In particular, Marcus Aurelius followed the example of the previous 4 emperors, and adopted a worthy successor prior to his death, instead of choosing his son for no discernible reason other than familial ties.
How would Rome have fared with a long-term tradition of emperors choosing effective successors? There’s a reason the “5 Good Emperors” were called that- they were adotped by their predecessors due to potential, not due to heredity.
His wife’s cousin was a Christian. With whom he had been on good terms with evidently.
The gladitorial games did not end “immediately.” Wikipedia suggests that economic factors also counted–along with Christian disapproval. Infanticide’s end came more quickly–but, again, it was not immediate.
Many advocates of “Western Civilization” somehow find the long survival of Byzantium to be offensive. And one of the foulest blows against that ancient city was done in the name of Western Christendom, during theFourth Crusade:
For thoughts on the end of the Western Empire, I need to locate my copy of R A Lafferty’s Fall of Rome.
That scenario assumes that Christianity is what weakened the Western Empire to the point the barbarians could conquer it. Do historians agree?
No.
But the up unto fairly recently historians were, of course, christians themselves.
It’s therefore not surprising that there would be no emphasis on how Theodosius the Great spent his time praying in church for devine intervention. The army was kept inside their barracks in Ravenna while the Goths destroyed italy.
Most military histories I’ve read (and to be honest, seen on the Discovery Channel) ascribe the eventual downfall of the Roman Empire to the period when they started using more and more barbarian troops in the army instead of Roman troops.
My personal opinion is that the lack of limits on the excesses of emperors had a lot to do with it. No checks and balances, so a lot of really fucking stupid decisions got made, and could not be unmade. Plus there’s the whole “low hanging fruit” thing: if you look at the map of the fullest extent of Rome’s empire, it’s impressive that there are significant geographical barriers and/or not a hell of a lot in the way of slaves/riches to obtain in places like Scotland, northern Germany, the Sahara, etc. The only place that might have been a good conquest was India … and Alexander had certainly demonstrated that India was conquerable. No idea why the Roman’s didnt take India, other than projecting significant force over that distance might have been difficult … except, Alexander sure managed it.
I’m one of those who believe that Romes reliance on slaves resulted in a lack of interest in scientific progress and led to stagnation economically.
But the main reason IMO for Romes fall is that because it was civilised only a certain proportion of the population were warriors, and these were trained in adulthood rather then from birth.
In the barbarian peoples who overran the empire, all males were trained from birth to be fighters with the side jobs of herdsman etc.
They didn’t have the comforts of civilised life but could field proportionately huge numbers of soldiers.
Alexander managed to defeat Persia and pacify Persia, something the Romans never managed to do and infact from circa 250 A.D they were on the defensive. Not possible to conquer India when you are trying to hold the Euphrates.
Mmmm true, but of course Alexander never went seriously West. Different zones. I suppose that s the point here, but worth noting.
Huh, what makes you advance the idea the tribes ‘"trained’" - this is pure anachronistic bollocks. The only thing one could advance re barbarian tribes is, being subject to constant inter tribal warfare, there was more individual skills.
That was meaningless so long as Rome was able to financially support highly professional legions. Proportion of the population was warriors is bollocks, rahter it is the ongoing financial costs of defending the frontier and the loss of initiative when expansion stopped.
Most of the Emperors rose to power not by heredity but though designation, adoption, acclamation by the troops controlled, declaration of the senate or even the straight application of cash to deserving causes. Had there been a clear-cut hereditary succession whatever faults the Emperor might have would be more than compensated by the absence of rivalry for the throne by anyone feeling entitled and ensuing civil conflict.
If there was one thing Romans enjoyed more than killing non-Romans, it was killing fellow Romans.
I don’t understand what would cause anyone to think this. Rome originated all sort of technical expedients and adopted even more. Keystone arches, aqueducts, the “crow” boarding tool they used to defeat the Carthaginian navies, roadbuilding, and a constant adjustment of military equipment – if you look at Roman armies over the centuries, the armor and weapons change, and the proportions of cavalry to infantry are frequently experimented with. Comparing them to the (later) flowering of science under early Islam, they don’t look so impressive, but you’re comparing them to a unique situation – the flowering of science under early Islam was the exception, not typical for civilizations.
This is incorrect, IMHO.
In most Indo-European cultures the aristocracy certainly were ‘military’ in nature. Having weapons of the highest level available. Usually they would form the cavalry.
Then there was the warrior elite forming the personal retinues of aristocratic leaders. These could be considered professionals. And they trained, besides sitting at the table of their lord and drinking his mead/beer/wine.
Medieval knights were not much more than a slightly evolved form of this.
The warrior elite come from the warrior class or caste, usually landholding families.
They would and could take up arms as they also trained. The elite retinues were just the best from the stock.
Lastly the farm workers could also be equipped by their landlord, as simple spearmen.
Then, of course, you have the steppe barbarians who most certainly trained from very young in horse riding and use of the bow.
No, the barbarians did not drill, as in performing complex manoeuvres as one , large body, although several germanic tribes could use the shieldwall and simple wedge formations.
But weapons skill and endurance training was performed.
The eastern half of the Empire was always where the real action was, and the western half was always a backwater.
The Romans themselves were “barbarian invaders”. They started out on the fringes of civilization – the Greek-Egyptian-Persian world of the eastern Med. Through superior arms the barbarous Romans conquered the older and richer nations of the east, allowing the city of Rome itself to grow fat and wealthy off the spoils. But the western empire never developed the concentrated power of the east. There were no cities in Spain, Gaul or Britain comparable to Alexandria or Antioch. Even after several hundred years of Roman rule, the western provinces were little more than a collection of isolated tribes and villages. That’s why eventually the capital was shifted east to Constantinople.
With the official recognition of where the real center of power was in the empire, the over-inflated balloon of the West quickly popped. There wasn’t enough local wealth or manpower to sustain the borders. And even when the East tried to reclaim the West, they never could make enough money off the reconquered territories to sustain the push.
The idea that the Roman Empire “fell” to barbarians in the 5th century is a conceit formulated by Western European historians to pump up the importance of their minor corner of the Empire. In reality the Roman Empire died through a gradual process of decay, culminating in the sack of Constantinople in 1453, almost a thousand years after the so-called “fall”.
Really, you more or less reject exactly what I was responding to - warrior elite =/= entire male population.
That
That strikes me as anachronistic and Romans are I-E as well… as is I think most of the following as over-generous.
What I said was that it was not just the warrior elite. I was the aristocracy + the warrior elite + the warrior class (which is basically all freemen) + (if need be) also the servants.
Bit of a confusing sentence. What do you consider to be anachronistic?
Yes, the Romans were I-E as well, which you still see reflected in early Roman history, although Rome was, by then already getting urbanised.
You still had a warrior aristocracy the equites, which would translate as horsemen/the cavalry. The heavy infantry was supplied by property holding citizens, iow freemen.