Why the Roman Empire fell and the East survived

[sophie]

*sigh*

 

[Phrossack]

I would post the relevant South Park episode, but its foul and uncouth language could hurt the children or split the Earth's crust or something.

In the hopes of salvaging this thread, though, did the Byzantines/Eastern Romans/Romans/whatever they're called this week have a real shot of keeping their "empire" and maybe reviving had they beaten off Mehmed II's 1453 assault? It seems to me like they were pretty much done for, but I've heard others speculate that a defeat for Mehmed could mean Ottoman civil war and given the Rhomaioi some breathing room. But weren't they having economic issues from Ottoman control of the straits and Italian mercantile competition?

 

[Dachs]

In the hopes of salvaging this thread, though, did the Byzantines/Eastern Romans/Romans/whatever they're called this week have a real shot of keeping their "empire" and maybe reviving had they beaten off Mehmed II's 1453 assault? It seems to me like they were pretty much done for, but I've heard others speculate that a defeat for Mehmed could mean Ottoman civil war and given the Rhomaioi some breathing room. But weren't they having economic issues from Ottoman control of the straits and Italian mercantile competition?

Realistically? Meh.

Think about this for longue durée purposes, though: the Ottoman Empire's position, fundamentally, was little different in 1453 than the Nikaia-Byzantines' was in the thirteenth century. Beset by a bewildering array of enemies east and west with whom diplomacy was rarely if ever possible, confronted with serious internal religious fissures and dynastic civil wars, and most importantly based, in terms of resources, on virtually the exact same territory. The real difference-maker was in the decisions of powerful individuals in either state, or the lack of same, and those are fundamentally contingent and/or random factors.

It's hard to imagine the Byzantine Empire successfully rolling back the Ottomans on its own, yes. An absolute worst-case scenario for the Ottoman Empire would probably look something like this: Mehmed loses siege, possibly dies either during or shortly afterward. Civil wars/succession crises ignite. Italians take advantage and make trouble along the coasts again. Hungarians launch opportunistic attack in Balkans, same from the eastern Anatolian Turkmen. Ottomans forced to deal with religious fissures a la Bedreddin, proto-Kızılbaş. Anarchy in Anatolia. Eventual counteroffensive from the Morea (shades of the 1440s). Could all that stuff happening at once potentially sink the Ottoman Empire and allow for a somewhat revived Byzantine state given energetic-enough Greek leadership? Sure. Or it could just be the catalyst for another Mehmed to crush all comers and carry fire and sword into Syria, Iraq, and the Hungarian Plain again. Or something in between.

 

[Lord Baal]

I would post the relevant South Park episode, but its foul and uncouth language could hurt the children or split the Earth's crust or something.

In the hopes of salvaging this thread, though, did the Byzantines/Eastern Romans/Romans/whatever they're called this week have a real shot of keeping their "empire" and maybe reviving had they beaten off Mehmed II's 1453 assault? It seems to me like they were pretty much done for, but I've heard others speculate that a defeat for Mehmed could mean Ottoman civil war and given the Rhomaioi some breathing room. But weren't they having economic issues from Ottoman control of the straits and Italian mercantile competition?

I'm one of those guys. Dachs pretty much summed up the argument. If Mehmed's seige fails, especially if he dies, then you can make a pretty good case for the Byzantine state lasting at least a few more years, and possibly even making some territorial gains at Ottoman expense during a protracted period of civil war in the latter. But anything more long-term than that is very much open to speculation.

As to that Italian mercantile competition, Genoese trade in particular was a major boon to the Byzantine economy. I think Dachs posted a long time ago that the amount of trade being conducted in Constantinople in the decade preceding its conquest was actually greater than at any other time in its history. The fact that Genoa and Venice were aware of Constantinople's importance to them and were constantly interfering in its internal politics and fighting each other did far more damage to Byzantium than the trade itself, which was a net gain for the Empire.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm not current with the evidence but unlikely stuff happens, so I think I'm justified in suggesting on the balance of probability that aliens could have destroyed the Roman Empire.

The curious thing with this, as with so many other ancient history stuff, is that new evidence keeps coming in, old evidence reinterpreted. Are you sure that the final chapter on 5th century migrations has already been written with the latest revisions? Is it so foolish to doubt?

Perhaps this forum will last some two decades more. Someday some future historian will read these threads and have a good laugh at out expense. Want a bet?

 

[Lord Baal]

The curious thing with this, as with so many other ancient history stuff, is that new evidence keeps coming in, old evidence reinterpreted. Are you sure that the final chapter on 5th century migrations has already been written with the latest revisions? Is it so foolish to doubt?

Perhaps this forum will last some two decades more. Someday some future historian will read these threads and have a good laugh at out expense. Want a bet?

You plan on sticking around two decades to collect?

 

[innonimatu]

You plan on sticking around two decades to collect?

I plan on sticking around forever. Be realistic, plan the impossible!

 

[History_Buff]

I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice.

 

[r16]

ı was guessing this thread was for a race to see who would get it locked and was just about to add some r16 class by saying there are no Aliens and no competition after the Starfleet vaporized the early astronauts ... Anyways .

not much to add to the discussion of Bizans surviving after 1453 , especially considering they were feeling Mehmed was a loser after his dethroning ( in '44 ?) They had used lots of connections to start that Civil war mentioned in the thread , kinda they had it coming . The Siege was what kept Ottoman Unity and it was allowed to proceed on the assumption that those Italians would come a la the US. Cavalry , defeat was certain , a change of family at the top imminent and so on .

 

[Kosez]

I can accept the argument about WRE being in a state of civil war for much of the late 4th and early 5th century. This made it weak, power vacuum occured, etc.

But. Is civil war enough for downfall of an empire? USA had a civil war, they're still around. Russia, England, China had ten kingdoms but they succumbed to Mongols centuries later.

Surely, we should at least take in account, that if not for neighbours waiting to feast on the crumbles left by WRE internal strifes, Romans would sooner or later found their luck and true leadership again. Instead of going off to the history books.

Off-course, this ads nothing to debate why WRE fell sooner than ERE. Come to think of it, Italy should at least in theory be easier to defend, with Alpine range defending it's north and Mare Nostrum everywhere else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but city of Rome was reached by Vandals only some 20 years before Romulus Augustus. And Constantinople was almost sacked by Huns half a century earlier.

So yeah, it's hard to argue Dachs' arguments.

 

[ArguCa]

why east survived?

more money, loyal people, less barbarian threat, better leaders etc.

 

[Kosez]

On a related note, we have had quite a tumultuous couple of months in Slovenia, with people staging nation wide protests and demanding resignation of corrupt officials. Political elite see protests from a different perspective - the lazy Balkan people have came and convinced some confused Slovenians to stop being obediend and hard working and demand some sort of privileges from political elites. Utter nonsense.

My point being, in relation to Dachs' post about Halsall, it does seem that for the last couple of centuries a lot of historians (as politicians do today) have interpreted the events as they found suitable. And it's quite clear that when there are internal disturbances, elites in charge almost always find external enemies. It makes sense for them to channel frustrations away from themselves.

As much as we appreciate classical Roman period and all things we inherited from it, maybe so called ˝barbarization˝ of WRE was nothing else than a form of democratization of society. Slavery was gradualy abolished (we were thaught that it was a) economically more feasible to have colonus instead of slaves and b) Christians were just against slavery. Former may be true to some degree, latter absolutely not. I suspect the number of slaves was just to big and they became important and strong enough to demand more privileges. And Germanic tribes were much less subsistent on slavery thus maybe seem more appealing to the bottom classes in the empire.

I have always wondered how Caesar could conquer Gaul in 1st century BCE, then it was just a part of Roman empire, and then from 6th century onwards it was home of the Franks. I understand now people settled there were pretty much the same all the time. Just the elite, ruling classes changed. Off course there were linguistic and other influences, stronger or weaker, but nevertheless.

Roman empire was much the same as the Frankish in that sense, Roman and Frankish elite controlled the state (and borrowed it their name) and ruled a compendium of different people. If we would make comparison with Soviet and British empire we would be correct and in the wrong at the same time. All states are like that, ruling elites are quite homogenous (at least in their wishes to stay in the power) and they rule over people, who can be for instance seen as Spanish but are really Catalan, Basque and not only that. They're from Barcelona, from Hospitalet, Figueras... Ciutat Vella, Eixample, Gracia, ... But not only that, they're rich and poor and middle class, shopkeepers, bankers, football players, ...

In our interpretation of history we usually make a mistake of treating empires and peoples as a unitary, stable form. We take account for environmental, neighbouring, commercial, scientific dimensions, but rarely for social. But the latter are the most important. And if we'd teach more about social dimension in history classes maybe we wouldn't be where we are now.

 

[Dachs]

I can accept the argument about WRE being in a state of civil war for much of the late 4th and early 5th century. This made it weak, power vacuum occured, etc.

But. Is civil war enough for downfall of an empire? USA had a civil war, they're still around. Russia, England, China had ten kingdoms but they succumbed to Mongols centuries later.

Surely, we should at least take in account, that if not for neighbours waiting to feast on the crumbles left by WRE internal strifes, Romans would sooner or later found their luck and true leadership again. Instead of going off to the history books.

Not every civil war is created equal. Some of them are short and relatively irrelevant; some are long, confusing, and extremely bloody. The series of convulsions the Western Empire underwent from 380 onward falls into the latter category.

It's not that the difference was made by the presence of outside forces interested in taking advantage of the civil war to sink their own hooks into the Empire. Those outside forces were always there, and in these wars, as in the others, they tended to be more interested in finding a place for themselves in the imperial hierarchy rather than expunging the Empire from a given plot of territory, let alone in toto. They were there in the crisis of the third century - a series of events that itself has been increasingly recategorized in the historiography in recent years - and they were there in the civil wars of late Republican Rome.

What differentiated these civil wars from those in the last century of Roman rule was, effectively, contingency. For no greater purpose at all, a few key people died at bad times, a few tossup battles were lost, a few freak natural disasters happened. Everything just got bad for the WRE, there was a failure cascade, and after a century people weren't so quick to call the thing in Western Europe a Roman Empire anymore.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Comrades! Let's have a proper materialist analysis! The downfall of the WRE was the inevitable triumph of feudalism over the slave-owning mode of production! Everything else is anti-communist revisionist accounts, and those who advocate them deserve to be purged

 

[Kosez]

It's not that the difference was made by the presence of outside forces interested in taking advantage of the civil war to sink their own hooks into the Empire. Those outside forces were always there, and in these wars, as in the others, they tended to be more interested in finding a place for themselves in the imperial hierarchy rather than expunging the Empire from a given plot of territory, let alone in toto. They were there in the crisis of the third century - a series of events that itself has been increasingly recategorized in the historiography in recent years - and they were there in the civil wars of late Republican Rome.

I understand your argument and am very close to accept it too. What I don't understand is, in Caesars times Gallia was populated by descendants of Celts with Gaulish language, yet in 5th and 6th century those areas were predominantly settled by Germanic speking people.

Has transition occured during those 500 years? But then argument against hordes of Germanic tribes is actually correct, just time scale is wrong (instead of sweeping down in 5th century they were gradually settling there for 500 years).

Although, why would linguistic change happen in the first place? Was Gallia so underpopulated with Gauls that Romans invited Germanic tribes to settle there (such events have happened a lot in the middle ages - Germans in Gotsche, Siebenburgen, ...)? If answer to this question is yes, then I guess everything else is clear too.

 

[sophie]

I understand your argument and am very close to accept it too. What I don't understand is, in Caesars times Gallia was populated by descendants of Celts with Gaulish language, yet in 5th and 6th century those areas were predominantly settled by Germanic speking people.

Has transition occured during those 500 years? But then argument against hordes of Germanic tribes is actually correct, just time scale is wrong (instead of sweeping down in 5th century they were gradually settling there for 500 years).

Although, why would linguistic change happen in the first place? Was Gallia so underpopulated with Gauls that Romans invited Germanic tribes to settle there (such events have happened a lot in the middle ages - Germans in Gotsche, Siebenburgen, ...)? If answer to this question is yes, then I guess everything else is clear too.

People for the most part weren't speaking a Celtic language in Gaul in the 5th and 6th centuries. A lot can change in 500 years. Remember 500 years is the difference between the Old English of Alfred and the Middle English of Chaucer. The effects of the Germanic language family on the Vulgar Latin, while fairly widespread, happened relatively rapidly during the 5th century, and evidently it occurred concurrently with similar changes adopted by Old High German on the other side of the Rhine. It is also important to keep in mind that while Old French (and subsequently Modern French) employs a lot of Germanic elements which don't manifest in, say Langue d'Oc or Old Spanish, French is still fundamentally a Romance language, retaining a good deal of its original Latin elements. The Franks nobility for the most part did not use their Franconian dialect in legal or courtly settings; Latin was still the language of the records and the language of the nobility, for the prestige reasons Dachs listed above.

This is in contrast to say, England where Old English for the most part supplanted Vulgar Latin or Romano-British as the language used by the élite class.

 

[ace99]

Comrades! Let's have a proper materialist analysis! The downfall of the WRE was the inevitable triumph of feudalism over the slave-owning mode of production! Everything else is anti-communist revisionist accounts, and those who advocate them deserve to be purged

The differences between these stages of history are material conditions. There are qualitative differences between each state of history as new patterns and institutions emerge. A primitive communal society for instance would be a society such as Native Americans where there is little development of trade, divisions of labor, barter, tools of production, or notion of private ownership. This primitive communal society over time transitions into a slave society, such as ancient Greece, Rome or Egypt, which occurs due to the growth of tools of production, and division of labor. In the more advanced slave society like that of ancient Rome wealth and slaves are amassed through conquest and force of arms and the classes that exist are the patricians and plebeians. In a slave society the idea of private ownership becomes apparent, with institutions and written criminal codes and the ability to enforce these codes. Ultimately, the slave society gives rise to feudal society where serfs replace slaves, and hereditary lords replace the slave owners. The serfs are bound to the land of the hereditary lords and compelled to provide work in exchange for “protection” that the lords provide. The serfs act as the main laboring class and provide the labor while the lord has possession of inherited estates and provides the land becoming the landed aristocracy and the main military force in a monarchy where often the King rules by divine right. The system of industry that exists in a feudal system consists of closed guilds that control the means of production and terms of trade.

 

[LightSpectra]

These satire posts really aren't funny at all.

 

[ace99]

Mine isn't satire. Aside from the smileys.

 

[sophie]

Mine isn't satire. Aside from the smileys.

So you're really a marxist caricature then. Ummmm....ok. Beats classical whig history, I guess.