Crash course on the Fall of Rome

[Alan Grayson]

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

[spudb...@aol.com]

I am thinking the Romans were genuinely poor at dealing with the Germanic tribes flowing in. On occasion somebody would rise to the top, even an Andalusian dude once became emperor, and Andaulusian's were old Kelts and not German Goths. They Romans did know how to treat people like crap, and this persisted past Christianity becoming, THE Roman religion. In other words it they were not like the characters in the Life Of Brian, winking and grinning over the Judeans or whomever else's ridiculousness. "Look on the bright side of life..." The Romans introduced crucifixion, as well as roads and aqueducts to the world.  Could the have have transcended their stupidity to survive? I say yes, BUT they would have had to eliminate slavery (thus expanding the economy), stopped drinking from lead goblets, and made some form of universal education-specifically via engineering and technology. Her, the great water mill at Barbegal in Gaul (France). Like I said, expand education, shrink slavery. Then, if "Herr-Man" was speaking Latin in public, German at home, no harm done. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/56bf51f5-6c67-4244-82b2-1e621292b686%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis?

Maybe, but it's not obvious that a barbarian born man couldn't learn Roman battle tactics as well as a Roman born man. So maybe after a century or so of relative peace they lost experience and were no longer battle hardened. Or maybe the Romans didn't get weaker at all and instead the barbarians just got stronger. Or maybe the answer is not even in sociology but in chemistry.

The Romans used lead piping extensively for their drinking water and baths, and they used a salt of lead, Lead acetate (Pb(CH3COO)2), to sweeten their wine. Because it was rather expensive only the elite used Sugar Of Lead as it was called, and it's not good for a society if your leadership suffers from lead poisoning because it tends to make people stupid and sluggish. 

John K Clark

 

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. 

The coins or denominations of the Roman Denarius were in the Republic and early Empire periods forged in gold and silver. This began to change as the Roman gold mines in Spain and elsewhere began to deplete out. Then eventually the silver mines became less productive, and the coins were made in copper and even more base metals. The Romans did not develop new mining techniques and the Roman money became less valuable. This lead to problems with debasement and inflation that by the 4th century went rampant. This weakened the empire.

The barbarians were not really that numerous. The waves of invasions from 410 to 476 of Visigoths and Ostrogoths involved at most a few 10 thousands. The Roman legions were far better disciplined and could have handled this. The problem was there was rampant corruption. In fact the reason for the upheaval with the Goths along the Danube was due to corruption, and this lead to the defeat of the Eastern Roman legions and the death of the E. Emperor Valens at Adrianople in 398 or so. The E. Roman Empire paid the Goths off to "Go West Young Men," and so they directed themselves there. Still the problem could have been managed, but corruption has lead to a defeat of moral in the legions. Pay to soldiers, the term salary (root word sal = salt) came from the payment of Roman soldiers, had been withheld. The Roman legions were firmed up by Stilicho, and corruption abated for a while, but the die were cast. The simple fact is the legions largely let the Goths in. The only barbarian group they rallied against were the Huns under Attila, where the Goths were enlisted as allies.

Finally, with the end of the empire it might have been possible for civilization to continue, but it broke down because in effect the stage coaches ended. On the Roman roads were stations with stabled horses that were cycled out and there was a constant traffic of coaches, wagons etc that kept people and goods moving. That ended, which broke Europe up not only just politically but economically and culturally. 

Of course remember, the Eastern Roman Empire, later termed the Byzantine Empire, continued well enough. In fact under Justinian the Eastern Roman Empire reasserted itself in Rome and much of Italy in the 6th century. This did not last terribly long. The other hammer blow to western civilization was the Islamic sweep that crimped Byzantium and cut Europe from the middle east and north Africa.

LC

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/20/2020 2:21 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Of course remember, the Eastern Roman Empire, later termed the Byzantine Empire, continued well enough. In fact under Justinian the Eastern Roman Empire reasserted itself in Rome and much of Italy in the 6th century. This did not last terribly long. The other hammer blow to western civilization was the Islamic sweep that crimped Byzantium and cut Europe from the middle east and north Africa.

But also the first bubonic plague struck western Europe around 520ce.

Brent

[smitra]

Also, after a few centuries the population in the areas governed by the
Romans would have gotten used to all the benefits living in Roman empire
gave them. Without a steady improvement in living standards on a time
scale of at least several decades, the negative aspects of living in the
Roman empire of not being in charge would have prevailed over the
benefits which would have been taken for granted.

Saibal

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. 

You make many excellent points in this post, but what seems vague, to me at least, is the role of classical world culture in giving the Empire a mission and reason for existence. AG 

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 2:38:27 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. 

You make many excellent points in this post, but what seems vague, to me at least, is the role of classical world culture in giving the Empire a mission and reason for existence.

The Constitution of the US is a civilized basis for the country. Suppose people stopped believing in it. This is in some sense as you might notice happening, except the 2nd Amendment, for many people these days. Can the US of A continue to exist, at least as we have known it? 

