Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Rome Avoiding Collapse
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 25th August 2006
How could the (western) Roman Empire have avoided destruction?
-
Message 2
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Friday, 25th August 2006
'How could the (western) Roman Empire have avoided destruction? '
By changing the climate, changing the mental climate to get rid of slavery, changing the division of labour which meant that barbarian mercenaries specialised in the Art of War, abolishing taxes - oh, and developing some means of dealing with major epidemics and paying troops without taxes.
Why do you suppose there WAS any such safe path? Seems to me the Western Empire - except in South Glamorgan - was doomed whatever. -
Message 3
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 25th August 2006
Retaken Africa
-
Message 4
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 25th August 2006
With so many different things occuring at around the same time I would say that the time of the Romans was simply over.
-
Message 5
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 25th August 2006
Yet the Byzantine empire continued for another 900 years. Slavery continued to the 19th century and arguably still does. Would a more aggressive approach on the Rhine/Danube have helped or formulating stronger rules on succession to avoid the crippling civil wars helped?
-
Message 6
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Friday, 25th August 2006
im reading the Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather, i will try to post someting more constuctive when im done.
-
Message 7
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Friday, 25th August 2006
Mahros - Slavery was pretty limited in Western Europe in Mediaeval times , not fundamental to the economy as it was under Rome. What did the Western Empire offer the average person? They were simply better off in every respect under - or by becoming - barbarians. Only in Britain did anybody but the Army even bother to fight them - and I'd guess we only did so because we'd hoofed out the Roman officials in 410 A.D. The thing was DEAD.
-
Message 8
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 25th August 2006
Read it, basically he says Rome wasn't in that bad a condition in the 4th century and that Fall can be mainly put down to the rise of the 'barbarians' and the empire's inability to repel them or recover lost terratories.
-
Message 9
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
Rome's professional army meant that, from the time of the late Republic, there would always be generals with an army at their back trying to make a grab for power. They fopught among themselves as much as they fought the barbarians. and he political system inthe western empire could not take the strain.
The Romans usually paid their armies from loot gained by conquest. Once the empire had reached a certain limit, it no longer had the resources to conquer new lands.
Laws compelling sons to follow their father's trade stifled rather than helped the economy, and the upheaval cause dby mass migrations of people contributed as well. Terry Jones' "Barbarians" gives an interesting perspective on these migrating people.
I don't think there is any way the western empire could have survived. -
Message 10
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
Rhys
We didn't exactly hoof them out. We watched all our best troops march off to crown a General as the Western Emperor and without those troops Britain was left vunerable and badly defended.
Also we did go back begging for help, it just so happened that Rome needed help far more at that exact moment than Britain did
We were simply "forgotten" by Rome, left to the eventual tender mercies of the Germanic invaders as well as our own internicene political violence -
Message 11
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
i would say though that the cause of death of the WRE was laid down over the course of years. No stable political structure with re: the succession of Emperors, the political power of both the Praetorian guard as well as the legions/generals in general, the lack of expansion afer the rule of Trajan, the plague/population decrease the pressures of immigration, the lacklustre economic scene.
I mean in one funny way the empire never died, the titles lived on the provinices lived on the cities lived on, the language lived on, the RC Church moved in and continued to be the WRE so in one respect you could almost argue that the empire still exists today but as an empire of souls.
Roads still lead to Rome, untill 1918 there were still Caesars! so in one real way the Empire moved to a higher place -
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
Mahros, the Western Roman Empire was basically intact, though battered, at the death of Theodosius in 395. The unravelling really began under the reign of Honorious.
The barbarians were able to cross the Rhine when it froze on the last day of 406. Of course, the fact that they were able to cross unchallenged leads us to wonder where the Roman troops were.
This is what seems to have been the trouble after the battle of Adrianople after 376 (?) - Rome was not longer able to recruit enough soldiers, and had to rely on making various shaky alliances with various tribes as federates, to help fight its battles.
It seems extraordinary that an empire as big as Rome's (the population in the West must have been at least 20 million) could not raise say an extra 100,000 soldiers to repel the barbarians. Of course it would have been expensive, but losing the empire itself was even more expensive.
A critical moment came when the Vandals reached the Pyrenees and crossed into Spain. If a relatively small number of troops had been deployed to block the passes, then they would not have got into Spain, and Rome would not eventually have lost North Africa to the Vandals. It was the loss of these rich provinces, particularly Africa itself, that did it for Rome.
So why were they not stopped at the Pyrenees? I could be wrong but it seems Honorious was paranoid about letting generals have control of substantial numbers of troops. He was paranoid about them using the troops to make a bid for the throne.
But the fundamental fact is that troops could not be raised. It seems that the economy did not have the spare capacity to pay for sufficient men in arms.
There again, I read somewhere that the richest Romans were fantastically wealthy, with ('wealth enough for whole nations' as Diocletian said more than a century before), to such an extent that it seems a moderate tax of the 600 senators would alone have paid for tens of thousands of soldiers. Perhaps the rich/poor divide had become so huge that the people at the bottom could, almost literally, no longer afford to live. I envisage (admittedly on very thin evidence) a vast malnourished peasantry, who were basically in the condition of serfs, and were not soldier material.
So, to answer your question more directly, if I was Honorious I would have taken some of the wealth from the rich and used the money to raise large numbers of troops, rebuild a large navy, and then make certain that Spain was secured, Italy made safe, and the invaders in Gaul pursued and smashed. Presumably I would have had to give out extraordinary largesse to the Praetorian guard so that my position in Rome was totally secure from assassination from the annoyed senators. A re-invasion of Britain, possible now that Gaul was secured, would have given me a triumph, and I would be hailed as a victor in the streets of York. I would humbly accept the petitions of the citizens of Ebarocum to raise a statue in my honour.
