[KignPeeseeamn]

The Byzantines fought the Sassanids but at the same time there was great internal dissent- from the Jews in the Middle East who had been persecuted by over-zealous Christians and from fellow Christians (Nestorians, Monophysites) who had been declared heretics by the Orthodox Church.

The Nestorians had then been shown favour by the Sassanids and allowed to spread their version of Christianity through the Sassanid lands and then into Central Asia.

The refugees from Justinian's closure of the thousand year old Academy at Athens had been sheltered first at Edessa, then when the Byzantines attacked that city, at Nisibis and Jundishapur in the Sassanid Empire, where medical schools and proto-universities were set up.

The Caliphate then 'inherited' these schools when they defeated the Sassanids.

Both the Byzantines and the Sassanids had used Arab kingdoms as buffer client states and used them to war by proxy against each other.

When the states were absorbed by their respective sponsors, this brought the two empires into direct conflict with the newly unified Muslim Arabs...


The Sassanid Empire before the capture of Jerusalem and Egypt:

[sitescools]

I think the western roman empire always kinda sucked, the east was always much wealthier, rome failed to develop properly Gaul and Hispania.

the east could pay brives to defend itself from huns and barbarians, the west was poor and defensless.
in the east there was a coin economy, in the west you could say faudalism had started even before rome fell

antiquity style economy just never clicked in the west.

The only big cities in the west where Rome and Carthague, and Rome was big because it was an imperialistic parasite capital, when the capital was moved to constantinople the population of rome fell drastically.



My why the western empire fell reason is, it always kinda sucked

[SannyGlow]

Romans ran themselves into the ground through endless civil wars, betrayals and massacres of their own people, and utter economic mismanagement.

In 4th and 5th century, Romans no longer had the unity and resolve to face the Barbarians as they did against Hannibal 600 years ago. The national spirit was gone and Romans knew better than to trust other Romans. It was no wonder that later emperors would rather have Germans as bodyguards.

[leflyCode]

Originally posted by Barnabas
I think the western roman empire always kinda sucked, the east was always much wealthier, rome failed to develop properly Gaul and Hispania.

the east could pay brives to defend itself from huns and barbarians, the west was poor and defensless.
in the east there was a coin economy, in the west you could say faudalism had started even before rome fell

antiquity style economy just never clicked in the west.

The only big cities in the west where Rome and Carthague, and Rome was big because it was an imperialistic parasite capital, when the capital was moved to constantinople the population of rome fell drastically.



My why the western empire fell reason is, it always kinda sucked Economy wasn't as important in ancient warfare as it is today. What can you buy with more money? More swords? All swords cut the same. Logistics? They didn't have that back then. Mercenaries? You better not.

Romans lost their peasant base, their army started to seriously suck and that's basically it.

Remember how they came back after Hanibal destroyed them at Cannae? That was fighting spirit!

[vypusknye]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Consider how China from the 12th century on suffered several successive waves of conquest but managed to absorb each conquering tribe into it's culture. You probably don't know that China had been overrun by the Barbarians during the same time as Romans, albeit almost a century earlier. In 311 Chinese capital Luoyang was captured by Huns, in 317 Changan had also fallen, and the ruling dynasty had to flee south across Yangtze.

In the north, where the majority of Chinese population lived, 16 barbarian tribes would fight for supremacy over the next 100 years, until Tobas (a proto-mongol tribe) emerged victoriously in 420AD. Around 530AD, the Toba dynasty split into 2 parts under a civil war, and one part was eventually usurped by a Chinese general around 580AD, who finally united China in 589AD. By this time, there was no 'civilization gap' between former Barbarians and Chinese.

I'm always puzzled why the Barbarians had so successfully adopted Chinese culture and civilization during that era, while failed to do so in Roman territory.

[crazuMovies]

Some historian, whose name I cant remember, called the roman empire, a jail for dozens of millions of people.

[no02rSx2]

If you had a wife like Theodora (God's gift), I doubt that you would be able to focus on effective ruling.

