3 ms·

TLDR: Rome got big and successful by being pragmatically open and inclusive to outsiders. It treated its allies and conquered people well and gave them a path t

by brazzy 5y ago

TLDR: Rome got big and successful by being pragmatically open and inclusive to outsiders. It treated its allies and conquered people well and gave them a path to citizenship, which made them invested in Rome's continued existence, rather than eager to see it fall (which has made other empires implode rapidly when there was a crisis in the central power). Rome fell because because beginning in the 4th century, they stopped incorporating allied troops as paid and respected units within the Roman military command structure, and instead had them operate under their own kings, paid with conquered land. Consequently, these "foederati" didn't see themselves as Romans and when the central power waned, saw that as a chance to conquer more territory.

ithkuil 5y ago
Why did that change in policy take place?
- crocodiletears 5y ago
  Reduced centralized administrative capacity due to consecutive crises of succession in the third century conspired with a large wave of Germanic refugees fleeing the huns that Rome would have traditionally repelled or redistributed throughout the empire in such a manner as to diminish their capacity to coordinate political demands or insurgency. In the end, they got the worst of both worlds. The Romans failed to properly treat, repel, redistribute, or contain the refugees. They also failed to dismantle the leadership structure of the germanic tribesman before they got into roman territory. As a result, the Germanic tribes became indendent armed political blocs within Roman borders capable of threatening and negotiating with roman authorities for concessions, land, and power.
  - brazzy 5y ago
    I think you're mixing up cause and effect. After the Diocletian reforms, the administration was more centralized and powerful than ever. It would absolutely have been possible to incorporate the Germanic tribes under the old auxilia system, and that would have prevented the formation of such "armed political blocs". But that would have required paying them more or less like regular legionnaires. And Rome didn't want to spend that kind of money anymore; maybe it didn't have that kind of money, due to the economic troubles caused by the crises of the thrid century that you mention.
    - crocodiletears 5y ago
      You make a good point, but here's how I understand it - and I'll cop that may be wrong Diocletian's reforms did a lot to recentralize the empire, but by the the late 300s during this influx, the nation had been wracked by the wars of the tetrarchy, and a cavalcade of small civil wars instigated by would-be usurpers. The iirc military relied more heavilly on conscription, and the better part of it was deployed in service of the emperor's protection, leaving border territories defended by fewer units more dependent on local governing authorities to provide supplemental irregular forces. The instability at the upper tiers of Roman government from successive administrations executing purges in various states of paranoia, the vacillations between administrations favoring/disfavouring Christians in different quarter of the empire, and the empire's financial troubles had also done a lot to degrade the Roman bureaucracies institutional knowledge, and capacity to plan/execute policy. As a result, the roman empire was institutionally incapable of managing an uncontrolled mass migration of the scale that was instigated by hunnic expansion in eastern Europe. This wasn't just a matter of being incapable or too miserly to integrate germanic soldiers into the military, it was a matter of integrating entire nations into Roman society at a scale which Rome had never before experienced in a context far more complicated than an occupation of foreign lands. Irrespective of their pay, Germanic soldiers weren't effectively granted a place in Roman society because Rome had no capacity to give one to them or their families, and at the same time did nothing to prevent them from staying connected to their tribes or their leaders.
- brazzy 5y ago
  It was cheaper.
gadders 5y ago
It's amazing how historians (of all politics) see the past through their own political views. I would imagine if if you were to ask Bret what he thought the solution to US Immigration is today he would reply similarly to your first paragraph. Probably Andrew Roberts or Niall Ferguson would say the opposite. I wonder if there are any historians that say "XXX worked then, but I recommend YYY now."
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Basically all historians say that, including Devereaux. He's not presenting late republican Rome as an ideal to aspire to: as he described in detail earlier in the series, they were a violent, militaristic society who succeeded through constant wars of conquest.
- brazzy 5y ago
  The whole point of the entire series is to see the past on its own terms and give very detailed historical evidence why people who say the opposite don't know what they fuck they're talking about. Ferguson specifically is, to use the modern parlance, demolished. On the other hand, Bret also makes it clear that then is then and now is now, and you can not simply transfer social concepts or policies.
MisterTea 5y ago
> they stopped incorporating allied troops as paid and respected units within the Roman military command structure, and instead had them operate under their own kings, paid with conquered land. So in essence... they privatized the military?