Sorry - getting carried away...
-
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
Hi fascinating,
I'm sure that you have correctly identified the main factors associated with the end of the Western Empire, but there are still puzzles remaining. Barbarian invasions, short-lived emperors, civil wars and rampant inflation were a feature of the 3rd century as well; yet, under Diocletian and Constantine, the empire recovered.
Of course you are correct about Adrianopolis; if instead that had been a stunning victory for Valens the subsequent problems with the Goths might have been much easier to cope with. I think that in 406 the troops that should have been guarding the Rhine frontier were with Stilicho in Italy trying to keep the Goths out. Even so Constantine III (elected emperor in Britain) took a scratch force of troops over to Gaul and had some initial success. If Honorius had accepted a new tetrarchy (Constantine III, himself, Stilicho and Arcadius) things might have been better; but he lacked vision and kept pet chickens.
The loss of North Africa, with its agricultural resources, was fatal as you and other contributors point out. But Justinian was able to recapture Africa and some of Italy in the 6th century. This was probably purposeless, but is evidence that Roman armies had not completely shot their bolts.
I like the idea of you fighting in Spain and then reconquering Britain. It might have happened too if you were a military genius like Belisarius. You would have earned your statue! But not with the Praetorians; Constantine the Great disbanded them.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 14
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
Erm, I'm not sure that being tied into the same proffession as ones father had any real influence on the economy of the Roman Empire. Afterall it is not like the Empire needed a highly mobile labour force what with its reliance on a primarily agricultural economy as opposed manufacturing. In any case there was a sense that if one needed to import labour, skilled or unskilled, there was always the slave markets. In fact I'd say that such laws, if they could have been enforced, would have aided the Roman economy if anything as it would prevent population drift from the countryside to the towns. This would have prevented many smallholdings falling into disuse and mopeover kept a larger tax paying population in the countryside. Of course it may well have been that many of the samll holder who lost their freedom to their creditors had little choice in their future what with the developmemt of a more feudal relationship between those who worked the land and those who owned it in late antiquity. There is also the suggestion that a more densely populated countryside might have resulted in less calls for land from groups on the Empire's borders. Mind you that is all very well but the naturla reaction if faced with the prospect of contesting armies in a locality, quite common from the end of the second century onwards would have been to pick up and leave for the safty of a well defended area. Not sure that suggests that they were any less slaves than the feudal peasents or even the plantation workers on tea, coffee and sugar estates under the British empire in the nineteenth and early twentierth century. Afterall we relied on Indian taxpayers to finance our second Empire and likewise the Emperor relied tax collectors in the provinces to finance the army.
Nor do I buy the idea that Rome was dependent on continous conquest to maintain its economy. It strikes me that the drop in Roman shipping was far more likely to have affected access to the trappings of Roman living in the Western provinces in any case having a much greater effect on the economy of the Empire. I mean there are few extra additions to the Empire from the end of Julius Caesar's life and although the Imperial household might occasionally suffer short term shortages of ready capital such as Nero's need for money to rebuild Rome after it was giutted by fire not to mention gluts from actions against the likes of the Dacians at the end of the first century the basic system of Roman financing remained fairly stable from the ascent of Augustus to the mid second century BC. Indeed financing the army only really becomes a problem after it was expanded and given large payrises under the barrack room Emperors but they were largely put to use against each other as much as against foreigners after the Peace agreed with the Parthians on the Eastern frontier was abandoned and Rome failed to finish off the Sassananian dynasty from 226 onwards.
Mind you the West had ceased to be the primary focus of the Emperor for quite some time before the eventual winding up of the Wetern Empire. Afterall the main seat of power had moved to Constantinople while the Western military administation was transferred from Rome to Milan and then Ravenna. The eternal city may have been the centre of pagan cult activity but as such these groups were on the wane in any case and it ws really the incursion of hoistile armies into italy that allowed the Pope to reassert the cities primacy in the fifth centurty AD. What the invasions and sacking of Rome represents is the end of Roman power to stop foreign armies marching into the Italian peninsular that was the catalist behind the expnsion of the Western Empire from the fourth century BC onwards. -
Message 15
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
TwinProbe, the one difference between the third century and the late 4th/5th was that the later emperors were unable to find Roman soldiers. I infer from this that the economy had declined (further) by that time Or if it did not decline, the tax burden fell on the poorest who were simply unable to pay (pay enough to provide for a sufficient army anyway) and almost no burden fell on the very richest, who presumably could have afforded to pay, but refused to.
Thanks for the info about the Praetorians, I did not know that. -
Message 16
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
lolbeeble, good to hear from you. Whether or not Constantine's order requiring people to remain on their place of work is theoretically advantagous to the economy, history and archaeology suggests that areas were being abandoned. Example : Theodosious' justification of allowing in barbarian settlers on the grounds that the land would have been empty otherwise. Archaeology shows steady abandonment of whole villages into the the 4th century. I think that there was a steady decline in the numbers of cultivators (for whatever reason), thus emperors reacted to try to ensure they stayed, or were replaced by barbarians.
Your idea that they could have imported labour by buying slaves is curious. Slaves were common in the early empire, then in the late first and 2nd centuries we seem to hear far more about freedmen. At no time do we have any real evidence of the exact number of slaves, except that perhaps one may infer their rarity by their price. The fact that a slave girl in 1st century Britain could cost 500 denarii - nearly 2 years wages for a labourer - implies to me that slaves were rare and expensive. I do not think it would be a good idea for a cash-strapped government to try to buy slaves.