[spaxiaroorbes]

Originally posted by Barnabas
I think the western roman empire always kinda sucked, the east was always much wealthier, rome failed to develop properly Gaul and Hispania.

My why the western empire fell reason is, it always kinda sucked To be fair, it's not as if it was the Romans who built up their empire in the East from scratch.

They were simply the latest in a line of rulers stretching back to Egypt, the Hebrews, the Minoans, Assyria, Babylon, the Achaemenids, the Hellenistic monarchies, the Lydians, the Phoenicians and so on.

They all had cities and many had extensive trading networks and a great tradition of manufacturing both basic and luxury goods.

In southern Spain and places such as Massilia in Gaul and along the North African coast in Carthage's old holdings and in old Phoenician colonies such as Tingis and Shabta, the trade routes were already well-established before the Romans came.

So when the Romans built Londinium and Eboracum and Lugdunum and left us modern day Trier and Arles and Nimes, they were in many cases building on or near existing Celtic trade routes (or even on Gaulish oppida) but the same volume of trade and numbers of people that existed along the Tigris or Nile, say, were lacking.

[Ilaubuas]

Originally posted by Colon™


There was actually, namely the Catholic Church*. Heads of state drew from Catholic scholars and their knowledge of canon law, which was based in Roman law. That was a major incentive to convert to Christianity in the first place, since it provided them with access to the legal expertise to administrate their lands.

Your dissertation is flawed because the Greco-Roman heritage did survive, as has been argued countless of times on this forum before. The fall of the Roman Empire would actually be comparable to the fall of a Chinese dynasty, expect that the new order didn't consist of a unified state.

*heck, Christianity itself was part of Roman culture. Could the priests and bishops sent out to tame the barbarians offer to make them gods? Did they offer them residence in palaces the size of cities with every imaginable luxury at their beck and call? The bureaucrats of China assimilated their conquerors by declaring them gods and treating them as such. Obviously the Roman Catholic Church could not do that. The Roman Catholic Church might have been part of roman culture, but it wasn't really Roman Imperial culture. Archeological studies show that in most areas of the empire surrendered to the german tribes Roman commerce and luxury rapidly deteriorated. The baths, arenas and sophisticated towns crumbled away. These were the sorts of goodies which should have been used to lure the barbarians into preserving the imperial state, yet there doesn't appear to have been any real attempt to do so.

So my thesis stands.

[Lt_Apple]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Could the priests and bishops sent out to tame the barbarians offer to make them gods? Did they offer them residence in palaces the size of cities with every imaginable luxury at their beck and call? The bureaucrats of China assimilated their conquerors by declaring them gods and treating them as such. Obviously the Roman Catholic Church could not do that. The Roman Catholic Church might have been part of roman culture, but it wasn't really Roman Imperial culture. Archeological studies show that in most areas of the empire surrendered to the german tribes Roman commerce and luxury rapidly deteriorated. The baths, arenas and sophisticated towns crumbled away. These were the sorts of goodies which should have been used to lure the barbarians into preserving the imperial state, yet there doesn't appear to have been any real attempt to do so.

So my thesis stands. Charlemagne was crowned Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III. Quite obviously, there was somebody around to teach him how to behave like a Roman emperor. His rule and those of other kings was legitimatised by divinity, due to Christian clerics. Many of whom also acted as administrators and (legal) advisors, which for instance is how we got words such as "fiscal" and "parliament".

Not sure what your thesis is anymore, but if it is that unlike in China the "barbarian" invaders did not assimilate then why shouldn't Charlemagne's title be taken as a sign of assimilation? Didn't they eventually all exchange the pagan beliefs for Christianity? Didn't classical architecture make come-back after come-back? Didn't the preponderance of European states eventually adopt (interpretated) Roman law? Wasn't Latin the lingua france and didn't it spawn a series of languages common today?

You seem to be focusing exclusively on the material, outward aspects of the Roman era. The buildings, the dress, the luxeries. Those disappeared, but the immaterial heritage did not vanish. Sure, there never came an exact copy of 50AD Rome but It's not as if there wasn't any evolution going on in China either.

