asad71
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 6,863
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Why did the Roman Empire fail?
Robert Reynold Olson, History Undergrad.
This is a really long answer, but bear with me and we can ruffle some establishment feathers.
Ready? It didn't.
The most traditional answer to this question was given by Sir Edward Gibbon, in his famous "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I'll outline it here shortly as follows.
According to Gibbon:
1) The Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.
They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to "barbarian" (I'll get to this is a minute) mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire.
2) Romans, he believed, had become effeminate unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle.
3) Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit.
4) Finally, like other Enlightenment thinkers, Gibbon held in contempt the Middle Ages (which I like to think of as Late Late Antiquity) as a priest-ridden, superstitious, dark age. It was not until his own age of reason and rational thought, it was believed, that human history could resume its progress.
In terms of specific actions Gibbon sees the Praetorian Guard as the primary catalyst of the empire's initial decay and eventual collapse, a seed planted by Augustus at the establishment of the empire. He cites repeated examples of the Praetorian Guard abusing their power with calamitous results, including numerous instances of imperial assassination and incessant demands for increased pay.
BUT - Now to take Gibbon to task:
1) It does not really matter which historical camp you fall into: The Roman Empire did not fall in 476 AD. Perhaps, the Western portion of the Empire "fell", but it is a fact that the Eastern Roman Empirecontinued on until 1453, undisputedly.
Even then, the case shall be made that it never really came to an end (in a few moments).
2) "barbarians" - Of course Gibbon was going to perceive what happened as "the end of Western Civilization" and those that moved in as "barbarians" because he only ever used Roman sources who perceived it to be this way as well #heavily-biased
Recent research has revealed that the "barbarians" created art, had culture, their own systems of government and differed widely from tribe to tribe i.e. they were not just one homogenous lump of "barbarians" educated enough to pick up an axe and wield it.
3) Moreover, what really changed? Did the Germanic tribes bring in their own language, religion, and institutions? Not at all, instead they learned Latin, continued to use Roman institutions and roads, and converted to Christianity.
What I present you with is the idea that Rome continues: hereditarily, linguistically, institutionally, geographically, and yes even as an idea, up until the very present.
Hereditarily: The Last Byzantine (Eastern Roman) princess, Princess Sophia Palaiologina, niece of the last Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Emperor Constantine XI married Ivan III of Russia. In this way the Russians would lay claim to the title Tsar (from the word Caesar) and continue to use it as a title for their monarchs until the 20th century. Moscow was also called "the Third Rome". From this perspective Rome, the city, was perceived of as the first capital of the Roman Empire, Constantinople was the second capital, and now Moscow was "the third" capital of the Roman Empire.
Institutionally: The Western Roman Church never ceased to function, even as the government teetered on the brink and collapsed. It continues on today still as the Roman Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) even retains the title of Pontifex Maximus, an Imperial Title, and the title of the highest religious official in the Roman Empire. The history of how the Pope came to acquire this particular title is a bit dubious, but that the Church, a Roman institution, has continued unimpeded until the present is established fact. Up until the past ten years the Roman Pontiffs have also traditionally used the title "Patriarch of the West'". They still reserve the right to use this title and that they have not used it recently is not so much a sign of humility, rather it is more along the lines of "Why should I be limited to the West in a more global world?" , but I digress.
In addition, Charlemagne was crowned by the Bishop of Rome as "Holy Roman Emperor" in the year 800AD. He was subsequently recognized by the Eastern Roman Emperor as well, as Basileus of the West. This means a lot considering that Eastern Roman Emperors stylized themselves as Basileus of the East, and that this title came from a completely uninterrupted line of political succession.The Last Holy Roman Emperor finally abdicated in 1806. But even here this is not where the political continuity ended
The Principality of Liechtenstein (a microstate in Europe) is the sole remaining polity of the Holy Roman Empire, having been created out of the counties of Vaduz and Schellenburg in 1719 as a sovereign fief for the wealthy Austrian House of Liechtenstein. Its population is over 35,000. Owing to its geographic position between Switzerland and Austria, it was not swallowed up during the reorganisation of Germany following the French Revolution, and avoided incorporation into the German Empire later in the 19th century. It still exists today in 2013.
As for the East, even after the Fall of Constantinople, the Ottomans continued to call their leader the Sultan of Rum ( Sultanate of Rum "Rum" meaning "Rome" in Persian and Turkish).
