Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?
#46
Actually, have no idea how that split happened. Bug in software?
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#47
I want to thank Robert, Theo, and Tim

This is a very interesting and important discussion; and overall, much thought has gone into it. Strange, when you think about it, but modern evaluations on the cause of the Fall of Rome (ie Western Empire)have often attempted to repudiate Gibbon, yet unsuccessfully.

Yes, I confused "civilization" with "material wealth." But as Robert also noted, the material wealth was channeled into the Church rather than the civitas. Not only that, but the best of influential men entered the Church instead of the military. Our prime example was Ambrosius, the man whom Theodosius lay prostrate to. If we look at the career of Ambrosius, we see the very anti-Arianism I mentioned. He was placed in Milan to oust the then present Arian bishop, and even the royal family couldn't change the course of events. Ambrosius was backed by a mob which even occupied the church like a 1960's "sit-in." It's very hard to view the West of the mid 4th century as not actively and popularly Catholic. Paganism was "mostly dead but not totally dead," to quote Billy Crystal.

So, I guess I'm siding with Gibbon on that point. Elsewhere in out discussion, we seem to agree on several points-- the Gothic war had become a protracted stalemate (although there was a famous speech by a Theodosius supporter that painted him as the Ultimite Conqueror), also the fact that Roman youths (perhaps not in every case) didn't care to fight for their homeland.


The crux of the matter appears as a slow decline in patriotism and an economy channeled in the wrong direction, to a point where the Western Church became what it remains today, a huge tax-free conglomorate. Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-Christian-- Confusedmile: --but that seems the case in these "modern times," at least to me.

We also see the "Gothic problem," which (as we all noted) stemmed back to the trouncing of Decius, then to the debauch at Adrianople. The Goths, in the late years (or last years) were looked upon with distaste, a bunch of hoodlums who wore robes in the Senate yet changed back into trousers as soon as they left the Fora. Yet for all the "Scythian"-bashing, the Romans placed Goths, Vandals. and Alans in key military positions while the home-grown brains became churchmen. Duhh! :-o

I find the whole thing an anomoly; and it would be humourous if it weren't so incongruous.

I have changed my by-word or motto to reflect my positon on this matter: Rome Didn't Fall in Day.
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#48
Quote:
Alanus Wrote:
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.

[color=#000088]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.


What you are saying makes sense, and I’m unable to argue against it, but I keep thinking this is inadequate and we are missing something. The Roman state was practically defined by its openness to foreigners.

According to legend, Romulus opened an asylum and accepted all comers. Some traditional kings were foreigners invited or accepted to rule over Rome, and academics like T.J. Cornell have no problem believing this could happen in some form. In its period of expansion, Rome successfully integrated foreign elements – local elites, mostly – into its system. Some say that Roman openness was the key to its growth and success, and contrast this with some of the Greek city-states, which jealously guarded citizenship and refused to integrate foreigners.

Of course, there were backslides, like the Social War and the rebellion under Marcus Aurelius, but overall Rome was extremely successful at bringing foreigners into the Roman fold. If this is the case, why did it suddenly fail, and foreigners in the Empire became a liability instead of an asset? I have repeatedly looked for a good book or article on this subject, and haven’t been satisfied with what I’ve found.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#49
Hello Epictetus,

Is it possible, perhaps "probable" a better word, that in the history of the Republic and Empire, the Romans "welcomed" various outsiders into the fold UNTIL they finally met "their match" (at least militarily) with the Vandals and especially the Goths. In other words, the foreigners were "losers" until the Goths arrived. This could account for the well-recorded ambivulance against them. The Goths were an "ancient" but ongoing threat. They reached the Western provinces in far larger numbers than they did in the East.

And as mentioned in more than one post on this thread -- the Goths killed 3 emperors. A record like that weighs heavily. What we see is an extremely distrustful "welcome," but a necessary one. :-?

This could account for their role as "cannon fodder" in the 390s. "There's no Goth like a Dead Goth." A cemetary in northern Italy contains the "almost surviving" foreigners after the battle of Figidus. The buried had Gothic names. Wink
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#50
Could be.
For instance, we have a Campbell, then the Other Campbell, plus a second Other Campbell.
How did the Campbell's get split? :lol: :woot:
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#51
Quote: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.

The army recovered long before Dacia was abandoned by Aurelian, or, it was in back in good shape by then. After all the incursions it made sense to shorten the line and rely on the danube.

Quote: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.

It certainly helped that the east was richer and spared the bulk of barbarian attempts at permanent settlement i.e. luck played a role.


Quote:The Roman West was still very pagan in the fourth century and early fifth century.

Wouldn't say "very pagan" by the fifth century.

Quote: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?