[klnbgqr]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Even though Charlemagne took a Latin title, adopted some Roman legal codes, and used cleric advisors some of whom may have been from Italy surely you can see that his state a far cry from being a true successor to the Roman Empire. His reign was 500 years after the empire ha died. The technology that distinguished Rome, the technology to build great buildings, the baths, the highways and so much more was long lost. The social structure and educational system of Rome no longer existed. Furthermore you fail to realise that even though Roman law was practised within the borders of the Germanic states they reserved their own traditional legal codes to govern themselves. This in fact probably contributed a great deal to the establishment of the medieval class system - the upper classes, mostly descended from the Germanic warriors were judged by a completely different legal code than the lower classes composed of the indigenous peoples who were judged by Roman and Gallic laws. I'm not trying to pretend Charlemagne's empire was a copy of Rome but I'm saying that post-classical European society eventually came to adopt a great deal of the Greco-Roman heritage. Cue Christian scholars. The titling of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus is just an example of this. He adopted some Roman legal code, but others adopted some more, and yet others adopted even more. The entire process of codification on the European continent, moving away from customary law, essentially meant Romanisation. The personal law system you speak of had withered away by the 9th century. Moreover, a personal law system also existed for a very long time during the Roman era, with the distinction between ius civile, applying to Roman citizens, and ius gentium, applying to 'barbarians'.
And I wouldn't know what construction techniques the Romans used and in how so far they weren't carried on to medieval Europe. I know technologies such as the watermill and the screw press (used to make wine and eventually applied in the printing press) were transplanted though. A quick google tells me the crane also returned. That's a construction technology, right?

My thesis is that while barbarian invasion eradicated the western Roman empire the simple fact of barbarian invasion isn't suffidient to explain the disappearence of the Roman empire. China was overrun by barbarians but survived intact as it's superior culture rapidly assimilated each successive conquering tribe. The difference is that Rome was overrun by 6 major barbarian nations and for that reason could not by put back together into one imperial state. Additionaly the assimilation of the barbarians was not complete enough to continue the imperial Roman culture. Yes certain aspects of Roman culture survived, but not enough to unite the broken empire. Still confused about what your point. Is it that the Roman Empire as a state disappeared? That's obvious. Is that the Greco-Roman culture disappeared? That's far less obvious. The thing is that you consider "proper" Rome to being imperial, unified and pagan, while during chunks of its history it wasn't imperial or unified, and while christianity was a substantial aspect of it during the later stages. Weren't the 3 kingdoms of China properly Chinese either then?

China survived as a state. It's barbarian conqueror eagerly became its sons and daughters, not the other way around. Such was not the case for the Roman empire. While the barbarians may have adopted trappings of Roman culture they retained their identities. Charlemagne's kingdom became France and Germany, not Rome. What is the Roman identity according to you? Didn't Rome adopt Greek philosophy as barbarian Europeans came to? For instance, the Roman concept of "civil rights" (see ius civile) made a come-back in the city-states of Low Countries and the Italian peninsula. Note the parallels with the Greek city-states and birth of Rome as a city-state in this.

[KLhdfskja]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I really don't think that feudal law really depended very much on Roman law. Even by the end of the 18th century some parts of Europe were still using the rack amd the Iron Maiden. When the germanic tribes occupied areas of the empire they brought their own laws with them to govern themselves and you can bet they weren't 'ius gentium'. In England the seperate law codes for Normans and Saxons persisted until the Magna Carta. It's true that some aspects of barbarian law died out very quickly, such as the codified legal family vendettas when a member of a family was harmed or killed by a member of another family, but other aspects like trial by combat persisted. Then there are aspects of feudal law that bear no resemblance to Roman or Germanic law, like using torture. Were these tools derivatives of Roman designs or created de novo? That's obvious. Is that the Greco-Roman culture disappeared? That's far less obvious. Jeez, Greco-Roman literature disappeared for nearly 10 centuries. By the time it resurfaced European culture was finally on the verge of surpassing Roman culture. In the 18th century it became fashionable to mimic Roman architecture, fashion and philosophy. It is fortunate that by this time Roiman culture had been so long dead or modern culture might not have eventually evolved. Dark Age Europe lost Roman wealth commerce, technology, language, government. Honestly, what more was there to loose?


