When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[Marja]

When it comes to literacy, the Goths had two disadvantages:

1. Except for parts of Scythia and possibly the Balkans, Gothic was a minority language, and in the west it was gradually lost in favor of Latin dialects. I don't know for sure, but the Passion of St. Saba [or Sava] might qualify as Gothic literature preserved in Greek.

2. And it was far from the desert frontiers. Maybe eventually someone will find a cache of Vandal papyri [mostly in Latin, no doubt] but they won't find Gothic ones.

[Titus Manlius Verus]

No, actually, I was questioning whether there were any 'benefits of empire' for most people, especially in its later days.

As previously said, the primary benefit in both the west and east was the protection against foreign enemies. For the west, I believe, the primary threat was the Germans making raids into German territory. And in the east, the Sassnids (forgive my spelling) threatned the entire East. There was, however, no one cause for the empire's collapse. The main reasons that I can see are the increased attacks by barbarians, plagues in Rome, and the introduction of Christian morality that lessened the Roman's appetite for blood. I'm a Christian, and I can see the validity of that argument. I also heard one interesting theory: The use of lead pipes over the course of centuries led to many birth defects which further weakened the pool of manpower available to the Romans and contributed to disease. I thought that was a rather interesting idea. Opinions?

[starman2012]

Our concept of patriotism is a modern one. In ancient times it was more a matter of loyalty to one's own city.

Or State. Trajan wasn't from Rome and most third century emperors weren't from Italy but they worked and fought hard for the empire.

Possibly. I suspect this recovery came at the expense of denuding the troops of Dacia though.

Or just recruiting more Illyrians.

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.

In the end, just about all barbarian groups ended up in the West. The east was attacked, raided and extorted at times but at least barbarian groups didn't try to settle there causing permanent loss of land and revenue.

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.

The West seems to have become enfeebled after the death of Stilicho in 408. In the fifth century at least, the eastern or euphrates border was relatively quiet, and asia minor was unscathed--in remarkable contrast to the third century.There's no doubt the east was stronger; more than once the west sent it an SOS.

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.

Yes of course but the Romans still had plenty of churches and probably a much more religious milieu overall.

[starman2012]

The main reasons that I can see are the increased attacks by barbarians,

That had always been a problem. The gauls sacked Rome in 390 BCE and the teutones and cimbri were a big problem a few centuries later. The problem wasn't so much the external threat but the acute unwillingness of 5th century citizens to do anything about it.

plagues in Rome,

That had practically nothing to do with it. Plague was a much worse problem in the third century, even the second than in the fifth.

the introduction of Christian morality that lessened the Roman's appetite for blood.

Christianity could've been the problem in more ways than one. Certainly its triumph can be better correlated with serious Roman decline/fall than the aforementioned things.

a Christian, and I can see the validity of that argument. I also heard one interesting theory: The use of lead pipes over the course of centuries led to many birth defects which further weakened the pool of manpower available to the Romans and contributed to disease. I thought that was a rather interesting idea. Opinions?

Forget it. mile:

[Marja]

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:

Perhaps. I suspect that the Mediterranean world destabilized central Europe, largely through the demands of the slave trade. This prompted the development of mercenary warbands, such as the Gaesatae, at the expense of tribal institutions. I suspect that this system not only couldn't create a viable alternative to Roman power, no matter the scale, it made Roman power seem like a viable alternative to it. Early Christianity would represent an ideological challenge to the warband system. I suspect that may contribute to the Balkan Gothic case, but I am not so sure it would have the same effect in later periods.

D.H. Green discusses the mercenary warband system, in the Germanic context, in [i]Language and History in the Early Germanic World[/u], several of the key terms are borrowings from Celtic languages, but I'm not sure how the mercenary warband system functioned in the earlier Gallic context.

[Theodosius the Great]

Trajan wasn't from Rome and most third century emperors weren't from Italy but they worked and fought hard for the empire.

