When was Rome doomed?

[Marcus Ulpius]

3) WHO DAMNLY CARES about barbarization?? Until the fought for the empire, barbarians were a resource, it's ludicrous to adhere mindlessly to ancient authors and their outdated moralism... see Stilico, or the half Hun Aetius

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process. The "state" is much more than just the assembly of different official titles, bureaucracy and army. Quite obviously different states live by completely different laws, what is acceptable in one state is unimaginable in another. Decision-making processes that are traditional in one state are unacceptable for another. According to your theory that culture (and here I mean religion, traditions, common language and ideology) is not important, how could you explain those differences?

When Roman and romanized population of the Empire began to dwindle (and there's no doubt that depopulation process was under way in late antiquity in those parts of the world), it was gradually replaced by the influx of not romanized barbarians. The empire could not romanize them unlike early empire which successfully romanized most of it's conquered population. Interesting question that I can't answer is why that happened, why Gauls, Iberian tribes and many others were gradually romanized and in time become true "citizens" of the empire, while 4-th, 5-th century invaders were not. In any case, the result was that vast areas of the empire were populated mostly by non-Romans, again not merely by ethnicity, but by language, traditions and religion and it's very hard to sustain a Roman Empire without Romans. The issue is very complex, but I hope the bottom line is clear.

What you write about the Byzantians is only partially true. Yes, they still called themselves Romans, but for the most part of its history Byzantian Empire had very little in common with the Roman Empire of the ancient era. In one of the books about the Byzantian Empire I've even read that it ceased to be "Roman" after Arab sieges of Constantinople. I don't know Byzantian history well enough to comment on this with some authority, but the author says that after Arab wars the empire had undergone deep changes that made anything Roman Byzantians still had no more than just a "heritage".

P.S. There are several great posts by cmacq, but after reading them I still couldn't find out what was the cause for the depopulation, which also in my opinion was one of the main reasons for the decline of the WRE.

[Starforge]

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process.

I agree with your statement here but would interject that if you filter your views through a modern intolerance with certain religions or cultures then you can draw conclusions quite easily.

Cmaq - well reasoned, informative posts as always.

[Gazius]

I will admit straight out I'm not enormously knowledgable about Roman History, and due to classes lately it's been a while since I've been able to enjoy my history. However maybe those who've actually studied the subject could reject this academically, but what about the inheritance of Pergamum? I've gotten the impression that even when they controlled part of Asia Minor, it was more of a vassal state than anything else. Only once it became a full Roman territory did it seem to lead into further expansion into Asia, and with this increasing load on governing larger distances, this to me seems like it left a lot of room for new wealth to be acquired and to raise a new class of politician that was capable of exploiting the republican system as it stood. But then maybe I'm way off my mark here, it's approaching the third day of nearly no sleep as I try to finish up assignments that taking much longer than they should do a shitty connection that keeps falling offline.

[KozaK13]

Perhaps Rome became doomed (in the barbarian department anyway) when they stopped splitting up "barbarian" settlers like the Goths under Alaric, Burgundians under Gundobad ( i think) and Franks under Clovis (i probably i have the name wrong, i can't remember who origionally lead the Franks into the empire). Also anti barbarianism (eg. Stilicho's case) probably played it's part in alienating "barbarians" within the Empire (like the goths who joined Alaric) and putting them off Romanisation, why become like those that hate you?
Plus ofcourse by the time of the fall many many "barbarians" had nice shiny roman equipment from victories on the battle field and serving in the army( as auxilia and later foderati) since the empire's inception.
Hope this is clear enough to get my point across, that Rome created formidable enemies.

I realise there was a multitude of other problems and reasons

[Uticensis]

cmacq: The environmental theory for depopulation is an interesting one. I’ve only heard of a few historians who advocate it, so if you have any good articles to refer me to, I would love to read more about it. However, I generally have found it unconvincing. For one, I’m wary about projecting modern problems, such as the effects of climate change, on the ancient world. Additionally, I’m deterred by Occam’s razor: it seems like its an unnecessary factor. There were enough problems that could effect Rome’s population and economy (major plagues, especially in Italy and Gaul in the third century; barbarian invasion, which hit the northern provinces around the Rhine pretty hard; over taxation, leading to abandonment of the land), and not enough concrete evidence, especially in the primary sources, of things that would one would expect from climate change (severe droughts happened, but no more frequently than I think can be expected).


