Skip to main content

Alexander Skinner

Virtual Centre for Late Antiquity, Board of Directors, Research Director

Followers

304

Following

226

Public Views

CURRENT RESEARCH
Mainly focused on late Roman aristocracies, eastern and western, c.300-c.500. In particular, the social formation of provincial aristocracies and their relations with both imperial rule and local society.

EDUCATION
PhD in History, University of London (University College London), 2011
Fulbright Scholar, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, Yale University, 1998-9
BA Hons, Ancient & Modern History, Oxford University, 1996

RECOGNITION
Associate Fellow, Higher Education Academy, 2014
Fellow, Royal Society of Arts, 2012
Norman Hepburn Baynes Prize, University of London, 2004

less

InterestsView All (49)

Uploads

Journal Articles & Book Chapters by Alexander Skinner

"Violence at Constantinople in AD341–342 and Themistius, Oration 1", Journal of Roman Studies 105 (2015), 234-249

This article argues that Oration 1 by Themistius was prompted by violence at Constantinople in 34... more This article argues that Oration 1 by Themistius was prompted by violence at Constantinople in 341-2, and that the likeliest date for the speech is as early as March 342. Detailed arguments are presented in support of this correlation, which contrasts with the usual assignment of Themistius' speech to either 347/348 or 350/351. The wider signicance of these arguments is also highlighted. In particular, there are implications for our understanding of the chronology and overall trajectory of Themistius' early career; and implications for the development of imperial ideology in the 340s.

"Political Mobility in the Later Roman Empire", Past and Present no. 218 (Feb. 2013), 17-53

Past and Present

"The Early Development of the Senate of Constantinople", Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32 / 2 (2008), 128-48

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Jan 1, 2008

The development of the senate of Constantinople as an imperial senate, on a par with the senate o... more The development of the senate of Constantinople as an imperial senate, on a par with the senate of Rome, has been attributed to Constantius II to the exclusion of Constantine and dated to 357. The present paper argues that the evidence for this dating is fundamentally flawed and that the decisive change came at the outset of the reign of Constantius II, while developments under Constantine foreshadowed it in significant respects. Conclusions are also drawn about what the evidence reveals of relations between Hellenic gentry and imperial rule in the fourth century.

"The Birth of a 'Byzantine' Senatorial Perspective", Arethusa 33 / 3 (2000), 363-77

Arethusa, Sep 1, 2000

Review Articles by Alexander Skinner

"The Needle’s Eye: Wealth and Western Society from the Late Roman Empire to the Early Middle Ages", Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture [JLARC] 8 (2014), 68-89. Review article on Peter Brown, "Through the Eye of a Needle" (2012)

This review article discusses Peter Brown,

Book Reviews by Alexander Skinner

Review of E. Olshausen & V. Sauer (edd.), Mobilität in den Kulturen der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums II, 2011 (Geographica Historica 31: Franz Steiner, 2014), in Classical Review 67.1 (2017), 129-131

Review of J. Wienand (ed.), Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD (Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2015), in Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016), 361-363

Review of P. Kay, Rome's Economic Revolution (Oxford University Press, 2014), in Classical Review 66.2 (2016), 499-501

Subsequent sections of D.'s work aim to place later developments in Roman military command in the... more Subsequent sections of D.'s work aim to place later developments in Roman military command in the context of the military expansion and social and political upheaval of the mid to late Republic. Chapter 5 explores the early changes to the concept of provincia towards constituting an area of Roman control by examining the particular case studies of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Spain. The choice of focusing on these particular provinciae evolving out of third-century B.C. conflicts is useful to aid our understanding of this particular development and unsurprisingly the importance of annexing former Carthaginian territory comes through in the chapter. The tremendous importance and impact of the Punic Wars of the third century B.C. for Rome provides a useful context in which such changes occur; the correlation between changing conceptions of Roman military command and upheaval in Rome also features later in the text. Case studies, however, tend to be naturally selective and a comparison with an area of early Roman operation such as Illyria, where this shift was not so apparent, may have provided another layer for analysis. Nevertheless this shift towards a permanent form of provincia is expounded upon effectively in subsequent chapters with a discussion of the effect of political change in the Late Republic, leading to a preference towards permanent provinciae, the amalgamation of multiple provinciae and consequently more expansive military campaigning. D. stresses that the political condition of the Late Republic 'drove men to experiment with the ideas of imperium and provincia in their search for political advantage and success' (p. 343) and that these changes, even when initiated on an ad hoc basis, came to influence later Roman ideas regarding provincial command. The effect of the political upheaval of the Late Republic on the nature of command has often been highlighted, but by contextualising the development of command conceptions in the political upheaval of the Late Republic, D. presents a compelling scenario where both affect one another in tandem. This scenario provides an effective setting for the intricate manipulation of the associated concepts and conceptions in the imperial period.

Review of D. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395 (Second Edition, Routledge History of the Ancient World, London & New York, 2014), in Ancient History Bulletin Online Reviews 6 (2016), 114-116.