Two things. First, I may have misunderstood the context of your statement. I thought you were referring to local elites and/or common people. Second, I don't think emperors are a good example to demonstrate your point. All emperors before Macrinus were members of the senatorial class. Trajan wasn't a true Spaniard, he had Italian ancestry. Ditto for Hadrian. As for the so-called Baracks emperors, I only see them as being ambitious power grabbers. Who wouldn't want to be emperor?

OTOH, I think there was a sense of patriotism in the East after Theodosius confirmed Nicene-Christianity as the official state religion. Imperial ideology evolved to the point where the emperor was seen as the defender of orthodoxy. Since paganism was still entrenched in the Roman senate and in the country-side this new ideology didn't really take hold to the same degree.

Or just recruiting more Illyrians.

Or more barbarians for that matter.

I can't dismiss the loss of Dacia so readily though. It was very Romanized. The Romanian language is one of the Romance languages after all.

The east was attacked, raided and extorted at times but at least barbarian groups didn't try to settle there causing permanent loss of land and revenue.

I assume you mean after the Gothic War. But even then I'm not sure that's accurate. By the sixth century, possibly earlier, I think the Slavs began overrunning the Balkins into Greece and settled.

The West seems to have become enfeebled after the death of Stilicho in 408.

Yes, I think that's when it becomes apparent. But I honestly doubt the Western forces recovered from being smashed twice by Theodosius in such a short time. Stilicho had eastern units with him while he fought Alaric but had to send them back to Constantinople.

There's no doubt the east was stronger; more than once the west sent it an SOS.

Yes, it was stronger after Theodosius' victories. Still, the East could never deploy a higher percentage of it's forces against the barbarians because of the Euphrates. It always had this handicap that the West did not.

The West could bring more troops to bear against invasion if needed. This changed after Stilicho as you said.

Yes of course but the Romans still had plenty of churches and probably a much more religious milieu overall.

How about when these barbarian groups took over the Western provinces. They "inherited" everything including the churches.

Later events don't seem to bear out the theory that Christianity made the Germans less warlike, IMO.
The Vandals, Goths, and later the Franks all seem to have retained their virility.

~Theo

[Marja]

Two quibbles:

1. Vandals and Goths aren't Germans. Or are Danes and Englishfolk Germans?

2. East Germanic and West Germanic religious vocabulary are a bit different. Wulfila chose weihs instead of hailags to avoid the military connotations of hailags. Saxon and Frankish writers chose heilag. D.H. Green discusses this at length in Language and Hitory in the Early Germanic World. I think East Germanic and West Germanic conversion came under different circumstances and at different stages in the development of Christianity. I don't think the Gothic refugees were particularly warlike, not in the first generation. I think the Roman Empire pushed them too far.

[Alanus]

Back to Marja,

Although this is almost "off topic," our best source on the Gothic problem remains as Ammianus, incidentally a pagan. Perhaps our worst (yet invaluable) source was Socrates Scholasticus (a Christian and evidently related to Junius Soranus), then the copyists Zosimus (a pagan) and Sozomen (a Christian).

It's through Socrates that we get the tale of Fritigern refraining to capture Theodosius, but there is a far more important passage in his 3rd book. He mentions two events that are most likely linked and appear (to me) to actually occur at the same time. Fritigern leads Roman forces into Gothia and "defeats" Athanaric, and Soranus retrieves the "bones of the martyrs." I believe this was actually a singular event. Interesting that Roman authorities would hand over command of a Roman contingent to a "barbarian," the first time this Tyrfingus shows up in the historical record. This can be dated roughly between 369/70 to 375, and it's more likely that Soranus and Fritigern acted jointly in bringing the relics of the holy persons into the Empire. Soranus was a Cappadocian, as was Ulfilus, but Orthodox. Evidently, it didn't matter, the bones of both Orthodox and Arians were among those retrieved. And this shows that not all the Christians left Gothia two decades earlier with Ulfilus.