Marcus Ulpius: I think you overstate the problem of barbarization. Its one of those old ideas of Rome’s decline that goes make to Edward Gibbon and his “triumph and religion and barbarism.”

You say you can’t understand why the barbarians of the 4th-5th century did not want to become Romanized like the Iberians and Gauls of earlier time, but they actually did. There is a famous quote about Athaulf, the founder of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul and Spain: “I longed for [The Roman Empire] to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law, a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigor, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration.”

The barbarians still looked at Rome as the ideal. The difference was, how one participated in being Roman had changed, not the desire of outsiders to become Roman. Before the barbarian invasions hit really hard, the Germanic tribes on the other side of the Rhine tried to emulate Roman ways, and archeology as shown a lot of Roman style in their material culture. But by the fifth century, becoming Roman was no longer about submitting to the Roman state like it had been in the times of Caesar and Trajan: the central state was too weak for that to be an attractive option. Instead the barbarians, as far as they wanted to be Roman, wanted to be the defenders of Roman culture. Just look at how Alaric, as he was supposedly trying to take down Rome, kept trying to accumulate Roman military ranks, even on the eve of his sack of Rome. Or how Theodoric governed the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy: maintaining Roman culture to an incredible degree, but with the Goths as a separate, semi-Romanized military class. Indeed, the barbarians did want to become Romanized, and many barbarian states adopted Roman language, law, customs, ect. Think about it: almost no Gothic survives to this day (and much of what does comes from the mid-fourth century, before the Goths entered Roman territory), and French, the language of the Frankish conquerors of Gaul, is a Romance language, not a Germanic one. Even Arianism, which became the “Germanic Christianity” for a while, gave way to Roman Catholic Christianity when the barbarians wanted to align themselves with the Roman way of life.

Edit On the issue of whether Byzantium was Roman or not (thus, whether Rome fell in 476 or 1453), I would say it fell somewhere in between. I generally consider the Arab invasions and the Byzantine Dark Age the events that separate an Eastern Roman Empire from a Byzantine Empire proper. However, as with most judgments in history, the line is subjective. In fact, one can say Rome fell in 1806 when the last Holy Roman Emperor abdicated. I wouldn't agree, but it's all about what you happen to think makes a state "Roman."

[Aper]

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process. The "state" is much more than just the assembly of different official titles, bureaucracy and army. Quite obviously different states live by completely different laws, what is acceptable in one state is unimaginable in another. Decision-making processes that are traditional in one state are unacceptable for another. According to your theory that culture (and here I mean religion, traditions, common language and ideology) is not important, how could you explain those differences?

Uticensis explained well what I mean for "barbarization" : germanic meatshields for the army. Despite what ancient (or modern until late XX century) reactionary authors thought, culture/administration of the empire was NEVER "barbarized": actually, all the barbarian kings who ruled west tried to present themselves as "heirs" of the western roman empire, I'm thinking in particular at Theodoricus, the ostroghotian king of Italy: roman population under his rule almost couldn't sense the difference with the previous regime.

Barbarians more often than not wanted desperetely to be part of the roman world, not to destroy it: simply, the WRE was not ready/strong enough to control this huge mass of people: but even after the end of WRE as a political entity, its cultural strenght was unchanged, proved by the fact that barbarians continued to romanize themselves, leading to that huge fake called Holy Roman Empire; the descendants of the germanic conqueror of europe looked for all middle-ages at roman empire as a "paradise lost", as the ultimate political and sometimes cultural goal to achieve.

So the entire meaning of my post was that roman culture was most important for the survival of the state, but roman culture doesn't mean that of republic/principate only!!! The attitude of isolate supposed golden age from supposed dark age is a degeneration of the academic/scientific attitude, and reflect prejudices of the author more than actual facts.

Anyway I'm very interested in critics if you want to tell me what else you don't agree with, you are welcome

EDIT: congrats to Uticensis for that clear and informative post, you explained very well what I have in mind but I can't write because of my poor english

[Atraphoenix]

Rome was doomed when Constantine wiped out Roman Paganism (that was rome's original identity) and abolished "Forward policy" with defensive reserve fighting sytem; I am sure you know better than me the Field Reserve Army, and frontier troops, the comitatentes and limitanei things.
also this sytem created strong general cos in german limes and in the limes of Balkan peninsula a general can get more than 4 legions, and historically that resulted in Strong General usurpers who fought with emperor for crown that triggled endless destability....