by brazzy 5y ago

ithkuil 5y ago

Why did that change in policy take place?

crocodiletears 5y ago
Reduced centralized administrative capacity due to consecutive crises of succession in the third century conspired with a large wave of Germanic refugees fleeing the huns that Rome would have traditionally repelled or redistributed throughout the empire in such a manner as to diminish their capacity to coordinate political demands or insurgency. In the end, they got the worst of both worlds. The Romans failed to properly treat, repel, redistribute, or contain the refugees. They also failed to dismantle the leadership structure of the germanic tribesman before they got into roman territory. As a result, the Germanic tribes became indendent armed political blocs within Roman borders capable of threatening and negotiating with roman authorities for concessions, land, and power.
- brazzy 5y ago
  I think you're mixing up cause and effect. After the Diocletian reforms, the administration was more centralized and powerful than ever. It would absolutely have been possible to incorporate the Germanic tribes under the old auxilia system, and that would have prevented the formation of such "armed political blocs". But that would have required paying them more or less like regular legionnaires. And Rome didn't want to spend that kind of money anymore; maybe it didn't have that kind of money, due to the economic troubles caused by the crises of the thrid century that you mention.
  - crocodiletears 5y ago
    You make a good point, but here's how I understand it - and I'll cop that may be wrong Diocletian's reforms did a lot to recentralize the empire, but by the the late 300s during this influx, the nation had been wracked by the wars of the tetrarchy, and a cavalcade of small civil wars instigated by would-be usurpers. The iirc military relied more heavilly on conscription, and the better part of it was deployed in service of the emperor's protection, leaving border territories defended by fewer units more dependent on local governing authorities to provide supplemental irregular forces. The instability at the upper tiers of Roman government from successive administrations executing purges in various states of paranoia, the vacillations between administrations favoring/disfavouring Christians in different quarter of the empire, and the empire's financial troubles had also done a lot to degrade the Roman bureaucracies institutional knowledge, and capacity to plan/execute policy. As a result, the roman empire was institutionally incapable of managing an uncontrolled mass migration of the scale that was instigated by hunnic expansion in eastern Europe. This wasn't just a matter of being incapable or too miserly to integrate germanic soldiers into the military, it was a matter of integrating entire nations into Roman society at a scale which Rome had never before experienced in a context far more complicated than an occupation of foreign lands. Irrespective of their pay, Germanic soldiers weren't effectively granted a place in Roman society because Rome had no capacity to give one to them or their families, and at the same time did nothing to prevent them from staying connected to their tribes or their leaders.
brazzy 5y ago
It was cheaper.

gadders 5y ago

It's amazing how historians (of all politics) see the past through their own political views. I would imagine if if you were to ask Bret what he thought the solution to US Immigration is today he would reply similarly to your first paragraph. Probably Andrew Roberts or Niall Ferguson would say the opposite. I wonder if there are any historians that say "XXX worked then, but I recommend YYY now."

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Basically all historians say that, including Devereaux. He's not presenting late republican Rome as an ideal to aspire to: as he described in detail earlier in the series, they were a violent, militaristic society who succeeded through constant wars of conquest.
brazzy 5y ago
The whole point of the entire series is to see the past on its own terms and give very detailed historical evidence why people who say the opposite don't know what they fuck they're talking about. Ferguson specifically is, to use the modern parlance, demolished. On the other hand, Bret also makes it clear that then is then and now is now, and you can not simply transfer social concepts or policies.

MisterTea 5y ago

> they stopped incorporating allied troops as paid and respected units within the Roman military command structure, and instead had them operate under their own kings, paid with conquered land. So in essence... they privatized the military?