Fall of the Roman Empire

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Recently I have became interested in the fall of the Roman Empire, does anyone have book recommendations on this subject?

One of the areas of interest that has peaked my interest is the migration of the Germanic tribes and the effects they had on the Roman Empire.

I would prefer on line references or documents if possible however any help would be great.[/b]

---

I haven't read [url=http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/0195325419... one[/url] yet but it's on my list.

(It's "The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" by Peter Heather, for anyone who doesn't feel like clicking the link.)

How about Gibbon's [i]The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire[/i]? It's considered one of the classics on the topic.

Yeah, I'm not sure at what level Gibbon would fall on the topic. It's probably not the best introductory reading, especially with its turn of the 18th century prose. Might be better as a reference at first.

I think everyone and his dog has an explanation as to why Rome fell into decline. I like the one that says rich Romans, toward the end, refused to pay taxes in support of empire. Once considered well-paid and status symbols of the empire itself, Roman soldiers became little more than bribed hirelings of the barbarian hordes attacking the empire. Church priests and monks then became keepers of the written word and would wield some influence during the dark ages in the Western world.

Similarly, Khan rule was said to deteriorated when elitist Mongols thought they were above paying taxes. They thought cake and eat it, too. A peasant revolt chased them out of China.

External influences, "barbarian" invasions, disturbances at home, the loss of provinces like Gaul, Britain and Spain, were all factors but it's worth underling social conflict [i]within[/i] Roman society and the emergence of the Colonate (renting land out) from within the slave society.

Laws were passed restricting the power and rights of slave-owners. Prisons for slaves on individual estates were done away with, it was made illegal to keep slaves permanently in fetters, slave-owners were no longer allowed to put their slaves to death, etc., etc.. Any worthwhile history of the decline/collapse of the Roman Empire has got to address this fundamental change from a slave economy to the feudal system. For its time I suppose it was progress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b] Any worthwhile history of the decline/collapse of the Roman Empire has got to address this fundamental change from a slave economy to the feudal system. For its time I suppose it was progress.[/b]

---

Beltov, can you recommend a history that does address this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]
I am interested in the Roman Empire because for the last few months I have been research Viking and Norman/Saxon history and the fall of Rome and the Dark Age(s) is the next connection to the puzzle in my view.[/b]

---

You might be interested in Alfred, first? King of the Britons. Alfred, I believe, was obssessed with everything Roman and wanted to re-create civilized Rome beginning with Britain. Britain fell into illiteracy and chaos post-Roman empire, and Alfred wanted to save it from pagans, the Danish Vikings Anglo-Saxon invaders. The Vikings were a marauding band of thugs, at least when in England by what I've learned about them. They were not builders like the Romans were. They were destroyers.

I've never read the [url=http://omacl.org/Anglo/]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[/url], but it's one source of reference for that part of the former "Holy" Roman Empire.

I was there at York for a visit when I was a kid. Parts of the Roman wall surrounding it are still standing. Scottish barbarians, he he, gave them a hard time, and so they decided to wall it up to better defend the city.

Well that figures that Viks would be so opportunistic. However, the Normans, too, were somewhat related to the Vikings since the time of Rollo(Norwegian) and certain Nordics made home in Normandy and who melded in and became French "with a difference."

[url=http://www.ancestryaid.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=1959][b]History of Common Land[/b][/url]

quote:

---

At one point in time the great forests and rivers were open to everyone and the small population of Britain meant there was little pressure on the land.

The Norman conquest of 1066 saw the introduction of the manorial system in which common land and common rights have their origins. The powerful lords were granted land by the King and these great estates (or 'manors' as they were called) formed the basis of the rural economy. Under the feudal system, the serfs and villeins who worked the land enjoyed the protection of the Lord in return for their labours.

---

And later, the dissolution of the monasteries was basically a wealth grab by Henry in order to fund his wars of conquest with the French. Many abbeys and churches were destroyed, including one not far from Maltby Beck(a Norse place name) where my mama's from. The abbeys and churches were England's social services at one time.

I've seen one his suits of armour up close. He wasn't a very big chap at all. I think I could've taken him.

If you don't mind mixing a little fiction in with your history, try Collen McCullogh's Roman series, starting with "The First Man In Rome." The series is long, four books, I think, going from the republic years just before Ceasar was born, then through the history of when he was growing up, and finally ends with Ceasar being murdered. Good stuff, especially the first two volumes. I don't think anyone but hard core historians had any argument with McCullogh's research.

I've been reluctant to mention it because I can't remember much of the story, or the title, or the author's name, but, there is a science fiction novel out there about a time traveler (or such) who goes back to the Roman Republic and, by helping along with certain technological developments, like a telegraph, tries to change the direction of history. I'm sorry I can't remember any more but perhaps a babbler who is a keener sci fi reader than I can remember the title.