What is the Roman identity according to you? Didn't Rome adopt Greek philosophy as barbarian Europeans came to? For instance, the Roman concept of "civil rights" (see ius civile) made a come-back in the city-states of Low Countries and the Italian peninsula. Note the parallels with the Greek city-states and birth of Rome as a city-state in this. [/QUOTE] These later events transpired 1000 years after the fall of Rome. Their adoption was not so much a matter of cultural succession as it was adoration from a great distance of time.

You know, the title of this thread is "The Collapse of the Roman Empire." I don't understand what you're driving at. Are you arguing that the theme of this thread is erroneus, because Rome lives on in the guise of Western Europe? [/QUOTE]

[imporesweemo]

Originally posted by Colon™
This isn't getting anywhere. Just this:



I'd recommend you to check about the Etymologiae by Isidore of Sevilla, compiled in the 7th century and containing amongst others Greek philosophy and Roman law. Might also want to read about Scholasticism. Etymologiae was a sort of encyclopedia. To say that its existance during the middle ages represented the preservation of roman literature would be like saying that if we burned every book in English except the Encyclopedia Britannica that English literature was surviving.

Are you just contesting the idea that the Roman Empire collapsed? Why don't you go ahead and develop that idea?

[Arximedus]

Originally posted by Odin
I've been reading a very good book on Late Antiquity called The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather. Heather claims that it was mainly 2 things, the rise of Sassanid Persia and the arrival of the Huns, that ultimately lead to the collapse of the Western Empire.

The need to counter the Sassanid threat stretched the Roman military machine to it's limit, the Roman economy was groaning under the strain. Things were fine as long as the Germans acted as the usually did (that is, the "normal" levels of raiding the Rhine-Danube limes could handle), but when the Huns arrived the Germans stopped acting like they usually did. What started as a relative "trickle" of refugees in 376 became a raging torrent by 407 as the Huns pushed westward, Rome's northern frontiers were simply overwhelmed, the Roman state could not hold off the Sassanids and the incoming waves of Germans at the same time. Not having read the book it's hard to refute its arguments, but it's simply exaggerated to say the Huns and the Sassanids caused the collapse. Already in the second half of the second century Marcus Aurelius had a tremendously hard time pushing back Germans barbarians penetrating the Danube limes, and it would only get worse. On top of that the Persian predecessors, the Parthians, had been troubling the Romans for centuries, and it was just the same situation with the Sassanids. The problems were too varied to name them all here: social, ethnic, economic, military. You could see it coming a mile away. When the Huns came that meant the little extra that really started the collapse, but you can't really say that was the reason.

Even in antiquity economic power was political power. And like everything in society, a bad economical situation entails problems in other domains. On a sidenote: In my opinion it all started with the massive influx of foreigners in Rome that brought with it the demise of Roman tradition, because Rome in the empire was not really a city of Romans, but rather a melting pot of various kinds of people with a doubtful allegiance, especially with the massive amounts of freedmen later on (the imperial administration was largely based on them!)

[diseeKeythilt]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Jeez, Greco-Roman literature disappeared for nearly 10 centuries. Not in Irish monasteries it didn't.

In the 18th century it became fashionable to mimic Roman architecture, fashion and philosophy. Because in part the new Atlantic empire builders wanted to have an ancient precedent.

It was 'fashionable' in French literature in the 17th Century to hark back to the unities of Classical Greek tragedy (mercifully for the English stage, only Ben Jonson took this as a paradigm too).

Seneca's bloody plays served as exemplars for early Elizabethan plays (Thomas Kyd, et cetera).

