Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
The Roman Empire took 700 years to build. Yet it collapsed in less than a century. How was this possible?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Rurfus (U1800117) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
The Roman Empire took 700 years to build. Yet it collapsed in less than a century. How was this possible?
-
Message 2
Posted by bigdaddy1204 (U2811631) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
I already posted that, you ninny!
-
Message 3
Posted by Champollion (U2688478) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
That's what we need - informed and constructive historical debate. Are you two Newman & Baddiel in disguise, by any chance?
-
Message 4
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
wow, thats a tough one to answer in a paragaph!
Basicaly the Romans had to let the unrelenting Germanic tribes into their lands or face outright war which they couldnt afford. These Germanic settlers eventually became Romans and Roman Generals etc. When the Rhine froze over the Germanic tribes and the Goths swarmed over and the already quite Germanic Romans didnt have the will or discipline to defeat them. It was this policy of assimilation of the Germanic tribes which some say weakened the Roman empire enough for it to be defeated. Roman provinces were then split into the Western and Eastern Portions. Various rulers battled it out to become leader of these Regions including the British Roman Maximus who took his legion to Europe to try to win the western portion for himself....We then had various Tyrants ruling both Britain and elsewhere.
Why were the Germans for ever pushing on and on? They were a pastoral based(cattle) society not agricultural. Hence when land got too crowded they just went and took some more. The Romans managed to hold them up for a very long time. Hence also why it took so long for them to conquor Britain - 200+ years. They were quite happy to run their pasture until things got too crowded. Also the Ancient Britains gave them a good fight.
Some say the Roman Empire has never died, much as the Greek Empire of Alexander, or the Greatest empire of them all - The British Empire, that still lives on in its colonies. -
Message 5
Posted by COPTICATHANASIUS (U2726860) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Despite its contribution to law, construction and architecture, the Roman Empire was an empire that applied force only for survival. It had no noble idea to give to the world or to teach the world. The Byzantine Empire is much better in this sense than the Roman, but still Rome fell because she was trying to enslave other nations and she brutally treated them.
-
Message 6
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
ive said my peice on the other post of the same name
-
Message 7
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 30th December 2005
A few points, mainly in response to Artorius
By the time of the migrations the Germans were no longer pastoralists - they had developed quite intensive arable agriculture as shown by the archaeological sites of Feddersen Wierde & Wijster. Industries like iron, pottery, glass & precious metals had also greatly expanded due to increased trade with the Romans.
There was certainlly a big increase in population (shown by increased number of burials) but by far the main reason for German westward expansion was not population but pressure from the Huns. These people were also moving west (for reasons we will probably never know) into Gothic lands. The Goths were getting overwhelmed and ended up seeking refuge within the Roman Empire.
In fact one of the most important things to realise about these Germans was that they were more like asylum seekers than invaders. They didn't want to destroy the Empire, they wanted to be part of it. The Romans had been accepting refugees for a long time but previously had imposed harsh conditions, eg forcing them to serve in the Roman army or become peasants on Roman estates. But when the Goths arrived in the 370s things went wrong, there was a military disaster (Adrianople) and the Roman control system broke down.
Then in 406 you had the freak event of the Rhine freezing over, allowing the second big wave of invaders (Vandals, Suevi & Alans) to move into the empire.
The idea that the Romans were unwilling to stop the Germanic invasions because they had assimilated too many Germans into their army is an old chestnut going back to Gibbon, but there is no evidence for it whatsoever. Roman generals of German origin like Aetius & Stilicho were just as loyal to the Empire as previous Roman generals. There was no concept of German nationalism at this time - German tribes were only too happy to fight each other and/or make alliances with the Romans.
If anything I'd say the cultural influence was the other way - the Germans were assimilating Roman culture even before they broke into the empire and this explains why the Germanic kingdoms that replaced the Western empire retained a lot of Roman features especially in their laws & religion. -
Message 8
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 30th December 2005
while the battle of adrianople is a cause for the fall of the west, but it wasnt an immediate disaster for the western army at the time...becayse the western roman empire wasnt even involved in the battle, and it wasnt even near thracia (the roman province adrianople was in).
-
Message 9
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Hi Gaeseric,
Good stuff. Agreed on your points.
When I said that the German tribes were pastoral I meant it in a larger sense, not just in relation to the German tribes behind the Rhine. Obviously being held up as they were by the Romans they had to adapt to agriculturism and this is indicated by the finds you relate.