Clearly, Fritigern was a Christian years prior to his leading the Tyrfingi across the Danube... which is not how most modern historians see it. Furthermore, the Gothic Church celebrated a feast-day in October dedicated to Fritigern and the martyrs. We have, for too long, dismissed the Goths as being "psudo" Christians when, in reality, they were just as Christain as Romans of that persuasion. The same thing goes for the Alans who were converted to Arianism in Pannonia by Bishop Amantius. The kicker, of course, is the wonderful parade of the Goths through the streets of Rome as they delivered the "Service of Peter" back to the Church.

When it came to fine points of the Bible, the Goths were no less Christians than their southern counterparts. And as you noted, they were not "Germans," nor were they simplistic or "ignorant." In the long run, Fritigern stands up today as "The" moralistic man of his era, and I find it hard to compare a Roman to his ethics and virtues beyond Soranus.

[Epictetus]

I finally finished Greg Woolf's Rome: An Empire's Story, which suggests the Empire fell circa the early eighth century. I put a review here.

[starman2012]

I finally finished Greg Woolf's Rome: An Empire's Story, which suggests the Empire fell circa the early eighth century.

When the east lost control of its western (re)conquests?

[starman2012]

As for the so-called Baracks emperors, I only see them as being ambitious power grabbers.

They did their best and by 268-75 saved the Empire.

OTOH, I think there was a sense of patriotism in the East after Theodosius confirmed Nicene-Christianity as the official state religion. Imperial ideology evolved to the point where the emperor was seen as the defender of orthodoxy. Since paganism was still entrenched in the Roman senate and in the country-side this new ideology didn't really take hold to the same degree.

Very interesting.

I assume you mean after the Gothic War. But even then I'm not sure that's accurate. By the sixth century, possibly earlier, I think the Slavs began overrunning the Balkins into Greece and settled.

Sure but the surprising thing is, barbarian groups occupied just about every nook and cranny in the West but in the East didn't go beyond the balkans into Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt etc.

How about when these barbarian groups took over the Western provinces. They "inherited" everything including the churches.

But they were catholic churches which arians weren't so enamored of.

[Robert Vermaat]

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

Split undone. No idea how that happened, all united once more. :-)

[Theodosius the Great]

I finally finished Greg Woolf's Rome: An Empire's Story, which suggests the Empire fell circa the early eighth century.

When the east lost control of its western (re)conquests?

Interesting view. It sounds like it ties in with how other authors date the beginning of the Middle Ages to the coming of Islam (i.e. the Arab conquests). It sounds like Woolf is pointing out the good reasons behind this but goes further in refuting the claims of the emperors in Constantinople. If so, I can't agree with him. Even after the loss of Egypt, Syria, Africa, Italy, and Spain the empire was able to project power disproportionate to its size against the behemoth Caliphate.

They did their best and by 268-75 saved the Empire.

Yes they did. I was differing on their motives.

Sure but the surprising thing is, barbarian groups occupied just about every nook and cranny in the West but in the East didn't go beyond the balkans into Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt etc.

Yes, due mainly to the defenses of Constantinople which often saw these groups pay a visit.

But they were catholic churches which arians weren't so enamored of.

Such distinctions didn't faze the new overlords. They appropriated what they wanted.
Besides, the Franks were never Arians. Clovis converted to Catholicism from paganism. The subsequent history of the Franks show this didn't dull their edge one bit, IMO.

~Theo

[starman2012]

Yes they did. I was differing on their motives.

I wouldn't dismiss them all as power grabbers. The troops wanted better leadership. Maximinus was threatened with death if he didn't accept the purple. Aemilianus was elevated by his men who later killed him. Valerian didn't seek the purple until Gallus was dead. Philip IMO was wrongly accused of killing Gordian to get his job. Decius was proclaimed emperor by the troops after going to the danube on behalf of Philip.

Yes, due mainly to the defenses of Constantinople...

They could've bypassed them; according to what I saw in one of Heather's maps, some Huns actually crossed into Asia Minor but basically they didn't seem interested in raiding or settling there, or elsewhere in the Near East.

[Eleatic Guest]

My take:

476 end of Western Roman Empire
1453 end of Eastern Roman Empire

Translatio imperii:

1806 end of Western Roman Empire
1917 end of Eastern Roman Empire