SoA Forums

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