Also agreed on the pushing of the eastern tribes against the Germans were forcing them to move. (it was a short paragraph, couldnt fit everything in
).
Ulimately I suppose, like all great Empires, they just couldn't afford to keep it going and perhaps the new model of fighting was not one the Romans adapted to very well. -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Re: Message 7.
Gaiseric,
great message. I say the same as Artorious.
It conforms a study from Belgian professors, that I read some month ago, founded on toponomy, archaeology, historywriting, about the forming of the languageborder in Europe between Germanic and Romance languages.
With esteem and Happy New Year,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
A different way of answering the question would be "because it is easier to destroy than to build". In a very loose sense we can think of human systems as having some similarities to physical ones.
It takes more energy to create order and sustain it in a physical system; entropy increases overall and over time, but in subsystems over periods the amount of disorder can decrease, but only if the system is a net absorber of energy.
It's only a rough parallel,not an historical law, but I think this way of thinking can sometiems be helpful to see why the question should usually be 'how did order and a large empire survive so long?' rather than 'why did it break down so quickly?'
Xenos -
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
xenos5, it is a scientific fact that all things tend toward entropy, but it is also a scientific fact that order (another name for life) has been increasing on planet Earth for 3 billion years, by virtue of the fact that energy is received from the Sun.
I think it might be more useful to consider that any system has to face change, and that,over time, even the strongest system will eventually experience an unprecedented change which it cannot cope with, (unless it changes radically itself).
In the animal world, most species that were alive 100 million years ago had to change, into something else, or die out. An exception would be the crocodile, which has neither changed nor died out.
But the question remains about the Roman Empire - it would be folly to have expected it to last forever, but the collapse of the West WAS very rapid, and that needs to be explained. The empire in the West was the same size in 401ad as it had been at 1ad. By 410 the whole of Britain, France and Spain had been lost. (Note that the East dwindled away very slowly over hundreds of years). As I said on a different discussion of the same title, my own view is that the population of the Empire dwindled to the point where it seems it was not possible to pay for an army of the required size. Thus when 4 legions were lost at Adrianople, this truly was a disaster from which the Romans never recovered. Henceforth they had to make uneasy alliances and rely on barbarian federates to make up the numbers. (In the East the government bought off the barbarians by paying them gold by the ton).
The Rhine did freeze in 406, but that surely had happened before. What was different was that there were no soldiers to prevent the barbarians invading. -
Message 13
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
the loss of the legions at adrianople was not a un-recoverable loss for the west, as non of the wests military was involved in the battle-it aws the eastern empires european army that was decimated. i think the importance of adrianople was that it showed the barbarians that the empire was far from unnasailable, and could be treated with something less than obeisance.
-
Message 14
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
your note on population however, is a very good point.
-
Message 15
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
xenos5, it is a scientific fact that all things tend toward entropy, but it is also a scientific fact that order (another name for life) has been increasing on planet Earth for 3 billion years, by virtue of the fact that energy is received from the Sun.
I think it might be more useful to consider that any system has to face change, and that,over time, even the strongest system will eventually experience an unprecedented change which it cannot cope with, (unless it changes radically itself).
In the animal world, most species that were alive 100 million years ago had to change, into something else, or die out. An exception would be the crocodile, which has neither changed nor died out.
But the question remains about the Roman Empire - it would be folly to have expected it to last forever, but the collapse of the West WAS very rapid, and that needs to be explained. The empire in the West was the same size in 401ad as it had been at 1ad. By 410 the whole of Britain, France and Spain had been lost. (Note that the East dwindled away very slowly over hundreds of years). As I said on a different discussion of the same title, my own view is that the population of the Empire dwindled to the point where it seems it was not possible to pay for an army of the required size. Thus when 4 legions were lost at Adrianople, this truly was a disaster from which the Romans never recovered. Henceforth they had to make uneasy alliances and rely on barbarian federates to make up the numbers. (In the East the government bought off the barbarians by paying them gold by the ton).
The Rhine did freeze in 406, but that surely had happened before. What was different was that there were no soldiers to prevent the barbarians invading. Β
Facinating
Yes, I like your approach I think it is more historically sound than my entropy analogy. I like your contrast too between the period 1 to 401 and then the following decade. It forces us to consider what were the new factors in that decade that did not exist before; or what were the factors which had existed but ceased to be. You've pulled out a slow-burn factor - population - the effect of which becomes manifest when combines with a one-off event - a big defeat. I find this pretty convincing. But if we wanted to look further for reasons (and I'm not sure we need to) perhaps the following might get a look in ?
