> April Goodwin-Smith <lorneja...@telusplanet.net> writes:
>> It is her opinion that it is important for dominant cultures >> to pay attention to the causes of previous dark ages if they >> don't wish to go the same way.
> Hmmm... what took down the Romans? Sure -- eventually the barbarian > Goths etc. sacked Rome, but the Roman Empire had held them to a > nill-all draw for the odd hundred or so years prior to that. The > question is why did the Roman defenses along the Rhine and the other > peripheries of the Empire wither away, thus permitting the barbarian > hordes the chance to sweep down into the vacuum left by the departing > Romans?
Lack of troops. And lack of money. The Roman army, remember, was a volunteer army. As time went by it became more and more difficult to persuade citizens to sign up for what (iirc) was a 25 year hitch. In an attempt to solve this problem, and also to ensure the continual loyalty of troops (just in case they got any funny ideas about supporting rival emperors) successive emperors granted the army large pay rises, and also regular bonuses (donatives).
But this only set up a vicious circle. Those lavish payments to the army had to be paid for, and the only way of paying for them was taxation. Now the only large scale economy the Roman Empire had was agriculture - trade and industry were puny by comparison - and so massive tax hikes fell on the farms. This had two consequences; one, it forced smallholders into the hands of the large landowners, and was effectively the birth of what later became known as serfdom. Two, it made said landowners, having built up such a profitable workforce, reluctant to release any of it to serve in the legions, and the peasants themselves could no longer leave the land without the local lord's permission. The supply of legionaries got no bigger, pay them as they might. Sure, the forces could be and were beefed up with foreign auxiliaries, but they were no cheaper, less effective, and markedly less loyal.
In the end the Roman economy could no longer stand the strain. Prominent citizens became less and less inclined to serve in public office, as that meant primarily collecting or trying to collect taxes. As taxes grew ever more onerous the position became less and less popular, and taxes more and more difficult to collect. There was rebellion in the countryside; peasants gave up the unequal struggle and escaped from lord and taxman alike by setting up as roving bandit bands known (in Gaul, at least) as /Bacaudae/. By the late 300's the cost of paying the army was more than the economy could bear, even had the money been collected. Since it very often wasn't, troops too turned against the state, and there were endless rebellions and usurpations - not to mention desertions. By the end the Roman arny had more or less faded away, as had much of the machinery of government; the Franks and their ilk were kicking at a rotten door. The Eastern Empire survived; it had a shorter defensive line, needing less troops, and richer provinces to mulct.
Basically the Roman Empire was too expensive for the economy of the day. Had an industrial revolution occured, it is conceivable Rome might be with us yet.
"Jon" <RSGD9000no...@aol.com> writes: > þus cwæð Matthew Seaman; >> April Goodwin-Smith <lorneja...@telusplanet.net> writes:
>>> It is her opinion that it is important for dominant cultures >>> to pay attention to the causes of previous dark ages if they >>> don't wish to go the same way.
>> Hmmm... what took down the Romans? Sure -- eventually the barbarian >> Goths etc. sacked Rome, but the Roman Empire had held them to a >> nill-all draw for the odd hundred or so years prior to that. The >> question is why did the Roman defenses along the Rhine and the other >> peripheries of the Empire wither away, thus permitting the barbarian >> hordes the chance to sweep down into the vacuum left by the departing >> Romans?
> Lack of troops. And lack of money. The Roman army, remember, was a > volunteer army. As time went by it became more and more difficult to > persuade citizens to sign up for what (iirc) was a 25 year hitch. In an > attempt to solve this problem, and also to ensure the continual loyalty > of troops (just in case they got any funny ideas about supporting rival > emperors) successive emperors granted the army large pay rises, and also > regular bonuses (donatives).
[snip interesting details]
Personally I prefer the theory that the Roman Empire was pretty much doomed when Hadrian(I think) decided to stop expanding the borders of the empire.
While the Empire was expanding it had a drive and purpose, if not a particularly good one, which to be an empire and to continue to expand the borders to bring more areas under the Pax Romana to bring more money ideas and slaves to rome and the current provinces.
Once the conquests stopped the empire turned in on itself to a large extent, which had certain effects, the supply of fresh slaves to replace those that had died or been released by manumission had to be obtained through trade with those living outside their borders, rather than just taken when a new area was conquered.
The army also lost some of its preeminence and became a less attractive prospect now that serving soldiers wouldn't get the grants of land in newly conquered territory which they had been accustomed to. So the army started to rely more on forces recruited from outside the empire.
