Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
The Roman Empire in the West.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 14th June 2010
A Quick Question.
I am reading "The Fall of the West. The death of the Roman Superpower. By Adrian Goldsworthy"
havent got far in yet due to people insisting I work for a living but it is opening my eyes on a period that I dont know that much about.
So, my question is this. The Roman Empire in the West. Did it fall? or was it pushed? -
Message 2
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Hi bttdp,
Sorry but can you define what you mean by West, is it Britain alone?
It is just that where I am almost everything in Europe is west. -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Hi bttdp,
Quick? You are kidding, right? Anway I think we may have been here before! If you haven't read 'The Collapse of Complex States' by Tainter I imagine you would enjoy it. I think the quick answer to your question is 'both'.
Would you agree that our response to late Roman history is largely determined by the title of Edward Gibbon's great work? If he had entitled it 'The Rise of Early Christian Europe' we might now look at things rather differently. However it's a little difficult to argue that something fairly profound did not occur in the Western Empire during the 5th century.
Perhaps a good place to start is to ask what can go wrong with any 'complex society'? Rome managed to prevent conquest by another complex society, and was lucky enough to avoid overwhelming natural catastrophe by volcano, earthquake, climate change or disease, although the last two events on this list may have played some part in its decline. Some societies fail because of loss of crucial resources (usually agricultural or perhaps trade). Supplying Rome with corn, oil and wine must have be a major logistical problem but the size of the empire meant that production facilities could be switched from region to region. This is always a risk if population increases geometrically but food resources arithmetically and this is made worse if there is a single crop reliance and a poor understanding of agriculture.
Barbarian invaders have been blamed for the fall of Harappa, the Hittites, Mycenae and Rome. This is a popular explanation but evidence is often lacking, or at least incomplete. Were Rome's enemies so much more dangerous in the 5th C than the 3rd C? One does not need to read very far in Roman history to become aware of the financial and military resources that were squandered on imperial pretenders and dynastic wars. But again the late Republic survived the civil wars of Caesar & Pompey or Augustus & Antony, and emerged stronger.
Gordon Childe felt that Rome lacked the adequate development or extension of productive force - the peasantry was static or declining. But the French revolution did not cause the collapse of France, and the endurance of exploitation and bad management are normal costs of government. Evidently Rome exhibited social dysfunction and mismanagement. Special interest groups promoted their welfare above that of state. Increased expenditure raised taxes above the ability of the population to pay whilst senators paid no tax.
Surely the collapse of of Western Rome was multi-factorial. The increasing size and specialisation of the bureaucracy. The increased costs of Imperial 'legitimising' activities and of internal control and external defence. These factors inevitably resulted in increasing taxation. The great risk problem was that these events eventually led to decomposition: irrigation systems failed, bridges & roads were not repaired, some frontiers were not defended and the population were expected to contribute more from a declining production base. When that happened they were doomed!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 4
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 14th June 2010
It is interesting that not long after the Roman empire in the West fell, Justinian, who was emperor in the East, conquered a large portion of their former territories in the Mediteranean, including all of Italy, southern Spain, Tunis, etc.
-
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Hi shivfan
A very good point. One could argue that Justinian's overthrow of the Ostrogothic kingdom was a final and irretrievable catastrophe for Italy.
Belisarius defeated the African Vandals in 533 and then invaded the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy in 535-540 AD. Italy was largely reconquered by Totila (541-552), and Justinian's new general Narses was given the job of re-reconquest with a mercenaries 552. During this period Rome and Italy was devastated by several rival armies.
You will understand if these events are described in the words of a much earlier Roman historian: 'he made a desert and called it peace.'
TP -
Message 6
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Since most people at the time aspired to be Roman rather than anything else it might be more appropriate to ask why did it collapse when it did?
Whilst the central polity collapsed elements of the culture continued and as Twin Probe has suggested led to the civilisation that eventually blossomed to become medieval Europe.
The evidence points to a financial collapse preventing the establishment of adequate armies to repel foreign invaders who aspired to participate in Romanitas.
I think the history of central and southern France in the period leading up to and after the collapse serves as a significant illustration in that the incoming Frankish warlords took on the status of Roman rulers. -
Message 7
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Hi
Surely the re-taking of the lands around the Mediterannean by Justinianβs Generals was really a realignment of lands that had been held by Theodoric (an erstwhile Roman Consul) and ally of the Eastern Roman Empire ruling the area in the name of the emperor in Constantinople.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 8
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Hi TA,
That sounds a bit legalistic to me and, as usual, we are being tempted off subject! On this occasion from the fall to the post-fall! I hope there's a real expert on the Eastern empire out there because I am aware that I am hopelessly prejudiced against Justinian, and in any case haven't studied these events for at least a decade. I suppose there are two questions. Were Justinian's actions in Italy legal, and were they wise?
Technically we should start with Odovacer since he disposed of the last Roman emperor which event is genuinely on topic. Odovacer was a leading imperial soldier of German or Hunnish origin. He revolted against imperial authority and forced Romulus Augustulus into exile until the emperor died 4 years later. Odovacer ruled Italy directly from 488-493.
He was in turn displaced by Theodoric the Ostrogoth who had been the protΓ©gΓ© of two eastern emperors Leo I & Zeno. Zeno made him consul (whatever that meant in the 5th C) and it is supposed, may have encouraged Theodoric to invade Italy in order to lessen his influence in the East. Anyway once successful Theodoric clearly modelled his behaviour on the imperial court. He called himself King of Italy and wore purple robes. His Ostrogothic kingdom included Italy, part of Austria and former Yugoslavia and he took Ravenna as his capital. Religiously he was an Arian Christian, but a tolerant one, and was initially popular since he planned to defend Italy, care for civilization, call himself 'the Great', and make the trains run on time...so to speak.
I gather that Theodoric's position was weakened when the Franks were converted from paganism to orthodox Catholicism, and when the Eastern Empire at last had an orthodox emperor (Justin) not a monophysite one. We may be confused by the many and various flavours of contemporary Christian belief but they really did seem to matter. Anyway Theodoric became increasingly distrustful of the Eastern Empire, had his famous minister Beothius executed, and imprisoned the Pope (John I). He was apparently planning to persecute Catholics and transfer all their churches to Arianism when he died in 526, and was tidied away into a magnificent late antiquity mausoleum in Ravenna.
Theodoric's immediate successor was his grandson Athalaric but in view of his youth his mother Amalasuntha was very influential. In 534 she was strangled in her bath by her husband Theodahad, or perhaps just exiled to an island prison. Theodahad's son Witigis deposed his father (nice folk these Ostrogoths) and ruled Italy between 536-540, after which the declining Ostrogothic kingdom was overthrown by the armies of Justinian, as described. I think Justinian would have argued that since the East had the sole legitimate emperor; it followed that Theodoric and his successors ruled as the emperor's agents. Although this arrangement was 50 years old legally I imagine that there was something to be said for Justinian's view. Would Theodoric the Great have agreed with such an assessment? No chance. Personally I think that Justinian would have been sufficiently distinguished by his legal code and the construction of Hagia Sophia. But evidently his ambition was to recapture and reunite much or the old empire. Against all the odds he largely succeeded in his ambitions, although his intervention proved to be a disaster for Italy.
When Justinian's celebrated generals Belisarius and Narses invaded the Ostrogothic kingdom their action precipitated 20 years of conquest and reconquest during which period Rome and Italy was devastated by several armies. The problems facing Justinian seemed endless: bubonic plague, the loss and recovery of Antioch, and two invasions of Italy by the Franks. To prevent further invasion Justinian would have needed to install a permanent garrison in Italy, and this is exactly what he couldn't have afforded to do. Narses employed a Lombard army with the inevitable result that two years after Justinian's death (568) the Lombards actually conquered the Italian peninsula on their own account and then went into banking.
So the effect of Justinian's intervention was effectively to transfer Italy from one barbarian king to another with a methodical 25 year period of ravaging in between! One can have too much respect for the legal niceties.
TP -
Message 9
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 15th June 2010
I tend to avoid legal discussions on the subject, too, because in ancient Rome, the Empire just conquered any opponent they didn't like, and vice versa....
I would rather like to look at how effective Justinian's conquest of Italy, Spain and Tunis was. As you say, Twin Probe, Justinian had an outstanding general in Belisarius, and it's a pity he didn't trust him a little more.
The thing with the Lombards, though, I don't think they conquered all of Italy. I believe it was just the northern section, inclusive of Genoa, and the NW coast. But Venice seems to have still been under Eastern control, and much of middle Italy in that Rome-Ravenna corridor. Then there was the creation of the duchies of Spoleto and Benvento, which sprung up in central and southern Italy somewhere in the 572-582 region. They were theoretically under Lombard control, but that control was unenforceable because of the Eastern control of central Italy. And in 590, a Roman counter-attack did drive the Lombards as far back as the gates of Pavia, their capital.
It does seem that those were the boundaries of Lombard control until the eighth century, which means that the legacy of Justinian and Belisarius did seem to last quite a while before the Lombards eventually prevailed in the north.
However, it does seem that the Visigoths practically drove the Romans out of Spain much earlier, reducing their control to Gibraltar and the SW coast, before they were completely evicted from Spain in the seventh century. Tunis they seemed to have hung on to for a little bit longer, until the Umayyads conquered it at the turn of the eighth century.
Considering that the Western Roman Empire fell late in the fifth century, it does seem that Justinian re-asserted some control for a couple of centuries at least, until the Lombards, the Visigoths, and the Umayyads prevailed.... -
Message 10
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 15th June 2010
HiTP
its a fascinating bit of history thats for sure. I didnt realise there were quite that many civil wars? they must have had an effect in thinning out the available troops and devestated whole areas of the provinces. He doesnt really seem to give much credit to the outside forces Sassinids etc or at least he hasnt as yet. I am only about a third of the way through. Does seem to be heading along the roads of it changed and changed till it wasnt there any more. But like I said its early days yet.
Hi ID I was thinking of all of the Western empire rather than just the bit thats now the UK.
I am pretty ignorant on the end of the empire. For soe reason I never really noticed that the empire went on a lot longer than I thought it did. its good book though. -
Message 11
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
I agree with Twin Probe that the quick answer (to the question of "Did it fall or was it pushed") as "both". The massive tree-trunk that was the Roman Empire became fairly rotten, so that when some came along to push it, they were eventually able to topple it.
I have previously pushed a theory of mine that the inheritance laws, over generations, ensure that the rich get richer, with wealth and power ever more concentrated among fewer people. In our society progressive taxation, and new wealth from economic growth, have prevented that happening. In the Roman world there was no lasting economic growth and only regressive taxation. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer, so poor that (from the evidence of abandoned towns and shrunken cities) they could not sustain the same population level. Still the empire had great wealth, so that the barbarians were attracted to it like bees to a honey pot, for loot, thus there was always a need to maintain a large professional army. To pay the troops the emperors turned to devaluing the currency, a process which may have been beneficial at first but which went too far. By fiscal reform Diocletian was able to extract more reliable income and they got to grips with the barbarian threat, for a long time. Then in the late 4th century there was a Roman defeat at Adrianople, 4 legions lost. Now the Romans had suffered defeats on that scale before, but had recovered. This was a pivotal moment because they were not able to find fresh recruits to bring the army back up to strength, one assumes because the tax revenue was simply not enough to pay them. The Western Empire fell basically because barbarian forces were able to cross the frozen Rhine one winter day, without encountering resistance, and swept through Gaul and then Spain, encountering almost no resistance. From Spain they went through North Africa and then Italy and Rome. End of story. -
Message 12
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Hi Fascinating
I would also agree with TP and to a degree yourself but feel that perhaps the Empire simply lost its way. I think that although the loss of the 4 legions at Adrianople was dramatic it was not necessarily pivotal as the Eastern Roman Empire survives and the Western staggers on for nearly a century.
Interestingly you mention the inherent wealth of the Empire with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer but the State was wealthy. I donβt think that you can be sure that the population reduced through poverty only that in Britannia people moved away from the towns. Is this the case in the rest of the Western Empire?
I have yet to be convinced how suddenly coinage stops in Britannia yet appears to be fine elsewhere (perhaps TP can sort me out again on this) with mints on the mainland Europe still producing coinage and the Administration still working apart from Britannia after AD410. Having said that I believe that some form of effective government existed for a few more years.
I think that perhaps the Empire literally tears itself apart with internal struggles, wars, various emperors vying for power which really saps the strength. Everything is geared for constant war and with the onset of organised resistance (ironically trained by the Romans) outside their borders there was not enough combined directional force to resist once natural barriers were breached on the Rhine.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 13
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Saturday, 19th June 2010
In Short,I mean SHORT,
he Fall of the West Roman Emp. was only due to admistrative problems, since borderd were attacked by barabarians against whom (The 2nd-)'Rome'had no defencive troops or border Themes/military colonists.
Remember that after that fall and reoccupation by King Theodoric, ( died 515 ad.)his sucessor Arthur was still named Count Bellorum as an Eastern Empire Vassal-king.
No army of ex-solders farmed the borders of the Western Roman Emp anymore because they were'withdrawn'administratively
and when these Roman troops had left England in 425 bc the populace had to fend for it'selves and than the Picts and Scots invaded England against whom Saxon's Jutes & Danes from the Mainland were employed
STRANGELY ENOUGH,
'King'/imp.brittanorum Arthur was a Kelt fighting against both Brittish-Saxons and Franks.
Arthur lived inbetween 485-540 and his Father Pendragon may have well been that obscure 'King'Siagrius'who was murdered ( dd 487 ad.)by Saxon/Frankish king Clovis/Cholodowig.(died 511 ad. who also bore an eastern roman military title.
So behind the protocl curtains the fiction of a united Empire lingered on until Charlemain.
But because no moving or standing Armies defended against the invading Saxons,who left farmers derelict and fleeing, the sons of the original veterans colonies were bound to their farmingduties. whilst earlier free/trade was stil allowed. -
Message 14
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Monday, 21st June 2010
fascinating
No doubt the economic and social problems of the Roman empire were a major reason for the fall of the western empire, but the same problems were felt in the east.
Then in the late 4th century there was a Roman defeat at Adrianople, 4 legions lost.
Μύ
The idea that the Romans lost 4 legions at Adrianople is to totally misunderstand how the Roman army was organised in the late 4th century.
The Roman army defeated at Adrianople in AD 378 was the main eastern field army made up of many of the best units in the Roman army such as the Legions Lanciarii, Matiarii and Ioviani also the elite Auxilia Palatina units of the Batavii and some of the most senior units of cavalry in the Empire.
The fact that this army was an eastern army means that it cannot really be a major reason for the fall of the Western Empire, because the Eastern Empire was to continue for another thousand years.
Other major defeats must have weakened the Roman military, Julianβs disastrous campaign in Persia, then Adrianople and the civil wars between eastern and western sides of the empire crippled the military but the Western Roman Empire did not fall because of military defeats on the battlefield. -
Message 15
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Do you agree that the legions in the West seem to have simple evaporated after 400?
-
Message 16
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Monday, 21st June 2010
The Roman army in the west was still a strong fighting machine in AD 405 when Stilicho smashed a very large German army under their leader Radagaesus
Certainly the constant conflict and deteriorating economy meant that the military was less effective in the middle 5th century but the military problems were a symptom of the decline not the cause of it.
The ability to cover all the threats with the limited number of Roman units was the problem not the quality of the soldiers.
I would point out that referring to Roman legions in the 4th and 5th century means very little as more and more the cavalry units took over the bulk of the fighting and the Auxilia Palantina along with the Legiones Palatinae had become the main infantry units of the field armies.
The old Legions were now the border troops or Limitani, and of much lower quality than the field army units. -
Message 17
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Monday, 21st June 2010
It is rather counterproductive to reduce the western Roman Empire's decline to any singular factor since it was a combination of many variables. Economic decline, although this theory is hard to support conclusively given the relative lack of primary sources or archaeological evidence, was merely one of many possible reasons for Roman decline in the west. There were also profound social and cultural changes, namely, Christianity, which despite Gibbon's hyperbolic critique of Christiantiy is an undeniable reason for the turbulant socio-political environment of the 4th and 5th centuries. One must consider every aspect of the late Roman Empire as a whole rather than a reductive approach focusing only a limited number of possible reasons for Rome's fall. There are simply too many things that contributed to the fall of the western empire and far too few sources to allow for a proper and objective analysis. It is easy to launch a hyperbolic argument in favor of one thing or another, but this is not good history.
-
Message 18
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Well this is a discussion board, so if you say that the fall of the Western Empire was due to many factors - and I don't think anybody will disagree with you - then please state what you think the factors are, and how much each contributed.
-
Message 19
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Easy there fascinating, I was merely making a general historical point. The fall of the Western Roman Empire was indeed a combination of economic, military, administrative, political, social, and cultural factors, not to mention the ultimate flood of Germanic peoples, although one must not exaggerate the singular importance of any one of them. Each variable went hand in hand to bring about Rome's fall, and each has it's own significance. It is important to remember however, that history is not made of singular, seemingly disconected events, rather each event is only one part of a much broader context. In the context of the Roman Empire, one must consider the empire in all its aspects (social, economic, intellectual, etc.). Hence why ancient history and history in general is such a difficult field of study. Not only must history adapt to new developments within the field itself, but it must also respond to modern literary and disciplinary criticism no matter how painful it me be. Thus I was simply trying to stress the caution one must take when proposing a historical argument. One may be interested more in the military aspects of the late Roman Empire, but that does not permit one to neglect the social and religious aspects of the empire which are just as important.
-
Message 20
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 21st June 2010
yankee, I am not disagreeing with anything you say here, which basically seems to restate and fill out what you said in your previous posting. But my only point is - the subject of this discussion is not the nature of historical study, it is about the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, so I ask you to bring forward some of the factors that you say would have been important reasons for the fall of that Empire.
I still believe that the an important economic factor, specifically the fact that the poor were driven to such poverty that they were unable to support the state, was the most crucial aspect of the fall of Rome. Can you show to me that there was an more important factor than that? -
Message 21
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Monday, 21st June 2010
I agree with you to an extent, but you need to provide some evidence for the poor getting poorer. The poor were always poor in the Roman Empire. This is also rather vague, if you're referring to yeomen farmers, than I will concede that a combination of a decreased population and disrupted trade in urban hinterlands contributed to economic decline, not to mention the fiscal crisis in general which was also created largely by bribes to various germanic tribes and the ever present problem of incompetant administrators which seemed to thrive in late antiquity. Still, there is relatively little evidence to support specific aspects of Roman economic decline even though it was clearly an issue. I would argue that social strife and profound cultural changes incurred not only by the spread of Christianity but also by serious lapses in the administration of the western empire contributed significantly to the decline of Roman centralization and political authority in the west. Ultimately however as recent scholarship has shown, an overwhelming incursion of germanic peoples caused the dissolusion of the western empire.
-
Message 22
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Evidence for the poor getting poorer: in the first century the standard labourer's (and most men would have been labourers) wage was a denarius a day (cf parable of the vineyard workers) and sources show that grain (the major food) was 3 denarii a bushel, or 1 denarius (or less) a modius. In the 3rd century, Diocletian's edict showed that the maximum price of a modius of grain was 100 denarii, but the maximum wage for a labourer was listed as 20 denarii "plus keep".
If you agree that there was a decreased population in urban hinterlands, why do you think that happened? I would guess it was people not being able to raise enough children to adulthood, basically because they could not get enough food.
I am interested in your assertion that the fiscal crisis was "largely created" by paying bribes to Germanic tribes, can you provide some figures relating to this? -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Re: Message 3.
TwinProbe,
following on a French messageboard (Passion Histoire) since some months a discussion about the fall of the Roman Empire, with some old fashioned Gibbon supporters and an expert on Roman history, a certain Pedro, I have seen the discussion turn to vinegar. While Pedro, more erudite, turned to describe the fall as only a transition, saying that the opponent still used the sources from the Fifties, while all modern historical research gives his version. I have done some research too and was rather convinced that Pedro was right.
Coincidentally I read this very afternoon in the local library a whole article from a Dutch historian , from which I recall only some essential data, but I will read it again in depth as soon as I can.
There the author points to the transition theory, giving arguments as about Clovis, consul of the Roman Empire, and the "ostrogoth?" king you mentioned in your other message in Ravenna? recognizing the Roman emperor (my question marks are while I haven't yet compared the article with this thread and only replying in a hurry before more answers in depth) and as about the Roman army and Roman empire in strenght during the fifth century (it is essential that one talks about the time frame in the evolution/transition).
In essence the author backs what the mentioned Pedro said as the new thoughts from the last years, but then he says that the last five years there are new considerations that there was indeed a break in the transition in the fifth century, while the economy was cracked down and no economy no money to pay the army, and no trade caused isolation of the several parts leading to seek protection from the local warlords. And the cause according to the latest theories, would be the Huns pushing whole populations into the empire and desorganising the local life and economy. Second reason the Vandals conquering North Africa and annihilating the bread basket of the Empire and nobody was able to defeat in that time the Vandals in that area. So the economic resources of the Empire were hampered and the whole was desorganized.
The author concludes that as you said there was both, a transition and a break. (but not a "fall"-
)
TwinProbe, I give it as a flash in attendance of the further study of this article.
TwinProbe, as an aside and completely off topic. I wanted to apologize immediately about my gaffe some time ago in another reply, something about doctors and bricks. Sometimes I have an outburst, trying to be "jovial" and rereading it I regret it and am ashamed of what I said, but then I have pushed already the "Post message" tab...And waiting too long to reply I don't found a way...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Hi Paul,
Absolutely no apology necessary. I cannot deny that I was once a doctor nor that I collect bricks; I have learned to accept both my aberrations. In fact, these days, I spend more studying Victorian silk spinning and weaving in Yorkshire. Thinking about great historical movements, like the Roman empire, is a stimulating exercise after these more parochial matters.
Gibbon's work was an extraordinary achievement and, as you will know, it is written in stately English prose. Naturally as a classicist Gibbon regretted the passing of Rome, and equally naturally (for a man of his time) he wove his account from the reported written experiences of emperors, popes, generals and kings. Slaves in Italy, or peasant farmers in Gaul and Britain, might well have had a very different opinion of the sequence of events but their views are beyond historical knowledge. Somebody, Catherine Hills I think, once said that ordinary people only appear in classical literature to be massacred or converted! None the less I think that the most thought provoking aspect of this subject is to imagine how contemporary imperial citizens would have regarded the changes that they witnessed.
We can hardly deny that the Roman Empire evolved into Western Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and an Islamic world; three very different trajectories. Undeniably a view has emerged recently to the effect that the 5th century in the West saw a general peaceful period of transition or transformation from Roman to Germanic rule. This modern view is sometimes linked to Peter Bown's influential book: 'The World of Late Antiquity'. This model causes me particular difficulty since I think this is not a bad description of what happened in parts of Britain, and the Frankish kingdom, but I don't think it is generally applicable in Europe. Would you agree that it is probably wise not to look at the Western Empire as a monolithic structure but to consider the events in individual provinces? Incidentally if you want a post-modern view try Bryan Ward-Perkins: 'The Fall of Rome'.
It is amazing what a rapid recovery society can make from terrible disasters; two appalling world wars in 20th century Europe demonstrate this. The degree to which we perceive the post-Imperial world recovering depends on what aspect interests us. Undeniably aqueducts and the Roman army took major hits in 476. But Christian monasticism and Islamic art, science and calligraphy to seem to indicate wholly new ways of looking at the world. However I'm not sure I would have wished to live through such interesting times!
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 25
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
There really are not any figures to support that theory, only what we are told by Ammianus and Prudentius about the imperial treasury during the fourth century, thus it must be taken with a grain of salt. I argue that it was indeed in issue however, given that it is recorded by pagan and Christian sources alike. This is the inherent problem with late antiquity and ancient history I was talking about earlier, and why it is relevant to this discussion. There simply is not enough conclusive evidence to support the various theories of economic decline. We must rely on our sometimes unreliable sources and hopefully, archaeological evidence as it becomes more available.
-
Message 26
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
It is amazing what a rapid recovery society can make from terrible disasters; two appalling world wars in 20th century Europe demonstrate this. The degree to which we perceive the post-Imperial world recovering depends on what aspect interests us. Undeniably aqueducts and the Roman army took major hits in 476. But Christian monasticism and Islamic art, science and calligraphy to seem to indicate wholly new ways of looking at the world. However I'm not sure I would have wished to live through such interesting times!
Μύ
TP, my view is firmly that Western Europe suffered terrible destruction, material regression, disorganisation and human misery. This went on for centuries, and the Islamic science did not flower until after those dark centuries, the art was not as good as that which was produced in Greece 1000 years earlier, and calligraphy is nothing to write home about(!). -
Message 27
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Yankee, you say that there is not enough evidence to prove anything conclusively, but does that mean we do not discuss the history of this period at all?
Is it realistic to expect anything to be proven conclusively in history? Even in science, there is no proof of anything, only observations and experiments that do not contradict a hypothesis; no experiment or observation gives absolute truth of any hypotheses.
Only in pure mathematics can a proof be said to be absolute, but for all other disciplines, as in life, we make considered judgements on the evidence that we have. -
Message 28
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
There simply is not enough conclusive evidence to support the various theories of economic decline.
Μύ
Hi yankee14,
But isn't the alternative theory, that of economic growth (or even holding at a sustainable level), even less supported by any evidence, conclusive or otherwise? That Rome could have been successfully managing its deficit towards the end of the Western Empire seems a strange assertion.
Isn't the record of Diocletian's reign, for example, not pretty conclusive of the assumption that the economy at least when he took office was in free-fall? -
Message 29
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Re: Message 24.
TwinProbe,
thank you very much for your kind first paragraph.
As said before replying to the whole thread I will first make a photocopy of the mentioned article and reread the whole thread.
I am glad that you mentioned Peter Brown, while he is also mentioned in the article from the Dutch historian, I think even with the work you announced.
I remember it that well, while reading the article there rang immediately a bell seeing this name. In the time 2003 I think I started a thread: "Ancients thought otherwise than we" or something in that sense. I used essentially as backbone the book of Peter Brown: "The Body and Society, Men, Women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity" I remember that I had a great discussion with lol beeble about the subject. And again on the new messageboards, I think I can find it back, with the same title I had the same success. lol didn't mention that Peter Brown was such a well known historian and in the time I didn't do research for the authors and the sources as I nowadays do.
TwinProbe, I have first to reply to Cass and Poldertijger in a "Western thought" thread before I can come back overhere again.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 30
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
As a historian myself, I'm obviously not saying that we cannot talk about history. I'm merely saying that it is virtually impossible to be objective when writing history. Nor am I saying that there was not an economic decline. To emphasize the difficulty of objectivity, I was stressing that there is not enough "objective" evidence to fully support(to any degree of historical adequacy)the true extent of economic decline in the late western empire. I agree that there must have been an economic decline, but we cannot determine its extent given the relative lack of primary source material on the subject.
-
Message 31
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
If we can agree that there was an economic decline, that is significant, even if we cannot put figures on the extent and severity. It shows that the Roman government was not able to get to grips with fiscal problems. And in a pre-industrial society, the maintenance of a professional army would have been very hard to pay for, but with economic decline of only a few percent, it would have been virtually impossible to pay for, unless the rich were forced to pay a large share, but the whole idea of progressive taxation never entered anybody's head, apparently.
-
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
ok, but we should be careful, shouldn't we, before discounting what is, after all, a conjecture based on rather more solid evidence than you gave credit for. To me there is no logic to the Western Empire's disintegration if one assumes its constituents had a level of affluence consistent with its formation. In fact its formation could be argued to have been motivated primarily for fiscal reasons related to the initial demise of the Roman economy. Otherwise it doesn't make political sense.
-
Message 33
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
my reply was to the post above yours, f. Sorry (on a phone so typing takes time)
-
Message 34
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Please elaborate on what you are referencing about the initial demise of the Roman economy. Are you referring to the Pre-Augustan period (Marius, Sulla, the Gracci, ect.)? As I understand it, the Roman Empire was formed partly by accident and partly through political motives. If anything, one could argue that it was formed on the foundations of rapid economic growth. I must again stress that I do not disagree with the proposed argument for economic decline, only the relative lack of supporting evidence which I think most scholars would agree with. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a scholar of late antiquity who would not agree that economic decline was a reality. It is simply too difficult to establish a firm model of the late Roman economy with which to establish to any degree of certainty, the state of economic decline in the west. We just do not have enough data to work with. Bryan Ward-Perkins' work on the economic decline of the west is an excellent source of information, but it focuses primarily on the period following the sacking of Rome and the fall of the west in the fifth century. I'm assuming that the arguments in this discussion are placing the economic decline much earlier, perhaps in the fourth and fifth centuries? If this is indeed the case, one cannot ascertain to a satisfactory degree the extent of economic decline.
-
Message 35
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
So what do you reckon? By "initial" I meant that decline in economy which ultimately proved irreversible. While I appreciate your caution with regard to conclusion-drawing based on "inconclusive" evidence I would humbly suggest you have picked a bad example with which to advertise it since the conclusion in this case, unless you have a radically different analysis of the available data, is pretty sound.
-
Message 36
Posted by yankee14 (U14072009) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Perhaps you are right. In any case, I feel such caution is warranted if history as an academic profession is to transcend the relatively recent critiques posed by postmodern literary critics. One can formulate a historical argument while maintaining a certain degree of critical analysis towards documental evidence. Indeed, it is imperative to excersise academic prudence to avoid hyperbole and purely subjective arguments. At the present time, it is nearly impossible to write history without an adequate awareness of historiographical method and theory. Each must be applied to every serious historical discussion, this one being no exception. I am not trying to give the appearance of a postmodern historian, in fact I am quite the opposite. I do however wish to respond to academic criticism thus providing the best possible historical analysis.
-
Message 37
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Well the best historical analysis of the case in question is that hey went broke, and big time. Unless you know (or surmise) different? In which case I'd lpve to hear on which data you base your theory.
-
Message 38
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Wednesday, 23rd June 2010
Indeed not long after year 475 ad Justinian rweconquerred most of the coastal harbours of the socalled collapsed Western Empire,
But what everybody seems to forget is that King ODOACRE continued to use ( Eastern-Empire) roman customs
His later subjects were obtaining their " Legallity"
by appealing for honorary Titles from the Earstern Emperor.
And so one get the strange notion that after Odocre the "
Lost-Western Empire" adopted East-Roman customs clothing and honorary Titles
Although General AETIUS & Emp.Honorius sent a letter to the Brittish native rulers that from 450/475 bc they had to fend for themselves
Yet again very strange, isn't it, the Keltish/British King Arthur who ruled dd 487-520 bc for a good 40 years,
adopted East Roman titles and thus vassalage if not submission to Roman writte-Laws.
Geoffrey Ash name( administrative-)s a Emperor Maurice or Mauritius as King Arthur's Overlord
That's strange too because an Emperor called Mauritius did rule Eastren Rome but long after Arthur died: dd 580-605 ad.\
So the question now is: were there Tw0 emperors with the same name 50 years apart or was the name MAXIMIANUS and Maximus intertwined with Mauritius ?
The mind boggles.
Sincerely,
Prof. Muster -
Message 39
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 23rd June 2010
Hi Prof Muster
The mind does indeed boggle but there are a few things I would ask you to consider.
Justinian's generals started their recapture of Italy in AD 536 a long time after 475. King Odoacre (who in English commentaries is more commonly called Odoacer or Odovacer) was then long since dead, having been displaced by Theoderic (Theodoric) the Ostrogothic King. Both these kings of Italy certainly used Roman titles and probably considered themselves the inheritors of the western emperors. The disintegration of Gotho-Roman amity was one of the unforeseen consequences of Justinian's invasion.
The letters that Aetius and Honorius are supposed to have sent to the British are separate letters, not a single document. The so called Rescript of Honorius is likely to be mythical. It is mentioned by Zosimus during a discussion of the response of Italian towns to Alaric's invasion. Its date, if genuine, would be 410.
Aetius was active, and indeed dominant, in Gaul around 440-450. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Romano-British to have appealed to him for military help.
If I were you I shouldn't be too dogmatic about when King Arthur reigned, or if he even existed. Geoffrey Ashe was highly considered a generation or two ago but it is increasingly unlikely that King A will find a mention in serious historical studies of post-Roman Britain.
I have heard your account of the miss-identification of the emperor Maurice before, but I can't remember where. Can anyone help? Anyway I'll do some more investigation.
TP -
Message 40
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Wednesday, 23rd June 2010
Dear, Twinprobe,
The ( false-)Canon about King Arthur is that he was a Celto-British King and occupied Cornwall
from which he invaded the mainland and even invaded Italy and occupied Rome where he captured 25 Roman senators rebuking them for siding with the Seldschuks ( DATE probably dd.530 ad.)
Although this may soundçorney'the Story of Arthurus came with the Normandic-invasion dd.1066 bc.
Except for Arthur himselve all his company carried englishised French names which should indicate that Arthur was a french mAn who never saw England.
Generally it is thought that Arthur was invading Britanny as an escaperoute from the Saxon invaders in south-England.
But the opposite is true
In this DEVIANT Canon,
King Arthur referred to the Title Imperator Brittanorum, which is Brittany not South-Britain.
BRITTANY or Bretagne as we know it was nt the original size.
Around 650 ad Good old king Dagobert-1 issued an order to the then king opf Britany to become a french Duke in vassalage which the recipient refused,
so by supprise Dagobert took the county of Finistere and separated this from the kingdom of Bretagne.
King/imperator-Arthur's REALM originally extended from Bretagne(+Finistere) to the Rhine=province of Bavaria in W-Germany.
His father King Pendragon was murdered by a frankish(- Salic-Saxon's)Upstart called Chlovoveg or shortened Clovis who invaded this Realm from the North( eg from Holland, through Belgium.)
The possibility is that this COUNT-Bellorum called Siagrius who was killed at a friendly Dinner in Soissons, by Clovis, was King Arthur's father Pendragon/Aurelianus.
When Arthur inherited this military kingdom, he renamed it afterhimself: Arthur's Fief the Core domain of that extended Middle-European Kelto-roman area is still named ARTOIS or Arduan.
When Arthur went to ROME this was NOT the italian Rome but the roman outpost called TRIER(= Roma Nova-Secunda.)
The socalled Emperor that reigned there in this german roman dependancy, was rather named emperor Herman, Legatus angusticlavius of Emperor Maurice or Mauritius of the East-roman Empire !
This emperor herman 's real name was ERMANARIK, and guess what? He was a ( german-)cousin of King Arthur, which puts Arthur in the Date of dd.525 ad in Germany !
However arther could not gain from his conquest because the Tribe of the MORENI incited by Clovis decided to rebel against their Kelto-Roman Overlord.
Myth changed the Rebellious Tribe of the Moreni into the wicked nephew Mordred. Who had to be subdued at first in Camlan, than at Mount-Baden( = at the border of Baden-Wurtenberg now still name:' Battenberg 'probably an allusion to Battle-Mount.
The socalled Saxons that tried to invade Arthur's Kelto-Roman Realm were the Saxon tribe of the Franks(= Salic-Francs a Saxon offshoot branche.)
Led by another( but stealthy treacherous)Count-Ballorum Saxonium: Clovis( reigned dd. 480-511 ad.)Who pretended to Guard the Roman border in Germania infrior but actuallt raided Belgica-Superior.
As A Rule( it goes without saying.) any colonizer in uncharted colonies tends to re-name local-placee with the names from his original hometowns.
The French Roman-de Gestes about Troy(= Troyes.) and La roman dΓrthur thus became Anglisezed.
The good monks from the town of Gloughstonbury once were taring the wooden roof of their Cathedral when it suddenly went uop in flames( just like the british paintings gallery at Windsor in 2007 when workman were taring that roof.
So to finance the repairs the good/pious Monks invented a grave of King Arthur beaten from a festive cuirass with the suspicious inscription, as Hic Jacet Arthurus Rex etc.in perfect year 1000 ad replay Latin.
If Corwallis was Southern Britain, then this was an outside departement not the Realm-core of Arthur's Tabula-Rotunda"!Guardians-Association
The French knew this before 1066 bc, but do the British know it ? -
Message 41
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 23rd June 2010
Hi Prof Muster
Thanks for your prompt reply. I hope you will forgive me if I say that I don't understand every point that you are trying to make. Your English is sometimes slightly difficult to follow, but of course it is a great deal better than my Dutch!
I entirely agree that the Arthurian Romances reached Britain with the Normans. Famously Arthur is not mentioned by Gildas, by Bede or in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. But the stories may contain some historical material. Arthur's journey to Rome and his killing of the (mythical) emperor Lucius Hiberius could be a dim recollection of Magnus Maximus and his defeat of the emperor Gratian. I won't argue with you over whether Arthur went to Trier or Rome. By this period Trier was not the place it once was in any case!
The idea that Arthur was active in Brittany is one of Geoffrey Ashe's I think. Well, may be, but on this messageboard within the last few years we have had posters who were convinced that Arthur was purely Welsh, or that he was solely active around Hadrian's Wall in northern Britain. I'm afraid that the evidence is lacking for any certainty to be possible. I can't see you getting much support for your view that Mons Badonicus was in Germany at Battenberg. It's hard to see, in that case, why it would be so well known to the British monk Gildas. A site somewhere near Bath is a popular idea.
Now in fact I don't myself believe in the existence of Arthur as a historical figure, but if I did I would agree with you that Arthur didn't invade Armorica (Brittany) to escape the Anglo-Saxons. Actually nowhere in the Arthurian Romances is Arthur portrayed as fighting Saxons, and although Cerdic and his Saxons where probably active in Wessex by AD 520-530 it is doubtful if they were successful enough to cause mass migration of the British overseas, and anyway the date is a little late for Arthur.
I shall certainly not challenge you on your account of the activity of the Merovingian kings but I am puzzled as to why Dagobert I is 'good old'. To me he seems a little too fond of assassination to be so described. Syagrius (Siagrius) is interesting. He was the son of Aegidius who might be said to have ruled the area around Soissons as the last fragment of the western Roman empire in that region. Aegidius might have been the man that the Britons wrote to, rather than Aetius; though this is less likely I think.
The good monks spelled their abbey as Glastonbury, if you will forgive the correction, but I agree that they probably invented Arthur's grave to finance a building programme. Then, as now, Arthur's name was worth a few Euros in the bank.
TP -
Message 42
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Wednesday, 23rd June 2010
These might be of interest;
-
Message 43
Posted by Zama (U14312920) on Thursday, 1st July 2010
The seed of what happened in 476AD goes back exactly 100 years to 376 when the Goths asked to cross the Danube into the Empire.
During the usual "processing" of immigrants something went horribly wrong resulting in the battle of Adrianople which the Eastern army lost. From that moment, a group of independent people were living inside the Empire and not paying taxes to the treasury. This same group of Goths reluctantly sacked Rome in 410 in an effort to get Honorius to negotiate.
Honorius seems to have been a truly incompetent Emperor - though a fair politician given how long he survived.
Around 406 (if I remember correctly) hoards more people (including the Vandals) crossed a frozen Rhine and found Roman defences lacking. They settled in France and Spain severely affecting the tax base of the Empire. Even worse, the Vandals took North Africa in 439.
The Romans did fight back, particularly under Constantius who re-conquered much of Spain about 420-22. However, the diminished tax base was a huge hinderance in paying the army.
As late as the 460's the Eastern Empire spent an entire year's income (about 100,000 pounds of gold) on a huge expedition to retake North Africa. Had this succeeded, resources may have been available to sort out Spain and France. Remember that 80 years later Belisarius did retake North Africa for Justinian with a much smaller expedition.
Without the terrible waves of plague that assailed the Empire, Justinian may have re-conquered more of the West - though never such provinces as Britannia. -
Message 44
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 1st July 2010
people (including the Vandals) crossed a frozen Rhine and found Roman defences lackingΜύ
Question is, why were they lacking? -
Message 45
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 1st July 2010
Hi Zama
I agree with most of your points. Hadrianopolis was a disaster certainly, but perhaps a disaster because Valens wouldn't wait for all the units of the western army to arrive to support him. If you attribute the 'fall' of Rome to the battle you have to ask why it was the eastern empire, whose army had suffered most of the casualties, that survived.
I suppose that the last strong emperor who was an good general in his own right in the west must be Valentinian I. The military skills of Theodosius were adequate to hold the east together after the battle. His successor in the west, and son, the chicken-loving Honorius, was hopeless as you say. The military successes of his reign are down to his magister militum Stilicho and later Constantius. In a later generation Valentinian III and Aetius formed a similar combination. In two cases, and perhaps in all three, the emperor eventually had the soldier killed.
On the last day of 406 (so they say) a mixed group of Alans, Vandals and Sueves crossed the Rhine. The defences seem to have been depleted. Possibly Stilicho just couldn't fend off Alaric and defend the Rhine simultaneously. As we have discussed before on this MB after two earlier tries the army in Britain finally elected Constantine III emperor and he crossed into Gaul in an attempt to retrieve the situation. It does seem that he had a measure of success but one of the ironies of history is that Honorius's armies were so much more effective against pretenders than against barbarians. Would a combined approach against Alaric or the Vandals have been successful? It must be considered as a possibility. Constantius III, who was briefly joint emperor, does seem to have considerable success in Italy, Gaul and Spain as you say. His death in 422 was inconvenient, and sudden. Was it natural I wonder?
Reconquest of North Africa in 440-460 might have altered the entire situation. Justinian's highly successful generals did eventually destroy the Vandal kingdom but Justinian couldn't really afford the large garrisons necessary to hold his conquests.
TP -
Message 46
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 1st July 2010
Re: Message 42.
Triceratops,
as always you come with some very good links. I thank you for that. I read the two first ones and with the first one I had some fears when I looked to the "ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ" as I always do nowadays, but it get confirmed by the second link. I see that the third link is also from the same author Bury.
I did already some research for a French messageboard as for the end of the fifth century on the changes in the Roman empire on roughly the actual territory of France and much of what I read appears especially in the Bury book.
In the meantime I read again the whole thread and I have to say many contributors made an enlightening survey of the period.
I have also a copy now from the article from the Dutch historian I mentioned and will make a survey of it the next days. But I first want to read further the Bury books and their context.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 47
Posted by Zama (U14312920) on Friday, 2nd July 2010
On the last day of 406 (so they say) a mixed group of Alans, Vandals and Sueves crossed the Rhine. The defences seem to have been depleted. Possibly Stilicho just couldn't fend off Alaric and defend the Rhine simultaneously.Μύ
Hi TP
I think the whole thing about the Goths entering in 376 and the battle of 378 is that from that point on, the romans were unable to inflict a military defeat on them. The Eastern Empire pushed them west so they became a Western Problem. This Roman military failure during the last century of the Western Half (376-476) indicates that the Empire was weaker than in previous centuries.
Its a good point that the very distraction of the Goths prevented Stilicho from properly defending the Rhine. The end result was even more people ravishing the countryside and not paying taxes. Not being able to sort out the Goths cost the Empire dear.
but one of the ironies of history is that Honorius's armies were so much more effective against pretenders than against barbarians. Would a combined approach against Alaric or the Vandals have been successful? It must be considered as a possibility.Μύ
Another good point. Had a decent Emperor reigned instead of Honorius.... the more I read and think about it the worse all of his decisions seem to be. A competent Emperor (and Rome was blessed with many) would have sorted Alaric and defended the Rhine.
Honorius seem to have no strategy except his own survival. A combined approach may well have worked but politics over-rode commonsense. You still see such things happening today!
The 5th century murders of Stilicho and Aetius, plus the mysterious (I wonder like you if it was natural) death of Constantius made things so much worse. All three seemed to be doing a great job militarily but were never able to complete what they set out to do.
In the 3rd century things were equally as bad, but heroic efforts by a succession of Soldier-Emperors saved the day with Diocletian the result.
I guess all Empires disappear eventually. -
Message 48
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 2nd July 2010
Hi Zama
I think we basically agree. To me the crucial question here is whether the Roman Empire 'fell', or was 'transformed'. There are protagonists on both sides of the argument of course. I'm perfectly certain that you know all the facts but this is what I think.
Our picture of Rome is really informed by the early empire. A single strong military leader of a unified state, the worship of the Roman pantheon, the city of Rome, the senate, the old style legions, a time of expansion with reverses but never permanent defeats. I suppose this type of empire was still in existence at the death of Septimius Severus in 211, and lingered on until the death of Severus Alexander.
The catastrophes of the third century were finally reversed by Diocletian and Constantine but the empire they created was a quite different organisation. You might call this the first transformation. The rulers were 'lords' not 'firsts among equals'. A wholly new religion had an increasingly important role in the state. Governance was frequently divided between two of more individuals, and split between a Greek east and a Latin west. A new eastern capital was created and the western empire was ruled from a north Italian centre. The frontiers were defended by limitanei but there was also a comitatus or central reserve army. 'Barbarian' recruits were increasingly important. As we have discussed the last successful ruler of this dispensation, in the west, was Valentinian I.
The second transformation led to a series of not very capable emperors who depended on highly competent military advisers for their power: Arbogast & Valentinian II, Stlicho & Honorius, Constantius & Honorius, Aetius & Valentinian III. I certainly wouldn't argue that the power of the Goths and the independence of the Vandals were highly ominous features of this era, which I suppose ends at the death of Valentinian III in 455. During this period the recovery of the Empire to something approaching a modified form of its former glory was extremely unlikely, but not totally impossible.
This faint spark of hope was extinguished by the deaths of Aetius and Valentinian; it is hard to see that the subsequent emperors had any real authority whatsoever, although the title survived. This I would consider the third transformation, which lasted one more generation. Marjoran and Libius Severus were the candidates of Ricimer, the powerful German magister militum. Anthemius was the Vandal king Gaiseric's nomination but was defeated by Ricimer's troops after a Gothic sack of Rome in 472. Julius Nepos or Romulus Augustulus have both been considered the last western emperor, and depending on your selection the western empire undergoes its final transformation in 476 or 480.
The fourth transformation results in a series of barbarian kings ruling in Italy or the provinces in their own right, although sometimes as notional appointees of the eastern (and now only) Roman emperor. They adopted Roman culture with varying degrees of enthusiasm, but quite significant Roman writers, like Sidonius, Boethius and Cassiodorus, survived in this period. In Gaul Clovis and the Franks dominate. Odovacer rules Italy until 493 when he is displaced by Theodoric the Ostrogoth who had been the protΓ©gΓ© of two eastern emperors Leo I & Zeno. After Theodoric's death life in Italy gets really messy, as has already been discussed.
"The paths of glory lead but to the grave".
TP -
Message 49
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 2nd July 2010
Everybody's paths lead to the grave.
Undoubtedly the Roman Empire fell. In considering the political situation of any era, the question that has to be answered is "Who has the power". In the ancient world, power rested in the people who had the most powerful army. For centuries, Rome's army was the most powerful in Europe, no contest. Thus they were able to exercise power and extract wealth from subject peoples. This system fell when the army became to weak to hold certain provinces, and thus there was a sharp fall in revenue and the system basically collapsed, to the point where the barbarian invaders could not be prevented from going into the city of Rome and taking what they wanted. -
Message 50
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 3rd July 2010
Re: Message 49.
Fascinating,
"undoubtly the Roman empire fell". I will not nit-picking, but I think only the Western part of the Roman Empire was detoriated as TwinProbe just mentioned in his former message?
And indeed for for instance a Clovis there was only one Roman imperial ruler anymore and that was in Constantinople. What if Charlemagne had married Irene? . Or was that the same as with the marriage of Philip II with Mary?
Kind regards,
Paul.
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
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 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.