What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Frank]

Also, one aspect in this that is often overlooked is people's willingness to participate in the system.

The roman state had lost its people; every important segment of the population. Odoaker recognized that very precisely, when he sent the insignia to Constantinople and said more or less: "Nobody needs this state anymore." Because a state without people, makes no sense at all.

The interesting question about the late empire is, when did this process start and why? How could a state abolish itself. And why did it not happen in the East?

[Robert Vermaat]

The interesting question about the late empire is, when did this process start and why? How could a state abolish itself. And why did it not happen in the East?

The easiest way to explain that is by answering that age-old question:
"What have the Romans done for us?"
By the mid-4th century, that question would have been answered very differently than by the mid-5th century. If you depend on a state for protection, income, way of life and other such things, and that state does notprovide all of these necessities, while at the same time demanding a LOT from you in return, the loyalty towards that state diminishes.

The difference between East and West was, in my opinion, the inability of Rome to provide for its citizens, and this (in the long run) eroded the Romanitas of the citizens in the West.
By the mid-5th century, citizens were willing to betray Rome for a local warlord (while by the 420s such a betrayal was een for what it was). By the late 5th century, local identity was 1) family 2) city 3)... either Rome or Gaul or Germanic-overlord with a Roman title. I'm not sure when the differences between Gauls and Franks disappeared though, identities are not changed overnight, even when loyalties might.

Belisarius sure had a hard time reconquering Italy (or rather, keeping it), the Italians did not see him as a liberator.

[Timianus]

Also, one aspect in this that is often overlooked is people's willingness to participate in the system.

The roman state had lost its people; every important segment of the population. . . . . The interesting question about the late empire is, when did this process start and why? How could a state abolish itself. And why did it not happen in the East?

Long process (which in my armchair opinion began with the fall of the republic), but in the end, the state screwed over every segment of the population. The middle class was eliminated due to slave trade, tax exemptions for the extremely wealthy, and a confiscatory tax policy. The "local elites" went from being men of honor and distinction to involuntary tax collectors that had no real power and were universally despised. Once universal citizenship was declared, what was the point of voluntarily serving in the legions? The emperors ignored Rome itself (not without good reason) and became autocrats, abolished the "old gods", so no wonder the ancestral senate lost interest.

And then there is the basic truth that "all politics are local." The average landowner was being eliminated by tax policy and forced conscription. The army that was supposed to be "protecting" the frontiers, more often than not, took tax payments "in kind" (i.e. stole property) from civilians. This same army then went off and fought repeated wars against other romans while allowing barbarians to cross the frontiers and raid the provinces. Yes, maybe the army would return in a year or so to try and kick out the barbarians, but were the locals any better off? Those troops that were stationed in the frontier provinces often weren't paid and commanders couldn't get the cooperation of civilian officials, so no wonder there were so many "usurpations."

Local elites bought into the roman "system" because, at first, it provided stability, protection, and means of distinction, and offered the promise of a better standard of living. In the end, there were no real benefits to the Roman "state". It couldn't protect its citizens. It stopped building anything. It was more concerned with fighting civil wars than barbarian invaders. All it did was take what little wealth remained and transferred it to the army and the far-off emperor of the month.

[Frank]

The interesting question about the late empire is, when did this process start and why? How could a state abolish itself. And why did it not happen in the East?

This was not meant as a question guys. I knew the answers you gave and a few dozen more.
This was just my answer to the OPs question, what attracts me to Late Rome.

[starman2012]

I'll answer anyway. :-)

The roman state had lost its people; every important segment of the population.

The people were still there, but the constituency (or support for the empire) was gone.

The interesting question about the late empire is, when did this process start and why?

It seems to have gradually accelerated after about 300 CE, and peaked in the early-mid fifth century. Part of the problem was that the empire alienated important groups, from the senators, barred from military command, to the barbarian recruits, victimized and alienated in 408.

And why did it not happen in the East?

I think it did, it's just that the East being less subjected to permanent invasion, managed to hold on long enough to regain a good constituency, or citizen support.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'll answer anyway. :-)

The people were still there, but the constituency (or support for the empire) was gone.

The interesting question about the late empire is, when did this process start and why?

It seems to have gradually accelerated after about 300 CE, and peaked in the early-mid fifth century. Part of the problem was that the empire alienated important groups, from the senators, barred from military command, to the barbarian recruits, victimized and alienated in 408.

And why did it not happen in the East?

