4 ms·

An argument I'd like to see a little more is one that argues that the Roman Empire actually 'fell' in the Crisis of the Third Century. This seems to account for

An argument I'd like to see a little more is one that argues that the Roman Empire actually 'fell' in the Crisis of the Third Century. This seems to account for many of the continuity arguments and catastrophe arguments at the same time (although my understanding is that the economic cataclysm actually happens relatively late--I'm sure this will be addressed in Part III, though): the post-Roman states are largely continuous with the post-Crisis Roman norms, although on a much smaller scale due to the loss of state capacity.

wffurr 5y ago
Isn't this addressed pretty early on in this essay? "But here too, we have to be careful in defining what that governance meant, because the Roman Empire of August, 378 AD was not the Roman Empire of August, 14 AD." "are we comparing [the decline of the fifth and sixth centuries] to the empire of Hadrian (r. 117-138) or the empire of Valentinian (r. 364-375)? Because most students are generally more familiar with the former (because it is was tends to be get focused on in teaching), there is a tendency to compare 476 directly with Rome under the Nervan-Antonines (96-192) without taking into account the events of the third and early fourth century."
zozbot234 5y ago
It definitely didn't "fall" at that time in any real sense, but it seems to have started a terminal decline that continued all the way through the Early Middle Ages (with no clearly identifiable "fall" event, albeit the convention of picking 476 CE, being roughly at the midpoint, is arguably as good as any!). By the same standard, one could argue that recovery and renewed growth following this "decline" state began roughly in the Late Middle Ages and continued throughout the Renaissance and the Early Modern Period, essentially setting the stage for the Age of Exploration and Industrial Revolution as truly "disruptive" events from a long-run POV.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
- wins32767 5y ago
  While there is no one event, the population collapsed, the security situation deteriorated, material conditions became dramatically worse and literacy rates plunged through the 5th and 6th centuries. Mass death and poverty combined with a collapse governmental capacity is more than just a "terminal decline" in my book.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    > While there is no one event The fall of Constantinople to Ottoman cannons in 1453 drew a line under the Roman polity, Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn for good. You can debate how Roman the empire was at that point, but it was still officially Basileía Rhōmaíōn, known informally as Rhōmania, and the people still called themselves Romaioi.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - eropple 5y ago
      Ehh-sure, but also no? If we want to have fun with it, one can make a reasonable argument that the Catholic Church and today's nation-state of the Vatican City is the further continuation of the Western Roman Empire to this day. They still even speak Latin! Historical labels are fun. The arguments mostly so when you're drinking.
      - mr_toad 5y ago
        Frankly, that’s even less of a legitimate claim that that of the Holy Roman Empire. Pun intended.
        eropple 5y ago
        Sure, but the Eastern Roman Empire isn't the Roman Empire, then, change my mind. (Said mostly unseriously, of course. Labels are just that.) I did once take this dumb argument to the end that the Roman Empire never actually ended, it just ended up on an island with a different flag and then unceremoniously transferred itself to North America later. Then I learned Asimov had already done it.
- whakim 5y ago
  > but it seems to have started a terminal decline that continued all the way through the Early Middle Ages (with no clearly identifiable "fall" event, albeit the convention of picking 476 CE, being roughly at the midpoint, is arguably as good as any!) This isn't really true. The Roman Empire recovered substantially during the 4th century; economic output and population (at least as well as we can measure them) stabilized at levels below those of the first two centuries C.E., but significantly higher than during the crises of the third century. It wasn't until the late 4th century that things really started going downhill.
whakim 5y ago
I'm not sure it makes sense to argue that a state "falls" when it reorganizes its administrative structure, makes big changes to its currency and fiscal policies, and goes through a period of violent upheaval. By those standards, the United States "fell" in the late 19th and early 20th century with the civil war and the vast expansion of the role of the state.
- notahacker 5y ago
  I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. (At the other end of the scale there are people willing to argue that the Eastern Roman Empire was just an administrative reorganisation and consolidation so the Empire didn't really fall until 1453. Some people measure terminal declines from the peak, some people won't acknowledge falls until something finally ceases to exist)
  - whakim 5y ago
    > I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. But this isn't at all what happened with regards to the late Roman Empire. The Western Empire recovered substantially from the crisis of the second century. The administrative changes that were made weren't the root causes of what happened in the late 4th and 5th centuries; they were actually what allowed (most of) the 4th century to be such a success. It's also emphatically not true that the Roman Empire of, say, the 370s, "sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion" (even if you accept the notion of "foreign," which doesn't really apply to Rome's military relationship with many of its "barbarian" neighbors).

