What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The East was lucky in that the Sassanids were busy with the Hepathaltites to the East. HAd the Sassies launched a major attack at the Same time as Attila's campaign, the Eastern Empire would have gone down the tubes quicker than the west.

Luckily for the East there wasn't much more than minor battles on the Sassanid frontier which resulted in a white peace during the 5th Century.

[Frank]

Stilicho didn't do badly in the first years of the fifth century.

Sure, but he would have done even better with the western army pre-Frigidus and without the transfer of troops to the east.

The East was fairly lucky in that most barbarians settled in the West, which meant permanent losses of territory.

Yes, but luck was just one reason. Different structures and some wise decisions were at least as important.

[Paul Elliott]

Trousers.

[Alanus]

What attracted me to late Rome?

The so-called "barbarians." I'm one of them; and within them I find far better men and heros than I do in the Romans. Fritigern tops the list, followed by Alaric. Stillicho is right up there, and Aetius came from barbarian roots. These were the great men of the Late Western Empire. They had guts and a style of morality that the Romans had lost. The greatest century, for the accomplishments of individual movers and shakers, was from 376 to 476. In the Caesar types, and in Julius himself, I find a lack of something the later opposition-- the barbarians-- :whistle: possessed.

[Conal]

My interest started as a young boy being facinated by the Huscarl, then the Jomvikings, the Vendel period and onto the migration period... ( Arthurian :whistle: ) ... I bumped into Late Roman from there.

I tend to lose interest the furthe back from 400AD I go.

[Timianus]

Theodosius reign was heavily overrated by christian historians due to his measures against pagans. Every important pro-christian emperor was called "the Great" and so they overlooked the real great emperors.
Looking to the Battle at Frigidus, you could call Theodosius I the gravedigger of the western field army and door opener for the Visigoths.

Not to mention the murder of 20K citizens who objected to being "guarded" by foreign troops, declaring all Christians who did not adhere to the nicene creed as "heretics" and proper targets for lynch mobs, and his repeated losses to the Goths after he came out of "retirement."

The more I read about this era, while I agree that it was in "terminal decline", one cannot help see Theodosius as a autocratic madman that wasted the precious military resources of the empire, decried and punished all forms of free-thinking, and set up an unstable and unworkable administrative division of the empire upon his death. I lay much of the blame for the "accelerated" death of the empire on him.

[markusaurelius]

I lay much of the blame for the "accelerated" death of the empire on him.

Yup :!:

[Robert Vermaat]

When I first began reading about the Late Empire in the 1970s and 80s it was still common to find the claim that when Theodosius died in 395 he left behind a strong and united empire. It is only more recent work that has demonstrated that by 400 the empire was already in 'terminal decline'.

I disagree. By 400 'the Empire' was by no means in terminal decline. The East did not even have too many problems, in fact surviving almost intact into the 6th century when their crisis really began.
Even the West could have been in better shape had it not been for the vicious in-fighting between them and the East.
In that aspect I agree with your analysis of Stilicho: had he not been pushing for domination of the Eastern part as well as the West, things could have been much better.

Consider some differences if Stilicho had not been pushing for the guardianship of Arcadius after Theodosius died in 395?
There would have been far less problems between both capitals.
Illyricum would have posed less of a problem.
The Visigoths would have been dealt with as an internal problem and not as a source of rivalry between East and West.
No battles between the western armies and Alaric 9who would in all likelyhood have been suppressed in Greece).
No sack of Rome in 410.
Perhaps the Gildonian rebellion would not have occurred.
Rome would not have been fixed on the East and would have concetrated more on keeping order in Gaul, which would have been far more satisfied with rule from Rome.
The invasions of 406 would have had far less of an impact on Gaul, it's unlikely that Vandals would have settled in Spain, let alone Africa.
Britain may not have rebelled at that point.

