Evacuations of Dacia and Britannia - a most serious blunder?

[Petra Rocks]

I think you should read Nietzsche..he might be your man..every second page or so he blames Christianity for the downfall of the Roman Empire. Honestly, I do not know where this assumption comes from, and I have only read it with him. In which way could have Christianity contributed to the decline of the Imperium?

I think Gibbon said that as well. I've never read his work though, so it just hearsay.


I am sorry, Stefan, I spoke poorly. Rome's linguistic and religious divides weren't what I meant by Roman culture lacking homogenity. I implied they did, and that a an error. :oops: By that I meant that subjects of the Empire probably never saw themselves as the same people the way the Chinese did. The Chinese expected to be ruled together, an Eygptian and the Brition did not. It is possible that that feeling developed after Rome's fall of course, I'm not familier enough with the writings of the time to say.

[stevesarak]

Just food for thought:

The Roman Empire near the end was not the empire of earlier times. Even though it had the same name, it was a different entity.

I used to think that Christianity was the downfall of Rome, until I thought about how it was the Roman people themselves that adapted it and the change that went with it. If they weren’t ready for something different, they wouldn’t have moved over. if it wasn’t Christianity it may have been something else. True that one of the emperors (Sorry I can’t remember which one) made it the official religion not to be side by side with the other, but again, if the people were really opposed, they would have done something.

If a strong people want to believe that rocks are the source of all spiritual strength and then start worshiping them and then hundreds of years later they fall in to decline because of basically greed, (53 emperors in 50 years, every general that thought they could make a run for the seat of emperor, did. Which shows the social or political break down of the empire at the time. Not only did they try, but the fact that they even thought about it show how far down the empire had fallen) I don’t think you can blame the rocks, or the religion. I don’t think you can blame the religion; you might blame the fact that they needed a new religion (other wise they wouldn’t have changed) but not the religion itself.

If you think about it, after adapting Christianity and thinking about the reason for the decline of the Empire, I don’t think you can see a correlation between the two other then they started about the same time, which one might say can also be attributed to the loss of the republic. They still had legions, they still fought, they still conquered, (even though it wasn’t that much and they couldn’t hold on to it) they still invented and discovered much. Of course not as much as the beginning but its always easier to discover new things when no one else has thought about it, it’s harder to improve on what all ready there.

Emperors – absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s a recipe for disaster, oh yea, that’s what happened.

If you want to defeat your enemy, then divide and conquer. That’s what Rome did for their enemies when it was divided between the two sons. Rome east and west divided the resources, manpower, and the notion of the great empire.

Rome was the first great western empire to span so far and to last so long. It had the senate at its beginnings which was unique and innovative in its time. I think one of the main problems contributing to Rome’s fall was that it didn’t know how to govern itself as it grew, it needed a new system that was never discover, realized or implemented. The idea of one man inheriting the empire with no checks and balance or recourse other then assassination doomed it to its eventual downfall.

If you think I’m rambling and I don’t know what I’m talking about, you might just be right.

[petrinus]

"if the people were really opposed, they would have done something".

and when this happend often in rome how did it turn out for the people when the rebellion was quelled? i smell blood could it be? ah yes!

yes once that emperor and damn i cant recall either, made it so i think it was down hill from there

nietzsche huh, which work anyone in particualr? i believe i shall, thanks

i think rome in the later period saw religion as a tool to focus all gods into one god and mandate it and thereby religion and gods law justify the imperium

this goes along with "chinese expect to be ruled by chinese not egyptians by britions" once that which is sacred and the fundamental fabric of so many cultures, once that is taken and forbidden and something alien forced on the people no matter how holy and nice, i would say only ill can come off it

also i think without the roman war machine insisting on a holy empire, we may have seen a broader understanding and enlightemnet allowing for an unbroken religious sytem of the old faiths, if we understood the truly esoteric portions of the faiths the priests once surely did

and its not that im even against christianity, i think jesus was a swell guy, however, what is taught and published today is a bastardization and amalgamation of so many faiths fit together to make it all work once upon a time

and jasper....i dont mean to get all religious with this thread either or offend but it bares relevance and so i must

caveat: dont anyone get butt hurt, i dont intend to offend anyone.

peace be with you, god protect you, ahmen and such

[Felix]

A couple of footnotes:

The Slavs were not nearly as formidable fighters as the Germanic peoples. The Western Slavs were much overrun by Germans in the Middle Ages, the Slavs didn't achieve much state organization until Viking adventurers moved into their territories, and various steppe nomads gave no end of grief to the Slavic peoples. Maurice, as I recall, has some comments about the Slavic peoples, and did regard them as a nuisance but not a truly dangerous foe.

The Roman Empire was quite ecumenical about the origins of its emperors, once you get past the first century. Africans (Septimius Severus) and Philip the Arab could get to be emperor; whereas Chinese emperors were generally of impeccable ethnic Han lineage.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Slavs were not nearly as formidable fighters as the Germanic peoples. The Western Slavs were much overrun by Germans in the Middle Ages, the Slavs didn't achieve much state organization until Viking adventurers moved into their territories, and various steppe nomads gave no end of grief to the Slavic peoples. Maurice, as I recall, has some comments about the Slavic peoples, and did regard them as a nuisance but not a truly dangerous foe.

