Comments on: The rise of the decline industry

By: livius drusus

livius drusus — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:03:52 +0000

Historians distinguish the Eastern and Western Empire because they had different rulers, a different culture and vastly different historical arcs. The Fall of Rome refers to the city itself and the government that ruled it.

I think it would be disingenuous to say that the Roman Empire was unbroken until 1453 given the massive scale devastation and depopulation on the Western side.

By: Brightshadow

Brightshadow — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:51:13 +0000

It is not so remarkable that the Roman Empire fell (insofar as it did – the decline lasted a thousand years after all, and few empires last half as long) as it is to examine the reason the Romans were able to acquire such an empire in the first place. The weakness of all their neighbors, once Carthage had been defeated, is a great part of the reason. The Gauls were divided and open to conquest. The Greek states were small and decadent, their armies mercenary and apt to change sides. Rome had a national force that met no opposition until it came up against Parthia. This was an extraordinary stroke of good luck, and enabled the unification of the coasts of the Mediterranean, a triumph of Augustus Caesar, recognized as such at the time. The unified Med lasted until the Vandal conquest of Africa (followed by their taking of Sicily and Sardinia, and their sack of Rome in 455). When the Vandals were suppressed by Justinian and Belisarius, an uneasy unification was restored – until the Arabs took Alexandria (641?) and Carthage, when the unified Med was broken forever.

By: Brightshadow

Brightshadow — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:45:41 +0000

I follow Gibbon in dating the Fall of Rome to 1453 – I don’t know why historians insist it occurred in 476; there is no justification for this. The state that had its capital in Constantinople called itself Rome, was called Rome by all its neighbors, and its people called themselves Romans (Rhomaioi). “Byzantium” was an invention of German historians in the late 16th century.

The Goths were foederati, a barbarian tribe associated with Roman rule, acknowledging it, very like the Franks. Franks and Goths often served in the Roman military, and often commanded it. And now and then (just like Roman generals), they disagreed with the central government and led armies against it. Thus Alaric’s sack of Rome (and the Goths’ slaying of Valens).

Justinian certainly erred in suppressing the Ostrogothic rule of Italy, but he had little reason to think this would be more difficult than overthrowing Vandal rule in Africa had been. (Italian terrain is always tougher than invaders expect.) Both tribes were heretics and therefore tolerated but not accepted by their Roman (Catholic) subjects. But Justinian had no reason to expect the enormous threat from Arabia that appeared less than a century after his death – Rome had never been threatened from that quarter before.

By: Brightshadow

Brightshadow — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:37:17 +0000

Theodoric didn’t lay a finger on Augustulus, who had been deposed by Odoacer, and lived out his life to a natural death in the gardens of Lucullus at Naples.

By: livius drusus

livius drusus — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:49:33 +0000

Yes, sadly the “Dark Ages” cliche doesn’t get fleshed out a lot. There was a great variety of political and social circumstances in the areas of former empire.

On the other hand, the population in Europe really did plummet. The city of Rome became a virtual wasteland, going from 1-2 million inhabitants at peak empire to 50,000 after the Gothic Wars of the 6th c.

One interesting static I heard in a Berkley lecture webcast the other day is that until the 10th c., Europe was so sparsely populated that a squirrel could travel from Paris to Moscow just by jumping from tree to tree without ever having to touch the ground. It’s hard to imagine now, isn’t it?