Why the Roman Empire fell and the East survived

[ace99]

I'm a Hobsbawm fan.

 

[sophie]

I'm a Hobsbawm fan.

You do realize that dude's books are ancient, right?

 

[Kosez]

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.

I appreciate facts in both of above sentences.

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.

I haven't got anything to say against that. But what I was really wondering is how did Germanic elements came to Gaul in the first place. They had to somehow, if they didn't some sort of Vulgar Latin mixed with Gaulish would be spoken in France now (instead of (gross generalization, please forgive me) 40 % Germanic and 60 % Latin). Why where Gaulish elements substituted with Germanic?

 

[sophie]

I appreciate facts in both of above sentences.




I haven't got anything to say against that. But what I was really wondering is how did Germanic elements came to Gaul in the first place. They had to somehow, if they didn't some sort of Vulgar Latin mixed with Gaulish would be spoken in France now (instead of (gross generalization, please forgive me) 40 % Germanic and 60 % Latin). Why where Gaulish elements substituted with Germanic?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12014428#post12014428

I'll just go ahead and leave this here. You can read the first part too, but the second post is much more relevant to your question. The Gaulish elements for the most part had already entered Vulgar Latin by the 4th century, particularly taking the place of Latin terms relating to agriculture and other various aspects of "folk life". It's interesting that this is the case as Vulgar Latin for the most part is typified as being a rather homogeneous language in spite of its wide territory and "common" demographic. Beyond some transplanted words though, the Vulgar Latin of the Gauls was largely that - Vulgar Latin.

 

[Traitorfish]

You do realize that dude's books are ancient, right?

Still turns up on undergrad reading lists, to be fair.


...Although I'm not really sure how you get from nattering on about slaves and feudalism to Hobsbawm, given that his work only very, very occasionally strays back beyond 1500.

 

[Kosez]

I'll just go ahead and leave this here. You can read the first part too, but the second post is much more relevant to your question. The Gaulish elements for the most part had already entered Vulgar Latin by the 4th century, particularly taking the place of Latin terms relating to agriculture and other various aspects of "folk life". It's interesting that this is the case as Vulgar Latin for the most part is typified as being a rather homogeneous language in spite of its wide territory and "common" demographic. Beyond some transplanted words though, the Vulgar Latin of the Gauls was largely that - Vulgar Latin.

I may have missed your point, but my question was - how and why did Germanic elements came to Galia? As far as I understand you are only showing in your very well written and even more detailed posts, that Germanic tribes affected Vulgar Latin (more in some less in other areas) but it was still widely used after 5th century. It's nothing new to claim Latin remained Lingua Franca for upper classes, Church, jurisprudence and bureaucracy until 19th century.

But what Dachs is saying is that Germanic tribes from outside of WRE had very little to do with it's downfall. What am I trying to establish is, that Germanic tribes had to cross the boundaries at some time (hence their effect on Vulgar Latin and later French language). Now, Dachs is not claiming they didn't, but it makes it look like it's not a big deal.

But why, why did Germanic tribes had to settle inside WRE boundaries (instead of just being conquered and incorporated into empire like Gauls did).

And if they had such an effect on Vulgar Latin and more importantly on later French language (much much more than Gauls, who were native to Galia), then we must assume that at some point there were more Germanic people in Galia than Gauls. Right?

If so, they had to have something to do with WRE's declining fortunes. Granted, they didn't just march in one day and took everything over. But can we accept the fact their presence was so much less of an issue for Romans than bickering of Emperors in Rome?

Dachs narrative is that ERE was just luckier with their leaders and that gross incompetence of WRE Emperors was an extremely big nail in it's coffin. Now, from what I've seen in modern governments (and in history books), on general and on the long run they're all more or less the same (in their competence/incompetence). Isn't that what theory of probability claims, anyway?

I still find it hard to believe civilizations can die out without any external interference (exept if they sacrifice their entire population or because of some natural disasters). Sure, we should forget hordes of Barbarians sweeping down from north and east. But, eventually they were there, weren't they? Even if it took them hundreds of years, they were infact important players in the story of WRE.

