Help for my history assignment (The Fall of the Roman Empire)

[insurgent]

Hi there, folks!

On March 26th my high school class and I are going to Rome to study Roman and Italian history. Before, through, and after that one-week study trip, we will each write a major assignment about Roman or Italian history.
Being reasonably well into European history, since it is my main area of interest, I'm going to choose a quite ambitious subject to explain, the fall of the Roman empire.
Now, the writing of this assignment is supposed to build on a definition of my task.

There are typically three main sections of this definition:
1. A report on some subject, ie. a descriptive section, an account of the events of my subject.
2. An analysis of (some part of) the subject, ie. an attempt to explain the event(s) through an analysis and possible discussion of the facts.
3. An evaluation of some specific event or part of the subject, ie. more of a subjective analysis, discussing why and how, expressing skepticism and possibly opinion.

Now, I need to define my task, and I was thinking something along the lines of
"How did the Roman Empire come to its end, and why?
Why did the Western Roman Empire collapse so soon after the division of the empire, and why did the East last?
What could have been done to save the Empire, and why did Diocletian's reforms not work?"

Any input on this would be welcomed, what do you think would be interesting to inquire? Is this far too ambitious (given that I do think I have a fair amount of background knowledge on the subject...)?

Well, here comes what I'd really like your help with, since I know that many of you people have quite extensive historical knowledge behind you:
Do you know of any good original sources on the subject? Do you know of any very good books on the subject that I should track down (remember, I'm in Denmark, which complicates it a little...)?
How should I go about looking for good material on the subject (I'm particularly interested in finding good source material, which I think is hard)?
What should I focus on in Rome?

Anyway, giving this some relevance to the history forum, how would you in short explain the fall of Rome? Socially, politically, economically?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

If you speak some German, try to get your hands on a copy of April 2001's "Geo Epoche", which is about the Roman Empire (I think you can still order it from Geo publications). There is an extensive article about the fall or Rome in it which gives a good overview about the various aspects.

In any case, the most important work on the fall of Rome is definately the one by Edward Gibbon (I haven't read it, though).

 

[insurgent]

I've looked into Gibbon's work - it is absolutely huge, but most significantly, most of his main conclusions would be unacceptable to most modern historians - he represents an entirely different type of history-writing than the one we see today. So, at best, I can use some of his conclusions as examples or something like that.

I'll look into the Geo Epoche thing, I know some German, so that oughtn't be a problem...

Thanks.

 

[insurgent]

I don't think that particular Geo Epoche is available...

 

[Stefan Haertel]

If you want to, I can scan the pages for you.

 

[insurgent]

Would you do that? I'd really like that, thanks!

My email is (if that's what you'd like to use): inyourfacespammers@fake.mail

Who writes those Geo Epoche books? Are they attached to some television network or something? The publisher is "Geo Publications"? And it's from April 2001?

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Alright, I'll send it to you when it's done (ca. 15 minutes)

 

[Xen]

A) Economic Decline

This is perhaps th emost central reason for Romes downfall, its economic deline- no w first off, why did it decline?

-well, two main reasons, one being the inherent problems with latifundia, and haveing you entire economy based on slave labour on large upperclass estates- the second being when Hadrian offically stopped Imperial expansion...

these two things clashed- because the empire stopped expanding, there wa sno new influx of slaves, as simpley put, that Roman though tthat slave breeding was one fo the most horrid activities out there (for a slave holding society, Romes veiw on slaves was remarkably progressive, all things concidered)

this meant that without cheap food and labour, everything more or less goes to hell, as what was once cheap can no longer be produced as cheaplly, or in as much quantity as before, makeing prices go up, while the actual numbers of the product go down...

this means that people have t spend more money on buying the nessisites then on what they can pay in tax- which causes a great deal of problem for the Imperial government...

