Queequeg's 'Special' Threads: Roman-Persian edition

[Lucidor]

Hymen-mania, actually.

At least "Sassadolescent" makes sense.  If you know who the Sassanids were. 

Parth men, parth monkeys?

[The Minsky Moment]

The problems were I understand two-fold: erosion of the ability to pay, and erosion of trust (totally understandable, really) in subordinate military commanders.

That was always a problem for Rome - it was a huge problem for the Late Republic, which ultimately was undone because the political structure could not control amibitious and unruly generals.  Despite the prestige the Caesarian lineage gave to the Julio-Claudians, it was a problem for them as well after Augustus himself - two emperors were assassinated by disgruntled subordinates, and a third faced off a praetorian coup. 

the outlier is not the dynamic of the later empire - which can be found very much in evidence in earlier periods.  The outlier is the unusually stable period of the "good emperors" from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius.  And that outlier was due to the presence of two unusual conditions: (1) a series of very competent emperors, and (2) a series of very successful and lucrative military campaigns and diplomatic efforts that provided sufficient booty and tribute to satiate the rank-and-file who might otherwise be tempted by the extravagant promises of their generals to back their bid for the purple.  Absent both those conditions operating simultaneously, the traditional pattern reasserted itself.

I would also note that whatever the instability of the 4th and early 5th centuries, in many ways the empire was more internally stable then in the period between Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian.  Even some of the weaker emperors of the Late Empire look pretty good put against the long line of imperial emphemera and flashin-the pan usurpers in the 3rd centuries.  Yet the empire got through that unruly 3rd century intact, only to founder in one century later even under more stable internal conditions.  The problem was that the external conditions had changed - the Persians posed a more serious and permanent threat, the Huns began exerting pressure on the frontier barbarians, and the frontier barbarians themselves had absorbed Roman mores and culture (including military culture) to the degree that they had become more organized and disciplined. 

The main issue of course is whether the West fell because the barbarians were more numerous and a greater threat towards the end of the empire of the West, or whether because of internal erosion of effectiveness. Probably a bit of both, as increased barbarian activity and raiding distrupted the ability to raise taxes, increased reluctance to empower subordinate commanders allowed for more frequent, unpunished barbarian raids, and a decreased tax base meant less pay and so less soldiers.

I would say that the question of why the West fell is the wrong question to begin with.  The West didn't really fall at all - it transformed into something else, and that transformation was a long and involved process with the input of a number of variables.  Take for example the point of view of a Roman Senator living in Italy c. 500-520.  From his point of view, the Roman Empire probably seemed alive and in ruder health than ever.  The basic way of life for the Roman landowning elite was the same as it had been for centuries; Roman culture was alive and well (Boethius is active during the period), and the prestige and power of the Senate was probably greater than at any point since the empire began.  His property and position were protected by the Roman Emperor's magister militum in Italy, Theodoric.  Of course, he also would be aware that Theodoric happened to hold a dual position as King of the Gothic people.  But that had little meaningful impact to him - if Walter Goffart is correct, it just meant that taxes that once went to a "Roman" army (which for centuries prior had been staffed primarily by soldiers recruited outside Italy) now went to a "Gothic" army (which included ethnically non-Gothic elements) performing the exact same function.

All of this takes place several decades after the so-called fall of Rome.  The historical reality is far more complex than a simple morality tale of rise and fall.

[saskganesh]

I've gotten drunk with Goffart. He made me read Eusebius, whose Chronicon was a blast. ...cheers...

[PDH]

Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.

Of course I did.  I clearly said for purposes of the class that the Republic was the period up to Augustus, after Augustus it was the Empire.  I explained the nuances of course, but I also was explicit in terms...that is why I thought it wasn't sneaky as the breakdown of the Republic from city-state to imperial power was the theme of the Early Rome section.
(edit - western civ to 1500 tends to compress sections a bit...)