That depended on place and time. Slavs overran many areas were Germanic peoples had settled, such as the Danube and all lands up to Eastern Austria. I was much later that the situation developed that you described.
Also, Maurice might not have valued the Slavs as opponants, but in the end his Empire lost most of the Balkans to them...

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Promotus,

Constantine obviously brought an area north
of the Danube under indirect Roman control which stretched more or less from north of the Iron Gorge area accross the Wallachian plain to the Danube. ....This (indirect) Roman control over the Wallachian plain may have lasted until the 360ies (Julian refers in one of his letters to the Goths who, according to him, were up to something, so Roman order was perhaps slowly eroding). The stupidity of the new emperor Valens then led to the first war against the Goths since the age of Constantine - nothing lasts forever :roll:

Thanks for the supplemental information. Yeah, Valens was probably the worst Emperor of the fourth century. Not only did he let the Goths cross over the Danube and led the Eastern army to its destruction, he was also responsible for converting them to the heretical Arian branch of Christianity. That part of his legacy would outlive the fall of the Western Empire !

Petrinius,

yes once that emperor and damn i cant recall either

Why, that would be Theodosius the Great . He spent part of his reign trying to clean up the mess Valen's left behind. If you want to read a primary source, read Zosimus. Both Constantine and Theodosius were his big bogeymen (rather than the barbarians) :lol: Of course, I agree with Steve. Classical Paganism had been dying for almost a century before Constantine took power and the ordinary people were increasingly turning to Eastern cults. BTW, the Empire inflicted it's own mortal wounds under the Pagan Emperors of the 3rd century. The civil wars of the fourth century paled in comparison both in intensity and number. Christianity politically stabilized the Empire. The army remained loyal to the House of Constantine even during its civil wars. Future dysnasties also flourished after Julian had died - something we don't see since the days of the Principate. When the Romans became Christians whether Orthodox or heretical, they had all the more reason to rally behind the Emperor at the threat of a Persian invasion. So there's the glue that held Rome together for another 1000 + years.

But back to Dacia....

Has anyone mentioned that Constantine wasn't the last Emperor to reestablish Roman authority in the area ? If I'm not mistaken, I believe Basil II "the Bulgar-Slayer" also crossed the Danube and submitted the old province to Roman control. Of course, it didn't last very long either. :roll:

[Felix]

[That depended on place and time. Slavs overran many areas were Germanic peoples had settled, such as the Danube and all lands up to Eastern Austria. I was much later that the situation developed that you described.
Also, Maurice might not have valued the Slavs as opponants, but in the end his Empire lost most of the Balkans to them...

All true, but it is not clear to me that the Slavs were in fact defeating Germanic tribes and thereby clearing Eastern Europe; my impression is that this part of the migration of peoples has more to do with Huns, later Avars, and other people who were not obviously Slavic. Of course, the people who caused so much trouble for the Empire in the Balkans were Avars and Bulgars, both steppe nomadic fighters; and not the Slavs - Maurice is perfectly clear about the Slavic way of fighting. The fact that much of the Balkans is Slavic owes more to depopulation and migration into emptied lands than it does to a triumphant conquest by Slavic warlords.

[Eleatic Guest]

Have yet to read the article, but seems to fit to our topic well:

L. Ellis: Terra Deserta': Population, Politics, and the [de]Colonization of Dacia, in: World Archaeology, Vol. 30, No. 2, Population and Demography. (Oct., 1998), pp. 220-237.

[Come in Nighthawk]

An interesting precursor to this is what happened to the Dacians when the ROMANS got there… In a vain effort to find the Ellis article on-line, I found: W. S. Hanson, I. P. Haynes, “Roman Dacia. The Making of a Provincial Society.â€

[Dan Diffendale]

Anyone happen to know if the Ellis article IS on-line any-when?

Well, it's available through JSTOR, for those who have access. The abstract:

This article explores the demographic history of Dacia/Romania during and after Roman colonization as a study in the effects of colonialism and de-colonization in the core area vs. the periphery, the identification of local vs. transitory populations, the development of cultural identity, and the more ominous issue of political manipulation of archaeological data. Archaeological surveying and excavations in Romania and peripheral regions, as well as a re-evaluation of ancient literary evidence, suggest a more complex settlement history, rather than a 700-year 'terra deserta'. The post-Roman era has demonstrated an abundant archaeological record of burial and settlement, along with a continuation in distribution of Roman objects throughout former core and peripheral areas. A more thorough analysis of Roman colonization and de-colonization, together with the role of the Roman military, coinage, and commerce, are recommended as avenues towards resolution of the population continuity issue for Dacia.

'Terra Deserta': Population, Politics, and the [de]Colonization of Dacia, by L. Ellis World Archaeology