What caused the Fall of Rome [Archive]

Red Peasant

12-25-2003, 20:29

If you have some reading time find this article, it encapsulates the two broad scholarly 'camps' on the demise of the Western Roman Empire:

'Movers and Shakers: the barbarians and the fall of Rome', EME 8/1 (1999) pp.131-45. [It is a concise and perceptive review of recent work}.

Some believe it fell from outside attack
Some believe it imploded due to internal dynamics
Some believe it was a combination of both

Also, the influential Belgian scholar, Henri Prienne, showed that there was a high level of continuity in the social and economic life of the Western Provinces, little affected by the so-called 'Fall' of the early 5th century. The killer blow, he contended, was the advent of Islam which destroyed the age-old trade connections with North Africa and the East which propelled the northern world into an economic crisis, from which it took centuries to recover. However, it therefore eventually created the powerful northern economies that would eventually emerge from the so-called Dark Ages. Prienne has powerful archaeological evidence to support his thesis, yet, he has his critics as well as his advocates.

Cebei

12-25-2003, 21:38

Romans DID have problems with screaming barbarians. As of principle, it is wrong to call any group of people "barbarian", so that the Germanic people of the Northern Europe (Goths) should be called as "people" rather than "barbarian". (OK I couldnt help http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ).

Briefly (like the fall of all empires) the fall of Roman Empire came from a combination of internal strife and invasions.

The internal strifes are

1-Unequal economic growth of Roman provinces, creating an unfavorable an unequal trade regime. The western provinces of the Roman Empire were growing too quickly, which caused local provinces to become self-sufficient and thus abandon trade. This decreased the money in the hands of traders and land owning aristocracy.

2-Mass migration (note that these waves are not invading waves yet) caused a disruption in commerce and industry.

3-The Roman emperors became more autocratic by 2nd century. By the death of Marcus Aurelius (the "fella" in the Gladiator) the line of capable emperors ended; later emperors had to use dictatorship to keep hold of things his son Commodus (killed by Russel Crowe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) started the age of anarchy.

4-By the decline of ruling capability, military decline was inevitable. Troops established their own rules in remote provinces and for a 100 years or so, they marched and counter marched throughout the empire.

As to complete this beautiful picture, Germanic migrations took place. At first, Goths got positions within the army as soldiers then as commanders. By the end of Roman empire, you see Goth-Roman commander fighting Goth invaders.

Rome was overwhelmed in 410 and was sacked by my favorite madman Alaric the Visigoth and then by Vandals in 455.

Red Peasant, I am not sure whether Islam has much to do with fall of Rome. Islam was a 7th century phenomenon, while Roman decline was more or less throughout 5th century. I agree that Islam was a pain in the a55 for Rome, but that Rome was the Christian Rome (the Latin Kingdom), not the Roman Rome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Voigtkampf

12-25-2003, 22:03

One could write a book about this subject, one of Webster's dictionary size, without much trouble.

In only few words, the concept of a warring, expansionist society based on constantly acquiring more land and more slaves was doomed to fail as soon the empire reached a certain size where any further expansions were almost impossible to perform. Also, on the other, but not less important side, the conquering tactical techniques of Roman legions have been copied by the "barbarians" and successfully deployed against them (as was Hitler's Blitzkrieg tactic adopted by the British and Americans and used eventually for the invasion of Normandy).

gaelic cowboy

12-26-2003, 03:27

Simple what goes up must come down it is that simple. All empire's fall of that there is no question the only question is when.

el_slapper

12-26-2003, 11:25

Commentaire[/b] (gaelic cowboy @ Dec. 26 2003,02:27)]Simple what goes up must come down it is that simple. All empire's fall of that there is no question the only question is when.
so true. And there comes the question that kills : are the USofA an empire?

Cebei

12-26-2003, 11:31

Its now enjoying the zenith of its power. An incapable "ruler" may bring the end of the US in no time however. I feared when Bush was elected. An empire survives as long as its ruler is humanist and peaceful.

Ludens

12-26-2003, 13:32

Boys, lets get back to the topic before this historical question changes into a discussion about the politics of the USA. That kind of stuff belongs to the tavern, and I will be delighted to discuss it with you there, but not here.

Quote[/b] ]Simple what goes up must come down it is that simple. All empire's fall of that there is no question the only question is when.

No argument there, but that was not the question I asked. I didn't ask whether it would fall, I asked for the cause.

So it is a combination of bad leadership, lots of asylum seekers at Rome's doorstep and a bad ecomic growth.

Quote[/b] ]the conquering tactical techniques of Roman legions have been copied by the "barbarians" and successfully deployed against them

Rome used their superior heavy infantry to take out their enemies. However, I never heard of "barbarians" (for lack of better word) to have heavy infantry that matched Rome's. The legionaires seemed to be a bread apart in heavy infantry, as they used swords and not spears. (Heavy infantry is slow, and formation-dependant. That is the way one uses spears. Swords were used against spears (= heavy infantry)).
None of the later Medieval Armies had heavy infantry that resembled the Legion or could match it battlefield effectiviness (of course, by the dark ages, they had probably become outdated).

Voigtkampf, that name sounds strangly familiar. Was he a famous general?

