When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[D B Campbell]

Btw I don't know Latin but I thought "mundus" means world, not universe.

Pliny, for example, equates the Greek κόσμος (cosmos) with the Latin mundus, taking in both terra (earth) and caelum (sky), which is why I translated it as "universe".

[Lyceum]

Btw I don't know Latin but I thought "mundus" means world, not universe.

Pliny, for example, equates the Greek κόσμος (cosmos) with the Latin mundus, taking in both terra (earth) and caelum (sky), which is why I translated it as "universe".

Mundus is an interesting world, it has a homonym meaning clear or elegant originally conceived as something neat/to be celebrated. The word itself gave birth to some interesting derivatives, including a lady's toilet though the connection here is unsure. Its connected also with the Roman idea of the sky as a vault and has had various scholars give it everything from an Etruscan, PIE, or local Italic origin. Either way its obvious that by Classical Latin its being used in a Greek fashion too (order, universe, line).

[D B Campbell]

The timeline of the fall really comes down to how you define the Empire.

We usually think of the Roman empire as the area around the Mediterranean, ruled by an emperor (or emperors) based at Rome. There may be some mileage in considering whether an entity no longer ruled from Rome could still justifiably be considered as a "Roman empire" (whether or not its elite still wanted to call themselves "Roman"). :unsure:

[Epictetus]

The OED says: "The empire established by Augustus in 27 BC and divided by Theodosius in AD 395 into the Western or Latin and Eastern or Greek Empires." Too vague, in my opinion.

[Marja]

People tend to forget that the Goths slayed three Roman emperors in battle.

Three? I knew of Decius.

Traian Decius

Herrenius Etruscus

Flavius Iulius Valens Augustus

Any others?

[Theodosius the Great]

My point centers on Roman complacency,

Fair enough. Complacency tends to take hold when things seem stable. So, wouldn't this complacency have taken hold during the Pax Romana? I think this was more or less Gibbon's view. So, why does Roman complancency start with Constantine in your view?

the rise of the Church and exorcism of Paganism,

I can't see how religious movements had any effect on the course of military events of the fourth century. If anything, I think Christianity blured the distinction between Roman and barbarian. Christian Romans would not view the pagan Goths/Germans as inherently inferior or savage. They would see them as fellow human beings who needed to become evangelized.

and a gradual take-over by the Goths (and Vandals, Heruli, etc.) in key military positions, to the point that Romans were a 1% minority on the battlefield.

This happened to a large extent in the Eastern army and was successfully reversed there. So, this wasn't necessarily fatal to imperial rule.

We have first-born sons cutting off their thumbs to avoid service

Conscription was a perennial problem going all the way back to Augustus. Diocletian greatly increased the size of the army as far as various scholars are able to discern. But you're saying conscription became more difficult under Constantine?

second-born sons becoming monks

There's no kind of hard data we possess to suggest the extent monasticism took hold. We can, however, say for sure that it was far more prevalent in the eastern provinces which survived for another thousand years. So, how does this square with your view about Constantine or the fourth/fifth century?

and sisters (Placidia-types) who willingly marry Athaulfs

I wonder how willing she was given she was abducted.

We have the Council of Nicea

Arianism enjoyed imperial support long after Nicea until the Council of Constantinople (381) - three years AFTER Adrianople - when it was finally condemned. So, the Goths could not point to religious persecution as justification for aggression.

a recognition of the Church as the ONE and ONLY official religion, even irking the Goths and Vandals all the more for sticking with an Arianism now outlawed into the Hinterlands yet flourishing.

Is that why the Goths killed Valens, a fellow Arian? Again, the Goths were not persecuted. They became persecutors of the native Nicene-Christians (i.e. Catholics)

Fact is, Constantine was a poor excuse for a human and even less a Churchman

Agreed. So, I guess he doesn't stand out much from his predecessors. :whistle:

and Theodosius was called "The Great" due to his Church-licking, for he certainly wasn't much of a general, even getting canned and sent back home with his tail between legs.

Most of the eastern field army gets destroyed because of Valens. Theodosius is left with raw recruits, barbarian allies, and soft garrison troops. Yet, he manages to outmanuvre the Goths and submit them to his authority. And the eastern empire goes on to endure for a thousand more years. But he isn't much of a general? By what standard are you judging his generalship?

As for his sons, they were still minors when he died. I can't think of any child-emperors who turned out to be competent rulers in their own right.

Frankly, I think the Romans deserved what they got

Agreed. I believe this is because of their endless civil wars, not religious movements, idiot emperors, or even foreign invasionn (including the fourth Crusade, btw).