I doubt the barbarians had internalized christianity to the same degree as the Roman populace. I think for them it was just a label.
Reply
#52
Quote:I doubt the barbarians had internalized christianity to the same degree as the Roman populace. I think for them it was just a label.
Why do you think that?
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#53
Quote: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?

Identification with Rome, due to being Roman or romanized and the benefits of empire.

Quote: Once civil wars became endemic, it did not provide much protection, although it might provide relative protection against certain external enemies.

Breakdowns in security were serious in the third century but temporary. Claudius clobbered h barbarians in 268.


Quote:And quite a few people withdrew support, or even went into rebellion: the Bagaudae, the Thracian miners, etc.

Generally not until the empire was really far gone in the fifth century.

Quote: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.

There had always been power struggles and economic problems. The empire always survived until the fifth century when it appears to have lost the support of most of its own citizens. By then many actually associated the crumbling of rome with an imminent "second coming."
Reply
#54
No, actually, I was questioning whether there were any 'benefits of empire' for most people, especially in its later days.
Reply
#55
Quote:No, actually, I was questioning whether there were any 'benefits of empire' for most people, especially in its later days.

In its latter days it no longer conferred the benefits of relative security and stability. However, this was the people's own fault, for ceasing to support it.
Reply
#56
Quote:Why do you think that?

The behavior of many was certainly suggestive of it. :wink: I doubt the barbarians actually went to church, especially if they were aryan and despised catholic churches in their midst. And as mostly illiterates I doubt there was much religious instruction. In contrast, christianity was very important to most fifth century Romans. Had it not been for the fact that the climate tended to rule out pillar dwelling outside Syria, screwballs like Simeon would've sprouted all over the empire.
Reply
#57
Why on earth should the people have supported the empire? From what I've read, imperial administration was for the benefit of the ruling classes and of the army, and was increasingly hostile towards the rest of the working classes in later periods.

It manifests in the attitude that some-such-person was poor because he only had one or two slaves; such a person might be poorer than the rest of the rich, but this implies that the original author had forgotten the actual poor and the slaves.

It manifests in policies that tie an increasing proportion of the population to the land, and to the landlords' control, and in policies that tie sons to fathers' occupations.

It manifests in tax policies that fall hardest on the poor.
Reply
#58
In their eyes, they would be traditional Christians, and they would probably regard the other side as 'Athanasian heretics,' just as the other side regarded them as 'Arian heretics.' And they probably wouldn't trace their own side to Arius.

Didn't Wulfila adapt the Greek alphabet to the Gothic language because the runic futhark had pagan connotations? Don't the martyrologies record people being killed for going to church or for refusing to eat sacrificed meat? At least a minority took it seriously. Weren't the earliest Gothic communities south of the Danube founded by Christian Goths fleeing persecution, including Wulfila? It might create a sort of founding myth for some later Gothic communities in the Roman Empire.

Didn't Socrates of Constantinople emphasize the persecutions and the division between Christian Goths, including Fritigern, and pagan Goths, including Athanaric, in his history of the Gothic refugee crisis and revolt? [Halsall tries to argue that this, and not a conflict with the Huns, was the main cause of the crisis] Didn't Salvian consider the Vesi more Christian than the Romans?

Isn't the first known Christian church in Nicopolis in the Gothic ghetto on the south side of the ancient city? [Now it may be that the Danubian borders were more pagan or less Christian than the rest of the Empire, particularly less Christian than Syria or parts of Aegyptus. But that leaves me wondering whether it makes more sense to compare the Goths to others on the Danubian borders, or to others in the Seven Provinces and Italia.]

Now the Alans might be Aryans [Indo-Iranian speakers] - Alanic and modern Ossetian being Iranian languages, and their name going back to the same root - and some of the Goths might also be Alans, but the rest of the Goths wouldn't be Aryans.
Reply
#59
Quote:Why on earth should the people have supported the empire? From what I've read, imperial administration was for the benefit of the ruling classes and of the army, and was increasingly hostile towards the rest of the working classes in later periods.

Interesting question - not how did the empire fall, but how did it ever stand up? Confusedmile:

Initially, peoples were ruled by Rome because their leaders and armies had been defeated and their lands conquered. They didn't have to support the empire, just obey it. Roman rule functioned initally by coopting native elites, and in many cases these elites remained in power under the imperial umbrella. No change for the poor - but imperial government gave the people of the empire, not just the rich, access to global trade networks and also to an impartial system of law and a higher judiciary.

If citizens withdrew their loyalty or support for the Roman state, to whom would they give it? In the troubled times of the mid third and later fourth centuries it may have seemed a choice between evils, but even an often rapacious Roman state would have been preferable to the unknown terrors of various rampaging non-state others (barbarians). Arguably, in the pre-industrial era the majority of people would have lacked the political or moral discourse that would enable them to articulate revolutionary opposition to the state - such revolts as did occur were either led by local elites (as the 3rd-century Bagaudae appear to have been) or religiously inspired (as in the assorted Jewish uprisings).

