Re: The Fall of Rome in the West

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

[Mark]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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

[aligern]

Good idea, it is a recurrent subject and could stand its own thread.
Roy

[Mark]

The bit not about books has now been moved to this forum.

[Patrick Waterson]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Duncan Head]

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.

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?

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

 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

[Jim Webster]

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.

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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