And though the religion changed (and many Greek Orthodox people today despise the Fall of Constantinople) many of the institutions remained, and the city would continue to be called "Constantinople" until the end of WWI. The first sultans of the area were also quick to marry Byzantine princesses as a further way of legitimizing their claims. Constantinople also remained the capital of the Ottoman Empire until its fall in 1923 when revolutionares renamed it Istanbul .
Linguistically: Latin continued to be the language of education until the mid-20th century, any major academic work was required to be in Latin until the mid-17th century, it is still taught is schools today, and is still the official language of theRoman Catholic Church.
Geographic Continuity - Rome, the Eternal City (because it never really dies), is still the seat of power of the Pontifex Maximus, the capital of the Holy See, and Italy. Constantinople, while now called Istanbul, is still a thriving cosmopolitan city on the straits of the Bosporus, with its origins deeply rooted in the year 330AD when it was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine, who in a very Roman fashion, named the city after himself.
By now you may start to see a case for Rome still being alive much after the given date of 476AD, and that a variety of states and institutions might well lay a claim to being successors of Rome, if not the continuation of it. But what did the people who were members of these states and institutions themselves think?
It is very clear that the Eastern Romans thought of themselves as an unimpeded, uninterrupted continuation of Rome. And though historians have customarily treated the state of the later Eastern Roman Empire under the name "Byzantine Empire", Byzantine is not a term that the Byzantines (East Romans) ever used to describe themselves. Instead they thought of themselves as "Roman" and living in the "Roman Empire".
The Holy Romans also continued to explicitly think of themselves as a continuation of Rome. Even after the last Emperor abdicated in 1806 and there was much political confusion, German political leaders continued to stylize themselves in a way that referenced this idea and heritage. For example Kaiser Wilhelm II was called Kaiser (which comes from "Caesar). I would not call this a direct political line given the gap and confusion between 1806 and the rule of the Kaisers, but it can certainly be called a succession, and certainly the Kaisers would have understood it this way. If not they would have never taken the name.
Lastly, The Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church also see themselves in the world today as the continuers of Rome, without any fraction of a doubt. At the risk of repeating myself I'll just lightly reference the continuity of the Office of the Bishop of Rome from the time of the Romans until the present. In terms of the East, religious and political continuity is not as clear. What is clear though is the fervent culture of opposition maintained by the Greeks and Greek Orthodox believers for centuries under their Ottoman oppressors. In this way many Greek nationals and Greek Orthodox (which more than not are one in the same) see themselves not just as the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, but the sons and daughters of a people whose history goes back to the Ancient Greeks.
Onward then to the idea of Rome; Romanitas
The idea of Rome will never die. We live in a world defined by the Romans. The basis of our legal code, our architecture, our entertainment values, political spirit and ambitions is all defined by the ideals of Rome. Just look at our architecture. The founding fathers of the United States even sought to imitate Roman ideals and virtues.
(this is an image of the Capitol Building, done in the Neo-Classical Style)
There in no direct political link or uninterrupted political succession between the United States and Ancient Rome, but there is a connection in the ideals upon which the United States was founded through Roman Literature with which the Founding Fathers would have been well acquainted with (and indeed most educated people until recently, when emphasis on the Classics has been shifted elsewhere). Though it is a controversial topic, here are a few articles that deal with the topic of America as a "New Rome"
themontrealreview.com
Is America the New Rome?
Every global empire since the "Discovery of the New World" has also attempted to share in this legacy. Either by declaring themselves Emperor as Napoleon did, declaring their nation to be the Third Rome as Adolf Hitler did (aka the Third Reich), or by simply lying about their genealogy to somehow claim that they were descended from some famous Roman Emperor as nearly all the monarchies of Western Europe did throughout the Age of Exploration.
Maybe I have won you over to the idea that Rome is still alive today?
But even if I have not, I hope that you will at least know that a lot has changed since the time of Sir Edward Gibbon, in terms of research and what most believe went on. The "Decline and Fall" of the Roman Empire was certainly not the end of civilization as we know it, and many of the institutions and things that the Romans did affect how we live today. Some historians would go so far as to say there was no decline or fall at all, most however, fall somewhere in between… or shall I say that "Most historians decline and fall somewhere between the two theories"
contd/--
Robert Reynold Olson, History Undergrad.This is a really long answer, but bear with me and we can ruffle some establishment feathers.