It may be, (thinking off the top of my head) that it was the maturing political structure of the western barbarian polities - Frankish and Visigothic kingdoms - that enabled them to effectively counter Roman power by offering a viable alternative. In the east, caught between migrating steppe peoples and Persia, those on the borders of the empire were unable to develop a structure and localised political cohesion that could equal or surpass the power and stability of the Roman state.

Hmm... :neutral:
Nathan Ross
Reply
#60
Quote:But as Robert also noted, the material wealth was channeled into the Church rather than the civitas. Not only that, but the best of influential men entered the Church instead of the military.
On the first point I think the amount of wealth being channeled isn't as large as you may think. I see material wealth being channeled from pagan temples to churches. A famous example is the Basilica of Maxentius in Rome. Whereas, Constantine built Old Saint Peter's Basilica on Vatican Hill. So, money goes from one pocket into another pocket. But later there was also much renovating of pagan temples into churches (a much cheaper option).


Quote:Not only that, but the best of influential men entered the Church instead of the military. Our prime example was Ambrosius, the man whom Theodosius lay prostrate to.
This is a valid point, however, I don't think we can attribute this change to Christianity. The influential (i.e. Senatorial classes) where disenfranchised from holding top military posts by Septimius Severus. He replaced all the legionary legates with equestrians.


Quote:He was placed in Milan to oust the then present Arian bishop, and even the royal family couldn't change the course of events. Ambrosius was backed by a mob which even occupied the church like a 1960's "sit-in." It's very hard to view the West of the mid 4th century as not actively and popularly Catholic. Paganism was "mostly dead but not totally dead," to quote Billy Crystal.
Milan was probably the most Christian city in all Italy. Hence, Ambrosius wielded more influence than the Pope in still-pagan Rome. Paganism was dominant in the Senatorial classes of the entire fourth century and into the early fifth century. The rustics in the country side in all the provinces were mostly pagans (the word "pagan" means "country-dweller"). And Italy was probably the most pagan province in the West. The center of Latin Christianity was the province of Africa. Western Europe was the most pagan area of the entire empire.


Quote:The crux of the matter appears as a slow decline in patriotism
Our concept of patriotism is a modern one. In ancient times it was more a matter of loyalty to one's own city.


Quote:What you are saying makes sense, and I’m unable to argue against it, but I keep thinking this is inadequate and we are missing something. The Roman state was practically defined by its openness to foreigners.
I think Alanus is on to something. When facing a superior (or near-superior) enemy this openness to outsiders fell by the wayside. For example, I can't imagine the Romans being so open to a Carthaginian between any of the Punic Wars. Or a Persian/Parthian during the empire. Manicheans were targeted by Diocletian because he saw them as a potential Persian fifth column.

So, I do see a religious component in the change of attitude. On the one hand, I think Christianity reenforced or even liberalized the traditional Roman attitude towards foreigners. Barbarians became fellow Christians. OTOH, this might not be the case if the foreigners in question were heretics which was probably the worst thing they could be. The Goths were an exception, of course.


Quote:The army recovered long before Dacia was abandoned by Aurelian, or, it was in back in good shape by then.
Possibly. I suspect this recovery came at the expense of denuding the troops of Dacia though.


Quote:It certainly helped that the east was richer and spared the bulk of barbarian attempts at permanent settlement i.e. luck played a role.
I'm not sure I agree. The Visigoths in the fifth century roamed in both the western and eastern provinces. (Remember, Stilicho was condemned for chasing Alaric into the East). I think Vandals may have invaded from the East like the Visigoths as well. Of course, Britain was invaded by the Saxons, et al.

In addition, both the eastern and western provinces were hammered by Attila about equally. Although, I don't think he ever attempted to settle onto Roman ground.

Also, the East was richer as you said, but until 394 A.D. the West had the superior field army due to Adrianople. And it had two incontiguous borders to defend - the Euphrates and Danube - which in the long run were more difficult to manage than the Western frontier, IMO.


Quote:I doubt the barbarians actually went to church, especially if they were aryan and despised catholic churches in their midst. And as mostly illiterates I doubt there was much religious instruction.
I agree with Marja. I don't believe the migratory nature of the barbarians prevented them from internalizing Christianity at all since they had their own Arian clergy. And most Romans were always illiterate. High literacy rates is a very modern phenomenon, AFAIK.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BBC The Rise and Fall of an Empire Kefka 24 6,916 10-17-2011, 05:22 PM
Last Post: Kefka
  Before Fall of Empire Armies (Romans, Huns and Goths...) P. Lilius Frugius Simius 23 4,648 05-30-2005, 04:05 PM
Last Post: P. Lilius Frugius Simius

Forum Jump: