The truth about the fall of the Roman empire

[gangleri2001]

So if the Western world declines or collapses in your lifetime, can we refer to this thread and embarrass you, gangleri?

No, because if it collapses, then I dubt that Thunderfall would have any money left to spend in this forum

 

[Ajidica]

That is but one nation of people.
Were the peoples of the Russian steppes, or the Huns Christian too?
What about the Northern Britons or various Middle Eastern nations?

Since there was no meaningful difference in how the Christian and non-Christian barbarians acted, why should it have affected the Roman Empire any differently?
And again, if Christianity was so bad for the West, why did it work for the East where there was a far stronger hellenistic tradition?

You speak of the Eastern Empire, which was a partition.
What of the West? This is what I was hinting at...

Any time you describe what caused Rome to fall, you have to take into account why the East didn't fall, something which you have not been doing.

And - Your final question is not an real rebuff to my own musing.
The collapse of Rome did happen. The Eastern provinces carried
on, but you do not address the causes of the Western collapse...

Huh? You have been asserting that [blank] caused the collapse of Rome, but those issues were present in both the East and the West. I point out that you failed to address why the East survived, but you retorted that they were two separate entities?

So if the Western world declines or collapses in your lifetime, can we refer to this thread and embarrass you, gangleri?

Only if the collapse results from loss of prime agricultural land, foreign invaders settling down creating their own states, economic collapse, and numerous secessions and military coups, could you use this thread.

 

[gangleri2001]

What are "barbaric weapons"? There is little to no difference between Roman and what you call "barbarian technology" whatever that means. There is no such thing as military technology at this time. There was simply no technological advancement during this time period, if you look at Roman legions during the Early Republic and the late Empire sure there are some small invvoations like with the Marian reforms or the increased use of armored cavalry during the empire but what you call technology has fundamentally remained unchanged. Technology didn't become a factor in wars until much, much later. The usage of auxiliaries is another matter and has nothing to do with "technology"

I'm not talking about auxiliares, I'm talking about regular legionaires. Just compare:

Marian legionaire:

Spoiler :

Late legionaire:

Spoiler :

And tell me who's equipment is better. Not to mention the late siege weapons, which were AFAIK pure crap when compared with those of the marian legions.

 

[Karalysia]

Misleading picture. One is a legionary the other is a skirmisher. Different functions. And siege weapons later on like I said were little different than before.

Also the later Roman Empire had to an extent shifted emphasis from infantry to more heavily armored cavalry to contented with the Sassanids which they frequently faced.

 

[Miles Teg]

You're do realize that a re-enactor doesn't qualify as proof of anything, right?

 

[CurtSibling]

Since there was no meaningful difference in how the Christian and non-Christian barbarians acted, why should it have affected the Roman Empire any differently?
And again, if Christianity was so bad for the West, why did it work for the East where there was a far stronger hellenistic tradition?

Dude, I think this would be a good point for you to go back and read my initial post.

Done that? Good. Let's recap.

1) I never said the adoption of religion was what caused the Roman fall in the West.
2) I stated that "some say", not that "Curt says", a major difference there.
3) Kindly do not run with a one-sided debate built on you not reading my post.

We can assume that the presence of established religion did clash with new imported
faiths, but as we seen, Eastern Mitharism did not cause the Roman Army any problems.

Although it did glorify feats of war. Whereas christianity encouraged peaceful action.

If this had a bearing on anything, I cannot (and did not) say.
So do me a favour and stop assuming I said things which I didn't.

Any time you describe what caused Rome to fall, you have to take into account why the East didn't fall, something which you have not been doing.

So, Byzantium and Rome are the same city and culture...?

Huh? You have been asserting that [blank] caused the collapse of Rome, but those issues were present in both the East and the West. I point out that you failed to address why the East survived, but you retorted that they were two separate entities?

Once, again. Please go back and read my post. I made no assertion.
I merely mused about a certain school of thought among some people.

You are running away with yourself in this headlong rush to defend the
Eastern bulwark of the empire. Such a pity you were not there in 1453!

Only if the collapse results from loss of prime agricultural land, foreign invaders settling down creating their own states, economic collapse, and numerous secessions and military coups, could you use this thread.

These things may indeed happen, which you cannot deny. But to compare these
events to the decline of Rome is (I will agree) not always accurate. All things end.

When the societies we know today are gone, we will be long dead and unable to compare our notes, I fear.

 

[Ajidica]

Dude, I think this would be a good point for you to go back and read my initial post.

Okay, your post reads either:

There is no single cause of the Roman downfall. (which I mourn!)

A hostile, changing world, a warped economy, a selfish, flabby populace and small-minded leaders.

or

Some say the infusion of Christianity into the Roman empire made it eventually weak and soft.
Too timid to take on the raging pagan hordes that did not care to "turn the other cheek"...

Not sure about that myself, as religion can inspire violence. But the new faith no doubt did
cause divisions in Roman society that probably led to disunity when unity was needed...

Both of which are either innacurate or possess major holes in them.


EDIT:

And tell me who's equipment is better.

Different times, different types of equipment needed. The later Roman legions were more mobile then their predescesors, fighting in different conditions, against different enemies, using different tactics. Looking at their military sucesses against the barbarians, when properly lead with enough supplies, they conducted themselves against the barbarians just as well as the Marian legions. Even against the Sassanids, their record was about as good as it had always been.

Not to mention the late siege weapons, which were AFAIK pure crap when compared with those of the marian legions.

Is there any evidence out there showing the Romans didn't know how to make proper siege engines any more? Or is it more a matter of using different tactics and not needing them as much?

Oh, wait - Doesn't that sound familiar..

Done that? Good. Let's recap.

1) I never said the adoption of religion was what caused the Roman fall in the West2) I stated that "some say", not that "Curt says", a major difference there.

Why bother asserting something if you aren't sure about the validity of it?

Although it did glorify feats of war. Whereas christianity encouraged peaceful action.

In theory. In reality, there was no meaningful change in the sucess of the Roman military or generals. The West Roman military until the last decade or two of the empire was still the best in the Mediterainian and the East remained one of the best for another 600 odd years.

So, Byzantium and Rome are the same city and culture...?

Contemporaries saw them as the same thing. Byzantium is simply a modern day term for the eastern part of the empire after the west collapsed. The 'split' between them was for the most part, to ease administration. It was still the 'Roman Empire'.

Once, again. Please go back and read my post. I made no assertion.
I merely mused about a certain school of thought among some people.

Again, why assert a possible reason that is 300 years old and is rejected by almost any serious historian as it presents a far too simple picture and fails to take modern research into account.

 

[innonimatu]

Do I remember reading somewhere that the Romans relied too much on North African food and agriculturally devastated much of the productive land?

There are, of course, numerous ancient sources about the importance of african grain for Rome. And later, of Egyptian and crimean grain for Constantinople. But I have no doubt that were those areas made permanently unavailable due to some natural or human catastrophe, the empire could adapt. Grain could be grown all around the Mediterranean. Constantinople adapted to the loss of Egypt and eventually sought food much further north.

The real problem was short-term political instability during the time necessary to procure other sources, which might well lead to rebellions and civil wars. Those could do a lot of damage. I guess that could be described as a problem due to relying too much on just a few sources.

 

[CurtSibling]

Both of which are either innacurate or possess major holes in them.

One was half jest, and the other was a noncommittal statement.
Either way, you over-reacted when no-one was really disagreeing with you.

The Eastern empire's survival was not just due to religious fervour.
I think we can agree there are many aspects to the rise and fall of both East and West.

And to be honest, religion did play a large part in Constantinople's fall - Islam.

.

 

[Karalysia]

And to be honest, religion did play a large part in Constantinople's fall - Islam.

Islam conquered Constantinople? I thought it was the Mehmed Fatih and his army

 

[CurtSibling]

Again, why assert a possible reason that is 300 years old and is rejected by almost any serious historian as it presents a far too simple picture and fails to take modern research into account.

I mentioned a possible reason, because it is one of many factors in the fall of a great empire.

You are your phantom army of "serious historians" are free to see things as you please.

I will see things my way, and shall not be brow-beaten by pro-religious-flavoured history or research.

Thanks for your time.

 

[CurtSibling]

Islam conquered Constantinople? I thought it was the Mehmed Fatih and his army

I said religion played a part in the city's fall. I never mentioned the protagonists.

But you gain points for checking wikipedia.

 

[Karalysia]

I said religion played a part in the city's fall. I never mentioned the protagonists.

But you gain points for checking wikipedia.

And what part is that?

I find your lack of faith disturbing. I didn't spend all this money getting my worthless history degree to check wikipedia you know.

 

[CurtSibling]

And what part is that?

Well, what faith were the invading soldiers that took Constantinople?

I find your lack of faith disturbing. I didn't spend all this money getting my worthless history degree to check wikipedia you know.

So, where do you work? Subway?

 

[innonimatu]

And what part is that?

I find your lack of faith disturbing. I didn't spend all this money getting my worthless history degree to check wikipedia you know.

What, another one? You guys must be preparing a takeover of the forum!

 

[Miles Teg]

Well, what faith were the invading soldiers that took Constantinople?

The predominant eye-color among the invading soldiers was brown.

Therefore, eye color played a part in the fall of Constantinople.

 

[Karalysia]

Well, what faith were the invading soldiers that took Constantinople?

It depends what part of the army you're looking at. Most of the akinci and bashibazouk and assorted peasant levies were some type of Sunni Muslims but they also contained significant numbers of Orthodox Christians drawn from the Balkans, and in the eastern parts of Anatolia Shia's. Siaphis and other holders of timars would be both Muslim and Christian.

The Janissary were Bektashi Sufi's. Orban who made several of the large Ottoman bombards was Hungarian and a Catholic. Italian mercenaries and merchants fought on both sides and would have been Catholic. There are accounts of how in the day Italians would man the walls and at night sneak out to the Ottoman camp to provide them with oil to cool their cannons.

In short the Ottoman army would have incorporated Sunni's, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Sufi's.

If you're advancing the hypothesis of the Ottomans as a primarily jihadi state that's both simplistic and a pretty thoroughly discredited notion particularly when you consider not only the tremendously important role Christians played in the Empire both in the military and government, but also the fact that up until 1517 Muslims were not even a majority in the Ottoman Empire. It was only with the incorporation of Egypt by Selim Yauvuz that the Ottomans had a Muslim majority for the first time and after which they began to resemble a more traditional "Islamic" type of Sultanate and relinquished to an extent their fairly dynamic syncretic character. All long after the fall of Constantinople.

 

[CurtSibling]

The predominant eye-color among the invading soldiers was brown.

Therefore, eye color played a part in the fall of Constantinople.

Ah! So the clash of faiths had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Islamic/Ottoman conquest?

That is some good political correctness going on right there.

I suppose the crusades where secular in nature too?

.

 

[CurtSibling]

It depends what part of the army you're looking at. Most of the akinci and bashibazouk and assorted peasant levies were some type of Sunni Muslims but they also contained significant numbers of Orthodox Christians drawn from the Balkans, and in the eastern parts of Anatolia Shia's. Siaphis and other holders of timars would be both Muslim and Christian.

The Janissary were Bektashi Sufi's. Orban who made several of the large Ottoman bombards was Hungarian and a Catholic. Italian mercenaries and merchants fought on both sides and would have been Catholic. There are accounts of how in the day Italians would man the walls and at night sneak out to the Ottoman camp to provide them with oil to cool their cannons.

In short the Ottoman army would have incorporated Sunni's, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Sufi's.

If you're advancing the hypothesis of the Ottomans as a primarily jihadi state that's both simplistic and a pretty thoroughly discredited notion particularly when you consider not only the tremendously important role Christians played in the Empire both in the military and government, but also the fact that up until 1517 Muslims were not even a majority in the Ottoman Empire. It was only with the incorporation of Egypt by Selim Yauvuz that the Ottomans had a Muslim majority for the first time and after which they began to resemble a more traditional "Islamic" type of Sultanate and relinquished to an extent their fairly dynamic syncretic character. All long after the fall of Constantinople.

People keep thinking I am advancing hypotheses tonight! What gives?
I am in no way comparing the Ottomans to the current crop of "terrorists".
That would be as intellectually imbecilic as saying Napoleon was like Hitler.

Let's stop being silly and accept the fact that the Ottomans had a Moslem
leadership, and to assert the conquest of the Christian Constantinople was
nothing at all to do with religion is typical political correctness revision...

.

 

[Miles Teg]

Ah! So the clash of faiths had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Islamic/Ottoman conquest?

That is some good political correctness going on right there.

I suppose the crusades where secular in nature too?

.

Actually, the Crusades had some largely unacknowledged secular causes. Obviously the choice of battleground was religiously motivated, but Europe was primed for an outward push somewhere, and the Middle East was a likely spot. It did however have a huge relgious factor to it.

However, that's has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire's conquest of Constantinople. Karalysia's overview is good stuff, and better than I could hope to provide, so I'll just give it a thumbs up. Not every conflict between two societies with different religions is a religious conflict!