wffurr 5y ago

Isn't this addressed pretty early on in this essay? "But here too, we have to be careful in defining what that governance meant, because the Roman Empire of August, 378 AD was not the Roman Empire of August, 14 AD." "are we comparing [the decline of the fifth and sixth centuries] to the empire of Hadrian (r. 117-138) or the empire of Valentinian (r. 364-375)? Because most students are generally more familiar with the former (because it is was tends to be get focused on in teaching), there is a tendency to compare 476 directly with Rome under the Nervan-Antonines (96-192) without taking into account the events of the third and early fourth century."

zozbot234 5y ago

It definitely didn't "fall" at that time in any real sense, but it seems to have started a terminal decline that continued all the way through the Early Middle Ages (with no clearly identifiable "fall" event, albeit the convention of picking 476 CE, being roughly at the midpoint, is arguably as good as any!). By the same standard, one could argue that recovery and renewed growth following this "decline" state began roughly in the Late Middle Ages and continued throughout the Renaissance and the Early Modern Period, essentially setting the stage for the Age of Exploration and Industrial Revolution as truly "disruptive" events from a long-run POV.

newaccount2021 5y ago
wins32767 5y ago
While there is no one event, the population collapsed, the security situation deteriorated, material conditions became dramatically worse and literacy rates plunged through the 5th and 6th centuries. Mass death and poverty combined with a collapse governmental capacity is more than just a "terminal decline" in my book.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  > While there is no one event The fall of Constantinople to Ottoman cannons in 1453 drew a line under the Roman polity, Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn for good. You can debate how Roman the empire was at that point, but it was still officially Basileía Rhōmaíōn, known informally as Rhōmania, and the people still called themselves Romaioi.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - eropple 5y ago
    Ehh-sure, but also no? If we want to have fun with it, one can make a reasonable argument that the Catholic Church and today's nation-state of the Vatican City is the further continuation of the Western Roman Empire to this day. They still even speak Latin! Historical labels are fun. The arguments mostly so when you're drinking.
    - mr_toad 5y ago
      Frankly, that’s even less of a legitimate claim that that of the Holy Roman Empire. Pun intended.
      - eropple 5y ago
        Sure, but the Eastern Roman Empire isn't the Roman Empire, then, change my mind. (Said mostly unseriously, of course. Labels are just that.) I did once take this dumb argument to the end that the Roman Empire never actually ended, it just ended up on an island with a different flag and then unceremoniously transferred itself to North America later. Then I learned Asimov had already done it.
whakim 5y ago
> but it seems to have started a terminal decline that continued all the way through the Early Middle Ages (with no clearly identifiable "fall" event, albeit the convention of picking 476 CE, being roughly at the midpoint, is arguably as good as any!) This isn't really true. The Roman Empire recovered substantially during the 4th century; economic output and population (at least as well as we can measure them) stabilized at levels below those of the first two centuries C.E., but significantly higher than during the crises of the third century. It wasn't until the late 4th century that things really started going downhill.

whakim 5y ago

I'm not sure it makes sense to argue that a state "falls" when it reorganizes its administrative structure, makes big changes to its currency and fiscal policies, and goes through a period of violent upheaval. By those standards, the United States "fell" in the late 19th and early 20th century with the civil war and the vast expansion of the role of the state.

notahacker 5y ago
I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. (At the other end of the scale there are people willing to argue that the Eastern Roman Empire was just an administrative reorganisation and consolidation so the Empire didn't really fall until 1453. Some people measure terminal declines from the peak, some people won't acknowledge falls until something finally ceases to exist)
- whakim 5y ago
  > I suspect this would be considered a valid thesis by future historians if the United States had existed in relatively stable prosperity for hundreds of years beforehand and the result of such changes was that the US reduced in power and wealth to the extent that it sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion by the mid twenty-first century. But this isn't at all what happened with regards to the late Roman Empire. The Western Empire recovered substantially from the crisis of the second century. The administrative changes that were made weren't the root causes of what happened in the late 4th and 5th centuries; they were actually what allowed (most of) the 4th century to be such a success. It's also emphatically not true that the Roman Empire of, say, the 370s, "sat on the verge of succumbing to foreign invasion" (even if you accept the notion of "foreign," which doesn't really apply to Rome's military relationship with many of its "barbarian" neighbors).