Ready? It didn't.
The most traditional answer to this question was given by Sir Edward Gibbon, in his famous "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I'll outline it here shortly as follows.
According to Gibbon:
1) The Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.
They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to "barbarian" (I'll get to this is a minute) mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire.
2) Romans, he believed, had become effeminate unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle.
3) Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit.
4) Finally, like other Enlightenment thinkers, Gibbon held in contempt the Middle Ages (which I like to think of as Late Late Antiquity) as a priest-ridden, superstitious, dark age. It was not until his own age of reason and rational thought, it was believed, that human history could resume its progress.
In terms of specific actions Gibbon sees the Praetorian Guard as the primary catalyst of the empire's initial decay and eventual collapse, a seed planted by Augustus at the establishment of the empire. He cites repeated examples of the Praetorian Guard abusing their power with calamitous results, including numerous instances of imperial assassination and incessant demands for increased pay.
BUT - Now to take Gibbon to task:
1) It does not really matter which historical camp you fall into: The Roman Empire did not fall in 476 AD. Perhaps, the Western portion of the Empire "fell", but it is a fact that the Eastern Roman Empirecontinued on until 1453, undisputedly.
Even then, the case shall be made that it never really came to an end (in a few moments).
2) "barbarians" - Of course Gibbon was going to perceive what happened as "the end of Western Civilization" and those that moved in as "barbarians" because he only ever used Roman sources who perceived it to be this way as well #heavily-biased
Recent research has revealed that the "barbarians" created art, had culture, their own systems of government and differed widely from tribe to tribe i.e. they were not just one homogenous lump of "barbarians" educated enough to pick up an axe and wield it.
3) Moreover, what really changed? Did the Germanic tribes bring in their own language, religion, and institutions? Not at all, instead they learned Latin, continued to use Roman institutions and roads, and converted to Christianity.
What I present you with is the idea that Rome continues: hereditarily, linguistically, institutionally, geographically, and yes even as an idea, up until the very present.
Hereditarily: The Last Byzantine (Eastern Roman) princess, Princess Sophia Palaiologina, niece of the last Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Emperor Constantine XI married Ivan III of Russia. In this way the Russians would lay claim to the title Tsar (from the word Caesar) and continue to use it as a title for their monarchs until the 20th century. Moscow was also called "the Third Rome". From this perspective Rome, the city, was perceived of as the first capital of the Roman Empire, Constantinople was the second capital, and now Moscow was "the third" capital of the Roman Empire.
Institutionally: The Western Roman Church never ceased to function, even as the government teetered on the brink and collapsed. It continues on today still as the Roman Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) even retains the title of Pontifex Maximus, an Imperial Title, and the title of the highest religious official in the Roman Empire. The history of how the Pope came to acquire this particular title is a bit dubious, but that the Church, a Roman institution, has continued unimpeded until the present is established fact. Up until the past ten years the Roman Pontiffs have also traditionally used the title "Patriarch of the West'". They still reserve the right to use this title and that they have not used it recently is not so much a sign of humility, rather it is more along the lines of "Why should I be limited to the West in a more global world?" , but I digress.
In addition, Charlemagne was crowned by the Bishop of Rome as "Holy Roman Emperor" in the year 800AD. He was subsequently recognized by the Eastern Roman Emperor as well, as Basileus of the West. This means a lot considering that Eastern Roman Emperors stylized themselves as Basileus of the East, and that this title came from a completely uninterrupted line of political succession.The Last Holy Roman Emperor finally abdicated in 1806. But even here this is not where the political continuity ended
The Principality of Liechtenstein (a microstate in Europe) is the sole remaining polity of the Holy Roman Empire, having been created out of the counties of Vaduz and Schellenburg in 1719 as a sovereign fief for the wealthy Austrian House of Liechtenstein. Its population is over 35,000. Owing to its geographic position between Switzerland and Austria, it was not swallowed up during the reorganisation of Germany following the French Revolution, and avoided incorporation into the German Empire later in the 19th century. It still exists today in 2013.
As for the East, even after the Fall of Constantinople, the Ottomans continued to call their leader the Sultan of Rum ( Sultanate of Rum "Rum" meaning "Rome" in Persian and Turkish).