Well, Rome did revive pretty well by the end of the third century. Whereas from Constantine on, it was pretty much downhill.

I'm not sure how that view squares with the facts. Subsequent to the defeat of Decius the Romans eventually abandoned the province of Dacia. A totally unprecedented act to my knowledge - a long established and wealthy province was ceded to barbarians. Whereas Constantine actually recovered part of Dacia battling against the Goths. Everyone seems to overlook that part about Constantine.

Julian's campaigns demonstrated that the Roman army was still very formidable, able to launch offensive campaigns on all the frontiers. So, I don't see things going downhill until after Adrianople.

~Theo

[Alanus]

Back to you, Theodosius

Pardon me for not lining up all those "Theodosius the Great said" things in neat order.

To me, the introduction of Franks, Goths, Vandals, Heruli, and Alans, into key/high military positions in BOTH the East and West placed authority with men who had other agendas beyond the traditional Roman one. We cannot say these men were only in the East, not when we have Sarus, Saul, Gainus, and even Alaric and Athaulf in the West. As for numbers, we have 40,000 Goths and 40,000 Alans inducted equally by Theodosius and Gratian.

Was Theodosius a good general? When he failed to stop the "Sarmatians" (we now know they were a fusion of Iazyges and Roxolani), he was canned and sent home to Spain. In his dealings with the Gothic War, he was almost captured-- in his own tent!-- by Fritigern's forces. The huge battle of Ad Salices was a draw. And the war continued in stalemate until (most likely) both sides made overtures for the 382 treaty. I would not call this war a success on Theodosiu's part, but rather an end to an embarressment.

Was he a strong emperor? No. He lay prostrate before a churchman who wasn't even the Pope! "When you rule the king, you rule the kingdom."

The Roman avoidance of military duty increased during reigns of the Constantines, although (as you noted) it was an older problem. But it reached such a height that Valentinian had to pronounce a death sentence to anyone caught cutting off his right thumb.

In short, the Romans gave up their "right to rule" to outsiders and a festering Church.

A child emperor, as you say, is never a good ruler. But there are extremes, and both Honorius and Valentian III were idiots, literally, with Arcadius a foolish step above. Gibbons infers that Placidia was probably a willing hostage, and the word "hostage" was used to save imperial face. He then implies that she went reluctantly into the second marriage. I have always wondered what might have happened if her first-born son, Theodosius III, had lived. He may have possessed an intelligence that was lacking in the rest of the family. :unsure:

As for religion? It watered down Roman virility. And it undermined Roman tradition, especially when Victory was banned from the Forae. I look at the Vandal persecution of the Orthodox (Catholic) Church as a backlash. Paganism was one thing, fairly straight forward, but Christianity (or place your favorite non-Christian sect here)-- like every other, and similar, warp of sacracy-- brings men down to the lowest denominator. Look at the profluence of monasticsm in Gaul and Egypt, men living on pillars in Syria, angry mobs killing Hypathias, and it just kept going ad infinitum until men murdered women and children in the Crusades. The Church was/is a tear in Christ's eye.

It all starts with Constantine, who legitimized one religion over others. With the advent of a sanctioned Christianiy, farm slaves (once considered a cheap commodity) were now viewed as human beings. They were treated better and even given wages. This new attitude wrecked havoc on the economy, driving food prices higher. We can equate this phenomenon with today's tomato that now costs a Euro, and gasoline at $5 a gallon.

The forces that toppled the Western Empire were ongoing, ever widening the gap between the "haves" and "have nots." The standard of living spiraled downward, no money left to repair roads, and fabricae were discontinued. The army was bought through favor ("Here's my daughter," or "This chunk of land can be your's") rather than enlisting through patriotism or the compulsion to do "the right thing." They stood back, unable to take that correct step forward. Sound familiar? Essentially and consequently, Rome's new "barbarian" soldiers can be likened to today's mercenaries.

What killed Rome is now a repeating reality.

We can argue about "Was it the East?" or "Was it the West?" until we're blue in the face. But fact is-- ROME's Civilization FELL. It fell so hard that even the Reneissance couldn't put it back together again, and it took 1,500 years before we could again take a crap in the splendor of indoor plumbing. 8)

[Robert Vermaat]

But fact is-- ROME's Civilization FELL. It fell so hard that even the Reneissance couldn't put it back together again, and it took 1,500 years before we could again take a crap in the splendor of indoor plumbing. 8)

I think you are perhaps confusing civilization with economy and material wealth. The fact that 'we' could not crap with the benefit of indoor plumbing had nothing to do with a lost civilization (it was all preserved just a short distance away, in the East), but with an economic crisis that laid us so low that there was not enough economic power left to put rooftiles on our houses again for a thousand years. Let alone plumbing.

[starman2012]

This happened to a large extent in the Eastern army and was successfully reversed there. So, this wasn't necessarily fatal to imperial rule.

Sure, luck played a role. The bulk of barbarian encroachment in the fifth century was in the West.

I'm not sure how that view squares with the facts. Subsequent to the defeat of Decius the Romans eventually abandoned the province of Dacia. A totally unprecedented act to my knowledge

I believe the Romans abandoned the Agri Decumates in 260, or at least didn't try to recover it from the Suevi.

a long established and wealthy province was ceded to barbarians.

It was only a province for about 150 years and too exposed to attack.

Julian's campaigns demonstrated that the Roman army was still very formidable, able to launch offensive campaigns on all the frontiers. So, I don't see things going downhill until after Adrianople.

Still, if christianity was in any way to blame you could say Constantine paved the way for that. Of course he probably had no choice in a no win situation...

[starman2012]

The Roman avoidance of military duty increased during reigns of the Constantines, although (as you noted) it was an older problem. But it reached such a height that Valentinian had to pronounce a death sentence to anyone caught cutting off his right thumb.

That was the heart of the whole problem. Most citizens just didn't care enough about Rome to fight for it anymore. No wonder barbarian groups became established on Roman territory under their own rulers, who as you note had other agendas besides serving Rome-understatement....There just wasn't enough Roman strength to deal with them properly.

In short, the Romans gave up their "right to rule" to outsiders and a festering Church.

Bingo.

As for religion? It watered down Roman virility. And it undermined Roman tradition, especially when Victory was banned from the Forae. I look at the Vandal persecution of the Orthodox (Catholic) Church as a backlash. Paganism was one thing, fairly straight forward, but Christianity (or place your favorite non-Christian sect here)-- like every other, and similar, warp of sacracy-- brings men down to the lowest denominator. Look at the profluence of monasticsm in Gaul and Egypt, men living on pillars in Syria, angry mobs killing Hypathias,

Hypatia. mile: IMO no analysis of the fall is complete or intellectually honest if it omits christianity...

The forces that toppled the Western Empire were ongoing, ever widening the gap between the "haves" and "have nots." The standard of living spiraled downward, no money left to repair roads,

Oh I think there was still plenty of money; it's just that it got blown on churches instead of something worthwhile i.e. of relevance to Roman survival.

The army was bought through favor ("Here's my daughter," or "This chunk of land can be your's") rather than enlisting through patriotism or the compulsion to do "the right thing."

Right, that's the fundamental difference between the last phase of Roman history and the earlier ones--and a key reason why it was the last. Few really cared about the country anymore.

They stood back, unable to take that correct step forward. Sound familiar? Essentially and consequently, Rome's new "barbarian" soldiers can be likened to today's mercenaries.

What killed Rome is now a repeating reality.

Sure, we're in trouble. But we're not hiring foreigners; we still have US citizens willing to serve. IMO we're at a phase more like that leading up to the fall of the republic not empire.

[Marja]

Why did people have any loyalty to the Empire in its early days? Why would people have any loyalty to the Empire in its later days? Once civil wars became endemic, it did not provide much protection, although it might provide relative protection against certain external enemies. And quite a few people withdrew support, or even went into rebellion: the Bagaudae, the Thracian miners, etc.

Jones suggests that the tax assessment system overtaxed marginal land, and taxed abandoned land, leading to multiple crises after the plague of Marcus Aurelius, declining agricultural production, etc. And then there were exemptions and other favors for the richest, most influential landowners. Goldsworthy argues that a wider circle of soldiers, not necessarily Senators or even Equites, were able to aspire to the emperorship, making it harder for any one emperor to hold off rivals, without the agentes in rebus, Paul the Chain, forcing Silvanus into rebellion, etc.

[richsc]

Modern politics are not on topic here.

There was only the one other, non sequitur, post which was entirely modern, which as Carballo said ( and that got split with the subject post), violated forum rules.

[Marja]

How and why did this get split from the rest of the thread? It makes no sense without that context.

[richsc]

Sorry Marja, but the one other post was entirely modern, which as Carballo said, violated forum rules.

[Theodosius the Great]

To me, the introduction of Franks, Goths, Vandals, Heruli, and Alans, into key/high military positions in BOTH the East and West placed authority with men who had other agendas beyond the traditional Roman one. We cannot say these men were only in the East, not when we have Sarus, Saul, Gainus, and even Alaric and Athaulf in the West.

Agreed. I didn't say or mean to imply that these appointments were an Eastern phenomenon - only to point out that it wasn't unique to the Western provinces. Sure, appointing foreigners to positions of power is never desirable. The Eastern court in Constantinople managed to maintain a balance by appointing loyal Romans. Obviously, the Western court was not so successful in dealing with the problem.

Was Theodosius a good general? When he failed to stop the "Sarmatians" (we now know they were a fusion of Iazyges and Roxolani), he was canned and sent home to Spain.

Since we lack details there's no way to know if the failure was his own. He may have been the fall guy for Valens who, as emperor, was ultimately responsible for defeats or victories.

But let's assume that the failure was the fault of Theodosius for a moment. Why, then, would Gratian recall Theodosius from his retirement in Spain to deal with the Goths after Adrianople? Recalling a disgraced general to assume responsibility for the eastern provinces sounds like a totally irrational act. So, Theodosius' recall alone casts doubt on such speculation. My understanding is that he fell into disfavor due to his father's downfall.

In his dealings with the Gothic War, he was almost captured-- in his own tent!-- by Fritigern's forces. The huge battle of Ad Salices was a draw. And the war continued in stalemate until (most likely) both sides made overtures for the 382 treaty.

All true it would seem. My question is why you attribute the outcome to his generalship rather than to the composition of the army which he had to rebuild from scratch (as I described in my last post). It takes time to build up an army, especially after a crushing defeat. Think of Fabius Maximus "the delayer" who refused to risk battle with Hannibal with an army of raw recruits. He wisely engaged in a war of attrition instead. The Gothic War was similar in that it was a war of attrition. Theodosius basically starved the Goths into submission by outmaneuvering them and hoarding the food supplies of the provinces, thus denying them to the enemy.

Was he a strong emperor? No. He lay prostrate before a churchman who wasn't even the Pope! "When you rule the king, you rule the kingdom."

He committed a terrible act and sought to redress it in the eyes of God and his subjects. To regain some respect he needed to appease both. And recognizing his place as a mere layman he sought forgiveness from the most prominent churchman of the day. (BTW, my last post warned against anachronisms when thinking about the papacy.)

The Roman avoidance of military duty increased during reigns of the Constantines, although (as you noted) it was an older problem.

I think this true in the sense that the civil wars he fought created demand for new recruits. However, the last ten years of his reign were free of civil wars. So, the problem must have subsided somewhat.

In short, the Romans gave up their "right to rule" to outsiders and a festering Church.

Really? The eastern emperors usually meddled in church affairs, always appointing the Patriarch, deposing Popes who didn't toe the line, and manipulating church councils. (See Caesaropapism)

I look at the Vandal persecution of the Orthodox (Catholic) Church as a backlash.

A backlash? The Goths and Vandals were never in a position to be persecuted for their Arianism. They were always on top. Arianism was basically an eastern heresy. It had almost no adherents in the western provinces.

I don't understand your position on Christianity's supposed contribution to Roman decline. First you started off by saying it waters down virility. Then the last thing you said was that it made men into bloodthirsty, murdering crusaders. So, which one is it? It makes you weak or makes you a savage killer? Both can't be true. If it's the latter then it should have increased virility!

As for me, I think peace and prosperity saps virility. This probably led to the downfall of the Greeks as well, IMO.

It was only a province for about 150 years and too exposed to attack.

Only 150 years? What is that, like six generations? That's quite a while to me. Besides, the symbolic value of it must've been high - Trajan's crown jewel. It wasn't too exposed to defend through most of the third-century crisis. On a map it may look deceptively exposed but the terrain must have made it very defensible. If it became too exposed I think it was because of the huge defeat of Decius. The army needed years to recover.

IMO no analysis of the fall is complete or intellectually honest if it omits christianity...

Who's omitting Christianity? Every time it's cited as a cause or contributor to decline the facts repeatedly fail to support that assertion. Christianity was far more entrenched in the eastern provinces. The Roman West was still very pagan in the fourth century and early fifth century. Yet the East continues for 1,000 years after the conquest of the Goths and Vandals.

Both the Goths and Vandals were Christians. So, if Christianity was so detrimental to Roman resolve why did it not have the same effect on their Christian conquerors?

~Theo