Voigtkampf

12-26-2003, 16:53

Indeed, some empires will fall apart because of lack of the proper leader, but these are also empires made by the very single man we are talking about; Alexander the Great and Temujin, aka Genghis Kahn are the best examples for it…

Roman Empire is nowhere near it, and cannot be compared to such nor can the reasons for its ultimate demise be found in the incompetence of a single man.

The Roman Empire simply grew to a point where it was too big and too inflexible, like a rock thrown upwards, it reached its zenith and ultimately fell down. It has lost its momentum, élan, call it what you like, because the policy of land expansion could not be upheld ad inifnituum. Those who have gained land wanted peace; those who had none wanted war so they could obtain land, as well as slaves, which were the prime workforce all around. And for the soldiers in the Roman army there was always two merits in game; full Roman citizenship and land after retirement, and to maintain the large empire, Rome needed soldiers, and in order to afford to have soldiers, they had to obtain lands, and once they've obtained those lands, they needed even more soldiers et cetera… It should be obvious that such a system can work for only a limited period of time; the true miracle is how Rome managed to survive for twelve centuries on such a concept

Though I claim not to be an expert, I would suspect that the reason of the success of Roman legions was founded in their strategies rather than their equipment, which was adopted from other surrounding civilizations, from Carthaginian forces, for example. "Barbarian" people, in a sense of non-roman and non-greek societies, not in a sense of primitive, were mostly engaged in a warfare that had nothing to do with the precise warfare the Romans implemented, and after being conquered, barbarians became the part of Roman legions, learning their strategies and tactics first hand. Few centuries later, they run the show.

Voigtkampf is no generals name, I know that there is a band with this name, but my nick doesn't refer to them…

Cebei

12-26-2003, 18:05

Quote[/b] ]Rome used their superior heavy infantry to take out their enemies. However, I never heard of "barbarians" (for lack of better word) to have heavy infantry that matched Rome's. The legionaires seemed to be a bread apart in heavy infantry, as they used swords and not spears. (Heavy infantry is slow, and formation-dependant. That is the way one uses spears. Swords were used against spears (= heavy infantry)).
None of the later Medieval Armies had heavy infantry that resembled the Legion or could match it battlefield effectiviness (of course, by the dark ages, they had probably become outdated).

Goths adopted Roman tactics, not their equipment.

The success of the Goths lie within their ability to draw Roman armies into unfavorable battle grounds; marshes, forests etc.. Roman tactics were formidable, but they required ample space to be properly executed, thus as they were invincible in the open ground, they were very ineffective in closed terrain. When Goths actually could face Roman army in open battle, they applied the deployment tactics; not tight Roman formations which depended on heavy infantry.

Roman tactics established the foundations of proper army tactics, but at the same time they are the tactics which rendered European military inferior to Asian-Middle Eastern forces. European battle tactics (until napoleonic wars) revolved around full frontal assault of massed formations (in Romans it was big rectangles of legionaires, in medieval times it was frontal charge of knights, after gunpowder it was the duel of lines of guns and musketeers). These tactics were actually unnecessary continuity of the doctrine of chivalry; courage, bravery and physical strength, thus in European battles you see heavily armed and heavily armored units charging on each other and the victory of the strongest.

Whereas Asian tactics were based on surprise, "dirty tricks" and improper waves of massive warriors. In Asian battles the clever party wins; not stronger party. Hence look at all the martial arts like Wing Chun, which emphasize on the strength of mind rather than strength of your muscles. Thats why Romans couldnt do much against Huns, or Europeans couldnt counter Ottomans until 17th century.

I think Byzantian armies were the true heirs of the legions. After all, they were Roman armies and I believe that they reached the effectiveness of Roman armies.

Pindar

12-26-2003, 18:14

Quote[/b] ]As of principle, it is wrong to call any group of people "barbarian", so that the Germanic people of the Northern Europe (Goths) should be called as "people" rather than "barbarian".

This is utter rubbish. Cultural relativism is its own refutation.

Cebei

12-26-2003, 18:21

Quote[/b] ]This is utter rubbish. Cultural relativism is its own refutation.

I think you misunderstood the sentence, I am AGAINST calling anyone barbarian. What is culturally relative about calling a group as people?

DemonArchangel

12-26-2003, 18:21

Rome just died of old age

Red Peasant

12-26-2003, 20:16

Sorry, the author of the article I mentioned is G. Halsall.

Hi Cebei. Prienne contended, as do many others, that the so-called fall of 'Rome' in the early to late 5thC is really a historical chimera. The economic life of the provinces (except in Britain) continued much as before. The western 'barbarian' elites merely replaced or merged with the existing Roman elites and they wanted to preserve the cultural, social and economic systems they found already in place, but adapted to suit themselves. In his model there is an earlier political transformation to reflect this, but the real economic blow was delivered later as a byproduct of the growth of Islamic power which caused the catastrophic economic collapse of the 7th century of the old western provinces.

Personally, I don't think the barbarians destroyed the Empire, they merely stepped into a power vacuum which they naturally hoped to exploit. Centuries of acculturation as well as economic interaction meant they understood the value of Roman power. The economic blow came later with the closing of age-old trade systems.

