Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
De-centralization of roman state
#1
A question that has probably been asked before, but of enough gravity to discus again;

In the 3rd century, possibly even earlier, the roman empire became less centred on Rome and Italy. Industry, trade, art, recruitment etcetera, to a large extent, took place in the outskirts of the empire. Cities like Leptis Magna booming.

Of course this had impacts on Rome itself. Why did these changes occur and what was their actual implication to life in the empire?

Cheers // Joakim
Reply
#2
Quote:A question that has probably been asked before, but of enough gravity to discus again;

In the 3rd century, possibly even earlier, the roman empire became less centred on Rome and Italy. Industry, trade, art, recruitment etcetera, to a large extent, took place in the outskirts of the empire. Cities like Leptis Magna booming.

Of course this had impacts on Rome itself. Why did these changes occur and what was their actual implication to life in the empire?

Cheers // Joakim

Well I think one can write many a book about this (and already did)
There is no simple aswer to your question but remember that in the 3'rd century the so called "Crisis" of the empire was ongoing.
The changes occured in my opinion from the interaction between the emperor, the two classes senators and the rich, and the army itself. The fact that Rome (and Italy) plays a lesser role can be seen from the rectruitment pattern of the army. Remember this is the time that the coin denomination takes place, this is a time when emperors came ang go (most of them are killed), is a time when the emperors are soldiers not politicians and I can continue with this.
Well I think that you will find your answer if you read several books about the subject, and I really mean this, there is no simple answer.

I also think that each of us should discover the answer for himself, there are too many theories and discussions out there, pluse the sources we have are not the best ones, we have, in my humble opinion, much better sources for pre and post that for the 3'rd century.

Sorry for my English
-----------------
Gelu I.
www.terradacica.ro
www.porolissumsalaj.ro
Reply
#3
Quote:In the 3rd century, possibly even earlier, the roman empire became less centred on Rome and Italy. Industry, trade, art, recruitment etcetera, to a large extent, took place in the outskirts of the empire. Cities like Leptis Magna booming.
Of course this had impacts on Rome itself. Why did these changes occur and what was their actual implication to life in the empire?

If you are looking at the 3rd century with all the fighting going on, this might be a natural development. With all the usurpers it was natural that Italy could no longer be the focus and therefore, regional capitals flourished.
On the other hand, by the 4th century we see a backlash in the sense that the Roman bureaucracy became even more centralized, even when the empire was divided into 2 parts and the military and military command was split from the governors of the provinces. In fact the civil service became top-heavy.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#4
Quote:A question that has probably been asked before, but of enough gravity to discus again;

In the 3rd century, possibly even earlier, the roman empire became less centred on Rome and Italy. Industry, trade, art, recruitment etcetera, to a large extent, took place in the outskirts of the empire. Cities like Leptis Magna booming.

Of course this had impacts on Rome itself. Why did these changes occur and what was their actual implication to life in the empire?

Cheers // Joakim

The emporers no longer ruled from Rome. They ruled from regional capitals. Trade, wealth, military etc. tend to coallesce at the seat of power.

The "implication" can be seen by the number of "breakaway" empires during the 3rd century crisis.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Reply
#5
Mediolanium and then Ravenna became the Roman capitals. Agriculture and industry shifted to North Africa, Syria, and Anatolia which resulted in an economic boom for those regions and a decentralization and re-organization of Roman Administration.
Reply
#6
Also, there is another practical aspect to "decentralization." As barbarian groups invaded the hinterlands, travel and communication became extraordinarily difficult. Many cities were, in effect "cut off" from the central imperial administration, until the barbarians were defeated or moved on, and thus forced to fend for themselves. Similarly, with many of the late emporers constantly "on the move" campaigning, direct control of the provinces became more difficult, hence the need for multiple emporers.

There is also the "systems failure" explanation for decentralization. As best I understand, this theory posits that society develop systems (laws, bureaucracies, money, taxation, supply systems, infrastructure), to solve problems. Overtime, these systems centralize power and become exponentially complex. Eventually, they become so complex that the cost of maintaining the system exceeds the benefits that it provides, causing it to collapse. As the system collpases, smaller systems attempt to replicate the failing system on a local level.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Reply
#7
Tim wrote:
Quote:Also, there is another practical aspect to "decentralization." As barbarian groups invaded the hinterlands, travel and communication became extraordinarily difficult. Many cities were, in effect "cut off" from the central imperial administration, until the barbarians were defeated or moved on
I agree with you there especially in the case of Lower Moesia which copped the brunt of barbarian raids for centuries which must have restricted growth even during the later Byzantine empire. Constant raids and invasions by Iazyges, Dacian, Roxolani, Bastarnae, Goth, Hunnic and Avars to name a few would of created a lack of faith in the ability of a central government ever being able to rid them of this constant menace. I read that the invasion of the Costobocci in about 171 AD was halted by farmers as their were no Roman forces available at the time. The previous year the Roman Marcus Claudius Fronto, governor of the Three Dacias was killed while campaigning against the Iazyges but we have no information that his army was destroyed with him but obviously Lower Moesia was devoid of troops which made it easy for the Costobocci to rampage through Thrace the following year.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply


Forum Jump: