The problem for the argument for continuity is that it removes many conquests from the category of 'conquests'. For example, is the Norman conquest a conquest? Religion , most law, daily life stays much the same because the upper class is what is removed. Even the fyrd is still called out. Is the Mongol conquest of china a conquest? Is the Arab conquest of Persia a conquest? It appears that the nature of any conquest is normally only partial replacement and that there is always much continuity.
On the military nature of Rome 's fall in the West isn't it obvious that the Roman government would ideally liked to have expelled or subjugated the invaders but couldn't manage it. Agreed that from time to time they did dea,ls with them, but those were generally an acceptance of the military realities. Had Rome managed to crush the tribes that would have been an acceptable outcome. However, Rome cannot defeat these peoples and is forced into accommoda tigons with them. Hence in the end the explanation is military. Up to the mid fourth century the Empire can and regularly does subjugate invading tribes and campaign beyond the borders to punish and cow them. In the fifth century (post 406) the Roman army is just not up to delivering crushing victories such as Strasbourg. When Justinian embarks upon a series of campaigns it proves that properly resourced and officered the Eastern Romans can still Deliver a military solution
So yes, there is a military explanation.
Roy
Roy has a point: unfortunately whereas 18th-19th century historians looked at events from a moral standpoint (degeneracy => conquest), 20th century historians increasingly adopted an economic standpoint interspersed with inexpert statistical interpretation of archaeology which led to such amazing conclusions as 80%+ of all invading populations were actually composed of local natives. This revelation was based on analysis of mineral elements in teeth and bones derived from drinking water. That particular study failed to take into account that the first generation of invaders to be born locally would drink the local water ...
Gibbon's own conclusions were that the Empire fell to civil wars, barbarian invasions and, critically, Christianity - the last was the most fatal cause.
In this context it is worth looking at the 3rd century AD, in which the barbarian incursions were if anything heavier, more frequent and more numerous than in the early 5th. The Empire divided not into two, but three, portions; barbarian incursions were not limited to Thracia, Moesia, Pannonia and the West, but included Gothic voyages of plunder around Asia Minor and the Aegean; usurpers and civil conflict were, if anything, even more frequent, and emperors even died at the hands of barbarians or felt under the necessity of forming 'alliances' with them and/or bribing them to leave. In short, the crisis of the 3rd century seems to have matched that of the 5th in intensity and extent and to have been topped off by an extremely virulent plague which is estimated to have wiped out 50% of the Imperial population. And yet under Claudius II, Aurelian and Probus, a period of less than a decade, the Empire bounced back, was reunited and re-established itself as a 'going concern'.
The difference was that in the 3rd century AD Christianity was not the state religion.
Patrick
But the East survived with Christianity as a state religion for a considerable period.
I think that 3rd period had some differences which don't necessarily apply in the later period:
- the Plague of Cyprian was just beginning to abate (despite taking Claudius II)
- the Roman officer corps left by Claudius seems to have been both effective and relatively tight-knit
- Palmyra, crucially, provided an enemy which was both beatable and sackable - Aurelian sacked most of the cities which had been taken by Palmyra from the Romans, providing an exceptional "war dividend" which must have helped with both the army and internal economics
- Rome still has the grain supply from Carthage even when it loses that from Egypt
In the later period the empire has already fragmented to be less effective (and the West cannot afford to lose Carthage, which it proceeds to do), the unique "Palmyra condition" doesn't apply, and the effects of plague in the sixth century on those areas which had already "gone dark" are largely unknown. If the civitas can no longer support an army (either because it's inefficient, or doesn't want to pay it's taxes, or because it's already been massively depopulated anyway), it's not surprising that others find it easy to move in.
Quote from: Mark on July 15, 2012, 04:07:33 PM
If the civitas can no longer support an army (either because it's inefficient, or doesn't want to pay its taxes, or because it's already been massively depopulated anyway), it's not surprising that others find it easy to move in.
One other difference I omitted to mention was the separation of civil and military powers, personnel, activities and administration by Constantine I, which bears heavily on the above. Those who have read
The Little Emperors by Alfred Duggan will remember how he encapsulates the economic difficulties of the Roman administration in the problems of the
praeses Gaius Sempronius Felix: he does his best to raise such taxes as he can, but because he legally must provide whatever sum the army requires, they always 'require' everything he has, leaving nothing for maintenance of roads or other infrastructure. Meanwhile the army cannot recruit effectively and has to depend upon leasing out the defence of border territories to 'friendly' tribes. The result is that the whole system is slowly and irretrievably collapsing. Nobody has the authority to reverse the trend (and when a local emperor is proclaimed, even he carries on in the old way - apart from extracting a donative for his troops). This separation of powers seems to have locked the Imperial administration into permanent inefficiency - one remembers Julian finding the 'capitation' for Gaul assessed at 20 gold pieces per person and managing to reduce it to 7 simply by running the administration effectively and apparently in unitary fashion. His successors do not seem to have cared to repeat the exercise.
The survival of the Eastern Empire seems to have been despite rather than because of Christianity, and was greatly helped by the Persians being Zoroastrian. Almost as soon as the Muslims turned up, they were able to take advantage of the depleted resources and divided theology of the Empire and the Byzantines (Romans) found it impossible to regain Egypt or Syria because they had no support among the largely Nestorian or Jacobite population, who were happier paying tribute to Muslims than being persecuted by Orthodox patriarchs. While the Zoroastran Persians were the enemy, the Christian populations seem to have guardedly welcomed the return of Imperial rule, but once the Muslims had swept in the Syrian and Egyptian Christian populations became very not keen about being ruled from Constantinople.
If there is any mileage in this discussion, should we move it to the History section?
Patrick
Good idea, it is a recurrent subject and could stand its own thread.
Roy
The bit not about books has now been moved to this forum.
Anyone interested please feel free to join in. To my mind, the big question is not so much why the Empire went down in the west but why, unlike the crisis in the 3rd century AD, it failed to recover.
Top of my own list are
1) more sustained barbarian incursions (following the Visigoths, Suevi and miscellaneous hangers-on came the Huns and Ostrogoths, so the Empire was not in a position to bounce back even assuming the capability was there
2) Christianity eroding the cohesiveness of Imperial society and loyalties, and significantly reducing recruitment to the army
3) increasing dependence on barbarian foederati and magistri militum, in consequence of 2) above
4) the separation of the civil and military powers, creating two non-cooperating societies in one
5) the division of the Empire in AD 395, creating two non-cooperating (during Honorius' reign) entities and significantly increasing the defensive burden of the Western Empire while reducing the forces upon which it could call.
We may observe that once the barbarian incursions died down, the Eastern Empire did 'bounce back' (under Justinian) but made a point of avoiding employment of barbarian magistri militum and also tried to play the religious 'loyalty card' with 'Athanasian' populations under the rule of 'Arian barbarians'.
It may also be noted that Africa was recovered in short order and Italy almost recovered prior to Belisarius' recall, but Justinian's modes and maxims of administration spoiled the results of reconquest. Or such is the impression I get from Procopius.
An intriguing parallel is that just as in the 3rd century AD, so in the 6th a virulent plague swept through the ranks of humanity.
Patrick
Looking at the factors, I'd point out that Christianity was far more established in the East rather than the west. (When you look at the great Councils, they were held in the East, and when you look at the numbers of Bishops attending anything, the East was far more Christianised)
If Christianity was a factor (and I'm not sure it was to be honest) I'd say it would be easier to argue it strengthened the East than it weakened the West.
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AMIf Christianity was a factor (and I'm not sure it was to be honest) I'd say it would be easier to argue it strengthened the East than it weakened the West.
Perhaps both. Christianity had completed its conquest of the East and formed the basis of a new stability, whereas the West was still a religious battlefield?
Certainly the emperors did not get from Christianity the unity that they wanted. I think that the ultimate fall is because the West loses Africa and thus the economic power to pay the troops, whereas the east does not lose Egypt. When the East does lose Egypt to the Arabs it becomes a considerably diminished state, hanging on because the Arab empire cannot provide the coup de grace and take Constantinople which is too well fortified.
However, the Western Empire has some 40 years to save itself and just can't manage to destroy the Franks, Visigoths, Burgundians, Vandals and Alans , Saxons and Angles that are within it's frontiers.
Might I suggest that the ruling class just failed to see the consequences of not making sacrifices to remove the intruders?
Patrick will get that point.
:-))
Roy
Though Christian schism helped bring down the East when the Arabsinvaded. Too many of the citizens of Eastern Rome were happily prepared to accept the new conquerors because their proclaimed religious tolerance was preferable to the heretical views that hey felt emanated from Constantinople.
Christianity is not the cause of the problem in the West, but it does divert aristocratic effort away from secular problems and may well have contributed to upper class passivity and indifference to political events and involvement. The West needed generals, too often it got bishops.
Roy
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 17, 2012, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AMIf Christianity was a factor (and I'm not sure it was to be honest) I'd say it would be easier to argue it strengthened the East than it weakened the West.
Perhaps both. Christianity had completed its conquest of the East and formed the basis of a new stability, whereas the West was still a religious battlefield?
Tricky one.
I'm not sure that the west was more religiously divided than the East.
In Africa you had Donatist heretics who were an issue but to them the Barbarians were arian heretics and therefore even more loathed than ordinary christians. The Donatists might well have been more pro-moor and may have supported some of the African 'pretenders' but that never amounted to much.
In the East the splits between Arian and Orthodox, were far more widespread, and that is before you start getting into the fifth century heresies which weakened control over Egypt.
At the moment I'm reading Rome, The Greek world and the east by Fergus Millar. I picked up vol III "The Greek world, the jews and the east" second hand. In the 4th century he decribes large parts of Syria/the Holy Land as being composed of many villages, each populated by mutually hostile samaritans, Jews, Christians of various sorts and Pagans. Christianity didn't 'triumph' in the East at ground level until well after the west fell, and indeed the triumph may not have long preceeded the Muslim conquest.
Jim
Quote from: aligern on July 17, 2012, 03:45:38 PM
Though Christian schism helped bring down the East when the Arabsinvaded. Too many of the citizens of Eastern Rome were happily prepared to accept the new conquerors because their proclaimed religious tolerance was preferable to the heretical views that hey felt emanated from Constantinople.
Roy
What is interesting is that when Byzantium was slowly falling (in the fourteenth century) there seems to have been a phenomena where populations were willing to accept Muslim rule, firstly because the new rulers were more tolerant to various Christian heresies, but also because they taxed them far more lightly.
Whether some of the earlier 'barbarians' were welcomed because they were both more tolerant and more tax efficient I don't know
Jim
Another thing to bear in mind, which isn't on the list, is that the west was less urbanised and it may be that 'Rome' as a concept had less grip on the imagination of the populations. If you were in a militarised area, replacing the local Dux with a local barbarian warlord might not have made any real difference to the peasant on the ground.
Jim
I agree Jim, the West is probably more Catholic and united than the East. You are right too that the new regimes were probably less efficient at tax collection and maybe more likely to allow the curiales to keep more of he taxes that they collected than the imperial regime. That would fit in with a view in which the lak of patriotism and sel sacrifice on the part of the Roman upper classes prevented the Roman military mounting the consistent all out effort that was needed to restore sovereignty over the lost provinces.
As an extreme contrast take the effort against Hannibal where the Romans were prepared to submit to huge strains and costs to utterly conquer their enemy. In that sense the Romans had indeed suffered a moral decline, though whether that was caused by an imperial system that removed the senatorial class from military duty or by Christianity weakening military resolve in favour of pacifism,I am not sure.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on July 17, 2012, 04:02:17 PM
I agree Jim, the West is probably more Catholic and united than the East. You are right too that the new regimes were probably less efficient at tax collection and maybe more likely to allow the curiales to keep more of he taxes that they collected than the imperial regime. That would fit in with a view in which the lak of patriotism and sel sacrifice on the part of the Roman upper classes prevented the Roman military mounting the consistent all out effort that was needed to restore sovereignty over the lost provinces.
As an extreme contrast take the effort against Hannibal where the Romans were prepared to submit to huge strains and costs to utterly conquer their enemy. In that sense the Romans had indeed suffered a moral decline, though whether that was caused by an imperial system that removed the senatorial class from military duty or by Christianity weakening military resolve in favour of pacifism,I am not sure.
Roy
I mentioned I was reading 'Rome, The Greek world and the east' by Fergus Millar
He mentions that under Honorius and Theodosius II there were various orders which banned Jews, Samaritans and later, Pagans, from Imperial service, and then from Advocacy.
I suspect that this proves that Christian Pacifism was never the force historians have suggested.
Either that or it proves that Rome fell because it had an army that couldn't recruit Christians, and was forbidden to recruit anyone else ???
Jim
G-SPQR-4S ?
Quote from: Mark G on July 18, 2012, 02:16:00 PM
G-SPQR-4S ?
Probably close. When you ask the company providing the lowest quote to handle your security, barbarian foederate are probably the best you're likely to get
Jim
The job that Constantine and others wanted Christianity to do was to unite the empire. The previous state cult was discredited because claiming emperors as Gods just demeaned the Gods. Maybe a state cult based on Zeus could have done that, but in pagan times there was no common religion that could claim an universal God or tribe of gods.
There was a very real problem with Christian pacifism. As I understand it later Byzantine soldiers were regarded as being in a state of sin whilst serving. Christianity also took away many of the brightest and best, though arguably the senatorial class had not contributed many military leaders since the 250s when the Illyrians took power.
The empire was a deal between the senatorial class, the emperor and the army. I'd still blame the aristocracy for successful tax evasion that forced the Empire to hire cheaper troops. Of course we could blame emperors for creating expensive mobile field armies and massively increasing the overall number of troops in the third century. The taxes for those increased military budgets destroyed civic life over a period of time and that probably eroded the will of the citizens to fight.
Roy
On the point on Christian schism making populations "willing to accept" other alternatives, I'm struggling to think of examples from late antiquity and early middle ages where a conquered people managed to successfully mount an insurgency and throw off the conqueror, except where the matter was not quite settled, and, crucially, the losers' leadership had not been decapitated (Alfred can come back; the Saxons, post Norman conquest, cannot). I may be wrong (it's late as I write).
But the issue is surely the ability of an empire to garrison and defend its territory, which in turn depends on the ability to raise, pay and maintain an army, either through booty (the traditional means by which ancient and medieval armies were effectively paid) or through taxation, or some combination. A declining empire must depend on tax or internal repression (the army takes the money from its own, which becomes a cycle of decline). An expanding one can sack and enslave.
I still think the epidemiology aspect of the 5th/6th century is underestimated, btw.
A plague on those diseased thoughts!
There may be examples of people's being difficult to conquer in the period.
The Caledones and Early Germans manage to avoid full Roman control, though it is as much because their lands are so unattractive. Both are examples where the elites are prepared to keep fighting. I think it's fair to say that the European Greeks resist the Persians because they are prepared to fight on.
The disease argument really only plays for the VIth century plague and that is after the West has fallen. Perhaps there are earlier plagues, but I don't know why they would affect the Empire rather than both it and potential invaders.
The Black Death didn't result in major political change AFAIK. Unless that is you blame it for the ending of Byzantium. Surely that had already occurred.
Roy
I was questioning whether there were examples of a people being conquered and the "throwing off the yoke", as opposed to just getting conquered by someone else. There are records of various insurrections under Rome but none particularly spring to mind as successful.
On the Black Death, there are several theories around - see Rosen, Justinian's Flea - in terms of impact on the Byzantine ability to sustain momentum in the West, and of the relative impact on the Byzantines, Sasanians and Arabs. The plague seems to have reached Britain and Ireland in the 540s and then again in 666, then again in 684. There are some theories on depopulation aiding migrations in the 6th century (more likely the balance of power, say in Britain, established in the 5th century, between Briton and Saxon). I'll try and get references to all the above later (am in the office). And after the Arab conquests the economic nature of the Silk Road seems to have changed towards slave trafficking to the East, as a result of the depopulation by the plague; the main beneficiaries being the Italian merchant states. So there's a fair bit of political impact in the post-Roman world. This isn't enough to cause collapse per se, but may be enough to turn a temporary fragmentation into something more permanent and lasting.
In terms of relative impact - same issue as smallpox and native Americans - if one side has immunity and the other doesn't, or even if there is a significant relative difference, it's far more of an advantage than military strength or technology. See Diamond, Guns Germs and Steel.
The classic example of a people being conquered and throwing off the yoke is of course the Sassy Persians booting out the Parthians - although they had to wait a few hundred years for the privilege, and this kind of thing did not happen too often. And it was a different yoke (the original one being Macedonian). The Egyptians came close against the Ptolemies under Harwenefer and Ankhenefer, but the hitherto successful revolt was pipped near Alexandria and rolled back into the Sudan where it was finally extinguished. Egypt did much better against the Persians under Ushikhaure (Acoris) and Nekht-a-neb (Nectanebo) c.400-390 BC, first winkling out the garrisons and then beating off two attempts at reconquest before Artaxerxes III finally put them under after about 40 years of freedom.
That said, conquered usually meant conquered, and the Roman Empire was a shared superculture rather than a homogenous population, so once that superculture had gone it was unlikely to reintroduce itself from below (paradoxically, notional imitations were introduced from above by the conquerors, leading ultimately to the 'Holy Roman Empire' about which Francis Marie Arouet was so sarcastically scathing). When the Empire struck back, it was from regions still under Imperial rule led by an emperor who could get everything pointing together and in the right direction. The real problem with Christiantity was that it destroyed this ability to 'remagnetise' the Empire by replacing it with a more individually compelling source of authority and cultural inspiration which was often at loggerheads with itself. Adding that to the division between civil and military administration made decline endemic until the Greek-speaking Empire, which redeveloped its shared superculture by overhauling its administration and ensuring the emperor had total authority over the church (at least in theory) so the divisive dichotomy of dominus or deus as the first object of loyalty no longer existed (except for heretics and schismatics).
What amazes me on the subject of the really serious plagues is how societies and states kept functioning throughout despite the massive dislocation, population loss and ongoing worry caused by these epidemics. Curiously enough, from the Great Plague of Athens in the Peloponnesian War onwards these seem to be few instances of these outbreaks directly affecting military operations.
Patrick
Quote from: Mark on July 18, 2012, 07:04:28 PM
I was questioning whether there were examples of a people being conquered and the "throwing off the yoke", as opposed to just getting conquered by someone else. There are records of various insurrections under Rome but none particularly spring to mind as successful.
The Goths and Gepids do succeed in throwing of the Hunnish yoke, though.
The Armenians make enormous efforts to re-assert their independence against the Persians, and can perhaps be said to have succeeded by the 9th century, though by then it's against another differently-religioned overlord.
The Britons do not so much throw off the Roman yoke as see the yoke removed and plead desperately to have it back.
The Moors, maybe?
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 19, 2012, 09:35:22 AM
The Britons do not so much throw off the Roman yoke as see the yoke removed and plead desperately to have it back.
I love the way Duncan put that! :)
The example of Britannia is worth noting, as it indicates that some populations were quite prepared to accept Imperial authority if they could get it rather than have their substance continually eroded (and their lives menaced) by barbarian raids and incursions.
Patrick
Althrough to be fair, some modern historians are now arguing that Britannia was 'ideologically semi-detached' anyway, and there was a limit to the 'buy-in' achieved. There are interesting pointers to support this, the 'rebirth' of celtic tribalism being one of them
Jim
Rebirths do tend to happen from the frontiers, a thesis developed by Arnold Toynbee. That aligns in a way with the turner thesis that American culture is continuously created on them moving frontier. There is some truth to both points of view. In England, for example, though the Home Counties are by far the richest and most economically advanced area power in the XIVth and XVth centuries moves to the Marcher and Border lords who have feffective military establishments. Arguably again the power relationship becomes aligned with the money in the ECW when the Parliamentarian South defeats The Royalist borders. In Britannia the federate entities such as the Votadini had the advantage of being militarised en masse whereas the civitates of the South relied upon mercenaries and the occasional Roman hold out.
It is right to raise the Armenians they struggle manfully on the fringes of both Empires and become powerful in the Byzantine Empire when they are incorporated and become border lords.
Then Sassanians do not rebel against a Parthian conqueror. Before Doug Melville is aroused I should say that the Parthians are an Iranian dynasty, they are replaced in a dynastic coup by the Sasanians. The Parthians then revert to being one of the leading aristocratic houses of Iranshar. Any concept of a Persian popular movement is misguided and is probably a confusion with attempts by the Sasanians to reach Bach to an Achaemenid past to justify territorial aggrandisement westwards!
As to plagues, the idea that the Germans suffer less than the Romansis very shaky. It is more likely that Roman populations have immunity because they have more mixing with foreigners . Besides which, the big plague surely comes after the Western Empire has collapsed. As they say, if A occurs before B then it is unlikely that B caused A. Of course, with modern historical interpretation whereby modern social prejudices are projected backwards onto the past this might need revision.
Roy
Thanks, Roy.
So in response to Mark's question
Quote from: Mark on July 18, 2012, 07:04:28 PM
I was questioning whether there were examples of a people being conquered and the "throwing off the yoke", as opposed to just getting conquered by someone else. There are records of various insurrections under Rome but none particularly spring to mind as successful.
we remove the Persian/Parthian 'dynastic change' and stick with Egypt's successful rebellion against Persia c.400-390 BC. I could point to various goings on in Assyria and Babylonia between c.1000 and 600 BC but am not sure if these would count.
Mark is right about the insurrections against Rome: although the Macedonians c.148 BC, Spaniards
passim up to about 20 BC(?), Gauls under Vercingetorix and subsequently half-heartedly under Civilis in AD 69, Britons (or at least Iceni) under Boudicca (Boadicea) in AD 61 and Jews in AD 66 and under Simeon bar Kochba* in 132 were attended with initial success they all came to a sad end within a few months or years.
*
Not the historian, unless he is a reincarnation.Jim's point about the British tribes being less keen on Imperial rule is probably tenable, on the basis that it was the cities of Britain that wrote asking for protection rather than the tribal leaders themselves. That said, the city communities evidently felt they could not depend upon the tribes for protection and the tribes themselves do not seem to have been very effective against the intruders. Nor, in the 3rd and 4th centuries do the tribes seem to have done much to sustain British independence under Carausius (and Allectus) or at the time of Maximus Magnus (although if Geoffrey of Monouth is right about the best tribal fighting manpower crossing over to Europe and staying there it would suggest the tribes would be relatively 'toothless' thereafter).
Unfortunately I am not very good at guessing exactly what the 5th century British situation actually was, so will leave things there. As a barely related sidenote it is quite possible that many Roman traditions were maintained because they were associated with respectability and, paradoxically, Christianity - perhaps to the point where a Romanophile host ordered traditional
garum (fermented fish-guts sauce) served with a banquet but someone mismanaged the preparation and Uther Pendragon's entire court ended up poisoned**!
Patrick
**
I have been unable to trace any Black Adder in the Arthurian legend.
While on the general subject of the fall of Rome, the following extract from Priscus (who accompanied the embassy to Attila) may be of interest. Priscus was greeted by a Greek-speaking 'Hun' who turned out to be a Greek ex-merchant who said he preferred life among the Huns for the following reasons:
Then he smiled and said that he was born a Greek and had gone as a merchant to Viminacium, on the Danube, where he had stayed a long time, and married a very rich wife. But the city fell a prey to the barbarians, and he was stript of his prosperity, and on account of his riches was allotted to Onegesius in the division of the spoil, as it was the custom among the Scythians for the chiefs to reserve for themselves the rich prisoners. Having fought bravely against the Romans and the Acatiri, he had paid the spoils he won to his master, and so obtained freedom. He then married a barbarian wife and had children, and had the privilege of eating at the table of Onegesius.
He considered his new life among the Scythians better than his old life among the Romans, and the reasons he gave were as follows: "After war the Scythians live in inactivity, enjoying what they have got, and not at all, or very little, harassed. The Romans, on the other hand, are in the first place very liable to perish in war, as they have to rest their hopes of safety on others, and are not allowed, on account of their tyrants to use arms. And those who use them are injured by the cowardice of their generals, who cannot support the conduct of war. But the condition of the subjects in time of peace is far more grievous than the evils of war, for the exaction of the taxes is very severe, and unprincipled men inflict injuries on others, because the laws are practically not valid against all classes. A transgressor who belongs to the wealthy classes is not punished for his injustice, while a poor man, who does not understand business, undergoes the legal penalty, that is if he does not depart this life before the trial, so long is the course of lawsuits protracted, and so much money is expended on them. The climax of the misery is to have to pay in order to obtain justice. For no one will give a court to the injured man unless he pay a sum of money to the judge and the judge's clerks."
This points to (among other things) the separation of civil and military powers and responsibilities by Constantine as being a prime cause of the Empire's inability to defend itself or function effectively. The Senate had been exempt from military service since the disastrous reign of Gallienus, but the Empire had rallied and recovered under Claudius II, Aurelian and Probus, so senatorial exemption does not appear to have affected the Empire's capacity to recover or make war.
Priscus then gives the other side of the story:
In reply to this attack on the Empire, I asked him to be good enough to listen with patience to the other side of the question. "The creators of the Roman republic," I said, "who were wise and good men, in order to prevent things from being done at haphazard made one class of men guardians of the laws, and appointed another class to the profession of arms, who were to have no other object than to be always ready for battle, and to go forth to war without dread, as though to their ordinary exercise having by practice exhausted all their fear beforehand. Others again were assigned to attend to the cultivation of the ground, to support both themselves and those who fight in their defence, by contributing the military corn-supply.... To those who protect the interests of the litigants a sum of money is paid by the latter, just as a payment is made by the farmers to the soldiers. Is it not fair to support him who assists and requite him for his kindness? The support of the horse benefits the horseman.... Those who spend money on a suit and lose it in the end cannot fairly put it down to anything but the injustice of their case. And as to the long time spent on lawsuits, that is due to concern for justice, that judges may not fail in passing correct judgments, by having to give sentence offhand; it is better that they should reflect, and conclude the case more tardily, than that by judging in a hurry they should both injure man and transgress against the Deity, the institutor of justice.... The Romans treat their servants better than the king of the Scythians treats his subjects. They deal with them as fathers or teachers, admonishing them to abstain from evil and follow the lines of conduct whey they have esteemed honourable; they reprove them for their errors like their own children. They are not allowed, like the Scythians, to inflict death on them. They have numerous ways of conferring freedom; they can manumit not only during life, but also by their wills, and the testamentary wishes of a Roman in regard to his property are law."
The episode concludes with a facet which is often overlooked in economic, social and legal analyses but is nevertheless of great importance:
My interlocutor shed tears, and confessed that the laws and constitution of the Romans were fair, but deplored that the governors, not possessing the spirit of former generations, were ruining the State.
Patrick
Effectively then, Priscus as the writer, is mounting a veiled attack on the state, by pointing out that whilst in theory things are done well, the reality is that they aren't due mainly to those his informant describes as 'the governors'
I say this because the ex-merchant doesn't withdraw his complaint, very pointedly he only weeps for how far the current generation had fallen. Similarly Priscus only speaks well of "The creators of the Roman republic," "who were wise and good men". Which I think speaks volumes.
I think this is a case of 'the dog that didn't bark'. It is more interesting to look at who Priscus didn't praise. After all he could have equally praised Augustus, founder of the Empire, or even someone like Constantine, as the First Christian emperor. The fact that he felt he had to praise someone dead 800 years seems to indicate that he felt the rot was pretty deep.
Jim
A good bit of reading between the lines there, I think, Jim.
The laws are acknowledged as fair, but the practices are ruining the state.
And as you say, certain key emperors are damned not so much by faint praise as by no praise at all! It may be revealing that he omits praise for his own emperor, Theodosius II, although the opening paragraph of his piece goes thus:
"We set out with the barbarians, and arrived at Sardica, which is thirteen days for a fast traveller from Constantinople. Halting there we considered it advisable to invite Edecon and the barbarians with him to dinner. The inhabitants of the place sold us sheep and oxen, which we slaughtered, and we prepared a meal. In the course of the feast, as the barbarians lauded Attila and we lauded the Emperor, Bigilas remarked that it was not fair to compare a man and a god, meaning Attila by the man and Theodosius by the god. The Huns grew excited and hot at this remark. But we turned the conversation in another direction, and soothed their wounded feelings; and after dinner, when we separated, Maximin presented Edecon and Orestes with silk garments and Indian gems.... "
The description of his embassy is here: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/priscus.html (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/priscus.html)
Nothing particularly exciting, but one gets a glimpse of barbarians on their best behaviour ...
Patrick
We should bear in mind that Vilgilus (Bigilas) is the prime operative in a plot to get Edeco to kill Attila and will later appear with 50 lbs of gold to pay the assassins.
Priscus is a civil servant in Theodosius' government. His description of the greek merchant who became a slave and then barbarian warrior echoes a long running theme in roman history about present decline. The greek is oven words that reflect much that was true about the Empire, but then
there is a rebuttal that reduces the turncoat to tears. Yes this is a device to air a current complaint, but also to refute it. Can we believe that this man was reduced to tears?/ I think not. Can we take it to be a real description of the Empire.. no we don't and do we believe in an Augustan Age or a period of Cato like Republican virtue instead of corruption... not really!
Roy
We might however take it as a good indication of then-current problems in the Empire. The practical problems mentioned by the ex-merchant and the largely theoretical and conceptual counters advanced by Priscus are reminiscent of arguments pro and contra a much more recent institution based on Rome-associated legislation, and probably also reflect then-widespread feeling among subjects of the Empire: when it works the way it is supposed to work, it works well enough, but right now it does not seem to be working.
Pulling back to the wider picture, one recurring element of the 5th century AD seems to be an ongoing recruitment crisis for the Romans. Any thoughts as to why this might be?
Patrick
It might also reflect the perceptions based on social class
Priscus was probably one of the honestiores whilst a merchant could well have been one of the humiliores. He would have been a particularly risk prone member of the humiliores because he was probably work a false accusation or two to get him to loosen his purse strings.
For recruitment, traditionally and in peace time, there were large sections of the population who weren't considered to make good soldiers. This doubtless reduced the available poor.
However the rural workers who were considered a good choice were valuable to their landlords and there would be a tendancy to them to be hidden away from recruiting officers.
The problem with creating the myth of a 'martial class' is that when you do recruit those from outside the class, it is in times of desperation and they tainted, 'you're only here because we're desperate', and this rubs off on the recruits as well as their colleagues
Jim
They had problems because:
1) Making everyone a citizen meant that there was no longer an incentive to join the auxilia to earn citizenship. As with modern states citizenship privileges given free are worthless .
2) The number of slaves on large estates increased as opposed to the fee peasant farmers as the rich crushed the less well off with debt and took their lands. Slaves were not potential recruits. (of course it didn't destroy all the free farmers entirely , but it had an effect)
3) The size of the army increased hugely. tax became more oppressive and drove people to revolt as Bagaudae. When you tax too highly it depresses the economy. When you increase the size of the state (and in Rome the army was most of state expenditure) you drive down economic activity.. In the Republic the Roman State was like America in the Late Empire it was like Soviet Russia (not a new comparison). The Romans moved to this new model in the 250s in response to the threat of military collapse. Like the Soviet state this was great for a period of wartime mobilisation, like the Soviet state it was a disaster long term.
You could say that the new style army that developed in the 3rd century provided the technical capability they enabled it to secure the Empire in the court century, but by the fifth century the fundamental contradictions had weakened it too far??
After all the thing that destroyed the Soviets was the expense of competition with the West, but the Romans had no competitors in the large sense so it took a lot longer to decay.
Roy
They had problems because:
1) Making everyone a citizen meant that there was no longer an incentive to join the auxilia to earn citizenship. As with modern states citizenship privileges given free are worthless .
TA: but the people who became citizens were locked into hereditary professions and couldn't have joined the auxilia. Plus it increased both the tax base and the number of people eligible for public office (and thus the resulting expense which was, in effect, a tax on citizens).
2) The number of slaves on large estates increased as opposed to the fee peasant farmers as the rich crushed the less well off with debt and took their lands. Slaves were not potential recruits. (of course it didn't destroy all the free farmers entirely , but it had an effect)
TA: I thought that this had occurred a lot earlier
3) The size of the army increased hugely. tax became more oppressive and drove people to revolt as Bagaudae. When you tax too highly it depresses the economy. When you increase the size of the state (and in Rome the army was most of state expenditure) you drive down economic activity.. In the Republic the Roman State was like America in the Late Empire it was like Soviet Russia (not a new comparison). The Romans moved to this new model in the 250s in response to the threat of military collapse. Like the Soviet state this was great for a period of wartime mobilisation, like the Soviet state it was a disaster long term.
You could say that the new style army that developed in the 3rd century provided the technical capability they enabled it to secure the Empire in the court century, but by the fifth century the fundamental contradictions had weakened it too far??
TA: Doesn't really address the relative weakness of the West vs East though.
After all the thing that destroyed the Soviets was the expense of competition with the West, but the Romans had no competitors in the large sense so it took a lot longer to decay.
TA: This is a difficult comparison, as it was the technological superiority that the Soviet system couldn't match. The social cost of attempting to catch up was also a significant factor. And the fiscal exhaustion was also driven by social factors. As Rome appears to have held the technological and cultural edge it's more that they over planned the economy (similar to Soviets) but still had sufficient resources to prevent the 'revolts' forcing a social revolution.
Re the rich getting richer. I think that this is a consistent theme and moves out from Italy in concentric circles. So recruitment would become harder in areas such as Gaul and Spain. I doubt that the senatorial class ever managed to turn the Balkans into large estates because the land is much poorer, communications are worse.
All this needs to be considered along with the increase in the size of the army.
To use a modern parallel, there is an increase in the number of nurses and they are paid more. Health Service costs shoot up. In Rome's case recruitment got harder and the numbers required bigger.
I agree with you the increase in the number of militarised civil servants rather than using voluntary tax collecting town councils also adds cost.
One reason that the East survives is that it has recruitment areas in Isauria and Armenia that are not subject to a decline in military potential. Maybe the Western Empire should have used more Basques, Scots and Welsh?
Let's remember too that the Eat is reduced at a couple of points to the City of Constantine and outlasts its enemies. The West loses Italy in 476 (actually a rather longer period) it thus has no redoubt. Maybe the survival of the East was by a thread. Chance in History anyone?/ Perhaps that is related to the the retention of Egypt rather than the loss of Africa as being the difference. In the end the East could pay the troops and the West couldn't so relied on federate and they then staged a coup. (I think Jim made this point earlier).
Roy
BTW Tom, any chance of finding that illustration of a Hun carved on a rock??
Actually the parallel you use is a nice one
"to use a modern parallel, there is an increase in the number of nurses and they are paid more. Health Service costs shoot up. In Rome's case recruitment got harder and the numbers required bigger"
And in our case we are importing nurses and medical staff from all round the world because we are apparently unable to train and recruit enough here
Whilst I wouldn't claim our health service is dependent of foederate to survive, it might be that there are similarities in the two situations which would repay investigation :-\
Jim
"BTW Tom, any chance of finding that illustration of a Hun carved on a rock??"
I shall have a look when I get reunited with my books again :-[
Tom..
Regarding "throwing off the yoke", one might suggest parts of Iberia - the original Muslim conquest takes over more or less the entire Visigothic realm, but parts of the north soon enough slip out of Muslim/Moorish/Arabo-Berber control.
Now, it might be argued this more a case of weak conquerors than of strong conquerees - when the Berber garrisons of the NW revolted in the 740s and marched on Cordoba, the central power defeated them, but seemingly didn't even try to re-establish its authority up in Galicia and environs, where power fell to local Christian notables more or less by default. Even during later periods of strength the Emirs and Caliphs were more interested in pillaging than reconquering these areas.
One thing reading Andreas's post made me realise.
We live in a centralised bureaucratic society, where government collects information in a manner unthinkable (even impossible) as little as a generation ago.
When we start looking back into these Empires we have to remember that they would often have citizens who would rarely see an Imperial official from one year to the next. Indeed when you got deep into rural areas you might not see one every decade if you could help it. (In the later Roman Empire, the estate owner whose tenant you were would probably try to ensure this. It was his duty as your patron.)
When you look at what the Empire provided for the majority of its inhabitants, about the only thing it could claim was that it brought security, and actually most rural dwellers would have got that by paying off the local bandit chief anyway.
So whilst we might see government as a combination of leech and insurance policy, for most of the Ancient world the government was firmly in the leech category.
Jim