It doesn't mean they contributed to WRE's downfall strictly through warfare, their presence could just be that disruptance in WRE's social strata that made people drift away...

 

[sophie]

I may have missed your point, but my question was - how and why did Germanic elements came to Galia? As far as I understand you are only showing in your very well written and even more detailed posts, that Germanic tribes affected Vulgar Latin (more in some less in other areas) but it was still widely used after 5th century. It's nothing new to claim Latin remained Lingua Franca for upper classes, Church, jurisprudence and bureaucracy until 19th century.

But what Dachs is saying is that Germanic tribes from outside of WRE had very little to do with it's downfall. What am I trying to establish is, that Germanic tribes had to cross the boundaries at some time (hence their effect on Vulgar Latin and later French language). Now, Dachs is not claiming they didn't, but it makes it look like it's not a big deal.

But why, why did Germanic tribes had to settle inside WRE boundaries (instead of just being conquered and incorporated into empire like Gauls did).

And if they had such an effect on Vulgar Latin and more importantly on later French language (much much more than Gauls, who were native to Galia), then we must assume that at some point there were more Germanic people in Galia than Gauls. Right?

If so, they had to have something to do with WRE's declining fortunes. Granted, they didn't just march in one day and took everything over. But can we accept the fact their presence was so much less of an issue for Romans than bickering of Emperors in Rome?

Because Dachs is not saying that the barbarians were immaterial to the collapse of WRE. He's saying that they were symptomatic of the larger issues - namely that internal strife and a string of weak emperors had gotten to such a point by the late 5th century that the patronage system upon which the entirety of Gallo-Roman gentry depended broke down, and the gentry merely turned to a different source for this patronage. It would be silly to suggest that no movements of people occurred during this period as evidence of the Vandals, Franks, and Goths moving westward into and through present day France is eminently apparent. The point Dachs is trying to make is that whereas in the past this was a state-condoned system dictated on Rome's terms, this system, owing to the nature of the Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries was no longer capable of managing this system.

Now what does this mean for the Gallic dialect of the Vulgar Latin? Well as I said there is much in this that is speculation, but what we do know for sure is that by the 5th century there begins to be an ostensible Germanic influence on the language. The fact that this influence is restricted wholly to the north of Gaul (as opposed to Langue d'Oc), and that very similar changes occurred in the contemporaneous Old High German, and occurs during the period where we know for a fact the "Franks" (whoever these people may be) at this time were said to have begun their movements into northern Gaul, we can safely make an assumption that the various Frankish or other Old Low Franconian languages played a hand in this change (which in the case of Northern Gaul was coupled with the fact that Gaul was rapidly falling out of contact with Rome, leading to a de-homogenization of Vulgar Latin in that region)

As to the Gauls and Gallic influence on Latin, you must remember that Latin was the language of the gentry in that region for over 500 years at that point. People for the most part had ceased to identify themselves as "Gallic" beyond "a citizen of Rome residing in the province of Gaul". They no longer spoke Celtic languages because it had ceased to be beneficial for them to do so. Much in the same way that the inhabitants of Britannia east of Wales and Cornwall had ceased to speak a Brythonic language because it ceased to be useful for them to do so. Language is not tied to genetics and just because a language changes doesn't mean strictly speaking one group of people supplanted another on a wholesale level. It's certainly possible, for example, that the Angles and Jutes had merely supplanted the élite class in the east of the British isles and the change at the top brought about the striking shifting of language without having to use a narrative such as the wholesale and wanton destruction of the "Romano-British peoples" (or even that they were necessarily pushed westward in an attempt to flee from the incoming peoples, as the popular narrative goes).

 

[Murky]

I've read some books on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. I also liked listening to the History of Rome Podcast. I'm inclined to think that there were multiple factors but it was mainly because of ineffectual Empire management. Maybe their systems were just too poorly designed to adapt to change.

 

[sophie]

I've read some books on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. I also liked listening to the History of Rome Podcast. I'm inclined to think that there were multiple factors but it was mainly because of ineffectual Empire management. Maybe their systems were just too poorly designed to adapt to change.

Give Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West a read. An excellent account and a good jumping off point for the period in general.

 

[Dachs]

I've read some books on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. I also liked listening to the History of Rome Podcast. I'm inclined to think that there were multiple factors but it was mainly because of ineffectual Empire management. Maybe their systems were just too poorly designed to adapt to change.

Ineffectual management, yes, but it wasn't really a systemic problem. Fundamentally, the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire were governed the same way; if a systemic problem submarined the one, it must also have destroyed the other, as well. But the Eastern Empire obviously survived.

 

[Kosez]

Because Dachs is not saying that the barbarians were immaterial to the collapse of WRE. He's saying that they were symptomatic of the larger issues - namely that internal strife and a string of weak emperors had gotten to such a point by the late 5th century that the patronage system upon which the entirety of Gallo-Roman gentry depended broke down, and the gentry merely turned to a different source for this patronage. It would be silly to suggest that no movements of people occurred during this period as evidence of the Vandals, Franks, and Goths moving westward into and through present day France is eminently apparent. The point Dachs is trying to make is that whereas in the past this was a state-condoned system dictated on Rome's terms, this system, owing to the nature of the Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries was no longer capable of managing this system.

Interesting (theoretical) question could then be: would WRE fall as well if there were no Germanic tribes pushing across it's boundaries?

 

[History_Buff]

Between this thread, and the Problem with Barbarians thread, I think the answer to that question is: yes, probably, but maybe not.

 

[LightSpectra]

Interesting (theoretical) question could then be: would WRE fall as well if there were no Germanic tribes pushing across it's boundaries?

The question is too loaded with nondescript factors to make it answerable.

 

[Traitorfish]

What if there had only been one barbarian, but it was Conan?

 

[JohannaK]

That would change everything.

 

[bombshoo]

What if there had only been one barbarian, but it was Conan?

A good question but also too vague. It largely depends on which Conan we are talking about. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Conan, Jason Momoa's Conan, or Conan O'Brian.

 

[Kosez]

The question is too loaded with nondescript factors to make it answerable.

Why? It's an equasion. In reality we had WRE; ERE; Germanic, Hunic, Slavic, Turkic ˝barbarians˝ (not Celtic, Illyrian, Gaelic though) and Eastern Empires.

For hypothetical deliberation you just subtract ˝barbarians˝ and wonder what would happen with WRE.

Also, I'm pretty sure WRE would survive Conan the Schwarzie Barbarian. I'm not so sure about Red Sonya, though.

 

[Masada]

Why?

You a time travelling genocidaire?

 

[Kosez]

More like wanna-be time traveling whatever.

Are methods I'm talking about as outrageous? When investigators wonder why a plane fell down they play all sorts of scenarios in their head. They can't know what would happen in reality if they decide - let's think for a while what would happen if this throttle control wen't off. But they can be pretty sure what would not happen (wing wouldn't fell off for instance).

Can't such imaginary scenarios be used in this discussion too?

 

[sophie]

More like wanna-be time traveling whatever.

Are methods I'm talking about as outrageous? When investigators wonder why a plane fell down they play all sorts of scenarios in their head. They can't know what would happen in reality if they decide - let's think for a while what would happen if this throttle control wen't off. But they can be pretty sure what would not happen (wing wouldn't fell off for instance).

Can't such imaginary scenarios be used in this discussion too?

The point Masada is trying to make is that such a scenario is silly because those germanic peoples did exist, and they were right there. His tongue in cheek question was asking you if you were planning on simply killing them off (read: genocide) for this counterfactual of yours. Otherwise it's not really that useful of an exercise because they were there and there wasn't much short of a time travelling genocidaire who was going to remove them. You might as well posit what would happen if you took the entire Roman empire, deposited it as an island into the Atlantic and had the Romans launch an all-out total war against the entirety of Medieval Christendom.