You make a good point about the Roman armies fighting each other. Far too often legions would be busy in battle with other legions, and this was a waste of military power, at a time when it was very needed.
What is your answer to the main question? IF you had been Honorious (I will for the present allow you to hold the imperial purple), what actions would you have taken to save the empire? -
Message 17
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
I'd say the Imperial authorities would have compelled people to move from overpopulated parts of the empire to less populous areas as was often the case in the Eastern Empire. As I said the depopulation of the rural countryside appears to be a feature of the Late Empire and it was certainly exacerbated in areas where rival armies met each other. In any case Germanic tribes had been invited to settle the border regions of Imperial territory from the end of the third century under Probus. This reintroduced federate status within the Empire after it was all but abandoned once Caracella granted citizenship to all freeborn residents of the Empire. In spite of the fact they were able to retain their own forms of political organisation under Kings they still served under officers educated in the traditions of the Roman Empire. Perhaps if Valens hadn't marched out so quickly to meet the threat of the Visigoths then Rome would not have been so depndent on the likes of Alaric and Stilichio to defend te Italian peninsular in the next few decades. Mind you if Roman traders had actually given them a fair deal when selling them foodstuffs and such like they might not have got so uppity in the first place.
-
Message 18
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
lolbeeble, simply moving people from heavily populated areas (assuming there were any) to depopulated areas would not, in itself, address the urgent problem of threatening barbarians and no-one around to stop them.
The whole battle of Adrianople was unnecessary because, as you say, Roman officials on the spot should not have tried to rip-off the Goths that had been given permission to settle. Had these officials played it straight then the Goths would probably have provided a worthy buffer against the Huns, and others. I think we can be sure that such corruption was a major factor in the decline of the effectiveness of Roman government. -
Message 19
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 26th August 2006
Really, it seems to have had an effect in areas like the Greek peninsular and Anatolia but the Eastern Empire had always been much more heavily populated than the West. Who knows we might all be speaking varients of Greek for that matter. In any case the reorganistion of Imperial defence under Diolcletion saw the troops strung out along hotter borders replaced by a full time military reaction force based around the Imperial courts that was re-enforced by local levies. Further repopulation would as likely mean Generals could rely on closer re-enforcements in the event of uprisings or hostile incursions from beyond the Empires borders. Mind you this also meant that if the reaction force was beaten, as at Adrianpole, then they were free to ravge the countryside surrounding urban centres.
The groups that crossed the Rhine and Danube in the Early fifth century only really got so far on account of the relative openness of the countryside whereas if they had been more densely settled around the borders then it would seem likely that they might have been checked far earlier as oppposed to being diverted into parts of Spain and North Africa. Having said that although groups like the Goths and Vandals set up independent kingdoms during the fifth century they still recognised established ancestral property rights as did many of the other incoming groups in Western Europe, more than can be said for the Lombards that followed on from the Goths who went about murdering and supplanting many Italian landowners. This probably did as more to damage the fabric of Roman infrastructure in the West than the simple change of title brought about by the pensioning of the Western Emperor and really it seems to be as much the fault of Justinian's attempts to reclaim the Western Empire in the sixth century. -
Message 20
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Sunday, 27th August 2006
Richie - As to the begging for help, I'd guess that if it really happened (and I'd gather that there are disagreements about that) it demonstrated that there were different parties in Britain, some favouring independence under romanised aristos, some favouring a return to Rome, even at the cost of Roman taxes and fixed places in life forever, and some favouring the German mercenaries and barbaria, even at the cost of losing their own language. Thus the internicene political violence.
I think we were not forgotten (bit of a major bureaucrat's slip that would be!) - the climate had changed so much that there wasn't the same profit in the place, which was inclined to be mutinous anyway. There's obviously a great deal of interesting stuff yet to be discovered here, clearly - and I wish my local University Library would get more of the books without having to be harried like post-Roman Britain! -
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 27th August 2006
What did the Western Empire offer the average person? They were simply better off in every respect under - or by becoming - barbarians. Only in Britain did anybody but the Army even bother to fight them - and I'd guess we only did so because we'd hoofed out the Roman officials in 410 A.D. The thing was DEAD Μύ
Better off under the barbarians? I would like you to provide some evidence of that assertion. I am not certain what you are saying is incorrect, but then again I do not get the impression that the people welcomed the barbarians with open arms. The nuns who were raped by vandals in North Africa, as reported by a local bishop, were not best pleased with their new freedom. What scraps of evidence we have, from Britain and Noricum, suggests that the settled people definitely saw the barbarians as unwelcome invaders (even if they employed barbarian merceneries, it was in the hope of using them to repulse OTHER barbarians).
Ordinary people, as they were not allowed to bear arms, could not engage in open battle with the barbarians. If a city was under seige by barbarians, I cannot think of a single instance in which the gates were thrown open and the barbarians welcomed in with flowers and kisses.
So I must ask you to provide some justificatin for your notion that they felt themsleves better off as, or under, barbarians. -
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th August 2006
The fall of western Roman empire was more a financial issue rather than of any other kind. Romans (a mere citizenship title at that time and nothing else), 'solved' it by letting gradually their influence fade away from those territories that did not give a lot and concentrating on those that gave the most, and at that time that was the east.
