|
Jazerus posted:I mean I have to assume cabbage-growing was mandatory for crabby old men in Rome, considering Cato and Diocletian, so you might be surprised by the turnout. No way I'm competing with an emperor, even a retired one.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
galagazombie posted:The reason Rome fell was because its entire economy was based on taking slaves and wealth from new conquests. The limits of technology (transportation, food preservation, communication, logistics, bureaucracy etc) in Roman times meant that Rome simply could not expand any further past roughly what they had under Trajan/Hadrian. They maybe could have expanded a little more on their eastern border but the roughly equally powerful Persian empires had already called dibs. Barbarians or not Rome's economic model had simply reached a point where it could no longer sustain itself because it had run out of places it could loot. Rome had ceased conquest hundreds of years before it fell, and the economy of the empire fundamentally shifted toward proto-manorialism after the Crisis of the Third Century. The economy of the empire that fell had little relation to the slavery-and-loot-fueled expansionism of the early empire. If I were going to point to any one factor (hint: doing this is reductionist and wrong) it would be to the profound xenophobia of the pre-fall western Romans that is a hugely notable shift from even a hundred years before. "The Germanic peoples are totally barbarous, unable to be integrated into civilization, they wear dumb pants and have stupid mustaches, MRGA!!!!" wouldn't have lasted long in earlier eras if the Germanic peoples had been coming into the empire in droves and serving as military buffers between Romans and scary things like they were in the late empire. Heck, a German as regent, or even Emperor? Not really any crazier than Maximinus Thrax, though he was of course a tremendous shithead in his own right - and yet by the decades before the fall hugely talented guys like Stilicho are under suspicion due to being half-barbarian...in the west...whereas in the east Theodosius was clamoring to marry the dude into the royal family. You've got guys like Alaric who are leaders of their (very sizable) peoples that are deliberately snubbed because they're Germanic...and going back even further, the fleecing of the Goths as they fled the Huns which made them stay together as a nation in the face of Roman hostility instead of becoming one of many widely-distributed ethnic groups in the empire as the generations progressed. The Romans were really very rarely bigoted even though they were patronizing and dismissive toward other cultures, but they just happened to choose the guys who could totally gently caress them up to be racist assholes toward. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
The Germans just took over empty lands that had been confiscated by the state for rebellion or nonpayment of taxes or whatever, or intermarried with the existing land owning elites. There was very little root and branch destruction of the local property systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Germans just took over empty lands that had been confiscated by the state for rebellion or nonpayment of taxes or whatever, or intermarried with the existing land owning elites. There was very little root and branch destruction of the local property systems. In some cases, as I understand it, they were given or assigned lands by the government. The infamous battle of Adrianople came about because the several Gothic tribes were being settled elsewhere in the empire, but ran out of food and were forced to sell their children for food by local imperial officials. Eventually, this prompted a rising, and the tribes and some local allies managed to crush the emperor because he attacked without waiting for reinforcements
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:lmao people in rome were bitching about decadence after the punic wars it's pretty much just more KIDS THESE DAYS tier bitching This Scipio Africanus punk doesn't even have a beard, he'll never amount to anything!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
The weird thing is that Augustus wobbled between what was almost downright asceticism and godlike opulence. Dude exiled his own daughter to an island because she was too much of a socialite, also called himself Imperator Caesar Divi Filius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:This Scipio Africanus punk doesn't even have a beard, he'll never amount to anything! I know right? get a haircut you hippy
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:The reason Rome fell was because its entire economy was based on taking slaves and wealth from new conquests. The limits of technology (transportation, food preservation, communication, logistics, bureaucracy etc) in Roman times meant that Rome simply could not expand any further past roughly what they had under Trajan/Hadrian. They maybe could have expanded a little more on their eastern border but the roughly equally powerful Persian empires had already called dibs. Barbarians or not Rome's economic model had simply reached a point where it could no longer sustain itself because it had run out of places it could loot. 1884 called they want their thesis back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Rome had ceased conquest hundreds of years before it fell, and the economy of the empire fundamentally shifted toward proto-manorialism after the Crisis of the Third Century. The economy of the empire that fell had little relation to the slavery-and-loot-fueled expansionism of the early empire. Ye the Roman Senate was really its own worst enemy and pretty reliably picked the worst possible course of action when it came to dealing with the Germanic peoples, whose aristocratic classes were invariably pro-Roman culture and continuity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:1884 called they want their thesis back. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Ye the Roman Senate was really its own worst enemy and pretty reliably picked the worst possible course of action when it came to dealing with the Germanic peoples, whose aristocratic classes were invariably pro-Roman culture and continuity. To summarize: "Hey romans, you look like your having some trouble. How about you let us settle on your borders provences and well lock things down" "ROMA INVICTA AVE IMPERIUM  ""for fucks sake *burns down half of empire*"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:1884 called they want their thesis back. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:37
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I mean any time someone refers to a singular reason for the fall of Rome and they're not literally talking about the sacking by (your homeboy and mine) Alaric or the sacking by Brennus, then you'd better break out the salt lick because you're about to hear some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
^^^don't forget my boy GeisericFuligin posted:Ye the Roman Senate was really its own worst enemy and pretty reliably picked the worst possible course of action when it came to dealing with the Germanic peoples, whose aristocratic classes were invariably pro-Roman culture and continuity. The senate or even the senatorial class really had very little to do with the decisions to settle Germanics inside the empire, and some of them seem to have made a pretty laudable effort to coexist with the Germans once the empire was no more, in France and pre-Justinian Italy as well. The biggest mistake that emperors repeatedly made with barbarian groups was letting them stay in the empire as coherent armed groups under leaders not strongly bound by Roman law or bureaucracy. It's understandable why they did this (a ready made army for the emperor's own purposes, not loyal to another Roman who might be tempted to use their power to usurp the throne? Sounds great) and why they didn't take a more aggressive tone with the barbarians as historically had been the Roman practice (because of the lack of stability, few emperors could risk a serious military campaign which wouldn't solve an extremely pressing problem like killing a usurper), but ultimately it was the failure of emperors to take the long view of where giving away land to basically independent warlords would lead them that created the worst problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
The reason for the fall of rome was that rome was founded. If it hadn't been it never would have fallen. QED
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
While y'all are tearing up a stupid newbie avatar's theory on why Rome fell; my theory is that Rome's fall was inevitable once it lost it's overwhelming military advantage, which smoothed over it's devastating internal struggles. When the legions were dominate, all the political problems didn't influence the history books. When various forces started to compete with the legions, that actually mattered and Rome's territory and power started eroding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
I finished up SPQR, really drat good book - incredibly readable/accessible considering what a wide range of time/subjects it covers. Best of all is her bibliography at the end where she actually goes into detail for each book of what's good about it, what it covers, what she took from it, and even where to find it. I know I'm probably preaching to the converted but if you haven't read it I really recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
skasion posted:^^^don't forget my boy Geiseric Yeah this wasn't a case of the elites being elitist, though high imperial officials shared in the prejudices of the time too, and there were a lot of them. It was a matter of Roman society systematically viewing Germanics as lesser - the elites weren't the only ones who sold the Goths supplies at gently caress-you-die prices, or persecuted Arians (which amounted to persecuting Germanics, plus a bunch of traditional Romans too - hey, is it any surprise Alaric's band of Goths was swelled by the disaffected of Rome everywhere he went?) . A large enough number of Romans simply refused to accept Germanic people as potential fellow citizens that they had to stick together and fight anyone who looked at them funny. There were Romans who went the other way, too - young rebellious lads who wore trousers and mustaches...and if there's anything I know about rear end in a top hat teenagers, it's that they choose their fashion based on what will piss off their parents. I mean yes, in the immediately pre-fall years the sheer volume of the Germanic peoples coming in as whole nations was utterly overwhelming, but that stuff comes about in a context where these groups sticking together has been normalized, and where the empire has been weakened by constant conflict with internal warlord bands. The old "decadence" idea isn't right, but there is something in Roman society that rots and twists in the last hundred years, a rise in prejudice, hatred, and xenophobia that resulted in Germanic non-integration and other societal ills. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:While y'all are tearing up a stupid newbie avatar's theory on why Rome fell; my theory is that Rome's fall was inevitable once it lost it's overwhelming military advantage, which smoothed over it's devastating internal struggles. When the legions were dominate, all the political problems didn't influence the history books. When various forces started to compete with the legions, that actually mattered and Rome's territory and power started eroding. The Empire lasted for over 1400 years after Augustus, that's some pretty decent longevity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Wasn't the main reason for letting the Germans stay armed that the Romans were using them as military contractors? That always seems like a bad recipe, bringing in large groups of armed foreigners with debatable loyalties to do your fighting for you. Didn't work out well for the caliphs either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Wasn't the main reason for letting the Germans stay armed that the Romans were using them as military contractors? That always seems like a bad recipe, bringing in large groups of armed foreigners with debatable loyalties to do your fighting for you. Didn't work out well for the caliphs either. Basically. By that point getting actual Romans to fight was difficult at best. They had to make being in the military hereditary and even that didn't come close to filling the manpower shortages, so the Germans were a huge part of the empire's fighting strength. Turned out having a whole bunch of people in your empire, armed, and then treating them like poo poo was not a great plan. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Wasn't the main reason for letting the Germans stay armed that the Romans were using them as military contractors? That always seems like a bad recipe, bringing in large groups of armed foreigners with debatable loyalties to do your fighting for you. Didn't work out well for the caliphs either. The Germans were happy to keep the existing power structures running in almost all cases. You have things like the Franks keeping the emperor on their coinage into the 6th century, the Visigoths founding a Latin-named city (with Germanic overtones), the Vandals respecting the African religious authorities (while still practicing Arianism) and Theodoric keeping Italy going with the help of the Senate of Rome. Only in marginal areas, like the Agri Decumates or Britannia, was there any lapse in legal authority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
I'm saying they were pretty good mercenaries all things considered. People were "plundered" by Germans on a scale that was either comparable or less than the way they'd been plundered by the imperial state in the kleptocratic form it had taken since the 3rd century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Turned out having a whole bunch of people in your empire, armed, and then treating them like poo poo was not a great plan. Maybe if the gladiators at the arena respected the legion more the empire wouldn't have crumbled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
I think the slave economy theory is pretty much correct. It doesn't mean they should have collapsed the moment they lost Dacia, just that that's the moment the process of decline began and the reason for the Roman state's existence began to be undermined. Outwardly-directed conquest became civil war and economic consolidation rather than expansion, culminating in the Crisis of the Third Century and proto-manorialism. Meanwhile, the Germanic tribes continued to grow without hindrances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I think the slave economy theory is pretty much correct. It doesn't mean they should have collapsed the moment they lost Dacia, just that that's the moment the process of decline began and the reason for the Roman state's existence began to be undermined. Outwardly-directed conquest became civil war and economic consolidation rather than expansion, culminating in the Crisis of the Third Century and proto-manorialism. Meanwhile, the Germanic tribes continued to grow without hindrances. The problem with this view is that it assumes a zero sum system where the not-Romans ascend in proportion to Roman descent. It's a lot, lot more complex than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The problem with this view is that it assumes a zero sum system where the not-Romans ascend in proportion to Roman descent. It's a lot, lot more complex than that. I don't think it's zero-sum. It's just a description of two processes relative to one another. Germanic tribes didn't ascend because of Roman decline, but Roman decline did help speed things along greatly in freeing up agricultural land that they could move on to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I don't think it's zero-sum. It's just a description of two processes relative to one another. Germanic tribes didn't ascend because of Roman decline, but Roman decline did help speed things along greatly in freeing up agricultural land that they could move on to. If you're talking those border territories it's not as clean cut as Romans leaving and Germanic tribes moving in. There was a lot of cultural exchange across that border and it went both ways. The Latins took on a lot of Germanic customs and traits and the tribes latinized to an extent that made them pretty distinct from their neighbors deeper into Central Europe. I really like the way that Geary presents it in Before France and Germany. He's writing about Merovingian Europe, but he spends a good chunk on late antiquity to set the context that everything was emerging from and the connections that the successor kingdoms had to both Imperial and Germanic traditions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Germans were happy to keep the existing power structures running in almost all cases. You have things like the Franks keeping the emperor on their coinage into the 6th century, the Visigoths founding a Latin-named city (with Germanic overtones), the Vandals respecting the African religious authorities (while still practicing Arianism) and Theodoric keeping Italy going with the help of the Senate of Rome. Only in marginal areas, like the Agri Decumates or Britannia, was there any lapse in legal authority. This. After the Gothic Crisis there are many occasions of 'barbarian' armies marching around inside the border of the empire, but they aren't proto-nationalists trying to carve out a homeland for themselves, they're often fighting to secure political positions within the existing Roman state, a practice they learned from proper Romans. When the western empire finally does come apart, you see these guys continue using Latin in civil and legal dealings, using Roman symbols, and even nominally pledging loyalty to some Emperor, all in an attempt to demonstrate their legitimacy. But they do retain elements of their Germanic customs, most notably in their use of Germanic words for military matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If you're talking those border territories it's not as clean cut as Romans leaving and Germanic tribes moving in. Yeah, absolutely. What I mean by Germanic ascendance is more the proximate role they had in the final transformation of the Roman state from a nominally centralized military apparatus to various autonomous holdings with a more informal relationship to the Empire as a whole. If they weren't there taking up that role, it's likely that Rome would have remained a plausibly united state, even if it were still subject to the decentralizing effects of the manorial economy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Yeah, absolutely. What I mean by Germanic ascendance is more the proximate role they had in the final transformation of the Roman state from a nominally centralized military apparatus to various autonomous holdings with a more informal relationship to the Empire as a whole. If they weren't there taking up that role, it's likely that Rome would have remained a plausibly united state, even if it were still subject to the decentralizing effects of the manorial economy. Well now you're just going to get into the weeds of how centralized was Rome, ever? Germanic armies directly controlled by the Emperor as their military commander is power itself, centralized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Alaric the first was clearly the best Roman emperor. Charlemagne the second best and Ivan Asen the second the third best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
I'm partial to Suleiman the Magnificent as the best Roman emperor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Well now you're just going to get into the weeds of how centralized was Rome, ever? Germanic armies directly controlled by the Emperor as their military commander is power itself, centralized. I think we can draw the line between mercenaries subject to corporal discipline and autonomous tribes free to administer themselves by their own laws.  Tao Jones posted:I'm partial to Suleiman the Magnificent as the best Roman emperor. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:When first was Aristotle translated into Latin? Boethius translated many of Aristotle's works on logic and rhetoric into Latin in the 500s. However, all but two of those books were shortly lost. In the late 12th century, Aristotle's works were rediscovered in the Arab world and subsequently translated back into Latin, so there was around a 600 year gap. Further, when Aristotle was translated, some in the Church had the attitude that Aristotle was a pagan and not worthwhile. (You can look at the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas as an attempt to prove that Aristotle and Christianity are compatible, for instance.) In antiquity Aristotle would have been quite accessible - the Roman elite of the final generation of the Republic mention or quote him, and there were teachers in the Roman world called Peripatetics who taught his philosophy. Plato would have been similarly accessible but the interpretation of his philosophy which was taught by the end of the Roman Republic was very mystical, which appealed more to Greeks and Egyptians over the literate Roman elite. I don't think Aristotle was translated into Latin later than Plato - the only Platonic dialogue that was accessible in Latin until the 12th century were parts of the dialogue Timaeus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Ask me about Roman/Greek/other ancient history: When did Rome fall? We'll let you know when it's over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Alaric the first was clearly the best Roman emperor. Charlemagne the second best and Ivan Asen the second the third best. Pft. Charlemagne couldn't even take Denmark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
What do you mean, Rome fell? It still exists. Here's a map of it today:
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I'm partial to Suleiman the Magnificent as the best Roman emperor. Nicholas II was definitely the worst, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
Ormi posted:I think we can draw the line between mercenaries subject to corporal discipline and autonomous tribes free to administer themselves by their own laws. lol wait till hegel hears about this
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:45
|
|
