Pathetic Historical Characters

**Justinian II** · 07-25-2008, 02:40

Long story short, the economy tanking later on wasn't Constantinus' fault. It mostly occurred after the great Rhine irruptions of the first decade of the fifth century (when Vandali, Burgundii, and the lot were able to sweep through Gallia and Hispania and generally disrupt tax collection and agriculture...and cut off relatively prosperous Britannia from imperial control as well), and was vastly exacerbated by the fall of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis to the Vandali in the 430s and 440s. North Africa was the richest area of the Roman Empire in virtually every period of its existence (save perhaps Egypt in the earlier phases), and losing it was a body blow. And collapse came very quickly once the 468 Carthago expedition failed, making it clear that those revenues would never be recovered...

For that matter, even when the western economy tanked, the Eastern economy was going strong until Heraklios...and that wasn't his fault, really; having most of your empire conquered does that to you. But even so, the Byzantine Economy WAS the most stable in the Middle Ages/Late antiquity, until around the time of Nikephoros III, IIRC. (Admittedly, that's a little later than my field of study. I'm fond of the Isaurians, if by fond, you mean cursing up a storm at them as I research them

)

**Constantius III** · 07-25-2008, 02:56

Originally Posted by Justinian II

For that matter, even when the western economy tanked, the Eastern economy was going strong until Heraklios...and that wasn't his fault, really; having most of your empire conquered does that to you. But even so, the Byzantine Economy WAS the most stable in the Middle Ages/Late antiquity, until around the time of Nikephoros III, IIRC.

Oh, absolutely. The Eastern economy had to be fantastic in order to give out all that tribute to first the Huns of Attila and then the various barbarians that Iustinianus kept bribed (and that Iustinus II decided to stop payments to...a brave notion, and plays well to the people, but sadly foolish). As to the state of the later Eastern Roman economy, I remember reading that Theophilos and Mikhael II had an awful lot of cash; apparently they were able to open up a significant number of new gold mines in 9th century Armenia. But the situation was of course terrible after the Anatolian themes were run over two hundred years later, so that Alexios I had to try to play around with making new stable currency to try to get the budget balanced again (it didn't work). Now you got me interested in this again...need to go look this stuff up!

Originally Posted by Justinian II

(Admittedly, that's a little later than my field of study. I'm fond of the Isaurians, if by fond, you mean cursing up a storm at them as I research them

)

Which Isaurians, the fifth century ones or Leon III's dynasty? Either one works...

**Majd il-Romani** · 07-25-2008, 04:42

oh and dont forget Hadrian. You may think I'm wrong but hear me out. Trajan greatly extended the borders of the empire, and Hadrian could have followed in his footsteps and totally conquered Britain and possibly even Persia, but he didn't, and those 2 borders ended up being the most problematic in the Empire. He couldve at least stayed where Trajan left the borders but he RETREATED! 200 MILES!

**Constantius III** · 07-25-2008, 04:51

Originally Posted by Majd il-Romani

oh and dont forget Hadrian. You may think I'm wrong but hear me out. Trajan greatly extended the borders of the empire, and Hadrian could have followed in his footsteps and totally conquered Britain and possibly even Persia, but he didn't, and those 2 borders ended up being the most problematic in the Empire. He couldve at least stayed where Trajan left the borders but he RETREATED! 200 MILES!

Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)

As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue.

It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.

**Majd il-Romani** · 07-25-2008, 05:00

Originally Posted by Constantius III

Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)

As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue.

It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.

OK I understand persia but with Britain he could have counquered and subjugated it so resistance would not be large and organized but small and scattered, giving the empire safetey in the long run because to attack Britain you'd have to cross the sea

**Ludens** · 07-25-2008, 15:10

To my knowledge the English (whose powerbase was far closer to Caledonia than the Romans') only succeeded in subjugating the highlands after they constructed several military highways into the mountains. This gave their armies the opportunity to quickly mobilize and suppress any local discontent. The Romans didn't have this option: they could have marched in Caledonia all they liked, but the locals would simply scatter and reassemble when the Romans had left. Lack of agriculture in combination with lack of roads made stationing garrisons not viable: no foraging and difficult resupplying. And due to poor communications they would have need many of these garrisons.

In any case, the Picts were only part of the problems that the Roman garrison on Britain faced. Raiding Irish were also a major problem. The sea certainly didn't seem to impair them.