I'm not saying the Late Empire was totally inept, but it was definitely a period marked by high inflation and instability compared to Pax Romana when the armor was in its heyday.
I personally don't believe that it was the corruption of the Emperor's past the Five Good Emperors, because look at the fifth...Marcus Aurelius, and it's no coincidence that during his rule the Antonine Plague occurred which I think is markedly understated as a cause of decline in the Empire.
When you lose 25-30% of your civilian population, a lot of terrible things occur. We lost 3,500 during 9/11 and it scared the shit out of 270 million. The healthy people were no longer available to feed the infirm, people fled cities, entire municipalities were depopulated, and this is the period in which things started going declining, fast. It wasn't the corruption of Commodus, it was the Antonine Plague.
It is no coincidence that the very same disease, Smallpox, was responsible for the destruction of the Aztec Empire. The Spanish were able to conquer a city of nearly 800,000 people with a couple thousand men due to this disease, so many died that the ones left were unable to harvest the grain needed to feed the population and a massive die-off resulted and the city was depopulated.
This happened across the Empire, and it's after this period that Segmentata disappears. Sure, the population rebounded but by then the damage had been done and it's a blow from which it never recovered...not to mention there were numerous subsequent outbreaks that just kept hitting the populace. There were no known massive plagues during Pax Romana and the Republican years, but several hit the Romans following the reign of Marcus Aurelius. They just kept on coming. You can point to the population in later centuries and say it rebounded to the 60 million mark, but these weren't people who completely identified with Rome, a lot of them would not have been considered citizens during the Republic. They were foreigners, barbarians, etc. who had flocked to the Empire.
I mean the threads about the armour but the Antonine Plague literally marked the end of an era. It is the fine border between where we see the transition of the Principate to the Late Empire and you cannot tell me that Roman culture, and civilization was thriving during a period marked by plague. Can you imagine losing 30% of a population? It's unthinkable by modern standards. It would change almost ever single person's outlook on life, because almost every survivor would have known loss and despair.
I'd argue that Commodus was decadent because he knew death. People who are surrounded by it at a young age do not grow to value life, like we do. They look at it completely different and that's why we view Commodus as corrupt. It's like being traumatized as a child. It's ALSO noted that during this period, Roman and Greek education virtually disappear. There are no more tutors, or institutions of learning. Pax Romana was ended by a plague, and within 40 years you never see plate armour again.
That's why I don't buy the "Late Empire's military was exceptional" conclusion. Less learned people, leading less learned troops doesn't equate to great changes being made. Sorry guys, I'm going with the judgement of Julius and Augustus who were both exceptionally brilliant even by modern standards, and even Marius, Hadrian, Trajan, Pompey, Cicero, etc. over the likes of... Constantine, who was the Empire's "greatest" Emperor of that period. Constantine just doesn't match up to them, you can tell that he wasn't as educated.
There is a reason that MA was the last "good Emperor" until the late 3rd century.
I personally don't believe that it was the corruption of the Emperor's past the Five Good Emperors, because look at the fifth...Marcus Aurelius, and it's no coincidence that during his rule the Antonine Plague occurred which I think is markedly understated as a cause of decline in the Empire.
When you lose 25-30% of your civilian population, a lot of terrible things occur. We lost 3,500 during 9/11 and it scared the shit out of 270 million. The healthy people were no longer available to feed the infirm, people fled cities, entire municipalities were depopulated, and this is the period in which things started going declining, fast. It wasn't the corruption of Commodus, it was the Antonine Plague.
It is no coincidence that the very same disease, Smallpox, was responsible for the destruction of the Aztec Empire. The Spanish were able to conquer a city of nearly 800,000 people with a couple thousand men due to this disease, so many died that the ones left were unable to harvest the grain needed to feed the population and a massive die-off resulted and the city was depopulated.
This happened across the Empire, and it's after this period that Segmentata disappears. Sure, the population rebounded but by then the damage had been done and it's a blow from which it never recovered...not to mention there were numerous subsequent outbreaks that just kept hitting the populace. There were no known massive plagues during Pax Romana and the Republican years, but several hit the Romans following the reign of Marcus Aurelius. They just kept on coming. You can point to the population in later centuries and say it rebounded to the 60 million mark, but these weren't people who completely identified with Rome, a lot of them would not have been considered citizens during the Republic. They were foreigners, barbarians, etc. who had flocked to the Empire.
I mean the threads about the armour but the Antonine Plague literally marked the end of an era. It is the fine border between where we see the transition of the Principate to the Late Empire and you cannot tell me that Roman culture, and civilization was thriving during a period marked by plague. Can you imagine losing 30% of a population? It's unthinkable by modern standards. It would change almost ever single person's outlook on life, because almost every survivor would have known loss and despair.
I'd argue that Commodus was decadent because he knew death. People who are surrounded by it at a young age do not grow to value life, like we do. They look at it completely different and that's why we view Commodus as corrupt. It's like being traumatized as a child. It's ALSO noted that during this period, Roman and Greek education virtually disappear. There are no more tutors, or institutions of learning. Pax Romana was ended by a plague, and within 40 years you never see plate armour again.
That's why I don't buy the "Late Empire's military was exceptional" conclusion. Less learned people, leading less learned troops doesn't equate to great changes being made. Sorry guys, I'm going with the judgement of Julius and Augustus who were both exceptionally brilliant even by modern standards, and even Marius, Hadrian, Trajan, Pompey, Cicero, etc. over the likes of... Constantine, who was the Empire's "greatest" Emperor of that period. Constantine just doesn't match up to them, you can tell that he wasn't as educated.
There is a reason that MA was the last "good Emperor" until the late 3rd century.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