Mahros is not out of reality: a more offensive approach on the western fronts could give results - afterall even the horrible horde of Attila was dealt successfully by general Aetius in Gaul (modern France). However, it would mean that the majority of the taxes would be thrown into the dustbin protecting territories that would not offer a lot. Lets not forget that the whole Roman Empire was based on that slogan: take those territories that have a potential. Lets also not forget that when the ambihuous emperor Justinianus (that was clearly far from the greatest byzantine emperor as some like to believe) tried to retake the west he over-streched the finances of the state provoking social chaos and brining the empire on the bring of collapse thus the voices that supported 'keep it average size but strong and not large and weak prevailed', which explains the success of the continuation of the Roman empire for another nearly 1000 years (1204 and not 1453 as some like to say). Lets also not forget that the Byzantine empire of 1000 B.C. (Basilius) though less than half in size than that of 530 B.C. (Justininian) was much richer and much stronger, and for your information, actually the best financial state for Eastern Roman Empire had been actually in the 12th century (i.e. after the Seljuk invasion in Minor Asia)!
... keeping lands just to say that you have those lands yourself was even back then not worthy... -
Message 23
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 28th August 2006
Nikolaus, I do not understand what you are suggesting. History shows that there was nothing of influence being gradually allowed to fade away. All of the territories in the West were defended as far as possible. There is no political settlement granting these territories independence. The barbarians simply invaded, and there is no evidence to say it was with imperial approval. Many wealthy Romans must have had large estates in the south of Gaul, which is heavily Romanised, and I feel sure the government must have got significant remedy from the area. Same with Spain.
-
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th August 2006
Well, when Rome itself moved some 100s of kms to the east that itself was a sign for how much they esteemed the west. Indeed there were interests in the west and those interests pushed for saving those lands (myself gave the example of Aetius), the west was not of course of no value, but simply these circles were not as powerful politically as those in the east (except perhaps in the army, at those times largely germanic barbarians from the north). Mind you even the fall of Rome was not lamented much in the east something that centuries later gave some moral right to big-time imposter (initially against his will as others forwarded him!) Charlemagne to claim to be the heir of Rome (which was ridiculous of course).
We often forget that Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th century was really far away from what it had been in the late Republican and early Imperial years. Rome for them was reduced to being just a city within the empire, not anymore the Empire iteself as it had been earlier - take the examples of Diocletianus who hated the city of Rome and many other Emperors who preferred to spend their time and money elsewhere. On the opposite, we see that that attitude changed later when Constantinoupolis became the Empire itself and fell with it without ever being reduced to being just a city within the Empire.
Just think of it. You do not change capital unless financial circles ask for it or you ask from financial circles to move in your new place. Same thing more or less happens today. -
Message 25
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Tuesday, 29th August 2006
'So I must ask you to provide some justificatin for your notion that they felt themsleves better off as, or under, barbarians.'
fascinating - Logical deduction rather than evidence. All societies tend to think that what they concentrate on is centrally important - including, I don't doubt, the Maya with their superb calendars, which, lacking an annual inundation, were pretty useless to the average person I should think - but I can't prove that either, though they were evidently desperately exploited. I think it is pretty evident that there was a great deal of discontent with the later Western Empire, indicated by bacaudae uprisings in Gaul and so on, but I can't, obviously, go back and do some sort of public- opinion survey on the long-dead. What I'd argue is that the average person wouldn't have got enormous benefit from the good roads, the common market and the wonderful aqueducts because he/she lived in the country (paying very heavy taxes to support armies that might fight over his land) and forced to follow his father's calling whether he liked it or not. I'd have hated it myself, and I can't see why they'd have been different. The barbarians, on the other hand, would have asked a great deal less and have produced a local bossman who - under a nascent feudalism - would have been a lot more approachable.
So, no, I can't produce much evidence other than the fact that except the (already heavily barbarian) armies, nobody seems to have cared much when the barbarians took over - and, no, I don't expect many rushed to fight for them either, because people are very conservative. As far as I know, though, it is only in Britain - which was by then free of Rome - that ordinary people seem to have resisted German takeover for any length of time, and this, I think, must be considered significant. -
Message 26
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 29th August 2006
Rhys, the Maya were farmers were they not? So surely a calendar would have been useful to them?
Back to Rome - OK, there was a lot of discontent, but that in no way implies that there was any esteem for the barbarians. There is a fair amount of discontent in modern-day Britain, but that does not mean we want to be invaded and taken over by, for example, Russians.
Certainly the taxes would have been onerous, and one can imagine the people hating paying them. But when the legions went away, in Britain we get a plea to have them brought back, to fight against the barbarians!
As I explained before, the average person was unarmed, and totally unused to fighting.
Where do you get this 'the barbarians would have asked for a great deal less'. Perhaps they would have asked for no taxes, just burned your house down and raped your daughters! This idea of 'an approachable bossman' is in fact seen in evidence from the empire, where certain inscriptions reveal the common people petitioning for help from local grandees, against rapacious government tax collectors.
I repeat, there is no record of any city at any time welcoming barbarians as liberators. -
Message 27
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 29th August 2006
Well actually Nick, there are any number of reasons why one might change the venue of a capital. Quite why the Myanamar Junta are moving from Rangoon to a new location is something of a mystery but it seems given the countries relative isolation that matters of international finance have very little to do with it and it could as well be because some spirit guide has told them to do so. Likewise Brazilia was chosen more for its central position in Brazil compared to the other major connurbations that hug the coast and would appear to be a political as opposed to purely financial decision. In fact stating it is all down to cost benefit analysis does seem to be rather too Utilitarian a motive and certainly was not the major factor in the decision to move the Imperial court from Italy to the Golden horn.
As it stands there was a feeling that Rome was falling inexorably towards corruption after one thousand years of existence, millenarians weren't exclusivly Christian and so the establishment of a new Capital was intended to avert this fate bu setting up a new Rome. There again who can blame them, despite the existence of sewers, baths and such like it was still a festering warren of humanity demanding material and sensual satisfaction. The defensive advantage of the site of old Byzantium is perhaps of more importance, something noted by Herodotus some seven hundred and fifty years earlier. Another point he raised was that it lay slap bang on the main pathway between Europe and Asia and thus was likely to be in the way of many barbarian chieftains travelling across the Balkans to Anatolia as might be demonstarted by the later Gallic incursions of the third century BC. The new capital was a thus handy site to marshal defences in the event of further hordes. On top of that it also meant the Imperial court and its attached army was closer to the Eastern provinces and thus gave these areas less room to marshal their own defences when threatened and thus establish a sense of autonomy from the central Roman government as had arisen in the third cenntury AD under such figures as Zenobia of Palmyra. Now of course it might be argued that these were the richest provinces in any case and further the taxes they generated and the goods they supplied were of more value to the Imperial household than those of the western provinces on account of the trading relationships that existed in the Eastern provinces predating Roman expansion, but that was incidental to the choice of the new site for the Imperial court.
Mind you I could swear that Charlemagne only claimed to be Emperor of the West and there really wasn't much the Emperor in Constantinople could do about it given the tit for tat explusions that the Patriarch of Rome and Constantinople were engaged in, what with the pinning of excommunication notices on each others backs and blaming the sitter not the seat and all that. I could swear that Moscow maintained it was the third Rome after 1453 in any case -
Message 28
Posted by chatke2007 (U5457817) on Tuesday, 29th August 2006
They could not help them selves, rome was built on slavery and war and it was consumed by the same forces it fostered.
Rome may have started as a village of farmers on the tiber, but it grew fat on slaves and war.
You have as many enemies as you have slaves a roman once told a friend, so it goes for any nation or people, treat other like dirt and you can expect the same. consume and war munger with out concern for the outcome and soon you get a society that collapses of its own weight in crime and violence.
Muhammad Bey -
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 30th August 2006
Chatke what you say is just a small picture of the reality. Rome was not alone into slavery and of course slavery did not stop after the fall of Rome. In Byzantium slaves were merely renamed as servants and landless farmers, in western Europe as serfs in feuds (with little difference in treatment) while in the Arabic world they continued to be called (and treated) like slaves (you know chains, pierced noses etc.). Slavery in the west ended in the 19th century while in other parts of the world continued officially until the 1970s (e.g. Oman, if I am not mistaken) while it is more than wellknown that millions of people around the world (east and west) practically live under slavery-conditions.
Slaves in Rome were a multinational workforce which was difficult to be organised against "the system" and it only produced one major revolt which of course started from gladiators-slaves (a special category of slaves trained in arms) rather than other slaves. In other parts of the world such revolts were rarer... e.g. in ancient Greece there was absolutely no revolt apart Helots in Sparta in which case it was also (I would say more) a tribal matter as Helots were not a motley crew but one tribe and actually were the older habitants of southern Peloponesus thus never forgot their dream of regaining power in the area.
Slavery and corruption in Rome has only been inflated due to the later christian propaganda that tried to convince the world that things were better after the abolition of the older religions. Well, the face changed, deep inside things remained rather unchanged and it is remarkable that Eastern Romans showed similar corruption and civil strife facing 100 more enemies (of all kinds, tactical armies and hordes of marauding barbarians) and prolonged their establishement to 1000 years more (actually more than old Rome itself - if we do not count Rome as a collection of villages that it was in the beginning).
Personally by no means I would state slavery and corruption as a reason to the fall of Rome (I mean the city). The main reason was that even earlier than the 4th century (I would say officially from 212 and Caracalla law that gave the right to everybeing inside the borders to be a Roman citizen), the word 'Roman' did not mean what it meant in the the late Republican times. Apart some patrician fossils from Rome dreaming of a re-establsihment of the Republic, even those latin speakers in Rome and suburbs that could trace back their ancestry to those first Romans would not feel more Romans than anyone else perhaps in a similar way that that an American who can trace back his ancestry in England will not feel much English (other than that a Roman would be more attached to the history of his city than a Greek from Minor Asia). But then, those who had power in the Empire by that time were not necessarily from those old families nor descendants of ancient Romans. We see too much Greek names and even behind latin ones we know that many were Greeks, Gauls, Germanics etc. By 4th century we even see generals carrying their barbaric names unchanged (Stilicho is not much of a Roman or Greek name). You do not expect all these to feel anything special for Rome as a city. They only cared about their personal interest and secondarily to serve the Empire to which they had tied their interests to a varying degree. By 4th-5th century (after the move of capital to Byzantium), the laws were written and codified already in Greek which was at all times spoken more than Roman (even earlier in Rome, half of citizens spoke Greek and many actually did so daily). By 6th century it was only the administration (and actually the upper one) that spoke Latin for reasons only of tradition (and only learnt Latin as a second language as they would speak Greek as maternal one).
Why would such a transition be a puzzle to anyone? For those that ignore the history of Rome it is not the history of any special people (Italic tribes or whatever). Rome a city with clearly a Greek name, formed in the fringes of the Greek world by a union of Greek and italic tribes (living in nearby villages) and it is not a secret that patrician Romans most probably came from those Greeks and plebeians from the italic ones explaining the persistence of patricians to speak Greek (the language of their ancestor). One has to to note that in south Italy Rome was not the only example of such a union. However as Greeks would never accept such unions as Greek and despite the will of Romans to be accepted in the Greek world they would be considered as barbarians, thus by the increasing integration of Italic tribes into the establishment of Rome, Latin rose to become the main language by late 5th early 4th century. Of course, patricians were always bilingual and they used that ancestry of theirs to enter the Olympic games in a more 'legal' manner (rather than pressing Greeks to accept them in as barbarians).
Thus, for me things are clear. Romans had already passed through a series of transitions even before creating their Empire. By 5th century A.D. their interests would be in the east. Thus, though they would not like the idea of losing the west, they would not also be willing to pay a lot for it. For thems things were clear. Them Romans, they could do well without much of their territories and even losing Rome did not mean the conquest of the Empire by others (that is the main difference with Byzantium as well as other Empires). The phrase "Fall of Rome" stands only for the fall of Rome as a city and Rome was by then only a city within the Empire. The phrase "Fall of the Roman empire" is not true at all as the Roman empire continued up to 1204 ironically dissolved by Latin speakers. -
Message 30
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 30th August 2006
Nikolaos you make some good points but I still must disagree on some.
Without any evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the people in the Western Roman empire had a loyalty to it, just the same as people tend to have a loyalty to the country that they live in. This loyalty can subsist even if you disagree with the government, and even if it is shown to you that your ancestors had nothing to do with your country. The fact remains, this place is your home. When your home is under threat, people naturally come together to repel the threat.
The people were entitled to regard the whole empire as their home, because each and every one had been made a citizen. In that sense, it was not an empire but a commonwealth.
I am fully aware that the empire was built using violence, and sustained primarily to further the interests of the wealthy.
Those people in power, and also the super-rich who presumably had influence, had personal interest in sustaining the empire. If the empire fell and barbarians came in, political power would be lost. Furthermore, the loss of empire would result in the landscape being cut up between kingdoms. This would have been damaging to communications and would have resulted in the loss of markets for their goods.
Thus I hope I have convinced you that the wealthy landowners in the West wanted the empire to be sustained, because only if it was could they maintain their wealth. Secondly, they would not have wanted bands of roving thugs destroying things around them. It would be unsettling.
Looking at the history of the time, it seems to me that the wealthy Romans made the crucial mistake of considering that, as they were Romans, they would ultimately win. Thus when the Goths came right up to the walls of Rome, the senators did not seriously negotiate with them, apparently assuming that, merely by being Rome, the city could not be taken.
Nikolaos, I think your last paragraph is wholly wrong. Rich Romans wanted to retain their estates, and would certainly not have wanted them overrun with barbarians. -
Message 31
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 30th August 2006
consume and war munger with out concern for the outcome and soon you get a society that collapses of its own weight in crime and violence
Μύ
so we shall soon be witnessing the demise of Mecca in short order then?!?!? -
Message 32
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 30th August 2006
They could not help them selves, rome was built on slavery and war and it was consumed by the same forces it fostered.
Rome may have started as a village of farmers on the tiber, but it grew fat on slaves and war.
You have as many enemies as you have slaves a roman once told a friend, so it goes for any nation or people, treat other like dirt and you can expect the same. consume and war munger with out concern for the outcome and soon you get a society that collapses of its own weight in crime and violence Μύ
chatke, the one word I must disagree with is 'soon'. Rome brutally conquered dozens of nations, but remained successful for hundreds of years. I do not see that it collapsed under its own weight, rather it was barbarian pressure, but of course you might well argue that Rome was weakened internally.
In Dacia and Judea, in the early 2nd century, Rome solved the problem of recalcitrant populations by, ultimately, completely annihilating these nations and basically selling into slavery the entire population (apart from those that it killed). There is no evidence of the Romans ever beginning to regret these actions, because the slaves would have raised lots of money for the state, and in the case of Dacia a fantastic amount of gold was seized. To the Roman government, genocide worked. -
Message 33
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 31st August 2006
fascinating
If you stop and think about it slavery was the basis of many civilisations and empires.
Chatke might like to allude to the Roman Empire but that empire was by no means unique in that regard. Mosty empires were built if not on then at least incorporating slavery including the Muslim empire that arose in the 6th C.A.D. In europe it formed into the highly structured feudal system and in most places in the world slavery existed or continues to exist right up to the modern day. I think that it would be safe to assume that the two oldest professions in the world are from the "service" sector shall we say
Rich -
Message 34
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 1st September 2006
I'd have to add that the friction between "True Romans" and Germanic immigrants had a lot to do with it.
For example, the Roman Legions had a great deal of German tribesmen serving in them, and were even led by German tribesmen at some stages, for example, Honorius (famed for the "You're on your own Britain!" message) in his early years was basically a puppet of a German general who governed Rome on his behalf yet had no ambitions to become Emperor (I can't remember the guy's name!!), yet only years later, the families of German legionaries were massacred by Romans.
Another example, the Visigoths were allowed to settle in Roman territory by Valens, who then treated them as inferior settlers and taxed them to death, so they rose up and killed him.
This racial element (many documents refer to the Alemanii as "blond barbarians, barely human") where the Germanic tribes were allowed to settle then treated as inferiors by the Romans antagonised them into revolt time and again. Add to this Roman/German divide the religious element, where many "barbarian" tribes, for example the Visigoths, had been converted to Arianism, which was simply a heresy to the Roman church, and this causes further friction.
The Romans basically let the "barbarians" in, then did not assimilate them, a complete reverse of Roman policy for centuries. They had always conquered territory, then "Romanised" the people, eventually granting them citizenship. Now they behaved as if they were almost a "Master Race" which for the first time in centuries, they were not! They had been the masters of Europe, and simply expanded the Empire. Now they behaved like they were superior beings, but the problem was that they relied on the inferior barbarians to fight for them. After all, before Alaric sacked Rome, he negotiated with the Romans, when they reneged on the negotiation, he attacked. Even when he did take Rome, much of the city was left intact, and the Goths left after three days. Alaric was just proving a point rather than attempting to destroy Rome. Had he wanted to do so, he would have. -
Message 35
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 1st September 2006
DL, I think your view of the historical facts is slightly garbled (no offence intended, I am sure that I unintentionally get my facts wrong sometimes).