I tend to view the 'fall' as driven more by internal dynamics, with a telling factor being that the western emperors seemed to have lost their economic control of the imperial fisc that had existed since the time of Augustus, without which their political patronage was useless. As a result, economic and political power devolved onto the great magnates and local elites of the Roman world. A stark contrast with the east. Decentralision meant less money, meant no military power, meant extinction for a large centrally funded army, and hence for the office of emperor.

Cebei

12-26-2003, 22:10

Hey RedPeasant.

Quote[/b] ]In his model there is an earlier political transformation to reflect this, but the real economic blow was delivered later as a byproduct of the growth of Islamic power which caused the catastrophic economic collapse of the 7th century of the old western provinces.

So as I understand from this phrase, you say that Roman Rome and Christian Rome was the same thing. I think that they are different; Roman Rome was a different phenomenon than the Rome after Vizigoths' and Vandals' sack (455). I just cant relate a 7th century phenomenon to the internal decline of Roman Empire which brought inferiority against Goths. I assume you dont believe that Roman Empire fell after Gothic invasions.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-27-2003, 01:44

Quote[/b] ]Some believe it was a combination of both
True.

Quote[/b] ]In only few words, the concept of a warring, expansionist society based on constantly acquiring more land and more slaves was doomed to fail as soon the empire reached a certain size where any further expansions were almost impossible to perform.
Very true.

Quote[/b] ]The Roman Empire simply grew to a point where it was too big and too inflexible, like a rock thrown upwards, it reached its zenith and ultimately fell down. It has lost its momentum, élan, call it what you like, because the policy of land expansion could not be upheld ad inifnituum. Those who have gained land wanted peace; those who had none wanted war so they could obtain land, as well as slaves, which were the prime workforce all around. And for the soldiers in the Roman army there was always two merits in game; full Roman citizenship and land after retirement, and to maintain the large empire, Rome needed soldiers, and in order to afford to have soldiers, they had to obtain lands, and once they've obtained those lands, they needed even more soldiers et cetera… It should be obvious that such a system can work for only a limited period of time; the true miracle is how Rome managed to survive for twelve centuries on such a concept
Yes How did they do it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]Whereas Asian tactics were based on surprise, "dirty tricks" and improper waves of massive warriors. In Asian battles the clever party wins; not stronger party. Hence look at all the martial arts like Wing Chun, which emphasize on the strength of mind rather than strength of your muscles. Thats why Romans couldnt do much against Huns, or Europeans couldnt counter Ottomans until 17th century.
But Goths also lost, most of the time, against Huns.
And they weren't Asian to use Asian tactics. Their elite units were the Goth Cavalary (a shock unit).

Quote[/b] ]So as I understand from this phrase, you say that Roman Rome and Christian Rome was the same thing. I think that they are different; Roman Rome was a different phenomenon than the Rome after Vizigoths' and Vandals' sack (455). I just cant relate a 7th century phenomenon to the internal decline of Roman Empire which brought inferiority against Goths. I assume you dont believe that Roman Empire fell after Gothic invasions.
You're right. The fall of the Roman Empire per se is in the 5th century AD. The Roman Society outlived the Empire. But they are different...

Voigtkampf

12-27-2003, 08:46

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Dec. 26 2003,11:05)]Hence look at all the martial arts like Wing Chun, which emphasize on the strength of mind rather than strength of your muscles.
Oh, dear never thought that someone would mention Wing Chun in TW forums… World is full of surprises, indeed…

Pindar

12-27-2003, 09:08

Quote[/b] ]I think you misunderstood the sentence, I am AGAINST calling anyone barbarian. What is culturally relative about calling a group as people?

Barbarian is a cultural judgement. The objection:

Quote[/b] ]Quote
As of principle, it is wrong to call any group of people "barbarian",

appears to be an argument for cultural equivalence. Cultural equivalence is a relativism. This view is self-evidently incorrect given that some cultures are superior as are some civilizations.

Pindar

12-27-2003, 09:47

My two cents.

I bascially agree with the Prienne position. The crises of the Seventh Century: First the Persian War followed by the explosion of Islam onto the World stage cut the traditional trade routes and severly taxed the resources of the Eastern Empire. This removed the possiblity of the Eastern Empire from ever being able to reasert control over the West. Consequenlty, the Germanization of the West continued and the Eastern Empire fell back into its older Greek roots.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-27-2003, 19:32

Quote[/b] ]I bascially agree with the Prienne position. The crises of the Seventh Century: First the Persian War followed by the explosion of Islam onto the World stage cut the traditional trade routes and severly taxed the resources of the Eastern Empire. This removed the possiblity of the Eastern Empire from ever being able to reasert control over the West. Consequenlty, the Germanization of the West continued and the Eastern Empire fell back into its older Greek roots.
We're talking about what caused the FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE, not the subsequent lack of strength of the Eastern Empire to reconquer it.

Red Peasant

12-27-2003, 21:30

Sorry, what Prienne and others maintained was that the western economies and their social and cultural milieu continued virtually unaffected by the fall of the redundant western emperor until the advent of Islam. Indeed, as you say, however, the political situation had changed quite substantially by the 5th century.