This turning inward, instead of the outward looking approach of the earlier empire, combined with the increased contact with groups on the periphery of empire probably, had the effect of encouraging attacks on the borders, and with the difficulties the army was having, meant that when things got too difficult they withdrew somewhat. The Antonine wall in Scotland is one of the last times the Romans took new territory, built in 138AD, overrun in 181AD, and written off as a lost cause in 196AD.
There were also successful attacks on Rome itself preceding the final death of the Western Empire, and some of the fractiousness of the multiple emperors could be seen as the Army trying to regain some of the prestige it had in the earlier, expansionist, days of empire.
So its was really, IMO, a death of a thousand cuts, with a Coup de Grace at the end. But the Empire would have had to stop expanding at some point, as at some point it would have run out of land to conquer, and really, if you accept this theory, was doomed from the outset.
-- James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow they may make it illegal.
>> þus cwæð Matthew Seaman; >>> April Goodwin-Smith <lorneja...@telusplanet.net> writes:
>>>> It is her opinion that it is important for dominant cultures >>>> to pay attention to the causes of previous dark ages if they >>>> don't wish to go the same way.
>>> Hmmm... what took down the Romans? Sure -- eventually the barbarian >>> Goths etc. sacked Rome, but the Roman Empire had held them to a >>> nill-all draw for the odd hundred or so years prior to that. The >>> question is why did the Roman defenses along the Rhine and the other >>> peripheries of the Empire wither away, thus permitting the barbarian >>> hordes the chance to sweep down into the vacuum left by the >>> departing Romans?
>> Lack of troops. And lack of money. The Roman army, remember, was a >> volunteer army. As time went by it became more and more difficult to >> persuade citizens to sign up for what (iirc) was a 25 year hitch. In >> an attempt to solve this problem, and also to ensure the continual >> loyalty of troops (just in case they got any funny ideas about >> supporting rival emperors) successive emperors granted the army >> large pay rises, and also regular bonuses (donatives).
> [snip interesting details]
> Personally I prefer the theory that the Roman Empire was pretty much > doomed when Hadrian(I think) decided to stop expanding the borders of > the empire.
[snip equally interesting details]
That's also a tenable theory, and not incompatible with mine. Whilst the Empire was expanding the army was a more attractive proposition; there was loot to be had, and land grants to be won. Loot also fell to the State, and could be used for paying soldiers. Once such additional sources of income dried up, the problems I outlined above at once became more acute, although it still took some time for the stresses to work themselves out. Of course Rome would not have needed such a large permanent army if there had been less enemies to fight; if the Goths and Huns had all stayed at home then things would have been very different.
One theory is that it was Augustus who made the fateful decision; he fixed the boundary at the Rhine after the Varus disaster. It has been suggested that the Elbe-Danube line would have been easier to defend, being shorter and so needing less men, as well as having the virtue of bringing the most of the Germans inside the tent, as it were.
Kegs <m...@privacy.net> writes: > Once the conquests stopped the empire turned in on itself to a large > extent, which had certain effects, the supply of fresh slaves to replace > those that had died or been released by manumission had to be obtained > through trade with those living outside their borders, rather than just > taken when a new area was conquered.
Errr... The Roman Empire reached it's high point in terms of occupied territory with Trajan who was Emperor from 98 to 117AD.
The fall of the Roman Empire in the west was in 476AD[1].
That's 300 years of "decline" without any source of fresh slaves. Except of course by the time honoured expedient of letting the male and female slaves breed a new generation. In the latter eras they probably weren't seen as slaves so much as serfs or peasants.
Cheers,
Matthew
[1] Although the Roman Empire in the East technically carried on until the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453AD, and the Eastern Empire did reconquer Italy and most of Gaul and Hispania under the Emperor Justinian in about 530AD. (And then lost it again as quickly after Justinian's death)
Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> writes: > Kegs <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>> Once the conquests stopped the empire turned in on itself to a large >> extent, which had certain effects, the supply of fresh slaves to replace >> those that had died or been released by manumission had to be obtained >> through trade with those living outside their borders, rather than just >> taken when a new area was conquered.
> Errr... The Roman Empire reached it's high point in terms of occupied > territory with Trajan who was Emperor from 98 to 117AD.
> The fall of the Roman Empire in the west was in 476AD[1].
> That's 300 years of "decline" without any source of fresh slaves. > Except of course by the time honoured expedient of letting the male > and female slaves breed a new generation. In the latter eras they > probably weren't seen as slaves so much as serfs or peasants.