The German fellow you are thinking of is Stilicho. He was a capable general and steadfastly loyal to Theodosious, whom he served under. When Theodosius died, Stilicho naturally transferred his loyalty to the late emperor's son, Honorius. There is nothing to indicate that Stilicho wanted to be emperor himself, but it nevertheless appears that certain individuals at court were resetful of the fact that a man of Germanic origin (in fact I think he had a German father and a Roman mother) had so much power. He was eventually tricked and killed.
The goths, harassed by the Huns, were allowed to settle within the empire by Valens, and some aid was assingned to them. It was the corrupt officials who were given the task of handing out the aid who decided to keep some of it for themselves. The Goths knew what was happening, but these arrogant officials thought that they were untouchable. It was this, rather than taxation, that led the Goths to revolt. In the ensuing battle Valens made mistakes, and a disastrous defeat was suffered as a result.
In former times the Romans had half their army made up of non citizens (the auxiliaries) who were paid less but received citizenship on discharge. Thus assimilation was a gradual process, earned at the cost of a lifetime of loyalty.
The crucial fact, in my opinion, of the late 4th century, is that the Romans seem to have been incapable of raising their own army of sufficient size. Thus the reliance on federates to make up the numbers.
The Romans always looked down on barbarians, but I believe such attitudes would become more prevalent when Rome was more under threat. (Example: during the 2 World Wars people started calling Germans bad names like 'Huns'). The need to rely on barbarian arms could have been a nasty shock which some would have responded to by an exaggerated belief in Rome's 'natural' greatness. This, as you say, led them to believe that Rome would always win just because it was Rome, until they got a rude awakening from Alaric. -
Message 36
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 1st September 2006
Fascinating,
Cheers for that one, it was indeed Stilicho I was thinking of. (I did add that he had no ambitions of becoming Emperor himself). -
Message 37
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 1st September 2006
Specifically, Stilicho was a Vandal.
You might want to read Terry Jones' "Barbarians". It's quite lightweight for a hisory book, but entertaining. It is very anti-Roman but does have some interesting interpretations of just how barbaric the barbarians were. According to Jones, when the Vandals under Alaric "sacked" Rome, they hardly destroyed any buildings and didn't kill anyone - being Christians, that would have been sacrilege. -
Message 38
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 1st September 2006
Tony, I do not know if Terry Jones' book is misleading you, but Alaric was undoubtedly a Goth. He did lead the Goths into Rome in 410. From the evidence of 2 ancient authors, it is said that not much damage was done. These 2 authors had reasons (different reasons) to downplay the taking of the city. Orosius, like other Christian authors of his day, was perplexed and troubled that the almost unprecedented disasters that befell Rome came shortly after the banning of the ancient religion in 391. Orosius' answer to those who blamed Christianity was that, despite all the disasters that had occured since 391, they were not as bad as the disasters that had happened in pagan times. Thus, he seeks to point out that the taking of Rome by the Goths was positively benign by comparison to the fire that consumed the city under Nero.
Jordanes was an author who tried to argue that Romans and Goths were natural allies. He therefore sought to downplay the Gothic invasion, saying 'On entering Rome.....they only looted it, and did not....set it on fire'.
Stilicho had a Vandal father and a Roman mother, I think. -
Message 39
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 2nd September 2006
Sorry, you are quite correct. My mistake, Alaric was, of course, a Goth.
-
Message 40
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 2nd September 2006
TonyG "Sorry, you are quite correct. My mistake, Alaric was, of course, a Goth."
but the Vandals also "sacked" Rome - in 442 under (ahem...) Gaiseric. This is the non-brutal sack of Rome that Terry Jones was referring to, not the earlier Gothic one.
According to wikipedia "Although history remembers the Vandal sack of Rome as extremely brutal (and their act made the word 'vandalism' a term for any wantonly destructive act), in actuality Geiseric honored his pledge not to make war on the people of Rome, and the Vandals did not do much destruction (or even any notable destruction) in the city; they did however take gold, silver and many other things of value away from the city." -
Message 41
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 3rd September 2006
You'd think I'd know by now to check my sources before posting a message. It is not Terry Jones who is at fault, it is me. I stand, or rather sit, corrected.
-
Message 42
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 4th September 2006
Gaiseric, I think the term 'vandalism' arose from the vandal practice of defacing the statues that they found. I have been to Tunisia, and almost every single ancient statue or bust has had the nose smashed off, as some kind of mark of disrespect by the Vandals. Hence the application of the term to wanton, mindless destruction.
-
Message 43
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th September 2006
I also think that this term arose from the destruction of the artwork of Ravenna by Vandals in the 5th century if I remember well.
-
Message 44
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 5th September 2006
It has to be recognised that among all Germanic people, Vandals had always a special hatred against the Roman Empire and whatever that represented. Goths had more of a complex of inferiority thus they hated Romans but also admired them a lot and on many cases they tried to reproduce that culture. The hatred of Vandals however was more advanced and often they would try to destroy whatever they could - not that this would earn them anything (normally a barbarian would rather spend his time searching for gold in the rich houses rather than sitting down and trying to break a sculpture) but then they would get an ethical satisfaction out of that.