As for the Goths, they had become highly Romanised, and they had established a strong and stable kingdom in Italy which revitalised the peninsular, but this was destroyed by Justinian's misconceived attempt at a reconquest. The Byzantines ruined Italy whatever one thinks of the apparent glamour of Narses' victories. Enter the more 'barbaric' Lombards and a long period of deserved suffering for the papacy.

What I was saying was that there were two economic phenomena at work. The first saw the economic marginalisation of the western emperor by the 5th century which led to the abolition of an office that had lost control of the imperial fisc. This led to a power vacuum filled by new powers, the so-called 'barbarians'. The second happened in the seventh century as the economic life of the western provinces collapsed with the spread of Islam which cut off the old trade networks. Naturally, this is a highly simplistic and broad outline of the processes at work.

By the 5th century, 'Roman Rome' was 'Christian Rome'. The last time Rome itself had been a centre of power was under the pagan emperor Maxentius who was famously defeated by Constantine at the Milvian Bridge in 312 (IIRC). The last great pagan families of Rome (such as the Symmachi) had their last hurrah in the late 4th century.

Cebei

12-27-2003, 22:57

Quote[/b] ]But Goths also lost, most of the time, against Huns.
And they weren't Asian to use Asian tactics. Their elite units were the Goth Cavalary (a shock unit).

Huns' (and apparently most of the Asiatic militaries&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif advantage against Goths was the tactics reliant on horse archers. Horse (horse riding in general) archery was an Asian skill. Roman legions have terribly suffered in the hands of Parthian or Hun horse archers. Goths fought improperly, but Huns' fighting was far more chaotic than Gothic fighting. That is why Goths lost against Huns.

Quote[/b] ]Cultural equivalence is a relativism. This view is self-evidently incorrect given that some cultures are superior as are some civilizations.

Anyway, I believe every civilization would perform the same if they were exposed to same historical circumstances. This debate can go on forever, as people have their own opinions. "Rubbish" just didnt sound very right there.

Quote[/b] ]By the 5th century, 'Roman Rome' was 'Christian Rome'. The last time Rome itself had been a centre of power was under the pagan emperor Maxentius who was famously defeated by Constantine at the Milvian Bridge in 312 (IIRC). The last great pagan families of Rome (such as the Symmachi) had their last hurrah in the late 4th century.

OK, that was what I wanted to hear. To me the Christian Rome is a totally different entity (culturally, ideologically..) than the Roman Rome (a whole different empire if you ask me); but I got your point.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-28-2003, 01:21

Relating to Red Peasent:

Quote[/b] ]The Byzantines ruined Italy whatever one thinks of the apparent glamour of Narses' victories.
You're right, they did. But Narses? And what about Belisarius? He was the main responsible for Justinian's "Reborn" Empire.

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, what Prienne and others maintained was that the western economies and their social and cultural milieu continued virtually unaffected by the fall of the redundant western emperor until the advent of Islam. Indeed, as you say, however, the political situation had changed quite substantially by the 5th century.
Preciselly. I wasn't saying we couldn't discuss later implications.
I was just stating the title of the thread was "What Caused the Fall of the Roman Empire?". And that happened in 476AD with the Goth's conquest.
Not the fall of the Roman Society, Ideas or Social Organization...

Relating to Cebei:

Quote[/b] ]Huns' (and apparently most of the Asiatic militaries' advantage against Goths was the tactics reliant on horse archers. Horse (horse riding in general) archery was an Asian skill. Roman legions have terribly suffered in the hands of Parthian or Hun horse archers. Goths fought improperly, but Huns' fighting was far more chaotic than Gothic fighting. That is why Goths lost against Huns.
I think we misunderstood each other.

You said:

Quote[/b] ]The success of the Goths lie within their ability to draw Roman armies into unfavorable battle grounds; marshes, forests etc.. Roman tactics were formidable, but they required ample space to be properly executed, thus as they were invincible in the open ground, they were very ineffective in closed terrain. When Goths actually could face Roman army in open battle, they applied the deployment tactics; not tight Roman formations which depended on heavy infantry.

Roman tactics established the foundations of proper army tactics, but at the same time they are the tactics which rendered European military inferior to Asian-Middle Eastern forces. European battle tactics (until napoleonic wars) revolved around full frontal assault of massed formations (in Romans it was big rectangles of legionaires, in medieval times it was frontal charge of knights, after gunpowder it was the duel of lines of guns and musketeers). These tactics were actually unnecessary continuity of the doctrine of chivalry; courage, bravery and physical strength, thus in European battles you see heavily armed and heavily armored units charging on each other and the victory of the strongest.

Whereas Asian tactics were based on surprise, "dirty tricks" and improper waves of massive warriors. In Asian battles the clever party wins; not stronger party. Hence look at all the martial arts like Wing Chun, which emphasize on the strength of mind rather than strength of your muscles. Thats why Romans couldnt do much against Huns, or Europeans couldnt counter Ottomans until 17th century.
What I was commenting was that Goths didn't use the Asian tactics that you used to compare them to. Their most effective unit, was also the unit where the most important members of their society fought: the Goth Cavalary - a shock unit. What I meant was that the principle of Roman and Goth tactics were basically the same: shock engagement. Meaning they were both within the Western System of Warfare. This system most of the times is not usable without space to deploy it. And generally, unlike the Asian System, it's visibly organised, not caotically organised. Although I agree that in discipline and formation, the Goths were nothing like the Romans.

Just out of curiosity, you realise that the Goth system is the precursor of the Knightood system, were the social and military elite is the Heavy Shock Cavalary? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]To me the Christian Rome is a totally different entity (culturally, ideologically..) than the Roman Rome (a whole different empire if you ask me)
I would say more of a transicional society than a defined Empire.

Cebei

12-28-2003, 02:45

would say more of a transicional society than a defined Empire.
Quote[/b] ]What I was commenting was that Goths didn't use the Asian tactics that you used to compare them to. Their most effective unit, was also the unit where the most important members of their society fought: the Goth Cavalary - a shock unit. What I meant was that the principle of Roman and Goth tactics were basically the same: shock engagement. Meaning they were both within the Western System of Warfare. This system most of the times is not usable without space to deploy it. And generally, unlike the Asian System, it's visibly organised, not caotically organised. Although I agree that in discipline and formation, the Goths were nothing like the Romans.

I agree. Though my confusion arises from the fact that we are not talking about a specific time. Germanics resorted to "guerilla" warfare until they contained Roman expansion and took on a more open fighting after they learned Roman tactics and could challenge them on the open.

Quote[/b] ]Just out of curiosity, you realise that the Goth system is the precursor of the Knightood system, were the social and military elite is the Heavy Shock Cavalary?

True, but the heavy shock cavalry system (ironically) came from Asia. The advanced saddle used by charging cavalry is a Chinese invention and made a long trip from China to Europe. Chinese, Khazars, Avars, Huns all used the system by seeing from each other. As you can guess, the social structure "revolved around the saddle". Germans' usage of the shock cavalry was the first in Europe, but it too, is an adoption.

Quote[/b] ] would say more of a transicional society than a defined Empire.

Yes I just wanted the say the Roma before and Rome after are different, perhaps no Rome at all after.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-28-2003, 03:30

Quote[/b] ]Though my confusion arises from the fact that we are not talking about a specific time. Germanics resorted to "guerilla" warfare until they contained Roman expansion and took on a more open fighting after they learned Roman tactics and could challenge them on the open.
Ah http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Now I understand what you meant

Quote[/b] ]True, but the heavy shock cavalry system (ironically) came from Asia. The advanced saddle used by charging cavalry is a Chinese invention and made a long trip from China to Europe. Chinese, Khazars, Avars, Huns all used the system by seeing from each other. As you can guess, the social structure "revolved around the saddle". Germans' usage of the shock cavalry was the first in Europe, but it too, is an adoption.
Yes, I knew that... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]Yes I just wanted the say the Roma before and Rome after are different, perhaps no Rome at all after.
I agree http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Ironside

12-28-2003, 10:40

Citera[/b] ]Just out of curiosity, you realise that the Goth system is the precursor of the Knightood system, were the social and military elite is the Heavy Shock Cavalary?

I'm not so sure about that...
Did you know that the romans had "knights" during the time of Augustus? "Knights" means that they had a noble elite that fought on horseback. They were called equites.

Voigtkampf

12-28-2003, 19:10

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ Dec. 28 2003,03:40)]
Quote[/b] ]Just out of curiosity, you realise that the Goth system is the precursor of the Knightood system, were the social and military elite is the Heavy Shock Cavalary?

I'm not so sure about that...
Did you know that the romans had "knights" during the time of Augustus? "Knights" means that they had a noble elite that fought on horseback. They were called equites.
Noble elite fighting on horseback = knights? By any measure of the definition theory, this statement would encompass far too many examples and the actual meaning of the word "knight" would lose its very purpose.

Goth system, a precursor of the knighthood system? Were they following any chivalry code as the "true" knights did? Or is it merely enough to point out someone on the horse being noble and classify him as a knight?

Red Peasant

12-28-2003, 20:33

Hi Aymar. I believe Belisarius was recalled from Italy by Justinian before he could really campaign. It was to the 'Eunuch General' Narses that the credit for a series of brilliant victories over Goths and Franks should be credited in the Italian peninsular.

Hi Cebei. I think you are trying to elicit some single overwhelming reason for the 'fall' of the Roman Empire in the West, and you are looking purely at this from a military point of view. That is fair enough, however, I contended that there was a fundamental economic change, with serious political and military ramifications, in the the period c.370-476: specifically, the loss of control of the imperial fisc by the Roman Emperors. Beyond this, one has to ask: why have an emperor? was the emperor the Roman world? especially if he had lost control well before 476, even before 410, or 406; or was it the life and people of the provinces that made the 'empire'? Their lives continued much as before until the 7th century. The word 'Fall' has a lot to answer for because it has a primary connotation of something that happened suddenly e.g. the barbarians crossed the Danube/Rhine one night and the empire suddenly 'fell', etc. As an explanation it doesn't cut the mustard with me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif As for 'Roman Rome' and its classic legions, they died out in the struggles of the 3rd century under the auspices of pagan emperors, a long time before 476, and some time before Christianity established an undisputed hegemony over the religious life of the empire.