Why doesn't 300 years of decline seem reasonable? the Roman empire was large at its height, powerful and rich, but after Hadrian there wasn't a single emperor of note until Constantine, who made Christianity the state religion to get his hands on a pile of gold, which, IMO, was probably a mistake. Though Septimus Severus and Diocletian were the best of a bad lot.
from The Fall of Rome:[1]
"The borders of the empire were immense and put a strain on military resources (500,000 soldiers defended a frontier that required 3 million or more to be secured). Roman conquests had ceased in the second century A.D., bringing an end to massive inflows of plunder and slaves. Taxes increased and production fell as the work force declined. A plague may have killed 20 percent of the empire's population in the third and fourth centuries, further reducing trade and production."
Given that the slave population, if left as it was, would have dwindled, through attrition and manumission, and the children of slaves were not, necessarily, slaves themselves[2]. Imports of slaves were necessary, especially ,given the requirements for slaves demanded by the industrial agriculture practised by the Romans[3], which was needed to provide the subsidised grain provided by the Empire to the citizens of Rome to keep them pliant.
It was a slow decline, but I still maintain that the Roman Empire was doomed as soon as it stopped expanding in the 2nd Century AD.
[1] http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/uc_dorrington1.htm [2] This was very dependant on the owner, of course, as was the provision of manumission to any given slave. [3] At its height in the UK Roman agriculture here is reckoned to have produced similar quantities of produce as modern methods can manage, and likely out produce the current output of modern agriculture in the UK, but it was *very* labour intensive.
-- James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
"My girlfriend always laughs during sex -- no matter what she's reading." -Steve Jobs(Founder: Apple Computers)
Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> writes: > The question is why did the Roman defenses along the Rhine and the > other peripheries of the Empire wither away, thus permitting the > barbarian hordes the chance to sweep down into the vacuum left by > the departing Romans?
Another interesting question is what did the Romans do right that other shorter lived empires didn't do? Similarly for China which is the longest running empire so far.
-- Darin Johnson Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
Darin Johnson <darin_@_usa_._net> writes: > Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> writes:
> > The question is why did the Roman defenses along the Rhine and the > > other peripheries of the Empire wither away, thus permitting the > > barbarian hordes the chance to sweep down into the vacuum left by > > the departing Romans?
> Another interesting question is what did the Romans do right that > other shorter lived empires didn't do? Similarly for China which is > the longest running empire so far.
They had generally quite a light touch on the territories they conquered. With certain exceptions, the local landowners and other high status bods pretty much maintained their status after the Roman conquest. Where this didn't happen, where Roman rule became oppressive, there tended to be local rebellions -- Boudica and the Iceni being a prime example -- and those were hugely expensive to put down and had tended to have social ramifications for many years afterwards.
That meant the locals would generally stay pretty quiet, adopt a Romanized lifestyle (although that tended to happen outside the borders of the Empire as well -- much the same way as things get Americanized nowadays). Consequently they wouldn't need to keep huge garrisons of troops in each province, keeping tax burdens down. Then after a while, being Roman was just the status quo.
They also made quite a lot of the locals rich, and many more a good living by promoting agriculture and trade[1]. Their military kept the peace (mostly) and protected the borders for many hundreds of years. They tended to be rather more technologically advanced than the places they conquered -- except for the ancient empires of Eygpt and Greece -- they never did manage to make much headway against the Persian Empire to the East. They had a very good justice system, their coinage was the gold standard for trade all round the Mediterranean (and beyond) and they made Latin the lingua franca from the Scots border to what is now Turkey[2]. All in all, it was far more profitable to be in the Empire rather than outside it.
As for the Chinese Empire -- there were several empires that occupied the territory, interspersed with occasional periods of anarchy or civil wars or external conquest -- although China tended to absorb barbarian invaders and sino-ize them. Similar considerations applied. They never did go in for much external trade themselves, prefering for the foreigners to come to them (except for the fabulous Treasure Fleets of the early Ming era). Even so, it wasn't until the 18thC that Western civilization overtook them in terms of wealth and economic productivity.
Cheers,
Matthew
[1] The Romans around 150--200AD knew about the similarly sized but rather more technologically advanced Han Chinese Empire and traded with it down the Silk Route. Except they exported mostly raw materials and metals, while they imported silks, spices and manufactured goods; a trade massively in the Han Empire's favour and which ultimately led to a shortage of precious metals and the debasement of the Roman currency.
[2] The British Empire has had a remarkably similar effect, and for very similar reasons.
In message <2i8uioFk2lf...@uni-berlin.de> "Jon" <RSGD9000no...@aol.com> wrote:
> One theory is that it was Augustus who made the fateful decision; he > fixed the boundary at the Rhine after the Varus disaster. It has > been suggested that the Elbe-Danube line would have been easier to > defend, being shorter and so needing less men, as well as having the > virtue of bringing the most of the Germans inside the tent, as it > were.