Anyway, the premise was interesting for the opportunity to read an author's interpretation of what it was like to live then. Historical fiction can round out a person's view of a time along with factual reading that is essential.

Wouldnt that be "Lest Darkness Fall" by L. Sprague DeCamp?

What about the TV series "Rome"?

It has the real feel of historical accuracy and in the main characters you see how the tragic flaws in the essential Roman character lead them (and Rome) to their demise.

Thanks for the reminder - I'd forgotten about this. I think I'll  order it 

Penguin historical atlas of Rome.

I, Claudius! Claudius the God! I loved reading Graves when I was a kid, and I loved the BBC series (1970s?) with Derek Jacoby, and Patrick Stewart as Sejanus, etc. Not clap trappery at all - art! Thanks for bringing back those memories.

According to American Michael Hudson:

Quote:

Plutarch and other historians of the epoch attributed the prospective fall of the Roman Empire to its harsh creditor-oriented debt laws. But today, historians publish books speculating that perhaps the problem was lead piping or lead goblets for their wine, or disease, or imperial overreaching, or superstition – anything but the cause to which the Roman historians themselves pointed

The Great Monetary Crisis of 53 BC Princeton blogspot

I didn't read the whole thread but I recently read "Barbarians" by Terry Jones (yes that Terry Jones) which looks at the Roman Empire from the "barbarian point of view"

Gibbons' "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" still sits on my box case waiting to be read.

Yibpl wrote:

To understand how it fell, understanding how it formed is important. I recommend Plutarch's "Makers of Rome" and "Fall of the Republic". M. Cary and H.H. Scullard's "A History of Rome" covers the decline period very well.

There are some who say the Roman Empire never fell. Some argue that the Roman Empire co-opted Christianity and formed the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church (and thus the Roman Empire) still exists to this day and exerts influence and levies taxes (tithes) around the globe.

Hmm ... I'm inclined to wonder the same ...

After its establishment in the Roman Empire, during the early stages
of the collapse of that empire, the Catholic Church wiped out,
murdered, burnt and silenced its gnostic competitors and with the
support of the Roman empire went on to dominate Europe, signifying the
start of the Dark Ages, the Ages of Faith.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rcc.html

Just thinking how we use the term "dinosaur" as a pejorative to describe some things or ideas, when in fact dinosaurs were remarkably successfull creatures.

Similarly, I think we look for instruction to the things that caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.  

I think it would be more instructive to pay attention to the things that made it work over such a large section of land and over a diverse collection of peoples, with such relatively primative technology.

"I think Alfred the First thought it would be an excellent idea to carry on with Roman empire ways in old England."

Of course, the Empire was 400 years gone from England by Alfie the Great's time.  But Alfred did visit Rome a few times as a young child, and stopped off to enjoy the court of Chuckie the Hairless.  It's supposed that Alfie picked up his reverence for education, and religion from those sources.

Uninterestingly enough, when Alfie boy decided to codify the law by writting it down, there may have had a Roman flavour, or echo,  in the way it was organized, but the laws themselves were pure Saxon.

I recommend the Penguin Classics "Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred the Great and other Contemporary Sources."

There's a bunch of Alfred the Great fan sites on line, too.

"The Romans were brutal, and the barbarians were low tech and relatively unarmed for a long time. It was partly what made for an easy military occupation. Germanic tribes gave them a difficult time sometimes, although their leaders learned to accept bribes, too."

Nerd allert.

 Celtic weaponry and metalurgy didn't differ much in technological terms from the Romans.  In fact, two generations before Ceasar, or perhaps less, the Celts were knocking on the gates of Rome itself, and generally scaring the shit out of Rome, until Gaius Marius sent them packing.

What made the Romans militarily superior was due to three main factors.  The most obvious was in how they were organized. They fought as a machine, and not in heroic style single combat that Gemanic tribes and Celts were culturaly bound to.   The not quite so obvious distinction, and perhaps of greater impact, was that the scariest weapon a legionary had was his shovel.  One not only had to outfight the machine, one had to outfight the machine's ability to build, dig and cut.  Third, and most important, was the Roman war ideology, which differred significantly from everyone else at the time.   Other nations fought to fight again.  A loss was no earth shattering thing.  Sure, you'd loose a province, a city or a pasture, but that was that for a decade and you'd have at it again to see if you could get it back, or even gain another parcel of land or a city, and you'd all sit down with your enemy and toast his health after.

Not so the Romans.  Every war was a fight to the death.  And most of Rome's enemies, if not all, didn't realize that until it was too late.