Another primary consideration in introduction & eventual disappearance of Segmentata?

[CNV2855]

I would be very interested on the evidence you base your conclusion that during the Late Roman period they were 'Less learned people', have you documentary proof of this?

I had thought this was common knowledge? It's the first major epidemic that we have proof of and it caused the disintegration of the widespread Roman/Greek education and tutelage system that had existed probably until back to 700BC. Isn't it one of the reasons we have so many literary sources for 300BC-200AD and so few from 300-800AD? The ultra-elite probably got a decent education but when a large portion of the population dies, then not only were people afraid to congregate but a lot of knowledge perished along with those people. When the tutor of your teacher perishes then the education of your teacher also suffers, and subsequently the quality of your education is lessened. Especially in an age without the printing press and or cheap mediums for long term knowledge. Literacy rates absolutely plummeted after the Antonine plague and they never really recovered until the Renaissance. That's a millennia. It wasn't just the Antonine plague but every epidemic that followed and then the other major epidemics (Plague of Justinian & Black Death) that kept education from flourishing during this period.

The romans had state-subsidized education and it faltered due to the economic, cultural, and societal effects of the plague.

The extent of the epidemic has been extensively debated: the majority of authors agree that the impact of the plague was severe, influencing military conscription, the agricultural and urban economy, and depleting the coffers of the State. The Antonine plague affected ancient Roman traditions, also leaving a mark on artistic expression; a renewal of spirituality and religiousness was recorded. These events created the conditions for the spread of monotheistic religions, such as Mithraism and Christianity. This period, characterized by health, social and economic crises, paved the way for the entry into the Empire of neighbouring barbarian tribes and the recruitment of barbarian troops into the Roman army; these events particularly favoured the cultural and political growth of these populations.

Disease killed as much as one-third of the population in some areas, and decimated the Roman army. The epidemic had drastic social and political effects throughout the Roman Empire, particularly in literature and art.

Two quick quotes regarding the plague, but as far as an academic source google is useless. It's discussed in several books and documentaries but it's difficult to pinpoint which and where. Though the plague's effects on education was discussed in detail in one great paper I read recently. I searched but was unable to find it. I need to print it out, so when I find it again I'll give you the source.

You seem to be conflating a lot of different things here - the plague, the disappearance of segmentata, imperial corruption and declining literacy. I'm not convinced they're so easily connected!

The Antonine Plague was doubtless very severe, and the empire may have taken a decade or even two to recover..

You might be right, but you have to understand the Antonine plague was not one event. It was a wildfire that wasn't fully extinguished for centuries. Every few decades it would return.

The Romans were hit again, and again, and again by smallpox. Then as soon as it looked like they were recovering the infamous Yersinia pestis hit with the Plague of Justinian in 527. The effects of this was the ruination of education in the West for twelve-hundred years.

The craziness of Commodus is described by contemporaries like Dio.

Not disputing that he was crazy, but we assign too much to this ONE MAN in an age when communication was slow, that was decentralized; an age in which one man really did not have the power that the leader of a Great Power in the modern world has (the capacity to destroy the world). Do you think it's possible that he was crazy because he was surrounded by death in his youth, perhaps traumatized like a molested child? Do not forget that his father likely died of smallpox, which was not an easy way to go. Why do we see such a breakdown in morals, and restraint after Marcus Aurelius? I don't think it's a coincidence although we can't know for sure.

It's just my theory that the first major epidemic was responsible for the Crisis of the Third Century in numerous ways. An example would be the change in outlook and attitude due to widespread death and despair. It's no secret that religion flourishes in times of great distress, such as these epidemics.

In fact, the Severan era (right through to the mid 3rd century) saw a flowering of literature and philosophy across the empire. Styles changed in art and architecture, as they tend to do, but we no longer see that as a decline.

Then it's a widely purported myth because every source I read on this era discusses the topic in a way contrary to which you are describing. I cannot find one source on the Antonine plague that doesn't say it destroyed Roman culture - and likely education and philosophy with it.

---

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Something you guys have to explain to me is why the Roman Empire had a better educated people and lower illiteracy rates than Europe during the Dark and Middle Ages?

That is an indisputable fact.

Literacy dropped for 1000-1500 years, depending on when illiteracy skyrocketed. At what point does the literacy drop? After 475 AD? If so then how can you argue that the WRE "slowly diminished" and that the fall wasn't as disastrous as we think? That the Dark Ages weren't really Dark?

It really looks to me that this sudden drop occurred around the 3rd century, but I'd like to be educated by someone with more knowledge on this era. If you believe otherwise then aren't you really saying that 475 AD was really as precipitous a catastrophe for the West as formerly thought?

::back on topic::
This thread has taken a U-turn...but it's one hell of a coincidence that we see plate armor rise during an age with high literacy, fall during a period with low literacy, and then rise again with the return of a more learned society.

The Principate had great metal. The capacity for Roman metalworkers is drastically underrated. They had folded steel, they had imported steel. The outside of segmentata was hard to deflect the blade, and the inside was soft iron to absorb the shock. Segmentata is case hardened, that's a pretty advanced technological innovation. Yeah, mail was in widespread use for two millennia but I think you guys are reaching for reasons to prefer it over other armours. It wasn't preferred in ANY age in which there was plate armour, period.::