What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Nothing. The Romans had lost it. A small army that depended on barbarians. No economy to speak of.
Endless civil war. A splendid example of what NOT to do. But something to emulate? Definitely not. They lost, they were losers, end of story.

Tell that to my namesake.

[starman2012]

What did you mean by Romans possessing a secular worldview before Christianity took hold? My understanding has always been that religion had played a tremendous role in Roman life, no matter what deity was being honored or what time period it was.

My understanding was that religion was initially important in Roman society but belief in the old gods was undermined by hellenic philosophic speculation. A western civ teacher said religion meant very little to the romans (I believe he was referring to those of the early Imperial period). Occasionally they'd just pour out a libation.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I somewhat agree, but I think Religion did play a role in many Roman's lives. Christianity halted the idealism that allowed Roman Society to advance, that's why the Byzantines stagnated and were unable to stay ahead of their foes as the Empire devolved into a Feudal System.

[Quintus Aurelius Lepidus]

Nothing. The Romans had lost it. A small army that depended on barbarians. No economy to speak of.
Endless civil war. A splendid example of what NOT to do. But something to emulate? Definitely not. They lost, they were losers, end of story.

that's what i thought too, firstly. in my opinion, the principate was the age of glory with victorious legions marching in every corner of the world and the dominate the age of downfall.

but then i read 'the late roman army' by dixon and 'the fall of rome' by goldsworthy.

now, i can really claim to have been converted. these 2 books showed me that this is not the case at all.

more books on the late roman period will follow during the following months.

[starman2012]

it seems there are far fewer likeable or respectable personalities in the middle and late periods!

A lot of the latter Roman emperors and generals deserve a lot of respect even if some weren't very successful. Gallienus, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian, Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian etc did their best, often under nearly impossible circumstances.

I have to agree with what some of the guys said, the late army is much more interesting for me than that of the Principate. It's an army which is stretched, is being faced with more dangerous and complex enemies (for example the Sassanids, who are a big reason for me liking the late Roman period!) and struggling to meet these new threats. You see new technologies, new costume and tactics coming in (late Roman helmets are a lot more visually striking imo than Principate helmets).

Well I dunno. Helmets may have gotten better in terms of protection offered down to about mid third century. But are the Romano-Sassanian helmets and coifs more impressive than early Imperial helmets?

Also in terms of looking at institutions, ways of thinking, even the way history was written and viewed, you can see a long and gradual shift from classical to medieval,

Sure, one aspect of that was the increased emphasis on walls. Apparently the classical way of fighting--armies in the field--was less relied upon.

You have people whining about taxes and government bureaucrats and bad military leadership, more mundane things,

You see that in earlier periods of Roman history.

[Timianus]

My understanding was that religion was initially important in Roman society but belief in the old gods was undermined by hellenic philosophic speculation. A western civ teacher said religion meant very little to the romans (I believe he was referring to those of the early Imperial period). Occasionally they'd just pour out a libation.

I disagree. The whole construct as "religion" being separate from civic or public life is a western convention. Religion was the state and the state was religion. Rome was great because the gods had blessed it and the princeps or dominus lead because they were blessed with good fortune and victory. This was one of the reasons why Rome was always trying to expand; its leaders needed to show divine favor through military victory.

You are talking about a select elite that even could engage in "hellenic philosophic speculation." Also, if you study neoplatonism, you will see that many of the ideas of Christianity came from that tradition. Also, the whole reason that Christians were persecuted was because they failed to participate in the imperial cult worship.

The importance of religion can be verified by the sheer number of "cult" religions that prospered during the late imperial period.

With all due respect, your western civ teacher was flat out wrong and sounds like an unreformed Gibbonite.

[Timianus]

Usually I am more interested in history of law & constitution, administration, finance & taxation, economy and society.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Justice-Consta...ne+justice

The Justice of Constantine: Law, Communication, and Control (Law and Society in the Ancient World)

[Lyceum]

My understanding was that religion was initially important in Roman society but belief in the old gods was undermined by hellenic philosophic speculation. A western civ teacher said religion meant very little to the romans (I believe he was referring to those of the early Imperial period). Occasionally they'd just pour out a libation.