[Caliga]

I would say that the question of why the West fell is the wrong question to begin with.  The West didn't really fall at all - it transformed into something else, and that transformation was a long and involved process with the input of a number of variables.  Take for example the point of view of a Roman Senator living in Italy c. 500-520.  From his point of view, the Roman Empire probably seemed alive and in ruder health than ever.  The basic way of life for the Roman landowning elite was the same as it had been for centuries; Roman culture was alive and well (Boethius is active during the period), and the prestige and power of the Senate was probably greater than at any point since the empire began.  His property and position were protected by the Roman Emperor's magister militum in Italy, Theodoric.  Of course, he also would be aware that Theodoric happened to hold a dual position as King of the Gothic people.  But that had little meaningful impact to him - if Walter Goffart is correct, it just meant that taxes that once went to a "Roman" army (which for centuries prior had been staffed primarily by soldiers recruited outside Italy) now went to a "Gothic" army (which included ethnically non-Gothic elements) performing the exact same function.

All of this takes place several decades after the so-called fall of Rome.  The historical reality is far more complex than a simple morality tale of rise and fall.

You are quite correct.  Our view of late antiquity/the early medieval period has been excessively colored by historians that came much later, which is usually the way things work, but still...

Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages".

[Valmy]

Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages".

Yeah I have always disliked that term.  They were actually a very dynamic period.

[Caliga]

Any period of time in which Germans are kicking ass could not possibly be "Dark". 

[Valmy]

Any period of time in which Germans are kicking ass could not possibly be "Dark". 

If by "Germans" you mean "Franks" then yes very true!

[Queequeg]

Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages".

Yeah I have always disliked that term.  They were actually a very dynamic period.

They still saw a massive drop off in trade, literacy, urbanization and eventually population and infrastructure.  If that doesn't qualify it as a Dark Age, what is?

[Malthus]

Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages".

Yeah I have always disliked that term.  They were actually a very dynamic period.

They still saw a massive drop off in trade, literacy, urbanization and eventually population and infrastructure.  If that doesn't qualify it as a Dark Age, what is?

I agree: the notion that there was no "fall" of the Roman empire and that the period is better though of as "transformative" strikes me as an over-correction for past historical errors.

While it is true that the overall trend of human history is towards ever greater complexity and sophistication, this is only true on the macro scale - it is subject to some pretty big local fluctuations! The decline of urbanism, literacy, trade, manufacturing etc. in the Med. was pretty spectacular and noteworthy.

[Valmy]

They still saw a massive drop off in trade, literacy, urbanization and eventually population and infrastructure.  If that doesn't qualify it as a Dark Age, what is?

Times were different.  The focus had shifted inland and the ideal transitioned to the self sufficient estate from the urban center.  Things like infrastructure and cities declined because there was no longer a compelling reason to keep them maintained.

The rest of those factors were a big result of the huge population migrations that had similar effects all over Eurasia during that era.  The Roman Empire merely shifted to deal with the new reality on the ground.

[Malthus]

Heh, sounds like the modern historian's take on the dystopian future depicted in McCarthy's The Road: 'Times were different. The focus had shifted from working at a 9 to 5 job to scrounging for cans of tuna in the ruins. There was no longer a compelling reason to refrain from eating other people. People merely shifted to deal with the new reality on the ground".   

[Valmy]

Heh, sounds like the modern historian's take on the dystopian future depicted in McCarthy's The Road: 'Times were different. The focus had shifted from working at a 9 to 5 job to scrounging for cans of tuna in the ruins. There was no longer a compelling reason to refrain from eating other people. People merely shifted to deal with the new reality on the ground".  

It was a slow gradual shift that lasted several centuries.  People didn't really seem to notice until later on that they had just been in the Dark Ages

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages".

Yeah I have always disliked that term.  They were actually a very dynamic period.

it's still a useful term though, if applied correctly. All in all the Dark Ages isn't that long a period anymore, a couple centuries at most. Iirc, for the region where I live (Low Countries) it's more or less used for the last century of Roman 'rule' and the first few centuries afterwards (basically from about 400 to 600-800). The whole thing is over when Charlemagne shows up (Carolingian Renaissance, if you can call it that).
Imho, the term can certainly not be used to blanket the whole of Western Europe with as the differences between the frontier-regions and the southern provinces is significant.

it's similar to what happened with the Greek Dark Ages. They've been shortened considerably too.

[Valmy]

I generally consider Charlemagne (or rather the break up of his Empire after the death of Louis I) the beginning of the Medieval period.  The split of Western Europe into France, Germany, Italy, and the border area (The Low Countries, Swizterland, Lorraine, Burgundy, and Savoy) were all established and remain pretty much the same to this day.