And though the religion changed (and many Greek Orthodox people today despise the Fall of Constantinople) many of the institutions remained, and the city would continue to be called "Constantinople" until the end of WWI. The first sultans of the area were also quick to marry Byzantine princesses as a further way of legitimizing their claims. Constantinople also remained the capital of the Ottoman Empire until its fall in 1923 when revolutionares renamed it Istanbul .
Linguistically: Latin continued to be the language of education until the mid-20th century, any major academic work was required to be in Latin until the mid-17th century, it is still taught is schools today, and is still the official language of theRoman Catholic Church.
Geographic Continuity - Rome, the Eternal City (because it never really dies), is still the seat of power of the Pontifex Maximus, the capital of the Holy See, and Italy. Constantinople, while now called Istanbul, is still a thriving cosmopolitan city on the straits of the Bosporus, with its origins deeply rooted in the year 330AD when it was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine, who in a very Roman fashion, named the city after himself.
By now you may start to see a case for Rome still being alive much after the given date of 476AD, and that a variety of states and institutions might well lay a claim to being successors of Rome, if not the continuation of it. But what did the people who were members of these states and institutions themselves think?
It is very clear that the Eastern Romans thought of themselves as an unimpeded, uninterrupted continuation of Rome. And though historians have customarily treated the state of the later Eastern Roman Empire under the name "Byzantine Empire", Byzantine is not a term that the Byzantines (East Romans) ever used to describe themselves. Instead they thought of themselves as "Roman" and living in the "Roman Empire".
The Holy Romans also continued to explicitly think of themselves as a continuation of Rome. Even after the last Emperor abdicated in 1806 and there was much political confusion, German political leaders continued to stylize themselves in a way that referenced this idea and heritage. For example Kaiser Wilhelm II was called Kaiser (which comes from "Caesar). I would not call this a direct political line given the gap and confusion between 1806 and the rule of the Kaisers, but it can certainly be called a succession, and certainly the Kaisers would have understood it this way. If not they would have never taken the name.
Lastly, The Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church also see themselves in the world today as the continuers of Rome, without any fraction of a doubt. At the risk of repeating myself I'll just lightly reference the continuity of the Office of the Bishop of Rome from the time of the Romans until the present. In terms of the East, religious and political continuity is not as clear. What is clear though is the fervent culture of opposition maintained by the Greeks and Greek Orthodox believers for centuries under their Ottoman oppressors. In this way many Greek nationals and Greek Orthodox (which more than not are one in the same) see themselves not just as the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, but the sons and daughters of a people whose history goes back to the Ancient Greeks.
Onward then to the idea of Rome; Romanitas
The idea of Rome will never die. We live in a world defined by the Romans. The basis of our legal code, our architecture, our entertainment values, political spirit and ambitions is all defined by the ideals of Rome. Just look at our architecture. The founding fathers of the United States even sought to imitate Roman ideals and virtues.
(this is an image of the Capitol Building, done in the Neo-Classical Style)
There in no direct political link or uninterrupted political succession between the United States and Ancient Rome, but there is a connection in the ideals upon which the United States was founded through Roman Literature with which the Founding Fathers would have been well acquainted with (and indeed most educated people until recently, when emphasis on the Classics has been shifted elsewhere). Though it is a controversial topic, here are a few articles that deal with the topic of America as a "New Rome"
themontrealreview.com
Is America the New Rome?
Every global empire since the "Discovery of the New World" has also attempted to share in this legacy. Either by declaring themselves Emperor as Napoleon did, declaring their nation to be the Third Rome as Adolf Hitler did (aka the Third Reich), or by simply lying about their genealogy to somehow claim that they were descended from some famous Roman Emperor as nearly all the monarchies of Western Europe did throughout the Age of Exploration.
Maybe I have won you over to the idea that Rome is still alive today?
But even if I have not, I hope that you will at least know that a lot has changed since the time of Sir Edward Gibbon, in terms of research and what most believe went on. The "Decline and Fall" of the Roman Empire was certainly not the end of civilization as we know it, and many of the institutions and things that the Romans did affect how we live today. Some historians would go so far as to say there was no decline or fall at all, most however, fall somewhere in between… or shall I say that "Most historians decline and fall somewhere between the two theories"
contd/--