Review of A. Bérenger & F. Lachaud (eds), Hiérarchie des pouvoirs, délégation de pouvoir et responsabilité des administrateurs dans l'antiquité et au moyen âge (Metz: Centre de recherche universitaire lorrain d'histoire, 2012), in Journal of Roman Studies 105 (2015), 394-395.

Review of I. Mennen, Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD193-284 (Impact of Empire 12, Leiden, 2011), in Journal of Roman Studies 102 (2012), 409-10

Review of M.R. Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy (Cambridge, MA, 2002), in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004), 344-346

"Violence at Constantinople in AD341–342 and Themistius, Oration 1", Journal of Roman Studies 105 (2015), 234-249

This article argues that Oration 1 by Themistius was prompted by violence at Constantinople in 34... more This article argues that Oration 1 by Themistius was prompted by violence at Constantinople in 341-2, and that the likeliest date for the speech is as early as March 342. Detailed arguments are presented in support of this correlation, which contrasts with the usual assignment of Themistius' speech to either 347/348 or 350/351. The wider signicance of these arguments is also highlighted. In particular, there are implications for our understanding of the chronology and overall trajectory of Themistius' early career; and implications for the development of imperial ideology in the 340s.

"Political Mobility in the Later Roman Empire", Past and Present no. 218 (Feb. 2013), 17-53

Past and Present

"The Early Development of the Senate of Constantinople", Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32 / 2 (2008), 128-48

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Jan 1, 2008

The development of the senate of Constantinople as an imperial senate, on a par with the senate o... more The development of the senate of Constantinople as an imperial senate, on a par with the senate of Rome, has been attributed to Constantius II to the exclusion of Constantine and dated to 357. The present paper argues that the evidence for this dating is fundamentally flawed and that the decisive change came at the outset of the reign of Constantius II, while developments under Constantine foreshadowed it in significant respects. Conclusions are also drawn about what the evidence reveals of relations between Hellenic gentry and imperial rule in the fourth century.

"The Birth of a 'Byzantine' Senatorial Perspective", Arethusa 33 / 3 (2000), 363-77

Arethusa, Sep 1, 2000

"The Needle’s Eye: Wealth and Western Society from the Late Roman Empire to the Early Middle Ages", Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture [JLARC] 8 (2014), 68-89. Review article on Peter Brown, "Through the Eye of a Needle" (2012)

This review article discusses Peter Brown,

Review of E. Olshausen & V. Sauer (edd.), Mobilität in den Kulturen der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums II, 2011 (Geographica Historica 31: Franz Steiner, 2014), in Classical Review 67.1 (2017), 129-131

Review of J. Wienand (ed.), Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD (Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2015), in Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016), 361-363

Review of P. Kay, Rome's Economic Revolution (Oxford University Press, 2014), in Classical Review 66.2 (2016), 499-501

Subsequent sections of D.'s work aim to place later developments in Roman military command in the... more Subsequent sections of D.'s work aim to place later developments in Roman military command in the context of the military expansion and social and political upheaval of the mid to late Republic. Chapter 5 explores the early changes to the concept of provincia towards constituting an area of Roman control by examining the particular case studies of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Spain. The choice of focusing on these particular provinciae evolving out of third-century B.C. conflicts is useful to aid our understanding of this particular development and unsurprisingly the importance of annexing former Carthaginian territory comes through in the chapter. The tremendous importance and impact of the Punic Wars of the third century B.C. for Rome provides a useful context in which such changes occur; the correlation between changing conceptions of Roman military command and upheaval in Rome also features later in the text. Case studies, however, tend to be naturally selective and a comparison with an area of early Roman operation such as Illyria, where this shift was not so apparent, may have provided another layer for analysis. Nevertheless this shift towards a permanent form of provincia is expounded upon effectively in subsequent chapters with a discussion of the effect of political change in the Late Republic, leading to a preference towards permanent provinciae, the amalgamation of multiple provinciae and consequently more expansive military campaigning. D. stresses that the political condition of the Late Republic 'drove men to experiment with the ideas of imperium and provincia in their search for political advantage and success' (p. 343) and that these changes, even when initiated on an ad hoc basis, came to influence later Roman ideas regarding provincial command. The effect of the political upheaval of the Late Republic on the nature of command has often been highlighted, but by contextualising the development of command conceptions in the political upheaval of the Late Republic, D. presents a compelling scenario where both affect one another in tandem. This scenario provides an effective setting for the intricate manipulation of the associated concepts and conceptions in the imperial period.

Review of D. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395 (Second Edition, Routledge History of the Ancient World, London & New York, 2014), in Ancient History Bulletin Online Reviews 6 (2016), 114-116.

Review of A. Bérenger & F. Lachaud (eds), Hiérarchie des pouvoirs, délégation de pouvoir et responsabilité des administrateurs dans l'antiquité et au moyen âge (Metz: Centre de recherche universitaire lorrain d'histoire, 2012), in Journal of Roman Studies 105 (2015), 394-395.

Review of I. Mennen, Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD193-284 (Impact of Empire 12, Leiden, 2011), in Journal of Roman Studies 102 (2012), 409-10

Review of M.R. Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy (Cambridge, MA, 2002), in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004), 344-346