[stuck_in_WA]

Uhhh, the University of Bologna was founded some 600 years after the death of (western) Rome. It's fostering of Roman law does not constitute the survival of the Roman state. Six hundred years is a long time to wait for CPR. Try reading what I said in full: "I suppose the University of Bologna, and the existance of scholars educated in Roman law and Greek philosophy that led to it ..."

I'm sure it's helpful to pretend every instance of Greco-Roman culture should be viewed in isolation.

And how hard can it be to understand me when I say I am not arguing the Roman state survived. I literally said it didn't, repeatedly.

Is there not some confusion due to considering western europe (even with Britain excluded) as a unit? From everything Ive read, Roman law survived as actual practical law on the ground in Italy and Southern France, while it pretty much whithered in northern France, the low countries and Germany, despite Charlemagne. When Roman law was revived in the north, by the newly developing states and statelets, and with growing literacy, they looked to Italy and southern France for training and texts, not to their own Carolingian heritage. The thing is that canon law is Roman law as well. The organisation and legal procedures of the Church are modelled after those of the Empire. The Romanisation of law in Europe was thus two-pronged, firstly through direct reading of Roman legal texts (as you have indicated) and secondly through the adaption of canon law in wordly affairs. The very reason that Britain did not know Romanisation to the same extent as the continent is likely that England broke with Roman Catholic Church.

[GSgCGxsF]

Originally posted by Colon™


The very reason that Britain did not know Romanisation to the same extent as the continent is likely that England broke with Roman Catholic Church. It's more to do with the replacement of Celtic/Romano-Celtic law codes with Anglo-Saxon and Norse laws and customs, then these were overlaid with Norman laws.

King Edgar's code said in 962 a.d.:

'...measures common to all the nation, whether English, Danes, or Britons, in every province of my kingdom, to the end that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire... Anglo-Saxon law codes and punishments:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/560-975dooms.html

Scotland has a separate Roman(ish) legal system, with all sorts of interesting concepts not found (or named the same) in English law. I like avizandum- it's always sounded like somewhere exotic in Mediaeval Asia or a lost outpost of Byzantium...

Scottish legal language:

http://www.govanlc.com/dictionary

[lammaredder]

Economy wasn't as important in ancient warfare as it is today. What can you buy with more money? More swords? All swords cut the same. Logistics? They didn't have that back then. Mercenaries? You better not.

Romans lost their peasant base, their army started to seriously suck and that's basically it.

Remember how they came back after Hanibal destroyed them at Cannae? That was fighting spirit! 1.Money has always been an integral part of war effort. Numerous great persons in history, many of greek and roman descent have been cited for saying that 'it's not the swords that win wars, but money'.
Logistics was one major part of why post-Marius armies were so effective. Legoinairres were called 'Marius mules' because they carried so much of stuff with them that the need for logistics was drastically diminished thus increasing mobility.
Also, a major reason of building those excellent and no doubt expensive roads was logistics.
Core of the carthaginian army in Punic wars consisted of mercenaries and it fought rather well being outnumbered and out-armed (meaning Hannibal still had to have good troops to strike those victories).

2.Roman army was the most powerful after Marius reforms, when it became professional. The roman decline has nothing to do with the actual strenght of the army (of course as a side-effect it worsened by the end, but that's side-effect you can always expect from less manpower and weaker economy), rather the political changes Marius brought with army that paid allegiance to it's leader not state.

[educationonlines]

I have to admit, I had no idea that Rome's inflation problem had been that serious. You'd think that over a course of 200 years someone would have introduced monetary reform. I wonder why no one ever made a concerted attempt to recall the bad money and replace it with a more sound currency.

[RastusuadegeFrimoum]

When corporations fall, only shareholders lose their investments and workers their jobs;

When nations fall, millions die.

Just to let you know, the most successful corporations do not expand mindlessly. Many of them may contract willingly.


Romans were a vicious bunch. As long as they were expanding, they could channel their viciousness toward their 'enemies'. But once the expansion stalled (Teutoburg Forest, Loss of Mesopotamia in 117AD), they turned on themselves. Their legions became the most dangerous weapon against their own safety and prosperity.