One of the factors which sustained the empire and made all the effort worthwhile was the size of the gap between the quality of life in the Empire and outside it. The quality of Roman citizenship had been changing and diluting over the centuries, such that a Roman in 400 could in fact be any one of a number of things, and the cultural, political and ethnic coherence of the empire had become very loose. So when the Germanic tribes enter the Empire - as economic migrants as noted above, rather than as invaders - and are found to be converging with the "Romans" themselves, there is no longer a strong enough incentive to fight and die to maintain a Roman/non-Roman distinction in their world. Romans and Barbarians have converged enough that preserving the Empirein teh face of troubles is just not a decision that makes sense to individuals in the lands in question.
Just an idea.....
Xenos -
Message 16
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
So, the roman empire collapsed because economic migrants immigrated into it en mass, because they wanted a better life in the roman empire than they had in their homelands.
Then the whole empire collapsed through weight of numbers etc.
Oh god, why is this so terrifying......
Do we NEVER learn from history?
Eliza -
Message 17
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Also, I thought one theory of why the tribes of central asia were pushing westwards, thereforepushing Germans towards Gaul etc, was that adverse climate change was making life more difficult for the central asians. Either that or the reverse was true, increasing population levels beyond the capability of the region to suport the increased numbers, so they headed west.
Either way, it's disaster time for the Roman empire. Good bye rome, hello thousand years of dark ages. Is history trying to warn us, I wonder?
No excuse for us, of course. We have the knowledge, the economic means and oh boy the incentive, to make life SO MUCH NICER for economic migrants in THEIR OWN LANDS so they don't actually want to risk the horrors of getting to western europe. But no, we'll just stay here, while the lifeboats sinks.
Eliza. -
Message 18
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
So, the roman empire collapsed because economic migrants immigrated into it en mass, because they wanted a better life in the roman empire than they had in their homelands.
Then the whole empire collapsed through weight of numbers etc.
Oh god, why is this so terrifying......
Do we NEVER learn from history?
·΅±τΎ±³ϊ²ΉΜύ
Are you saying the British Empire might be in danger?? Surely not... -
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
marduk, thanks for your reply. Yes, it was eastern legions that were lost at Adrianople, but remember that Theodosius unified the empire during has reign, so may have treated the Roman army as a whole, and deployed legions from west to east, and vice-versa, as he saw fit.
Of course the empire was divided again at his death in 395. Something has to account for the fact that there was almost no resistance to barbarian invasion in the west during the reign of Honorius. -
Message 20
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
fascinating,
I'm curious about your assertation that the population of (I presume) the Western Empire was dwindling. Do you have contemporary evidence for this, or is it speculation? (not criticising, just curious)
I understood the drop of the manpower along the western imperial holdings was more to do with the futile powere struggles between the two centres of power over who controled the Balkans (Balkans, always the b***dy Balkans!) The diminution of troop numbers in Gaul and Britain was due to the fact that they were stationed too far from the centre of this struggle.
The East had always been wealthier that the West, but I don't remember any discussion about a shortage of funds. I may be wrong, and I'm willing to stand corrected.
As to the opening gambit of this thread, it makes Rome sound like an Irish Government construction project - Way over time and budget, and liable to collapse as soon as you turn your back.
Elistan -
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
xenos5, thanks for your reply. i am sure it was true that by the year 400 the Germanic barbarians were a good deal less barbaric, but I am not convinced that this would have led to the Roman army being less willing to fight.
The Roman army in imperial times had always been half and half citizens and non-citizens, ie legionnaires and auxiliaries. These auxiliaries came from places that the Romans had conquered, so why did they fight for Rome? Two reasons, they were paid to do it, and iron discipline made them do it.
