10 ms·
One thing I really got out of the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan is if anyone tells you there was ONE cause of the fall of Rome, they're full of crap.
by comrh 4y ago
One thing I really got out of the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan is if anyone tells you there was ONE cause of the fall of Rome, they're full of crap.
- RajT88 4y agoWhat I find recently is that the folks suggesting Rome fell because of ONE cause, that one cause tends to be some political fringe talking point. So there's some other clues in there.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MichaelZuo 4y agoI would even extend the point to applying to the failure or success of all complex systems.
- dralley 4y agoAnd if you really want to boil it down to a single reason, the best candidate would be "becoming militarily dependent on hired mercenaries and then not paying them" rather than something more interesting
- comrh 4y agoI always thought favoring biological heirs was up there too. The Five Good Emperors were all adopted and some of the absolute worst leaders only got there through luck of birth.
- ricree 4y agoProbably true, but it was so baked into the system that it was hard to escape. Even the five good emperors chose their successors via adoption, so on paper it was still direct inheritance. For Marcus Aurelius to pass over his son would have been a huge break from tradition. The best attempt to escape this was Diocletian's tetrarchy, but that just led to yet another civil war.
- dukeofdoom 4y agoI can see that happening. Thinking about Canada. The other day I calculated it would take 25 hours of work for the minimum wage worker to afford a weekend camping. And I think that's a pretty good indication we're pretty close collapse. Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed.
- hengri 4y agoDo you think that average people throughout history had the means of going on weekend camping trips.
- SoftTalker 4y agoIDK. Camping can be very cheap. I went on camping trips all the time as a teenager and I had almost no money. Unless by "camping" you are talking about towing a small mobile home into a paved "campground" with electricity, water, showers and bathrooms.
- aerostable_slug 4y agoI think they were called "hunting / gathering" for most of human history. Heck, non-working pets (e.g. herd guardians, vermin control, etc.) were nearly unknown until relatively recently, because who had the wealth to feed a non-productive mouth?
- LocalPCGuy 4y agoIt's more just what they had to do anytime they traveled longer than a day's distance. I'm sure that happened for pleasure, but a trip specifically to camp seems like something that is more relegated to the modern age where you can get to a destination easily without having to just camp along the way.
- Out_of_Characte 4y agoThe average person throughout history did not have a refrigerator or global trade. Therefore any decline in todays society is moot.
- 4y ago
- paganel 4y agoIt's also how the Byzantine Empire went into its downwards trajectory starting with the late 1000s. In fact, it was a little more complicated, as the Empire had to resort to using mercenaries because its theme system had been basically broken into pieces by the Empire oligarchy and by the Church, so Byzantium having to resort to mercenaries in order to defend itself was mostly, by that time, a consequence of said oligarchy and Byzantine Church doing their thing against the small Byzantine tax-payers. And before someone starts saying that the Roman Empire lived "through" the Byzantine Empire all the way to 1453 I have to say that from my point of view that is only valid until the late 6th-early 7th century, by the end of Heraclius's [1] reign the Byzantine Empire was a thing totally different compared to the Roman Empire. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius
- mr_toad 4y agoThe later emperors were also reluctant to rely on armies commanded by native Byzantine generals, who had a long track record of usurpation.
- otter-rock 4y agoI can agree that it ceased being the Roman Empire per se, but I don't see it as being that much different from the end of the Roman Kingdom or the Roman Republic. It's still a continuation.
- panick21_ 4y agoThis exactly. The argument about non continuation are nonsense. Yes of course after 500 years it was different. Look at any state with 500 year and it will not be exactly the same.
- panick21_ 4y agoI don't think this is a good argument. The Byzantine Empire was at a peak around 1000 and the main reasons for it decline after that is not mercenaries but rather that Basil didn't have an heir and his daughters were left in power and had no interest in ruling so that only a few decades later the state was disaster. Combine that with the rise of a new powerful enemy and you have a disaster on your hands. New evidence suggest that the Theme system was only barley function for a long time before the decline. In fact, going away from that system is partly why they were so powerful by the year 1000. > by the end of Heraclius's [1] reign I don't agree with that at all. If there is any reasonable point to talk about non-continuation it would be 1204.
- renewiltord 4y agoThat sounds a lot like "had cardiac arrest" though. The magic is in the "why" of "not paying them".
- trashtester 4y agoAnother, related view is to look at how many was on the dole. During the late empire, around 20% of the population in Rome was effectively on welfare, getting food from the state. Instead of drafting these poeple into the empire, Rome recruited foreigners for the army, while the productivity of the domestic population kept going down. Eventually the state, needing to pay both the welfare receipients and the army, ran out of economic capacity to provide for both groups. Stopping the dole was if possible more dangerous short term than not paying the provicial armies, since the proletariat in Rome/Constantinople could riot instantly, and overthrow any emperor.