It's pure speculation of course (one of the things I like in this period) but I say a case can be made for a Western Empire in a much better shape to receive the Huns in the 440s and 450s. Of course, no statement can be made about other, new, problems, or even the impact the Justinian plague would have had if the Western Empire had still been present in the 6th century. Also, the Roman system of succession (or better: the lack of such a system) would still have been a problem that could have created other instabilities. There's no telling whether Stilicho as a 'man behind the throne' would have set the same precedent as he did, or that Honorius would have become a stronger emperor after all. Likewise, the economic crisis of the 5th century would crtainly have played a part, but not as severe as it did with the west falling apart. With no Goths settling and fighting in Gaul, or Vandals in Africa, the Western military possibilities would not have eroded so fast as they did between 400 and 430, and the growth of the Frankish lands would have been much slower, or perhaps the Franks could even have been assimilated.

I think Stilicho, like Theodosius, has a lot to answer for.

[sonic]

I disagree. By 400 'the Empire' was by no means in terminal decline. The East did not even have too many problems, in fact surviving almost intact into the 6th century when their crisis really began.
Even the West could have been in better shape had it not been for the vicious in-fighting between them and the East.
In that aspect I agree with your analysis of Stilicho: had he not been pushing for domination of the Eastern part as well as the West, things could have been much better.

OK, maybe I overstated my case a little. :twisted:

Having said that, I think by 400 all of the necessary factors were in place FOR the terminal decline: the Emperors were minors, meaning that 'rule' passed to senior 'ministers', resulting in said ministers concentrating too much on their own survival against other ministers rather than on strengthening and maintaining the Empire.

Consider some differences if Stilicho had not been pushing for the guardianship of Arcadius after Theodosius died in 395?
There would have been far less problems between both capitals.
Illyricum would have posed less of a problem.
The Visigoths would have been dealt with as an internal problem and not as a source of rivalry between East and West.
No battles between the western armies and Alaric 9who would in all likelyhood have been suppressed in Greece).
No sack of Rome in 410.
Perhaps the Gildonian rebellion would not have occurred.
Rome would not have been fixed on the East and would have concetrated more on keeping order in Gaul, which would have been far more satisfied with rule from Rome.
The invasions of 406 would have had far less of an impact on Gaul, it's unlikely that Vandals would have settled in Spain, let alone Africa.
Britain may not have rebelled at that point.

It's pure speculation of course (one of the things I like in this period) but I say a case can be made for a Western Empire in a much better shape to receive the Huns in the 440s and 450s. Of course, no statement can be made about other, new, problems, or even the impact the Justinian plague would have had if the Western Empire had still been present in the 6th century. Also, the Roman system of succession (or better: the lack of such a system) would still have been a problem that could have created other instabilities. There's no telling whether Stilicho as a 'man behind the throne' would have set the same precedent as he did, or that Honorius would have become a stronger emperor after all. Likewise, the economic crisis of the 5th century would crtainly have played a part, but not as severe as it did with the west falling apart. With no Goths settling and fighting in Gaul, or Vandals in Africa, the Western military possibilities would not have eroded so fast as they did between 400 and 430, and the growth of the Frankish lands would have been much slower, or perhaps the Franks could even have been assimilated.

I think Stilicho, like Theodosius, has a lot to answer for.

I agree that, without doubt, Stilicho has a lot to answer for.

The only problem with the 'what if' approach is that there are too many variables to predict what would have happened "if only things had been different". For example, Illyricum would almost certainly have remained a problem: after all, it had been a major recruiting ground for the army and had been allocated to the East only after the Battle of Adrianople. Wouldn't the West still have a case for its return, especially after the manpower losses following the civil wars of the late-fourth century?

[starman2012]

The East was lucky in that the Sassanids were busy with the Hepathaltites to the East.

Right.

HAd the Sassies launched a major attack at the Same time as Attila's campaign, the Eastern Empire would have gone down the tubes quicker than the west.

Well, a lot would've depended on the state of eastern defenses, and Sassanid objectives. Had the Persians just wanted plunder like Shapur two centuries earlier, or Attila at the same time, the East would've been ravaged much more extensively but, assuming minimal permanent loss of territory, it might still have survived. (Look at the beating the whole eastern part of the empire took in mid third century.) It probably wouldn't have been able to underwrite the campaign of 468 but that failed anyway...

[Robert Vermaat]

The only problem with the 'what if' approach is that there are too many variables to predict what would have happened "if only things had been different". For example, Illyricum would almost certainly have remained a problem: after all, it had been a major recruiting ground for the army and had been allocated to the East only after the Battle of Adrianople. Wouldn't the West still have a case for its return, especially after the manpower losses following the civil wars of the late-fourth century?

Not the only problem I fear.. ;-)

Illyricum would have been a problem, true, but without the sharp rivalry, even the state of war between East and West, it would have been far less a problem. Without the threathening attempts by Stilicho to gain superiority in the East, Constantinople would have been far more inclined to let Illyricum go back to the West. Or split it up, as happened. Rome also recruited a lot in Gaul, which became a problem when the infrastructure became disrupted by the invasions of 406 and afterwards. With a more stable Rhine border, Gallic recruits would have been more available.

[Medicus matt]

The carts.
Chicks dig the carts....

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Illyricum would have been a problem, true, but without the sharp rivalry, even the state of war between East and West, it would have been far less a problem. Without the threathening attempts by Stilicho to gain superiority in the East, Constantinople would have been far more inclined to let Illyricum go back to the West. Or split it up, as happened. Rome also recruited a lot in Gaul, which became a problem when the infrastructure became disrupted by the invasions of 406 and afterwards. With a more stable Rhine border, Gallic recruits would have been more available.

Illyricum was divided up pretty much in a straight line south of sirmium.

Also, Aetius managed to achieve a stable Rhine border several times by pushing the franks back past Colonia and Trier.

But in reality, I don't think there was any hope for the west. The Romans were unable to create an effective model of government, and without a law passed for succession rights (although there was an implied gavelkind succession) the empire would have still fallen. There was nobody to replace Aetius after he was killed, except either his son Gaudentius or Majoran. But the former was kidnapped in the Sack of Rome and the latter came to power under Ricimer only, so although he was effective he was still a puppet and he came to power after the death knell had been rung.

Without stability and some way to motivate new recruits, along with a reformed economic system (rome was horribly oppressive and somewhat socialist) collapse was inevitable.

[Timianus]

But in reality, I don't think there was any hope for the west. The Romans were unable to create an effective model of government, and without a law passed for succession rights (although there was an implied gavelkind succession) the empire would have still fallen. . . . .

Without stability and some way to motivate new recruits, along with a reformed economic system (rome was horribly oppressive and somewhat socialist) collapse was inevitable.

Agree, but "passing a law" wouldn't have done anything. None of the imperators had any legitimacy under the roman constitution. The imperators achieved legitimacy through force. While there was an illusion of republicanism in the early imperial period, Septimus Severus basically laid bare the whole charade. True, having a large army at first was not sufficient, but as rome became less important and power shifted to the frontier, senatorial "consent" became meaningless. By the time of Diocletian, you had a pure autocratic system of government. Might made right.

Also, one aspect in this that is often overlooked is people's willingness to participate in the system. In the end, what benefit did the roman generalissimos confer on people that the barbarian chieftains did not? A government based on confiscatory taxes, conscripted soldiers and mercenaries that harass the populace will not last very long.

[Robert Vermaat]

Also, Aetius managed to achieve a stable Rhine border several times by pushing the franks back past Colonia and Trier.

Did he really? With what? Ther are other opinions about that 'stable frontier'...

But in reality, I don't think there was any hope for the west.

I don't why why the West would not have been able to hang on longer, without the crisis of the early 5th c. that cascaded into the downfall 50 years later.

Without stability and some way to motivate new recruits, along with a reformed economic system (rome was horribly oppressive and somewhat socialist) collapse was inevitable.

In the end, sure, but Constantinople managed to hang on for another millennium, changing on the way..