There really is no evidence that the Romans were less willing to fight in later years. But it is apparent that their numbers had dwindled. So the Roman generals had to make alliances with barbarian tribes from time to time, and you may have a point that this may have lead these forces to be less willing to fight, but the underlying question remains, how was it that the Roman army in the West had been allowed to lessen to the point where it had to rely on uneasy coalitions to raise reasonable forces? -
Message 22
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
mssge 20-the west always had a far lower population tha the east as well as being less wealthy, and the various plagues that occured at the time wuold have led to a decline.
mssge 21-good point, perhaps the romans didnt learn the lesson of the spartans? (by the end of their heyday, the population of full spartan citizens was less than a thousand) -
Message 23
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
fascinating.
thanks, in didnt actually know theodosius re-united the empire, and i wouldve thought in that position that he would have moved some of the eastern legions west and recruited more in syria and egypt, leaving those migrated legions to bolster the western frontiers, as the foderati and western legions obviously werent cutting it?
and i cant help but wonder how it all wouldve gone in theyd employed a thematic system like they did in the east durin the 800's to the 1100's though? -
Message 24
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
I believe there was depopulation in France/Britain in late imperial times, though don't know why.
Gaiseric - we're ALL in danger, because if the lifeboat sinks (ie, western capitalism) the alternative is going to be nasty indeed. And it WON'T be nice eco-stuff that takes it place. Just New Barbarism and a new Dark Ages. We have been warned. We need to EXPORT capitalism - AND the mass prosperity that goes with it - rather than IMPORT people to consume it. Trouble is, if we extend consumerism to the third world, the ecocatastrohe just gets much, much closer. A rock and a hard place, I fear.
Eliza -
Message 25
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Elistan, there is no one piece of evidence that confirms population decline, but several pieces when added together are very suggestive. First we have Dio Cassius' mention to a plague at the time of Marcus Aurelius which carried off a large proportion of the population. I have read a modern estimate of 20 million dying. From the 3rd century there is a dramatic fall in the number of inscriptions. Archaeological evidence, across several regions, shows a decline in the number of settlements and the 'nucleation' of cities (ie they became more compact, and usually inside a circumvallation). Several towns in Egypt and N Africa became swamped by sand, which I suggest would not have been allowed to happen if a thriving population was living in them.
Numerous papyri found in Egypt give quite a lot of detail about life under the Romans. One feature is lists of people who have abandoned their farms, unable or unwilling to pay their rents and taxes. I read recently that the population of Egypt halved under the Romans - but the author did not say how this conclusion was arrived at.
In the time of Theodosius we see him arguing to the Senate in favour of letting in barbarians to settle, saying that it would surely be better to have the lands occupied by them rather than no-one at all.
You may be right about futile power struggles wasting troops, but the loss of troops should theoretically be remedied simply by recruiting more.
Regarding the loss of the Western provinces, one can see that it might have been sensible to abandon Britain in an organised withdrawal, considering the amount of troops that had to be used there, but it would make no sense strategically to leave Gaul and Spain. (And I am sure that many senators had valuable land in these provinces).An increase in the number of legions would have been the best option. It seems to me that they simply could not find enough men to recruit. -
Message 26
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 14th January 2006
Hi Fascinating
Interesting theory that plague may have reduced the population significantly enough to weaken the Roman state. It is the same theory I postulate for the weakening of ancient civilisations before the 'Sea Peoples' invaded. -
Message 27
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Saturday, 14th January 2006
and quite a sound one to! (the theory i mean!)
-
Message 28
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 14th January 2006
Hi Fascinating
Interesting theory that plague may have reduced the population significantly enough to weaken the Roman state. It is the same theory I postulate for the weakening of ancient civilisations before the 'Sea Peoples' invaded. Β
But why didn't the plague affect the barbarians as well? Especially considering the increase in trade & diplomatic contacts at this time... -
Message 29
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
Hi G,
More than likely it did but not on such a scale. I dont really believe in the great migration of peoples theory about the sea peoples. I see them as just allies of greater powers such as Hatti or Assyria or even Persia according to some theories.
I expect it's one of the reasons the Sea Peoples never actually did anyone in permanently. I dont see a dark age either for Greece or Hatti or elsewhere. The invasions of the weakened states happened in different ways. Armana was invaded by the Nubians and then Asyrians with Sea Peoples. The Hittites were defeated by the Phrygians and cimmerians/Scythians but still continued on in Amarru. The Assyrians went in much the same way falling to the adventurer Pul - Tiglath Pilisar. I havn't as yet got as far as the Babylonians to see at what time plague got to them. -
Message 30
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
I expect the barbarians bought the late-Roman plague with them. Sort of like bird flu.
On sea peoples - isn't there a theory that they weren't actually 'new' arrivals at all, just existing populations displaced by disaster - climate change, plague, economic collapse etc, and looking for an easier life elswhere.