Hi Ironside. The eques were never 'knights' in the classic sense, or even as the Gothic heavy cavalry were known, riding with couched lances. I would surmise that the Goths learned this art in their days in the east, beyond the Danube. There are fascinating painted depictions of 'knights' from the ancient Greek cities on the north coast of the Black Sea that date from the early empire and earlier. They show the aristocrats of the cities fighting Scythians and Sarmatians, and they look eerily and remarkably similar to the Norman knights on the Bayeux Tapestry: similar helms, mail armour and fighting style as they attack with lance couched underarm.

Ironside

12-28-2003, 22:10

It's was just that I've read an article of a classmate and she kept referencing the equites as knights. Appearently we have translated the word equites to knights because it was the closest simularity. The equites was becoming more and more of the leading aristocraty and was feared by the old elite.

The equites was mounted nobles, with power over the army, navy and they collected taxes and worked as the local administrator. In that sence they were knights. That they lacked the chivalric code and didn't use lances is noticed and thats why I marked them "knights". They are not true knights but they got alot of similarities with the knights.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-28-2003, 23:56

Quote[/b] ](Ironside)
I'm not so sure about that...
Did you know that the romans had "knights" during the time of Augustus? "Knights" means that they had a noble elite that fought on horseback. They were called equites.

Quote[/b] ](voigtkampf)
Noble elite fighting on horseback = knights? By any measure of the definition theory, this statement would encompass far too many examples and the actual meaning of the word "knight" would lose its very purpose.

Goth system, a precursor of the knighthood system? Were they following any chivalry code as the "true" knights did? Or is it merely enough to point out someone on the horse being noble and classify him as a knight?

Quote[/b] ](Red Peasant)
The eques were never 'knights' in the classic sense, or even as the Gothic heavy cavalry were known, riding with couched lances. I would surmise that the Goths learned this art in their days in the east, beyond the Danube. There are fascinating painted depictions of 'knights' from the ancient Greek cities on the north coast of the Black Sea that date from the early empire and earlier. They show the aristocrats of the cities fighting Scythians and Sarmatians, and they look eerily and remarkably similar to the Norman knights on the Bayeux Tapestry: similar helms, mail armour and fighting style as they attack with lance couched underarm.

OK, guys
I explained myself poorly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

I'll elaborate. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif

The Visigoths, after Adrianople, spend some time in Thracia. After that, they engaged themselves in several pillage expeditions in the Peloponese, Balkans and Italy (sack of Rome in 410AD).

After the death of Alaric and of his sucessor Athaulf, Wallia (Athaulf's brother) created the Visigothic Kingdom of Toulouse in 419AD. The high point of this kingdom is reached with Euric (466-484), under which the Visigoths extended their domain over the Eastern Iberian Peninsula.

However, in 507AD, the Visigoths ruled by Alaric II, are defeated before Clovis's Franks, at the battle of Vouillé. The Frankish domain is extended from the north of present day Holland, down to the Pirenees.

With this event, the Iberian Kingdom of the Visigoths is the direct sucessor of the Visigothic Kingdom of Toulouse. It's capital is Toledo. The Kingdom of the Sueves (Northwest of Iberian Peninsula) is conquered in 575AD by Léovigild. In 586, Recared I becomes catholic. Great increase of the influence of the Catholic Church. Receswinthe compiles the Lex Visigothorum in 654AD, civil code shared by the Ibero-Roman and Visigothic citizens.

711 - Death of the Visigothic King Rodrigo, against the Arabs, in the battle of Jerez de la Frontera.
712 - Fall of Toledo.

In the north of the peninsula, small independent states remain under Visighothic control. This society is the embryo of the movement later known in Portuguese as A Reconquista and Castillian as La Reconquista. The society is formed of the Visigothic Nobility (landlords), the Clergemen (Ibero-Romans) and the people (Ibero-Romans). It will later form, through permanent strife with the Arab ruled Ibero-Roman Muslims (Mosarabs), the Kingdoms of Léon, Navarre, Aragón and Castille.

What I meant to say was that, IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA, the Visigoths formed the backbone of later Feudal lords, of which Knightood originated. In other places, the diferent Germanic tribes (Franks, Burgondes, Lombards, etc...) formed the backbone of Feudal nobility.

Just that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Voigtkampf

12-29-2003, 00:16

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ Dec. 28 2003,15:10)]It's was just that I've read an article of a classmate and she kept referencing the equites as knights. Appearently we have translated the word equites to knights because it was the closest simularity. The equites was becoming more and more of the leading aristocraty and was feared by the old elite.

The equites was mounted nobles, with power over the army, navy and they collected taxes and worked as the local administrator. In that sence they were knights. That they lacked the chivalric code and didn't use lances is noticed and thats why I marked them "knights". They are not true knights but they got alot of similarities with the knights.
I have understood well, Ironside… The "…" marks were obvious…

The point was that some people, in general, "jump the gun", seeing many connections where there are none or where only superficial similarities exist, they discover laws of nature, not based on a theory but on few random facts from hastened observation…

Actually, I myself hate seeing someone splitting hairs, but sometimes the blunders are far too great and I stare in wonder as some rediscover fire and reinvent warm water…

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-29-2003, 01:30

Quote[/b] ]The point was that some people, in general, "jump the gun", seeing many connections where there are none or where only superficial similarities exist, they discover laws of nature, not based on a theory but on few random facts from hastened observation…

