You could argue that Britain realised it’s dominant relationship with its colonies, and even more so its ‘white’ dominions, was inappropriate and unsustainable in time to ‘renegotiate’ the deal.

The dominions were granted self-government within the umbrella of the Empire, and stayed loyal enough to provide useful military support in two world wars.

Likewise, India and other colonies were granted independence without major armed struggles, although their participation in the Commonwealth and loyalty (eg. against the Soviet threat during the cold war) was less of a success story from the British perspective than the ‘renegotiation’ with the dominions in the first half of the 20th century.

Getting back on topic somewhat, one ‘limitation’ (or weakness) that clearly comes out of Hadrianople is the division of the Empire into two during the 4th century. One of Valen’s likely motivations for engaging the Tervingi before the western emperor’s forces were available was a desire to keep the glory of victory for himself. In a unified empire, battle would surely have been delayed until the eastern and western forces had met and thus maximised the chance of victory.

As Heather says, it’s a fascinating and tantalising period.

In particular, I was struck by …

“This doesn’t have to mean total collapse as in the case of Rome if you’re willing to renegotiate relationships when the old order of domination has become anachronistic.”

I’ll be interested to see what more he has to say about this in the book. In particular, I wonder if the very qualities/attitudes/approaches that lead to empire militate against ever recognizing this reality. In other words, has any empire ever recognized this in time and been able to act on that recognition?

I look forward to the FedEx truck with my copy …