Surely Greece, at least, did have a Dark Ages? Losss of literacy usually implies a 'decline' in civilisation, doesn't it? And the Mycenean palaces were deserted and depopulated thereabouts?
Eliza -
Message 31
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
Hi Eliza
Before Greek history was linked to Egyptian Chronology there was no dark age. Archaeologists looked at the pottery and had the Myceanean ending well into the Archaic. Myceanean pottery has been found contempory with Archaic. The layer between Troy VIIb and VIII is non existent yet Troy V11b is dated 1200Bc and VIII dated 750BC. If there was a gap of such time a thicker layer would exist. Archaologists now hide this problem by doing away with Troy VIII and making it Troy VII c d e or i 2. 3. etc..
There were huge arguments between Archaelologists at the time this link to Egyptian history happened, but ufortunately Egyptian long chronology won and so the dark ages were created. According to the amount of pottery found in this 'dark age' it can have been no more that 75-100 years at the most.
Linear B was used only in offical palace records and wasnt a widespread literacy of the people.
On the plague, there is this from Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr
'Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr's epic of the Trojan War begins with the god causing a plague by raining arrows down upon the Greek camp.'
So this places the Trojan war during the plague period, which I place between about 820BC to 640BC or later. -
Message 32
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
I expect the barbarians bought the late-Roman plague with them. Sort of like bird flu.Β
Any evidence for this??
The plague in Marcus Aurelius' time was brought into the empire by soldiers returning from the Middle East. Another plague which took place in the mid-3rd century started in Egypt. These are the only Roman plagues I'm aware of and neither of them had anything to do with the barbarian invasions of the 4th-5th centuries. -
Message 33
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
One of the most striking features of the "Fall of Rome" is the fact that the Roman Army seems to have gone AWOL. Instead of leading Roman troops into battle, Roman generals preferred to buy the services of one barbarian warband to attack another. Even the "Roman" army that stopped Attila the Hun in 451 was mostly Alans & Visigoths.
One theory to explain this is that in the later empire, the tactics & equipment of the Roman army changed drastically and came to resemble those of its barbarian enemies (maybe because there were too many barbarians recruited into the ranks?). As a result, the huge costs and political risks of having a regular standing army became harder to justify, and the use of barbarian allies or mercenaries came to look like an easier, cheaper and even safer option.
Of course in the long run it didn't work because these barbarian allies ended up getting too much power in the areas where they settled and central control was lost. Or, as one modern historian puts it, the empire "was delegated out of existence" -
Message 34
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Meanwhile, I wonder what was happening to their education system?
I have read - sorry, well documented source forgotten, that there were periodic surges in economic growth in parts and that it was not a sudden withering of the main trunk but rather like the effect of pollarding.
P. -
Message 35
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Priscilla, the Romans did not have an 'education system' as such. Certainly there were schools in which children were taught, but I do not know of any evidence that the state took any action to ensure that all were educated to a certain standard.
As for 'surges in economic growth', remember that the whole of the Roman world remained in a pre-industrialised state, so any economic growth would have been limited - nothing like, for example, the growth in modern-day China. -
Message 36
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Artorios - how interesting to think there was no Greek Dark Ages because those extra centuries just got bunged in there to keep the Eygyptologists happy!
Obviously I've no idea either way which evidence is more persuasive, but if it were so, would not there be some overlap between Linear B and Phoenican script Greek at archoelogical sites?
And irespective of the scripts, is Mycenean Greek not sufficiently different from Archaic Greek to necessitate somethign like a time gap for the former to develop into the latter? or, as you say, is it because Linear B greek is mostly confinded to palaces and very tedious records about how much oil was in a pithos, rather than daring do tales of Hesiod and Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr? Or even that a new population arrived/emerged to write archaic greek, and that allows for the differences (if there are any.)
But what an intriguing thought that there simply was no Greek Dark Ages. Obviously a contentious and intersting area.
Thank you for the comments and explanations.
Eliza. -
Message 37
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Monday, 16th January 2006
a greek dark age happenede about 1200 bc when the mycenae disspaered and the dorians came along didnt it?
-
Message 38
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
fascinating
Sorry, it was a tongue in cheek remark - about educational sytems - head cold making me even more obsure than usual. I was hinting that the emphasis had changed away from traditional Greek sources, possibly. Our 'Empire' seemed to fade at about the time classics were withdrawn from the curriculum.