B)Decline in quality of the military

by the fall of the Roman empire, rome military sucked- ginbe were th elegions of old who had so effectivlly guarded th eempire, replaced out of economic nessity by cheaper troops, with less quality arms, armor, and training- the lone exception to that rule might have been the cataphract heavy horseman, who would go on to become the back bone of the eastern Roman empire, and the backbone fo the subsequent Byzantine empire (and eventually becoem so depended on, that when it, like the legionary, had to be abandoned, the military fortunes of the empire declined rapidilly)

ofcourse, that didnt help the western Roman empire much, as they had never exactly been big on cavalry, and dispite having a few (three) formations of cataphracts in theire portion fo the empire (at least as of the writing of the Notitia Diginatum), it was simply not enough- the poor quality of the general trooper, and the rather low numbers of troops made a bad situation even worse, particuraly in the case of the western empire...

but in both empires, they found in convenint to pres sbarbarian tribes into service- you see it is a very big misconception that all those tribes you see on maps of the late Roman empire were conqoerors- most of them were invited in, or after appelaing to Rome for it, were allowed to settle- upon which they gradualyl over time usurped Roman power, and made themselves indipendent- they had the power to do this, as because the very reason they wer eint he empire to provide "foederatii". or "federate" troops- basically, indentured soldires, surving Rome, because they had been allowed intot he empire to eventually become citizens of it- in other words, a sort fo cross between mercenary, and auxilliary trooper- however, it seems that germanic levies just could not compete with theire imperuous brethren outside the empire, and when adding int heri own indipendence streak, and general alck of respect for a treaty, moad an already worsenign situation worsen further...

I could go on for somtime in thei vein, but i have stuff to do...

C)crappy leadership

Roman generals had gotten greedy,and all of them(not literally, but you get the idea) wanted to be emperor- thus with what little militart force Rome had, a great deal of it was spent in generals trying to capture th e Imperial throne- this more or less lead to the collapse of Roman authority in Dacia, and it was left to the Germanic tribes, and Britain was left to its own devices, soonbecomeing an indipendent Roman power- powerful enough to when inthe reign of its most famous king- Ambrosius Aurelianus- one of, if not the best candidate for who the legnedary King Arthur is based on, was in charge, he was called on by the then-current Roman emperor to aide the empire in campagnes in Gaul- which he did (and to note, King Arthur is recorded as haveing made a few campagnes in France, as well as England)

I could also go on about how I think Constantine was one of the worst men to come onto the imperial throne, being responsible for some oftose economic troubles, as well as a sever worsesing of the militry- he was righ t int hat it needed reforms, but only one of his actions was actualyl in the right direction for thwta the empir eneeded- and then there is the whole christianity thing, which eventually it beinbg infoced on a predominatlly mithraic army was not a very good thing to do, but I'll leave that subject alone

there are soem basics- if I had the time, or the real interest to sit here and type them, I would go into more dpeth on them

 

[Stefan Haertel]

I've started sending you the articles, but it's taking a while because they are very large.
As for your question, Geo is a magazine published in some European countries (I've seen it in Germany and France or Italy, can't remember precisely). It is very much like National Geographic. Geo Epoche is a spin-off which is published twice a year and deals with a special historical subject (for example the American Natives, Egypt, Rome, Russia, the Popes etc.). I've only got the Egypt and Rome issues, but they are well worth reading, so if you ever get your hands on a copy of any issue, read it.

 

[insurgent]

What do you think about this explanation of the economic decay, then:

From the sixth in a series of lectures by Ludwig von Mises on economic policy
... It is certainly true that in the second century A.D., the Roman Empire nurtured a very flourishing civilization, that in those parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa in which the Roman Empire ruled, there was a very high civilization. There was also a very high economic civilization, based on a certain degree of division of labor. Although it appears quite primitive when compared with our conditions today, it certainly was remarkable. It reached the highest degree of the division of labor ever attained before modern capitalism. It is no less true that this civilization disintegrated, especially in the third century. This disintegration within the Roman Empire made it impossible for the Romans to resist aggression from without. Although the aggression was no worse than that which the Romans had resisted again and again in the preceding centuries, they could withstand it no longer after what had taken place within the Roman Empire.

What had taken place? What was the problem? What was it that caused the disintegration of an empire which, in every regard, had attained the highest civilization ever achieved before the eighteenth century? The truth is that what destroyed this ancient civilization was something similar, almost identical to the dangers that threaten our civilization today: on the one hand it was interventionism, and on the other hand, inflation. The interventionism of the Roman Empire consisted in the fact that the Roman Empire, following the preceding Greek policy, did not abstain from price control. This price control was mild, practically without any consequences, because for centuries it did not try to reduce prices below the market level.

But when inflation began in the third century, the poor Romans did not yet have our technical means for inflation. They could not print money; they had to debase the coinage, and this was a much inferior system of inflation compared to the present system, which-through the use of the modern printing press-can so easily destroy the value of money. But it was efficient enough, and it brought about the same result as price control, for the prices which the authorities tolerated were now below the potential price to which inflation had brought the prices of the various commodities.

The result, of course, was that the supply of foodstuffs in the cities declined. The people in the cities were forced to go back to the country and to return to agricultural life. The Romans never realized what was happening. They did not understand it. They had not developed the mental tools to interpret the problems of the division of labor and the consequences of inflation upon market prices. That this currency inflation, currency debasement, was bad, this they knew of course very well.

Consequently, the emperors made laws against this movement. There were laws preventing the city dweller from moving to the country, but such laws were ineffective. As the people did not have anything to eat in the city, as they were starving, no law could keep them from leaving the city and going back into agriculture. The city dweller could no longer work in the processing industries of the cities as an artisan. And, with the loss of the markets in the cities, no one could buy anything there anymore.

Thus we see that, from the third century on, the cities of the Roman Empire were declining and that the division of labor became less intensive than it had been before. Finally, the medieval system of the self-sufficient household, of the "villa," as it was called in later laws, emerged...

The lectures are available in their full length here:
http://www.mises.org/etexts/ecopol.asp

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
I've started sending you the articles, but it's taking a while because they are very large.
As for your question, Geo is a magazine published in some European countries (I've seen it in Germany and France or Italy, can't remember precisely). It is very much like National Geographic. Geo Epoche is a spin-off which is published twice a year and deals with a special historical subject (for example the American Natives, Egypt, Rome, Russia, the Popes etc.). I've only got the Egypt and Rome issues, but they are well worth reading, so if you ever get your hands on a copy of any issue, read it.

Thanks, will do. I've got them now. Ignore the PM I sent...

 

[Stefan Haertel]

It's not through yet, I'm sending 5 mails. BTW, you might want to erase your email adress from your post above afterwards to avoid getting spam.

 

[insurgent]

I will, and thanks again. Might I inquire what the headline of the article is?

 

[insurgent]

I don't think I got part IV...

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Part IV has been sent again. BTW, the article is called "Roms Untergang - Ein Ende voller Rätsel", by Nicolaus Fest

 

[insurgent]

Thanks a lot! You're a sport! Got Part IV this time...

 

[Knight-Dragon]

This old thread might be of some help...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38371

 

[Pangur Bán]

My Two Cents

Firstly, Economics are quite irrelevant. Economics come into play in modern history when one economy is better than the other, or when one has access to all the resources needed to fight a war and the other doesn't! Such a discussion is quite inappropriate for the late Antique period, as the mediterranean economy was booming way into the 6th century. The Germanic tribes were not exactly overpowering Rome with their economic might.

POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

I've sat through countless university tutorials where the TA and students will simply list weaknesses in the late Roman Empire without one single reference to the events leading to Rome's Fall, and then assume that the subject is covered. This method has led to such absurdities like the "poisoned lead" theory.

The Cover of Decadence

Partly owing to Edward Gibbon, there is a common misconception that the society of the Late Antique Roman was is decadent. The concept of decadence itself is usually just taken for granted. Actually, Roman culture in the 5th and 6th centuries was arguably at its peak in many ways. Spain was an intellectual powerhouse; there was a revival of local cultures, esp. in the East, where Syriac, Coptic and Armenian literary traditions took off.

What I think happened?

You must understand that, in the eyes of contemporaries, the Roman Empire does not collapse.

Ever since the days of Augustus, or even before, when he shifted virtually all of the Roman legions to the frontiers, a yawning gap opened up between the military and secular classes of the Roman world.

The Roman military classes became alienated to a certain extant from the traditional Senatorial aristocracy. Such a process takes centuries. AFter the 3rd century Crisis, the what Peter Brown calls a "Social Revolution" takes place. The professional military elite, men with low origins - invariably born in Illyria - who make their way to the top through merit, take control of the ROman state.

The above picture represents this Revolution. The 4 tetrachs, are all wearing Illyrian (modern ethnic Albanian) peasant caps. All 4 tetrarchs come from the Balkan frontier provinces.

This is very, very important, because these semi-barbarian rulers come from a completely different background from the urban aristorcracies of the great classical cities, educated in the Graeco-Roman paideia, who looked backward but who governed the Empire in a day to day basis, either on a local level, or as part of the vast Imperial Bureaucracy.