Actually, I myself hate seeing someone splitting hairs, but sometimes the blunders are far too great and I stare in wonder as some rediscover fire and reinvent warm water…
Was that comment meant for me? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Ashen

12-29-2003, 19:00

i dont know but its soo damned funny lol. think thats going in my sig actually

Voigtkampf

12-29-2003, 19:45

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 28 2003,18:30)]
Quote[/b] ]The point was that some people, in general, "jump the gun", seeing many connections where there are none or where only superficial similarities exist, they discover laws of nature, not based on a theory but on few random facts from hastened observation…

Actually, I myself hate seeing someone splitting hairs, but sometimes the blunders are far too great and I stare in wonder as some rediscover fire and reinvent warm water…
Was that comment meant for me? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I would never dare, Lord Aymar… But I suppose you know that, since you've put that smiley next to your question, right?

Actually, when I see that you made a post, I know that there will be something inspiring, smart and full of smiling icons…Or a plain bold ROTFL You deliver good stuff, would say 9 out of 10, so I could probably go alongside like Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty", having a shield pointing at you (he had one pointing on a homeless person who always had some cool comments on a piece of paper, and Jim wrote on his "WHATEVER HE SAYS") and I wouldn't be much wrong…

Voigtkampf

12-29-2003, 19:47

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ Dec. 29 2003,12:00)]i dont know but its soo damned funny lol. think thats going in my sig actually
Respected Lord Ashen,

I am flattered… :blush response:

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-29-2003, 19:59

Quote[/b] ]I would never dare, Lord Aymar… But I suppose you know that, since you've put that smiley next to your question, right?

Actually, when I see that you made a post, I know that there will be something inspiring, smart and full of smiling icons…Or a plain bold ROTFL You deliver good stuff, would say 9 out of 10
So, I guess that my former explanation wasn't that unaceptable, was it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

In fact I believe it to be quite logical, not a "jump on the gun" conclusion. Although I'm not saying you did call it that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

And as you said previously:

"...that's the beauty of free speach..." http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Voigtkampf

12-29-2003, 20:25

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 29 2003,12:59)]
Quote[/b] ]I would never dare, Lord Aymar… But I suppose you know that, since you've put that smiley next to your question, right?

Actually, when I see that you made a post, I know that there will be something inspiring, smart and full of smiling icons…Or a plain bold ROTFL You deliver good stuff, would say 9 out of 10
So, I guess that my former explanation wasn't that unaceptable, was it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

In fact I believe it to be quite logical, not a "jump on the gun" conclusion. Although I'm not saying you did call it that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I don't even know why you think I said that in reference to this thread?

I just said that you do not always hit… 9 out of 10 is a VERY good ratio, IMHO…

Keep annoying me and I may see myself forced to edit that post

(that above? That is a LOL*** )

Quote[/b] ]And as you said previously:

"...that's the beauty of free speach..." http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I find the freedom of speech to be highly overrated feature in our society. Personally, happy hour does it for me quite well, thank you very much.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 12:54

voigtkampf:
Maybe you should ask yourself Descartes's question, just in case... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
After that, you could perform, on yourself, one of your own tests, because your answers are starting to be positively "synthetic".
And maybe follow it by a Rorschak one, to deviate any possibility of paranoia... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Voigtkampf

12-30-2003, 14:24

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 30 2003,05:54)]voigtkampf:
Maybe you should ask yourself Descartes's question, just in case... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
After that, you could perform, on yourself, one of your own tests, because your answers are starting to be positively "synthetic".
And maybe follow it by a Rorschak one, to deviate any possibility of paranoia... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
My dear, I have no idea what you are talking about… Or, in other words, it is highly inappropriate to put such heavy questions straight after the lunch, it gets on my digestion, truly.

Oh, furthermore, respected fellow knight Lord Aymar, what others perceive to be an ill advancement of a weary mind and call it paranoia, I see as perfect state of awareness; in plain vocabulary, seeing everybody as a potential enemy is a sign of good, healthy and precise thinking…

Ithaskar Fëarindel

12-30-2003, 14:42

Will you two just marry, please.

-Or just kiss and put your quarrels aside-

Voigtkampf

12-30-2003, 14:50

Oh, the respected waking guardian Lord Ithaskar Fëarindel

: bows :

We go well with that "old, quarreling couple" far better than newly-in-love or hate-you-beyond-belief approach, thank you very much…

: bows :

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 16:02

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Keep annoying me and I may see myself forced to edit that post
And maybe follow it by a Rorschak one, to deviate any possibility of paranoia... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I wasn't trying to annoy you... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
That's why I answered that way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]in plain vocabulary, seeing everybody as a potential enemy is a sign of good, healthy and precise thinking…

What a warmonger we have here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 16:08

Quote[/b] ]Will you two just marry, please.

-Or just kiss and put your quarrels aside-
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Respected Moderator Ithaskar Fëarindel:
Do not trouble your mind with worry, my Lord http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Our "quarrels" are just healthy sharing of knowledge and ideas, with some discussions about speculative assumptions... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Voigtkampf

12-30-2003, 19:27

Quote[/b] ]I wasn't trying to annoy you...
That's why I answered that way.

