. So we've already looked at an example
Speaker 1: or two of that, how is it that a disaster
Speaker 1: of this magnitude can take place? How can you wind
Speaker 1: up with your emperor in the hands of the enemy
Speaker 1: forces without them having actually, uh, you know, invaded Rome
Speaker 1: or something of that nature. Well, as Hartman summarizes, we
Speaker 1: basically have three different accounts in the Western histories of
Speaker 1: what happened, and again we have to acknowledge that some
Speaker 1: or all of them have agendas in they're telling. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, there's the ZAWESOMEUS accounts awesome iss is
Speaker 1: writing at the dawn of the sixth century. Uh. This
Speaker 1: version goes basically, Valerian is cowardly. He wants to settle
Speaker 1: things financially, which we have to mention is a tool
Speaker 1: that had been used by the Romans before. You know,
Speaker 1: just meet with the enemy, pay the enemy, and we
Speaker 1: can you know, put this off for a while. But
Speaker 1: this story goes that Shabur the first rejects Valerian's envoy
Speaker 1: and says, hey, I'm only going to deal with the
Speaker 1: emperor himself, and then Valerian says, okay, that sounds fine.
Speaker 1: They meet and Valerian has taken pretty okay. So scene
Speaker 1: based on this that this account is attempting to make
Speaker 1: Valerian look weak and cowardly and Shabour look devious, right,
Speaker 1: And apparently this is a common trend and we can
Speaker 1: see as well. M Hartman points this out that like
Speaker 1: this is a classic way of trying to take the
Speaker 1: blame away from Rome and the Roman military itself, a
Speaker 1: way to sort of excuse the loss by saying, well,
Speaker 1: the Rome is strong, the military is strong, but unfortunately
Speaker 1: we had a cowardly emperor here and we had a
Speaker 1: very dastardly opponent. What can you do now? A couple
Speaker 1: of of later this centuries later historians give us a
Speaker 1: different version. This comes to us from George Sincellus, who
Speaker 1: died sometime after eight ten, and uh Zonaras who lived
Speaker 1: some of something like ten seventy through eleven forty. And
Speaker 1: in these accounts, Valerian's forces were actually besieged in Odessa
Speaker 1: and they were facing our vation there. Valerian, fearful of
Speaker 1: the military mutiny, chose to surrender to the Sasanian forces
Speaker 1: and only went through the motions of resistance casually end
Speaker 1: up being pretty low because some of the Roman forces
Speaker 1: recognize the deception and flee. Oh so is it possible, again,
Speaker 1: if if there's any truth to this, is it possible
Speaker 1: that Valerians like I might actually have a better chance
Speaker 1: of surviving personally if I'm taken prisoner by the enemy
Speaker 1: than if I'm left here with my own troops. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that seems to be the idea that they're getting any here.
Speaker 1: And and and again this this is so brief. It seems
Speaker 1: like there are a number of plot holes that might
Speaker 1: emerge here, like, well, how are they how are the
Speaker 1: Roman forces, Uh fleeing? Are they are the how, what
Speaker 1: are the exact conditions of the siege, etcetera. We don't know. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is just one idea. But Zanaris has another account
Speaker 1: that's interesting that again Hartman shares here, and in this one,
Speaker 1: Chabor the first has Odessa besieged, but Valarian ends forces
Speaker 1: are not in the city of Edessa. They're arriving um
Speaker 1: outside of all of this. They see the siege going on,
Speaker 1: and they see that the Sasanian forces are really really big,
Speaker 1: perhaps larger than their own. It's in a very imposing force.