If you want a story about this, try looking at Neil Gaiman's Sandman stories, particularly 'August'. Its a good story, if not necessarily a true one.
Matthew Seaman wrote: > April Goodwin-Smith writes: > > It is her opinion that it is important for dominant cultures > > to pay attention to the causes of previous dark ages if they > > don't wish to go the same way.
> Hmmm... what took down the Romans? <snip>
I don't know if this was meant rhetorically, but Jacobs uses examples of Rome, the Fertile Crescent in two eras, and China. Her thought seems to be that economic mishandling in favour of a culture's elite does it in - inability to pay the legions in Rome, overproduction of plaster and goats in the first Fertile Crescent descent, a deliberate protective turning inward and subsequent stifling of innovators in the second, the whim of a triumphant family to not only cease sailing and trading, but erase the archive records of such endeavours in China.[1]
She says:
"'What are the advantages that enable cultural conquerors to win conflicts with losers?' Suppose we turn the question upside down and ask, 'What dooms losers?" The answer to the new question, cast in the form of a principle, runs something like this: 'Losers are confronted with such radical jolts in circumstances that their institutions cannot adapt adequately, become irrelevant, and are dropped.'"
I know: this was not the tangent you were looking for, but that's okay. :)
April. Put out the cat.
[1] Synchronistically, I recently watch a documentary about recently found Mayan pyramids that predate the others that are known by about 1000 years. Once some of the names were deciphered, it was seen that some of the kings were people that the researchers of the second era pyramids had assumed to be part of a creation mythology. They feel that the likely cause of the first group's downfall was their habit of burning greenwood to make white plaster for all their pyramids and other ceremonial buildings. The wood was burned faster than it was replaced, denuding the hillsides, leading to erosion and the silting up of fertile marshes, and the loss of food production - leading to the ultimate collapse of the city. -- "Things that try to look like things often do look more like things than things. Well known fact." Esmerelda Weatherwax (Pratchett 1988)
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Thomas Zahr wrote: > Lesley Weston posted:
> > ... in most states it's entirely legal to teach the > > principles of evolution in high schools.
> Sorry, but wow, what an endorsement!
<trollish[1] sarcasm> Yar, dem Yanksh are gettin' real en-lite-un'd, sur... </sarcasm>
Brian. [1] In both the DWish and the net-ish sense of 'troll', I'm afraid. It's just that attempts to ban the teaching of scientific theory in favour of superstition and mythology get me instantly irritated...
in article Xns94FDEFFA87212ThomasZahrfreene...@ID-179574.user.uni-berlin.de, Thomas Zahr at thomaszahr0...@xemaps.com wrote on 03/06/2004 2:35 PM:
> Lesley Weston posted:
>> ... in most states it's entirely legal to teach the >> principles of evolution in high schools.
> Sorry, but wow, what an endorsement!
It is when you consider the history, which (as, of course, you know :-)) is what was actually being discussed.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
grahamaffordableUSEREPL...@hotmail.com (gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS) meticulously glued three electrons together and said:
>And you'd better believe that most of those hardliners would be happy >for Palestine to cease to exist:
>Genesis 15:18 - In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, >saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt >[ie the Nile] unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
>>And you'd better believe that most of those hardliners would be happy >>for Palestine to cease to exist:
>>Genesis 15:18 - In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, >>saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt >>[ie the Nile] unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
> in article > Xns94FDEFFA87212ThomasZahrfreene...@ID-179574.user.uni-berlin > .de, Thomas Zahr at thomaszahr0...@xemaps.com wrote on > 03/06/2004 2:35 PM:
>> Lesley Weston posted:
>>> ... in most states it's entirely legal to teach the >>> principles of evolution in high schools.
>> Sorry, but wow, what an endorsement!
> It is when you consider the history, which (as, of course, > you know :-)) is what was actually being discussed.
Well, yes, but the learning curve of some groups seems to be more a horizontal line, the "battle against un-christian evolution" is not over, and at least some homeschoolers are not taught evolution.
>> in article >> Xns94FDEFFA87212ThomasZahrfreene...@ID-179574.user.uni-berlin >> .de, Thomas Zahr at thomaszahr0...@xemaps.com wrote on >> 03/06/2004 2:35 PM:
>>> Lesley Weston posted:
>>>> ... in most states it's entirely legal to teach the >>>> principles of evolution in high schools.
>>> Sorry, but wow, what an endorsement!
>> It is when you consider the history, which (as, of course, >> you know :-)) is what was actually being discussed.