Similarly, when the culture of a society is lost the fabric or binding collective mental glue of that society is lost. With Rome the Orphic cultural and social structure of the society was replaced with this religion that advocated the world was ending soon, there was no purpose in working to change the material world and holiness was found in contemplative prayer and life in a monastery, St, Jerome even noted with glee how the temples and building of Rome and the Pantheon were falling apart.

LC

[spudb...@aol.com]

I have read, that the Justinian Plague as you highlighted, led to the success of Muhammad's armies, signifying Allah's favor? Also, the Byzantines, seemed to be even worse at governance and taxes than the old western Romans had been 200 years before.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9fe274ef-3fc6-994c-5110-d0e20849be88%40verizon.net

.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 6:16:47 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 2:38:27 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. 

You make many excellent points in this post, but what seems vague, to me at least, is the role of classical world culture in giving the Empire a mission and reason for existence.

The Constitution of the US is a civilized basis for the country. Suppose people stopped believing in it. This is in some sense as you might notice happening, except the 2nd Amendment, for many people these days. Can the US of A continue to exist, at least as we have known it? 

Similarly, when the culture of a society is lost the fabric or binding collective mental glue of that society is lost. With Rome the Orphic cultural and social structure of the society was replaced with this religion that advocated the world was ending soon, there was no purpose in working to change the material world and holiness was found in contemplative prayer and life in a monastery, St, Jerome even noted with glee how the temples and building of Rome and the Pantheon were falling apart.

LC

It's easy to see that Christianity would sap the desire for empire if the Kingdom of God was "at hand". But did the classical Orphic culture actually stimulate the desire or rationale for empire? What was the content and ideology of that culture? AG

[Philip Thrift]

There is a theory around that the Romans' adoption of Stoicism - a brand pf philosophy [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism ] - is the fundamental reason the Roman Empire died.

Sounds right to me.

@philipthrift

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 11:51:47 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 6:16:47 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 2:38:27 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. 

You make many excellent points in this post, but what seems vague, to me at least, is the role of classical world culture in giving the Empire a mission and reason for existence.

The Constitution of the US is a civilized basis for the country. Suppose people stopped believing in it. This is in some sense as you might notice happening, except the 2nd Amendment, for many people these days. Can the US of A continue to exist, at least as we have known it? 

Similarly, when the culture of a society is lost the fabric or binding collective mental glue of that society is lost. With Rome the Orphic cultural and social structure of the society was replaced with this religion that advocated the world was ending soon, there was no purpose in working to change the material world and holiness was found in contemplative prayer and life in a monastery, St, Jerome even noted with glee how the temples and building of Rome and the Pantheon were falling apart.

LC

It's easy to see that Christianity would sap the desire for empire if the Kingdom of God was "at hand". But did the classical Orphic culture actually stimulate the desire or rationale for empire? What was the content and ideology of that culture? AG

Maybe the ultimate explanation for the fall of the Roman Empire is that the Orphic culture didn't have any worldly transcendental content, such as building a "great society". So with the advent of Christianity, rampant corruption, and the debasement of its currency, it just faded away. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. 

Thinking about this further, I doubt that Christianity was as important in the Decline as you allege. One would think that an other-worldly point of view as implied by Christianity would sap the impulse for empire. But in the period following the discovery of America, and up to WW1, the dominant states were in great competition to acquire empires and the main players were so-called Christian nations in Europe. So, IMO, the jury is out on the role of Christianity in the decline of Rome. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG

There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. 

Thinking about this further, I doubt that Christianity was as important in the Decline as you allege. One would think that an other-worldly point of view as implied by Christianity would sap the impulse for empire. But in the period following the discovery of America, and up to WW1, the dominant states were in great competition to acquire empires and the main players were so-called Christian nations in Europe. So, IMO, the jury is out on the role of Christianity in the decline of Rome. AG 

If Christianity sapped the Roman "Will to Power", why didn't it have the same effect on Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal after the discovery of America, or Italy, another Catholic country after its unification in the late 19th century, and Germany, a protestant country? I think it was Gibbon who focused on Christianity as being primarily responsible for the demise of Rome, but it surely seems that explanation is dwarfed by greed in the form of Mercantilism. Maybe the root cause of Rome's decline was ultimately a bad drug, lead. AG 

The coins or denominations of the Roman Denarius were in the Republic and early Empire periods forged in gold and silver. This began to change as the Roman gold mines in Spain and elsewhere began to deplete out. Then eventually the silver mines became less productive, and the coins were made in copper and even more base metals. The Romans did not develop new mining techniques and the Roman money became less valuable. This lead to problems with debasement and inflation that by the 4th century went rampant. This weakened the empire.

So why didn't the Romans seek, and find, new gold and silver mines, and/or develop new mining techniques? What seems to have happened is an attenuation of the Will to Power, and the reasons for this are unclear. AG