By 'economic growth' I meant some places were doing very well for themselves in terms of trade and wealth. I wish I had the data to hand because it made interesting reading. One bit detailed Marcus Aurelis's time in particular and that it was not all doom and gloom, despite the northern hordes on the move.
Thank you for sorting this out, anyway.
Regards P. -
Message 39
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
To be a member of the Roman upper classes you had to have a classical education, which meant studying certain set texts and learning the art of rhetoric. Barbarian leaders like Theodoric the Great bought into this system, just as they bought into the imperial religion of Christianity. However over time classical learning declined because the Roman class system that supported it ceased to exist.
So the fall of the empire led to the decline of education, not the other way round. And the same thing probably applies to the state of Europe's economy. -
Message 40
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
a greek dark age happenede about 1200 bc when the mycenae disspaered and the dorians came along didnt it?Β
I think it may now be disputed that there was ever any lot called the Dorions - that they were in fact an invention by l9thC white anti-semetic supremacists who liked the idea of a 'superior northern race' being the 'real classical Greeks'. ???? But this again may now be overset.
I think the Dark Ages is supposed to have been, as you say, around 1200 BC, when the great Mycenean palaces were destroyed, but I think the suggestion here is that the dark ages were a lot lot shorter, and slid fairly gracefully over a couple of hundred years at the most into the highly 'civilised' archaic age of hte pre-socratics and the Ionian expansion, plus adoption of the alphabet. The traditional dark ages lasted at least four hundred years???
What's current thinking on all this??
Eliza. -
Message 41
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
Hi E
Most current revisionists(James, Rohl et al) see a reduction in the dark age of Greece of some 250-350 years. My own revision sees a reduction of rougly 350 years. I see Troy VI ending around 850BC at a time of Earthquakes. (current chronology place this around 13/1200BC) Troy was quickly rebuilt as Troy VIIb.
This was followed by plague in around 820BC probably caused by the problems related to to earthquakes. This plague caused the end of the Armana period in Egypt, Akhenatens attempt at abandoning the old Gods for the new didnt work to get rid of the plague unfortuately so back to the old Gods they went.(My chronology - MC)(in 2004 bubonic plague was found in fleas from Aket-Aten). It also caused the end of the western Hittite - Suppiliuma I and Son Arunwanda dieing of the plague(MC). Suppiliuma I had at one point early in his reign given tribute to Shalmanesser III of Assyria, which implies the Hittites were more western based at this time. From western Anatolia to the Orontes river.
The Assyrians also eventually suffered the Plague and after Shalmanesser his succesors appear to have been weaker and the 'adventurer' ie userper Pul - Tiglath-Pilesar(Pelops of Greek myth??)took over. Plague also mentioned at the time by king of Isreal -Zecharia. When Shalmanesser died Supililiuma took his chance and expanded the empire eastwards defeating the Mittani\Medes\Hurians who appear to have come down from the Northeast, possibly Uartu.
The earthquakes and resulting Tsunamis also destroyed many Myceanean palaces and although, like Troy, they quickly rebuilt it was not good enough to save them from the incomming northerners, probably Thracians, Phrygians,Hellenes, peoples from what became Macedonia. Some of the Greeks may then have fled east and became the Ionian settlers of Asia Minor and Cyprus, still battling the Thracians(peoples of the Phoenix- Phoenicans -pirates of the Sea mentioned by Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr.
The Ionian Greeks of Asia minor settling the Islands and coast appear to have been called Arzawa by the Hittites and the Troy region Asuwa. The Arzawans(Danaans? also called Akkiyawa - Achaeans?) and Asuwans (Phrygians/Hellenes) appear to have allied together against the Hittite and eventually pushed north when the western Hittite empire stuttered after Suppliliuma and son. The Awusa pushed east in concert with other northern tribes such as the Moschki taking the north western Hittite empire under the Gordius and Midas kings, The Moschki and phrygians pushed east, the Arzawans pushed north from the coast.
The alphabetic script found in Ugarit has been placed at 1300BC(Egypt Chron. again) ignoring all the evidence that places it in the 9/8thC BC. It is likely that this is the basis of the script that was transmitted to the Greeks around this time 8thC BC, probably when king Nikmed(Kadmus?) of Ugarit and all the other foreigners were expelled by ShalmanesserIII around 800\790BC.(MC)
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.