I think it did, it's just that the East being less subjected to permanent invasion, managed to hold on long enough to regain a good constituency, or citizen support.

That's not true, the Military and Beuracracy was rather closely intertwined. What alienated them was that in the west you had a single generalissmo appointing his supporters, albeit most of the Roman politicians were dumber than a bag of rocks. Aetius wasn't even threatened in his power until he tried to betrothe Gaudentius to Placidia.

Many barbarians did indeed support and want to be part of the empire, the alans under Goa and Sambida were good examples, and so were the Brittones of Armorica who left Britain because wanted to remain a part of the Empire. The Frisians in the 4th Century were loyal citizens after they had fled the destruction of their homeland, its possible they even fought at Chalons (Jordanes records Saxons, which may have been a reference to Frisian LAeti who had been settled in Flanders and Kent throughout the 4th century.)

[starman2012]

Many barbarians did indeed support and want to be part of the empire, the alans under Goa and Sambida were good examples, and so were the Brittones of Armorica who left Britain because wanted to remain a part of the Empire. The Frisians in the 4th Century were loyal citizens after they had fled the destruction of their homeland, its possible they even fought at Chalons (Jordanes records Saxons, which may have been a reference to Frisian LAeti who had been settled in Flanders and Kent throughout the 4th century.)

Unfortunately they were overshadowed by other groups in the empire--Vandals, suebi, visigoths, burgundians--who were cooperative only intermittently at best and basically couldn't be trusted.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The burgundians were permenantly forced to cooperate through a semi-genocidal campaign in 436/437. They wouldn't try and expand again until the 460's in fact, long after aetius was gone.

[inkstain]

I confess I've been entertaining myself by drafting a three-novel adventure series set during the years of the Donatist/Circumcellion turmoil in Roman Numidia, the Magnentius revolt, and the Gallus-Constantius II years. Just finishing Vol. II now and moving on to the final installment in a few months' time. Each book runs about 325 pages and I'm shooting for a Bernard Cornwall feel.

I have absolutely loved this project, delving as deeply as I can into the attitudes of people caught up in the mid 340's to mid 350's. Pace the realization of the massive losses incurred by the civil massacre at Mursa, I don't think these participants had much idea of what was coming, e.g. Adrianople, or the Goths crossing the Rhine in decades' time.

My sources have been good ol' A.Marcellinus, Zonaras and Zozimus. I've also enjoyed seeing what Heather, Gibbon and Princeton's Brent Shaw have done with the issues my characters contend with. I've had certain problems with ascertaining unit size and ranks in the mid-4th century army, that's for sure. I've been using Goldsworthy and MacDowall as much as they talk about this period. Sometimes it's just not clear what applies and what doesn't.

Thanks for a great site.

[Alanus]

Good luck on your novel, Milo

The success of a novel is not in its perfect historical accuracy. It's in sucking the reader into loving (and hating) your characters. The characters are ALL; their actions and beliefs create plot. If readers want clear-cut totally accurate historicity, then they will turn to nonfiction... where they might or might not get what they are looking for. 8-)

As a novelist myself, I have read a number of "Roman era" novels, most of which are terrible in their inability to produce a real likeable hero/heroine.

Back to Late Rome.
I'll take a Pizza Arabica, thank you.

[starman2012]

The burgundians were permenantly forced to cooperate through a semi-genocidal campaign in 436/437.

But the western empire couldn't similarly deal with the visigoths and vandals before it was too late.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The vandals would have been taken care of were it not for the attack on the Balkans, forcing the Eastern Fleet to withdraw.

Aetius crushed the Visigoths in 439, ending the Gothic War. He attacked their camp in the dark and devestated their Army.

[starman2012]

The vandals would have been taken care of were it not for the attack on the Balkans, forcing the Eastern Fleet to withdraw.

Dunno; look what happened in 468.

Aetius crushed the Visigoths in 439, ending the Gothic War.

I thought his hun recruits were beaten that year.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

His Hunnic Bucellarius was beaten when Litorius charged the Goths outside Tolosa, but Aetius came back after one of his Gothic commanders stabilized the Situation. Then Aetius led an attack ont he Gothic camp and slaughtered them with the Roman Army.

One thing that set Aetius apart was that he was very agressive, and didn't consider "Barbarian Troops" inferior to the Romans.

[Frank]

One thing that set Aetius apart was that he was very agressive, and didn't consider "Barbarian Troops" inferior to the Romans.

Which wasn't the worst assumption in the west-roman empire of the 5th century 8)