These men became rulers because they represented the army. The Roman Army was the Roman empire. The Roman Republic disappeared because its rulers (the Senate) lost control of the army. Augustus represented the army, and he restored the Roman state in a way that had adapted to the army. After the death of Nero, no-one person has control of the army. The Senate tries to impose Galba, but that was never going to work. You can narrate the rest of Roman history in this manner.

Can you see where this is going?

The Emperor Loses Control

After the death of Theodosius, two sons, with a non-military upbringing, brought up and spoiled in the imperial palaces, are given the purple. Arcadius was 18 when he took charge in the East...Honorius was 11. As you would expect, Honorius did not run things at that age...as always, he depended on a strong man to run things. This man was his Magister Militum...(Stilicho)

The difference by this stage was that the Roman army...esp. in the West....was not just semi-barbaric like it had been since the Early/High Empire, but had become Germanicized. The military elite - and hence and inevitably the rulers too - would, as they had always done, respond to the nature of their army.

After the battle of Adrianople, the Goths made havoc all over the Balkans until Theodosius came to an agreement. As Arthur Ferril argues, the combination of Julian's Persian disaster and the defeat at Adrianople had given the semi-barbarized military elite, and the Emperor the idea that Gothic/Germanic/Barbarian recruits were better. When Theodosius and Stilicho defeat Arbogast and Eugenius at the river Frigidus, both Roman armies are predominantly Gothic

As Honorius grew older, he found it more difficult than usual to regain control of the Imperial forces. The renewal of independent Romano-Gothic military activity in 402, combined with the invasions of 405 and 406, put power in the hands of local Roman or Romano-Germanic warlords. The emperor Honorius, cowering in Ravenna, left all the work to his Magister Militum Stilicho (a Vandal), whom he actually murdered.

Rome defeated or subdued almost every Germanic invasion in this period, but what is "Rome"? "Rome" in the West, by the late 4th century is a organization of semi-Romanized German soldiers led by the semi-Romanized Germanic Magister Militum in Italy, and rebeliious warlords elsewhere; it is an organization of a christianizing Roman, Senatorial aristocracy, who provide the Empire's Archbishops, Bishops and clergy...but NOT it's soldiers.

HERE's A LIST OF THE WEST ROMAN MAGISTRI MILITUM FOR THE PERIOD

Flavius Stilicho: 395-408
Constantius: 408-421
Castinus: 421-425
Felix: 425-430
Flavius Aetius: (430-454)

Flavius Ricimer: (456-472)

Gundobad: (472-473)
Orestes (472-476)
Odovacer: (476-493) [Rex]

These semi-Germanic/Germanic warlords take more and more power away from the emperor, but always acknowledge his superiorty. As Goths, Vandal, Burgundians and Sueves take effective control of Roman territories - purely as a military aristocracy - they're doing nothing new. What's the difference between one Germanic ruler and another? Odovacer ends the farce by taking the title of Rex.

(Incidentally, coins in Odoacers reign are issued under the name of the exiled emperor Nepos ). Theodoric invaded Italy to replace Odovacer, under the authority of the (Eastern) Emperor, and took the title of Rex too. Theodoric was still nominally under imperial control.

The "Roman" army was the Roman state. After Adrianople, it has no signifcant military defeats....just scores of victories. But the Roman army was hardly Roman, and so the Roman state, as it always had done. followed the army. That's why "Rome fell" in the West...it was an internal "Germanic military Revolution", but unlike the Illyrian revolution of the late 3rd century, no central figure cleared up the fragmentation. The closest was Theodoric. Any chances of a reunified West were destroyed by Justinian, and his generals Belisarius and Narses.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So as the central authority of Rome gradually eroded after 400 AD the provincial "kings" went their own way, relied on their own resources and by 476 there was nothing left of the Roman political structure except the church. Then in 493 the Ostrogoths came along and set up shop. Interesting.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

The lectures are available in their full length here:
http://www.mises.org/etexts/ecopol.asp

Honnestly to be - I tend to be extemmmmlllyy precaucious to sources like indicated there ...

It's a very big risk to "alienate" the unfavorable aspects of the main thesis and presents only ... the favorable ones.
Especially when disscussing a problem so ... hot in our times - like inflation.
And also - for a person like me - seems terrible similar with the "old habitude" of marxists historian to explain almost every aspects of histroy ( at least the major ones for sure ) regarding from the point of view of "class-strugle mechanism".

Regards,

P.S. : Calgacus ... this is ( for me at least ) a very ... "original" point of view !!!
May I insist for further details ?

P.S.S. : Excuse me my bad english ...