:sighs: You are so lovely politically correct, Lord Aymar

Quote[/b] ]What a warmonger we have here

No, I'm as cool as my future mother-in-law when I come to visit, which is somewhere around absolute zero…

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 19:57

Quote[/b] ]You are so lovely politically correct, Lord Aymar
Too much, maybe? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Quote[/b] ]No, I'm as cool as my future mother-in-law when I come to visit, which is somewhere around absolute zero…
Poor fella... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Get a http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif on me and courage, m8 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

redrooster

01-12-2004, 17:56

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ Dec. 29 2003,05:10)]It's was just that I've read an article of a classmate and she kept referencing the equites as knights. Appearently we have translated the word equites to knights because it was the closest simularity. The equites was becoming more and more of the leading aristocraty and was feared by the old elite.

The equites was mounted nobles, with power over the army, navy and they collected taxes and worked as the local administrator. In that sence they were knights. That they lacked the chivalric code and didn't use lances is noticed and thats why I marked them "knights". They are not true knights but they got alot of similarities with the knights.
Some of the older authors such as Gibbons and Rostovtzeff refered to the equestrian class as knights. This reference was attributed to them not because they were elite mounted troops, but rather because they were the social elite, just a step down from the senatorial class.
Their importance as a class grew significantly as the republic made a transition into the empire and as power and administration starts to concentrate around the body of the Emperor. These "knight" because of their education and because of their privaliged position due to birth or wealth were gradually drafted into the imperial bureaucracy or into the municipal governments. Towards the reign of the Flavians and Antonines, these "knights" were sometimes even coerced into positions of public administration for no renumeration whatsoever but simply because they as a privaliged class owed it to the empire and thus are dutybound to perform services for the state.

redrooster

01-12-2004, 18:32

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Dec. 28 2003,04:30)]Sorry, what Prienne and others maintained was that the western economies and their social and cultural milieu continued virtually unaffected by the fall of the redundant western emperor until the advent of Islam. Indeed, as you say, however, the political situation had changed quite substantially by the 5th century.

As for the Goths, they had become highly Romanised, and they had established a strong and stable kingdom in Italy which revitalised the peninsular, but this was destroyed by Justinian's misconceived attempt at a reconquest. The Byzantines ruined Italy whatever one thinks of the apparent glamour of Narses' victories. Enter the more 'barbaric' Lombards and a long period of deserved suffering for the papacy.

What I was saying was that there were two economic phenomena at work. The first saw the economic marginalisation of the western emperor by the 5th century which led to the abolition of an office that had lost control of the imperial fisc. This led to a power vacuum filled by new powers, the so-called 'barbarians'. The second happened in the seventh century as the economic life of the western provinces collapsed with the spread of Islam which cut off the old trade networks. Naturally, this is a highly simplistic and broad outline of the processes at work.

By the 5th century, 'Roman Rome' was 'Christian Rome'. The last time Rome itself had been a centre of power was under the pagan emperor Maxentius who was famously defeated by Constantine at the Milvian Bridge in 312 (IIRC). The last great pagan families of Rome (such as the Symmachi) had their last hurrah in the late 4th century.
The trade refered to by Prienne, was it the external trade with Arabia and India or was it the inter-provincial trade between the western provinces and the north african provinces?

If Prienne meant the external trade then it would be rather strange because the external trade(mainly the import of luxuries) of the empire was known to be a huge drain on the Empire's bullion which was proposed by some to have contributed in the currency crisis of the third century. And those who had profited from this trade was either the merchants and middle man in Alexandria or arabia if the goods was to take a sea route or it profited the cities along the land route thru the levant and asia minor.

If he meant the internal trade of the Empire then again there are reasons to look for more elaboration of Prienne because what has happened in the west was that, with the imperial "urbanisation" policies of Ausgustus all the way up to Hadrian had actually promoted the gradual economic emancipation of the western provinces. Furthermore with the collapse of the western empire there were what i believed a ruralization of the provinces, the need for trade would have actually decreased( at least along the old roman lines)

So, how the spread of Islam would have devasted the western economy is a little beyond so could you perhaps explain a little more on Prienne's stand?

Lechev

01-12-2004, 18:42

Hey Redrooster how things going bro? have heard from you for quite a while... welcome back http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

FoundationII

01-12-2004, 19:02

The fall of the Roman empire was not an event, it was a proces the proces started in about 200 AD, then the empire went downwards. There were some smart emperors who could delay the fall (the most important are Diocletianus, Constantinus, Trajanus and Hadrianus), but they couldn't stop the proces. There was an event that many call the actual defeat, the Huns showed up in Europe, driving the fleeing Ostrogoths in Visigothic lands. The Visigoths fled from the Ostrogoths and the Huns and both the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths fled into Roman territory (other german tribes fled in the Roman territory too but these were most important)
The Eastern Roman Empire payed tribute to Attila (the leader of the Huns) but the Western Roman Empire didn't (after this I will only talk about the Western Roman empire because the Eastern Roman empire didn't do any important place in this part of history about this concept).
The Huns looted all over Europe for several years and then an Gothic Roman alliance was signed and the Huns were defeated at the Catalonian fields.
The Romans however didn't have sufficient strength and/or morale to react on the attack of the Visigoths shortly after, so the Visigoths and the other German tribes conquered the Roman empire.