- MereInterest 4y agoWasn't the dole only implemented because land ownership had concentrated to a few extremely wealthy individuals? Only a few generations earlier, during the Second Punic War many landowners had either died or had their farms ruined to deny food to Hannibal, allowing the land to be bought at low prices.
- trashtester 4y agoCombined with massive influx of slaves from Gaul and other places making latin farm laborers too expensive. Still, the effect is the same. A large proletariat with very little income demanding to be fed by the state. With significant political power, based on making up a large percentage of the population in the capital.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> Wasn't the dole only implemented because land ownership had concentrated to a few extremely wealthy individuals? It was implemented because it got votes. It's not a coincidence that it was restricted to people who could vote. You get welfare whenever you expand the franchise too far.
- davidgay 4y ago> You get welfare whenever you expand the franchise too far. So, pray tell, what was the step too far (in no particular order): - women - slaves - non-property owners - non-poll-tax payers - 18 year olds ... and in which of those categories do you fall?
- narag 4y agoThat's very reasonable. But there was a slow collapse of the economy that is an intermediate cause in the chain of events that is central to the fall. You can speculate what caused that collapse, that in turn caused the fall and there are also many causes to consider, but again, there is one intermediate cause that is Christianism. The religion altered several aspects of the economy: slavery, commerce and lending. Now you can again speculate about what make them think it was a good idea to adopt Christianism as official religion. If a previous crisis existed that shook the foundations of the empire. Anyway, it seems the solution solved nothing. So xxx --> Christianism --> Economy --> Fall
- boomboomsubban 4y agoIf you blame Christianity, what about all of Constantine's other major changes? Was it the Tetrarchy? The formation of Constantinople? The restructuring of the government or military? The introduction of a new currency? All monumental changes that had about as much of an effect as the change of religious policy. I'm no fan of Christianity, but the claim that it was central to the fall always comes off as somewhat lazy. Religion needed reform, and maybe they could have done it in a different manner which would have led to a more stable West but it just as likely could have destroyed the East.
- narag 4y agoIf you blame Christianity, what about all of Constantine's other major changes? It's the Economy, Steve. In particular, if you discourage commerce, you're playing with fire in an empire with such an extension. I'm no fan of Christianity, but the claim that it was central to the fall always comes off as somewhat lazy. I thought I'd added enough nuance. The three aspects I mentioned are not trivial and can be connected directly. In fact, it's not something that just occured to me, there's abundant literature on them and are considered most probable causes by a lot of scolars.
- gjm11 4y agoIt is, to say the least, not obvious that Constantine's conversion to Christianity was the thing he did that had most impact on commerce in the Roman Empire. You did indeed mention "three aspects". But merely mentioning a thing proves nothing. For instance, you say that the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity had an effect on the practice of slavery, which had an effect on commerce. Plausible, for sure. But Christian Rome didn't abolish slavery or slave-trading, or anything like that. Do you have evidence that what changes Christianity brought to the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire actually harmed its economy? Again, you mention lending. Many Christians have been opposed to lending at interest, or to lending at (what they see as) excessive interest. But so far as I can tell the Roman Empire did not abolish or greatly restrict lending when it became Christian. Constantine himself set a maximum interest rate of 12%, which doesn't seem unreasonably low, and it seems that that stayed in place for at least the next couple of centuries. (And, in particular, until after the fall of the Western empire.) So I think you need more detail and more evidence for the claim you're making. Also: "Christianism"? The usual term is "Christianity", as I'm sure you know. People sometimes make a distinction between "Islam" the religion and "Islamism" the political ideology, but if you make a similar distinction then it seems to me that what the Roman Empire converted to was Christianity rather than Christianism. Are you making that distinction, or some other distinction, or are you just hoping that your choice of wording will annoy Christians? (I am not a Christian and think it's very plausible that the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity was bad for it and for the world. Also, possibly, for Christianity. So I'm not making the criticisms I do out of a desire to support Christianity and suppress criticism of it.)
- krylon 4y agoI had a great history teacher in school who would use every opportunity (and there were many, obviously) to drive home this point. Not just Rome: most, if not all, major historical events and developments are driven by multiple causes.
- hutzlibu 4y agoIf the hypothesis is correct, that lead significantly decreased roman mental capabilities, then this might be the root cause, for everything else. Stupid people make stupid decisions. But wether the effect is significant enough, I am not qualified to judge.
- vmurthy 4y agoIf you look at _any_ complex event (war , disease , great success , great failure) you can use the same rule of thumb. As an example, did Europe in the middle ages succeed only because of science and technology? Did they take more risks because they could get credit? It's all layers and makes for a richer understanding of the world :)