Re: The Fall of Rome in the West

[Jim Webster]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

Nothing particularly exciting, but one gets a glimpse of barbarians on their best behaviour ...

Patrick

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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

[tadamson]

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.   

[aligern]

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??

[Jim Webster]

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

[tadamson]

"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..

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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