> Well, yes, but the learning curve of some groups seems to be > more a horizontal line, the "battle against un-christian > evolution" is not over, and at least some homeschoolers are > not taught evolution.
Indeed. But that's a lot better than when the Scopes case came to court in 1925 and the law forbidding the teaching of evolution was upheld. The original comparison was between present-day America and that of the Founding Fathers, but since the FF lived long before Darwin, Wallace, Mendel etc., I had to move forward in time a little. Fortunately, the Americans are also moving forward.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
>> Well, yes, but the learning curve of some groups seems to >> be more a horizontal line, the "battle against un-christian >> evolution" is not over, and at least some homeschoolers are >> not taught evolution.
> Indeed. But that's a lot better than when the Scopes case > came to court in 1925 and the law forbidding the teaching of > evolution was upheld. The original comparison was between > present-day America and that of the Founding Fathers, but > since the FF lived long before Darwin, Wallace, Mendel etc., > I had to move forward in time a little. Fortunately, the > Americans are also moving forward.
But, but, Franklin was a personal friend of Darwin [1] and were of a generation that at least in Britain and on the continent was much more open to science than their grandchildren.
Just reading an interesting book, The Lunar Men, by Jenny Ugglow, which looks at that time.
[1] Erasmus, not Charles admittedly
--
Ciao Thomas =:-) <If god is omnipotent, why create monday to friday?>
>>> Well, yes, but the learning curve of some groups seems to >>> be more a horizontal line, the "battle against un-christian >>> evolution" is not over, and at least some homeschoolers are >>> not taught evolution.
>> Indeed. But that's a lot better than when the Scopes case >> came to court in 1925 and the law forbidding the teaching of >> evolution was upheld. The original comparison was between >> present-day America and that of the Founding Fathers, but >> since the FF lived long before Darwin, Wallace, Mendel etc., >> I had to move forward in time a little. Fortunately, the >> Americans are also moving forward.
> But, but, Franklin was a personal friend of Darwin [1] > and were of a generation that at least in Britain and on the > continent was much more open to science than their > grandchildren.
America too, in some ways, but nothing to compare to the present American interest in science. Up to 9/11, anyway. Now it's difficult to get some of the materials and people necessary for some lines of research, because the materials could be used for other purposes and the people might want to use them for such purposes; that's the reasoning, anyway, but the technical press is full of complaints from scientists who keep meeting obstacles.
> Just reading an interesting book, The Lunar Men, by Jenny > Ugglow, which looks at that time.
Looks good in my local library's catalogue - I've just ordered it from them. Have you tried Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle ("Quicksilver" and "The Confusion", so far), set at about the same time and covering the beginnings of the Royal Society, among many other things?
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
> in article > Xns95006BA3BD3FAThomasZahrfreene...@ID-179574.user.uni-berlin > .de, Thomas Zahr at thomaszahr0...@xemaps.com wrote on > 06/06/2004 1:34 AM:
>> Lesley Weston posted:
>> ....
>>>> Well, yes, but the learning curve of some groups seems to >>>> be more a horizontal line, the "battle against >>>> un-christian evolution" is not over, and at least some >>>> homeschoolers are not taught evolution.
>>> Indeed. But that's a lot better than when the Scopes case >>> came to court in 1925 and the law forbidding the teaching >>> of evolution was upheld. The original comparison was >>> between present-day America and that of the Founding >>> Fathers, but since the FF lived long before Darwin, >>> Wallace, Mendel etc., I had to move forward in time a >>> little. Fortunately, the Americans are also moving >>> forward.
>> But, but, Franklin was a personal friend of Darwin [1] >> and were of a generation that at least in Britain and on >> the continent was much more open to science than their >> grandchildren.
> America too, in some ways, but nothing to compare to the > present American interest in science. Up to 9/11, anyway. > Now it's difficult to get some of the materials and people > necessary for some lines of research, because the materials > could be used for other purposes and the people might want > to use them for such purposes; that's the reasoning, anyway, > but the technical press is full of complaints from > scientists who keep meeting obstacles.
There is some aspects of the current situation in the US that read like the 30ies in Germany. Lot's of semi reasonable restrictions (or what people could at least tell themselves were semi reasonable), then a quick march into dictator ship.
While I do not believe such is the game plan, it still makes me uneasy
>> Just reading an interesting book, The Lunar Men, by Jenny >> Ugglow, which looks at that time.
> Looks good in my local library's catalogue - I've just > ordered it from them. Have you tried Neal Stephenson's > Baroque Cycle ("Quicksilver" and "The Confusion", so far), > set at about the same time and covering the beginnings of > the Royal Society, among many other things?
Noted.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-) <To sig or not to sig, that is the question?>