I disagree. The whole construct as "religion" being separate from civic or public life is a western convention. Religion was the state and the state was religion. Rome was great because the gods had blessed it and the princeps or dominus lead because they were blessed with good fortune and victory. This was one of the reasons why Rome was always trying to expand; its leaders needed to show divine favor through military victory.

You are talking about a select elite that even could engage in "hellenic philosophic speculation." Also, if you study neoplatonism, you will see that many of the ideas of Christianity came from that tradition. Also, the whole reason that Christians were persecuted was because they failed to participate in the imperial cult worship.

The importance of religion can be verified by the sheer number of "cult" religions that prospered during the late imperial period.

With all due respect, your western civ teacher was flat out wrong and sounds like an unreformed Gibbonite.

You said it infinitely more politely than I would have been able to, but yes. The inability of people to understand the role of religion in antiquity is one of the massive problems with non-professionals, the Romans were MASSIVELY religious to the point where an understanding of cult is the single most important facet. However I wouldn't say the West Civ teacher was idiotic, its in the interest of that very odd, ludicrous, American subject to paint the Romans and Greeks like that. Its a well studied part of our subjects intellectual history. A fascinating one at that!

[Timianus]

A lot of the latter Roman emperors and generals deserve a lot of respect even if some weren't very successful. Gallienus, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian, Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian etc did their best, often under nearly impossible circumstances.

+1

What I find truly remarkable is how long the institutions in the west were able to hold out given the constant civil wars, poor leadership, plagues, etc. Unfortunately, so little is known about the few individuals that "held things together."

[john m roberts]

One problem here is that for centuries, historians, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, were unable to acknowledge paganism as religion. To them, it was a mere collection of superstitions at best, demonism at worst.

[Alexand96]

I was taught in the classroom that the nature of Greco-Roman religions was more of a quid-pro-quo relationship whereby you placated the gods for good fortune, and not much more thought or feeling went into it than that. However, the more I read and understand especially Roman culture, the more I see how this view is flawed. Yes, the Romans in particular, were obsessed with their state religion. Just because the nature of their beliefs were so dissimilar to what all of us in the modern west are familiar with does not mean that they didn't actually believe the gods existed, and played a direct role in their affairs.

To tie this tangent in with Late Rome, I do not remember exactly who it was I heard making this argument, but I do remember seeing a documentary where a Roman scholar was arguing that one of the reasons why Christianity was so important to the later Roman Empire was its ability to re-unify the many separate factions existing in Roman territories. He stated outright that in his opinion, without Christianity, Rome would have ceased to exist much earlier than it did (whenever that was... :? ).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Peter Heather argued that the reason the Romans skewed many battles to appear as "Roman Victories" to the commoners was the concept of living in a "God-Given Empire."

[Frank]

He stated outright that in his opinion, without Christianity, Rome would have ceased to exist much earlier than it did (whenever that was... :? ).

Some historians would like to disagree with Mr. Heather and claim the opposite
And they have very good arguments.

[Alexand96]

He stated outright that in his opinion, without Christianity, Rome would have ceased to exist much earlier than it did (whenever that was... :? ).

Some historians would like to disagree with Mr. Heather and claim the opposite
And they have very good arguments.

Trust me, the reason I remembered the claim as notable was because it seemed rather inherently strange to me as well. Without delving too far off the beaten path into the history of Christianity, I find it a strange argument that a belief system which is statedly pacifistic was one of the driving forces of cohesion in an empire born of and and either implicitly or explicitly ruled by warfare.

[Timianus]

I find it a strange argument that a belief system which is statedly pacifistic was one of the driving forces of cohesion in an empire born of and and either implicitly or explicitly ruled by warfare.

Indeed, but it is equally as strange as to how Constantine turned the Christ movement into a "religion of victory" and used it to motivate his troops. Christ essentially replaced Sol Invictus. I understand his motivations for doing this; but I never understood how he "sold" this to his army.....unless it was the promise of eternal life?