Speaker 1: So they're reluctant to attack. But then they get intelligence
Speaker 1: that tells them that the Edessian forces are mounting a
Speaker 1: promising counter attack against the besiegers, against the Sasanians, and
Speaker 1: so Valerian decides, well, this is our chance, this is
Speaker 1: our opportunity, and they need to attack now. But then
Speaker 1: they end up routed and surrounded by the Sasanian army
Speaker 1: and taken prisoner. So it's kind of interesting to to
Speaker 1: look at these different things and sort of try and
Speaker 1: piece together the sort of situation that might have happened. Again,
Speaker 1: thinking about these tensions involving a potential besiegement, either of
Speaker 1: Roman forces or of another player in the conflict, um,
Speaker 1: the possibility of then of Valerian having to deal with
Speaker 1: potential mutinies occurring within his own ranks, potential desertions, and
Speaker 1: perhaps weighing like who he has a better chance of
Speaker 1: survival with UH, Perhaps the situation where he's dealing with
Speaker 1: potential mutinies and wants to work out some sort of
Speaker 1: a deal but do so without UH, without getting himself
Speaker 1: killed by his own troops. It seems like there may
Speaker 1: have been a lot of factors at play here, but
Speaker 1: as again his Heartman points out, when when it comes
Speaker 1: to Western sources, the two main narratives seem to have agendas.
Speaker 1: One is that you know, we're going to cover for
Speaker 1: the Roman loss by putting the blame on Valerian and
Speaker 1: the enemy. And then for Christian historians uh some in
Speaker 1: like the essentially the immediate aftermath of all of this,
Speaker 1: this is a situation where God is punishing Valerian. Valerian
Speaker 1: was hostile towards Christians and the Roman Empire, you know,
Speaker 1: he was, He persecuted Christians, and so the idea here
Speaker 1: is that God him self is punishing Valerian for what
Speaker 1: he has done, a trope that remains popular up until today.
Speaker 1: There is always the temptation within a within a you know,
Speaker 1: a belief in a system of divine justice, to say
Speaker 1: that when my enemy has suffered a bad fate, it's
Speaker 1: because of the bad things they did. They're they're finally
Speaker 1: getting their come upance right right. And again that can
Speaker 1: be not only foreign enemies, but but they can be
Speaker 1: domestic enemies. They can be you know, rival or previous
Speaker 1: emperors when you're saying, well that they weren't right with God.
Speaker 1: So this is what happens. We need to get an
Speaker 1: emperor in there who is right with God. And uh.
Speaker 1: And of course any of these kings, especially in this age,
Speaker 1: there's going to be some degree of religious tinkering of
Speaker 1: their stories, like I'm king because I'm right with God.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've got divine blood inside my body. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I hearkened back to divine kings, etcetera. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of this going around. Well, looking at
Speaker 1: the time, I think we're gonna have to call this
Speaker 1: episode right here and say this is part one of
Speaker 1: this talk. But we will get into some surprising territory
Speaker 1: next time, not only about history and historiography, about the
Speaker 1: the idea of the dethroned prisoner Emperor of Rome, but
Speaker 1: also into some surprising microbiology territory. Yeah, I was really
Speaker 1: surprised this came up as well, but I look forward
Speaker 1: to talking about this in the next episode. But for now, yes,
Speaker 1: this is a good, good stopping point point, kind of
Speaker 1: a cliffhanger because at this point the Roman army has
Speaker 1: been defeated and Emperor Valerian is a captive of the
Speaker 1: Sasanian Empire. What's going to happen next, Well, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of discussion about what happens next. Alright, So come
Speaker 1: join us again on Thursday as we continue this historic
Speaker 1: and ultimately scientific investigation. In the meantime, if you want
Speaker 1: to check out other episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind,
Speaker 1: you'll find them in the Stuff to Blow Your Mind
Speaker 1: podcast feed. Our core science and culture episodes published on
Speaker 1: Tuesdays and Thursdays, but on Wednesday we do a short
Speaker 1: form artifact or monster fact. On Monday's we do listener mail,
Speaker 1: and on Fridays we set aside most serious concerns to
Speaker 1: just talk about a weird film. Huge Thanks as always,
Speaker 1: to our excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. If you
Speaker 1: would like to get in touch with us with feedback
Speaker 1: on this episode or any other, to suggest topic for
Speaker 1: the future, or just to say hello, you can email
Speaker 1: us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts for My heart Radio, visit the iHeart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listening to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.