Technically the roman empire may have died with the Ottomans, as they claimed to be the new roman empire..as did the russian empire aswell.

Ottoman Sultans even claimed themselves as the successor of Roman Empire, although it is another debate, I can say that SPQR was pagan Rome, Byzantines were Christian Rome and who knows maybe Ottomans were Muslim Rome.

I read all of the histories of that 3 Roman or claimed to be ones, They have common standing armies, their geoghrophical epansion nearly same, they all fought endless battles with persians,
and interestingly their standing armies became corrupted and triggered their doom...

P.S. also Pagan romans deified their Emperors, Byzatines accepted many emperors as saint, and also many ottoman sultans were accepted as Avliyah (same discorce as saint in islam) ...

just a speculation you know I do not want to divert the topic.

[Ludens]

I believe the initial stress was stagnation followed by a slight decrease in economic productivity, primarily agricultural, over an extremely long period.

Thanks for the information, cmacq. That is very interesting indeed. Would the initial economic decrease be a consequence of climate change or are there other causes?

[Atraphoenix]

rome became a symbol of power so it is normal for the later states to claim a successor of them.

and I think sembolically Rome is still alive....

[KozaK13]

The romans believed that aslong as the empire was believed in, then there was a roman empire.

Did Moussolini claim to be rebuilding the roman empire at any point? cus i get the suspicion he may have.

Also don't forget Napolean...toga, leafy crown thing, empire, triumphal arches, emperor...

Infact rome may have contined in the guise of:
the "Barbarian" kingdoms, ottoman empire, Holy roman empire(lesser extent obviously), Muscovy, Russian Empire, Napolean's empire, Moussolini's Italy and even the third riech...all aspired to be like the roman empire, perhaps aslong as that ideal lives there will be roman empires.

Romans were not even a distinct ethnic grop, anyone could have been a roman citizen, from the army or being a freed slave.

Perhap rome has yet to fall....aslong as there is the potential to recreate it then it is still there.

Sorry for being abit off topic and maybe completely wrong aswell.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well it can be argued that the Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Roman Church. This is one institution which has continuity from before the fall of the Empire up to the present day. The administration of the Church is in many ways similar to that of the Empire, especially geographically.

Leaving that aside, however, something which has not been discussed a great deal here yet is the Roman psychology. I had a very specific point when I said that Rome was doomed from the time of Marius. From Marius onwards it ceased to be "For the Glory of Rome" and became "For the Glory of the General". Once you understand that the Emperor was merely the greates General the precarious nature of his position become obvious. The rebellion against Nero answered the question, "What do you do when you have another, better, General?" then when Vespasian's troops declared him Imperator on the Rhine the system was in a dive.

The insistance of Augustus that he was not King, merely high priest, Supreme Commander and People's Champion, meant that the "Emperor", as we understand him today, never existed constitutionally. This led to an instability, particually when more competant and charismatic generals were around.

Various fixes to the system were tried. Nero and Domitian killed all their relatives and rivals; Marcus Auralius tried to great a dynasty, which would have restricted legitimate claims; Diocletian tried old fashioned Roman Virture; Constantine a fusion of three new religions; and Justinian old Roman piety.

They all failed and none of the answers they tried survived them. The closest was Constantine, but the Church became too powerful and eventually excomunicated the Emperor in the East.

[Subotan]

R
Ottoman Sultans even claimed themselves as the successor of Roman Empire, although it is another debate, I can say that SPQR was pagan Rome, Byzantines were Christian Rome and who knows maybe Ottomans were Muslim Rome.
.

This.

[Marcus Ulpius]

Actually, I think the right answer to the title question would be: during the reign of Honorius or shortly afterward. The question "why" is much more difficult.

Even in this thread there was a wide variety of theories starting from climate change to ethnogenesis (i.e. natural deterioration of old civilization that achieved everything it could, the deterioration that was not stopped or slowed down by good leadership at certain critical points of later Roman history).