We have also to note that destructions of artwork occured for various reasons. In ancient Egypt of the 2nd millenia B.C. artwork destruction was a political statement rather than a mere act of barbarianism - after the death of Akenaton, the priests managed to break every artwork related to him (a pity cos this was a more liberal form of art and we assume there were some treasures among that artwork). We know that Alexander the Great, a highly educated individual, did not want to destroy the wonderful city of Persepolis but he had little choice as from the one hand Greeks expected him to take revenge for the destruction that Persians brought to Greeks till then; he had also to make it clear to Persian noblemen that there would be no revival of the Persian Empire after him - thus he erased the city and chose Babylon (a non Persian city) as his capital. Romans - people that though were not fully educated were not also foreign to arts - did a lot of artwork destruction against those Greek kingdoms and cities that resisted them like Macedonia and Corinth in order to show the fate that would have those who resisted. In mid-Byzantine era, the battle between iconoclasts and supporters of icons meant that almost the totality of artwork prior to 9th century was destroyed (thus we know little of what it might had looked like), again that was a political statement rather than an act of pure barbarianism (though it was also that). Same goes for muslims that did similar defacing of statues and paintings.
Hence, in the light of the above looking the acts of Vandals as pure acts of barbarianism can be in a sense unfair. Even the most uneducated barbarian would not lose his time breaking a statue purely out of pleasure... or just for fun... yes they could do that once or twice but not systematically. It seems that Vandals wanted to show to the citizens of the Roman Empire that whatever holded that Empire were then gone for ever and things they valued (like their art) could just be broken for fun by the invaders. Goths did not want the Empire to collapse... they rather fought for money and to get a better place - if they could rise within the Empire then even better but Vandals really did not care to rise within the Empire but to dissolve it and establish their own hegemony in southern Europe - hence, they had to make people forget about Rome and its works and to convince them that the times were different - thus their systematic effort to destory all signs of superiority of that Empire. -
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 5th September 2006
I think the best example to explain why Vandals did so where the Crusaders (at times an even more barbaric bunch than the Vandals and Goths) and the sack of Constantinoupolis where they managed to erase the second largest city in the world and certainly the richest (Sanghai ranging from 1 to 2 millions, Constantinoupolis ranging from 500,000 to 1,000,000 at times) to nearly nothing, killing, enslaving and destroying. Crusaders did not destory out of a systematic effort to conquer Byzantium and replace it or something. They destroyed more in order to satisfy their deep complexes of inferiority towards Byzantines proved by the fact that they took special care to do everything to humiliate them (e.g. putting their prostitues to sing within Hagia Sofia or to take young girls out of their houses and rape them in groups in public places rather than in the houses, or in private places that most barbarians or other types of armies would do - things that even the harsh Ottoman muslims did not do at that level of inhumanity).
-
Message 46
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 5th September 2006
sorry I said a different thing: I wanted rather to explain that "all those that Vandals are accused to had done were actually exemplified mostly by other armies such as the Crusaders".
-
Message 47
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 6th September 2006
re broken noses - I've never seen a classical statue that didn't have one, surely they weren't all done by the Vandals?
-
Message 48
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 6th September 2006
Gaiseric, the ones in Carthage that I saw almost all had the noses completely smashed off, and it was stated that this damage was done by the Vandals.
There are loads of Roman statues and busts where the nose is intact (or only with a bit of scuffing). I think that, for every emperor of the first 3 centuries, there is at least one bust showing his facial appearance, including nose. There are several statues of Augustus alone, all complete with noses. -
Message 49
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 6th September 2006
As I mentioned earlier, I think if the Romans had been able to retake Africa then they may have significantly delayed the fall.
As late as 468AD the East Romans raised an amarda of 1,100 ships to carry an army of over 30,000 troops to retake Africa from the Vandals on behalf of the Western Empire. If you include sailors and support troops then the number rises to over 50,000. Unfortuneately for the Romans the Vandals were able to ambush the Roman fleet while it was anchor using fireships. In the resulting battle most the the Roman fleet and army was destroyed so ending the last chance for the Western Empire.
If the Romans had been succesful then with further Eastern support Majorian, who was after the eastern emperor's nomanee for western emperor, could have been able to maintane the western empire for decades, perhaps even forceing the Visigoths into submission in Gaul and Hispania. -
Message 50
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 7th September 2006
There were several other issues in the Gothic-Roman and Vandal-Roman wars such as the big-time thorn of Arianism. The overwhelming majority of Vandals and Goths were actually Arian christians (christianised also at a faster rate than Roman citizens themselves -lets not forget that places like what is known as Greece (mainland, islands, Minor Asia) were even up to those times largely pagan which explains partially why certain Emperors, known for their strong anti-pagan feelings had let the Goths free to pillage the whole place). For the majority of the by then powerful clergy, it was not that much that Vandals had taken vast territories from Roman authority - not even that they had pillaged the place including cities like Rome - but that they continued to support a heresy. If Vandals had been of the same belief then there would be fewer problems as christians actually found it easier with the barbarians than with late (pagan) Romans.
One has however to recognise that Goths and especially Vandals (and their strong allies, the Sarmatian Alans) were really a highly capable group of people that showed high skills not only in war fronts but also in diplomacy and strategic moves. It can be argued that if it was not for the abilities of great general Belisarius, their kigdom (though with its decline) would had survived for more, perhaps resisting a bit more to later conquerors Arabs, who found it only so easy (who knows... afterall Charles Martel who beat them was not any brilliant strategist or did not have any great army, certainly inferior to what Vandals had shown).
Also, to put things right, it has to be said that those called barbarians, i.e. Vandals, Goths and Alans were not more violent than the Roman army had been and to be frank, the Roman army had levelled cities to dust and showed no mercy even to the last weak beggar while them they mainly pillaged for gold, occasionally showing some basic respect to indigenous people thus (occasionally of course) gaining some more ethical grounds in comparison to the Roman army, say on its campaign to Dacia where they levelled the place and sold even the last child and old man to slavery in distant lands of the Empire, bringing new populations in.
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 Μύto 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.