But there's also a tendency to an unnecessary complication of the question "when" Roman Empire had really fallen. There's only one certain date that we know - 476 AD the year of abduction of the last Roman Emperor. Byzantine Empire could be called a successor to the Roman Empire but only up to the certain point in its history (Byzantian-Arab wars in my opinion), after that there was very little in common between the two. As for others claiming to be Roman heirs, those were just claims made to justify their political ambitions. There was very little in common between the Roman Empire and the HRE, even less between Romans and Russians (btw, I suspect that claim was made to mark Russia as a successor state to declining Byzantine Empire and not to the Roman Empire proper) and Ottomans had nothing in common at all with the Romas or even Byzantians.

[KozaK13]

Byzantine Empire could be called a successor to the Roman Empire but only up to the certain point in its history (Byzantian-Arab wars in my opinion), after that there was very little in common between the two.

What stops the Eastern Roman Empire being roman?

Perhaps the title qestion should be taken as when was the Western Roman Empire doomed.

[antisocialmunky]

When they divided the empire into East and West as the West was dirt poor compared to the East.

[Macilrille]

Well thing is, just as those scholars who are real experts, we cannot arrive at a conclusion as to what/when the Roman Empire really fell or was doomed. In fact probably the most accurate one was the Voltaire quote.

However, we see in the preceeding discussions much of the difficulty of making conclusions in history, many of the contributing factors, and lo and behold, we see that there was probably no single fact. IE no single time. Even if we ask questions of things that are happening now, we cannot necessarily say for certain, how could we then be able to do so for past events?

Anyway, there are good points here, I just do not think we will ever know why, when might be ascertainable. I would reiterate my claim that it was New Year's Eve 406, it was- after all- those same invaders who later took North Africa, but NVM, for who is to say that Belisarius' reconquests in the 6th Century could not have lasted had things gone different?

Byzantium... they called themselves Roman, they thought of themselves as Romans, how then dare we sit here today, knowing next to nothing of what was compared to those who lived in it, and say they were not Romans? That is on par with saying I am not a Dane cause I do not till my own farm, worship The Old Norse Pantheon and sail around looting in the rest of Europe. The time span between them and me is the same. I do inhabit the same geographical location, w and I am their descendant,hich the Byzantines did not and might have been, but I hope you get the point of the comparison anyway. Being that things evolve. I doubt Cincinnatus or Lucius Junius Brutus would have recognised many people of Constantine's Rome as Romans (nor the city itself). And as someone else said, Russia and the Holy Frankish-German Empire called themselves Roman far into modern times. These two latter I would judge both so culturally, demographis and geographically removed from the mediterennean world that was Rome's that they can hardly have been counted as such. They wanted to be though, for various reasons, but...
That means the question also becomes, what constitutes Roman?

It is an interesting point though that though it has for long been in fashion to claim that Islam was the upholder of learning and Greek-Roman science and knowledge through "the dark of the Middle Ages", fact is that most of what we got we got directly from its source in the Byzantine Empire which was still around with the knowledge at hand. I am no Islamophobe (though I do subscribe to Jyllandsposten when I can afford it), but credit where credit is due, political correctness where it is due- ie where the sun does not shine...


India, point taken, it has been united before, but never under one dynasty. But as for China, I reitareate my point. For the following reason, no matter who has headed the Cinese State as such, the state apparatus/administration never changed much. The vast size and complexity of this, combined with the need to keep it running smoothly in order to actually keep such a large population from squalor and starvation has made it well-nigh impossible to change, no matter who held the throne. This is indeed, I think, basic Chinese history, but I freely admit I know not much more beyond that and the Landes- Frank debate of 9-10 years ago. Should I be misinformed I would not mind enlightenment (though probably by pm or another thread as China has little to do in EB). My speciality is Danish Viking - High Middle Ages, Roman, Danish Iron Age, Middle Ages in General, French Decolonisation, WWII and Military History in general. Those are my specialities, and I shall gladly e-mail whoever told me quite rudely to read some basic history, a copy of my Master's Dissertation on Power Politics in 12th Century Denmark. It contains enough new scholarship that some twat just got a Ph.D Stipend largely by copying it :-( It is in Danish however, so I expect that most will gain little from it, but if you want, you can have it.


Anyway, I ramble, my point is that historical processes of such magnitude as this are complicated matters and probably irresolvable. But as someone else said, it puts bread on some peoples' tables and enlightenment is good. I want to thank for the Climactic change abstract, I knew it in basics, your abstract has shed some more light on it and I must admit that though it was probably a contributing factor, I am not convinced at all that it was the reason.