Fall of Rome vs Transformation of Rome

[heirtothewind]

The traditional date for the ‘’fall’’ of the Roman Empire, as given by Edward Gibbon, is 476 CE when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, an insignificant event that marks the beginning of the Middle Ages. Historians can argue, however, that the Middle Ages began when Constantine converted to Christianity in 313 CE and that the ‘’crisis of the third century’’ set the stage for early feudal society. There was no dramatic ‘’fall’’ of Rome but rather a transformation of the classical Roman society and culture to an essentially Germanic medieval society and culture created through the following factors-

The constant internecine wars which determined who would be the next barracks- emperor supplanted the orderly imperial succession after the death of Marcus Aurelius, as well as the efficiency of public administration with trained civil servants that Trajan had established with his pedagogium. Together with Germanic peoples allowed to settle within the empire, this chaos facilitated the later military invasions of Rome by the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths. The fragmentation of Europe, ruled by military feudal lords, was characteristic of the Middle Ages.

Inflation and the dwindling of a money economy created serfdom. The double denarius [‘’antoninianus’’] introduced in 214 CE was only 60-percent silver and had become a bronze coin by 275 CE. The coinage reform of Diocletian [10 silver argenti = 1 gold solidus] was short-lived and insufficient, as most coins of the fourth century are unidentifiable bronze coins, even though the silver siliqua [a thin silver coin resembling the medieval English penny] and gold solidus [equal to 24 siliquae] were minted. Unable to pay taxes with the debased and dwindling supply of coins, small farmers turned their land over to larger land owners, who had pre-paid the taxes [hence known as ‘’tax farmers’’], and became serfs tied to the land. Serfdom, of course, was another characteristic of the Middle Ages.

Christianity, which dominated the Middle Ages, gained a firm grip with Constantine’s conversion, and the authority of church leaders gradually eroded the power and prestige of the emperor and secular authorities. The Council of Nicea [325 CE] and the Council of Constantinople [381 CE] laid the foundations of a unified Christian doctrine and temporal powers of bishops. By threats of excommunication and withholding sacraments, for example, Bishop Ambrose of Milan influenced or intimidated Theodosius into allowing Christians to burn synagogues with impunity and persecuting pagans. Civic duty, the cornerstone of classical Rome, and Christian dogma became inextricably enmeshed in the society of late antiquity.

Thus, by the fourth century, emerged the three orders of medieval society- [1] those who fought, the knights; [2] those who labored, the peasants; and [3] those who prayed, the clergy. The non-secular literature and highly stylized art, which I have not addressed, were cultural changes more identified with the Middle Ages than with classical antiquity.

 

[jet57]

While interesting, I think your thesis is correct, there are some informational clarifications I'd like to add.

Rome had over extended itself and began to withdraw from Britain in 410 AD. Rome by then had been sacked by the Celts and then the Visigoths, who were Germanic. So they had been on their way out for time. Constantine held at Nicaea in 325 AD the conference that accepted Christianity as the state religion and he didn't "convert" get baptized until his deathbed in 337.

I had a college professor that had a theory; he said that the great civilizations didn't fall, as you are saying, but were merely abandoned by the populace and repopulated by migrations...

 

[joG]

Very interesting. It is sadly a period of Roman empire I know relatively little about. I should read up on it. The demise of empire and hegemony with economic decline and divolving political order is fascinating.

 

[PoS]

Ive always considered the multiple sackings of Rome by the Goths and Vandals to be the end of the Roman era and the beginning of the Dark Ages. When Alaric sacked the city in 410 AD, he destroyed the tombs of the emperors and burned down any non-Christian temple (Alaric and the others were actually Christian) as well as destroying and defacing every statue they could find that wasn't Christian (a few temples were saved for the simple fact that they converted form pagan to Christian). This to me marked the actual point when old Rome finally met its end.

 

[Napoleon]

Very interesting. It is sadly a period of Roman empire I know relatively little about. I should read up on it. The demise of empire and hegemony with economic decline and divolving political order is fascinating.

A commonly held belief is that the Roman Empire came to a sudden end, but that is actually a misconception. It is true that the "barbarians" did finally manage to (permanently) conquer the Western Roman Empire, but the "barbarians" wanted a Roman lifestyle. Roman citizens were appointed to manage all of the fine institutions and public works that have come to be associated with Rome. It is worth noting that the conquest did result in a "brain drain" - with the population of Rome declining from ~1 million citizens to ~10,000 as those who could fled to the Eastern Empire and other nations, but little changed for the average person who stayed. It was a very gradual degradation in the knowledge and skill required to maintain those features that ultimately doomed Roman civilization.

 

[joG]

A commonly held belief is that the Roman Empire came to a sudden end, but that is actually a misconception. It is true that the "barbarians" did finally manage to (permanently) conquer the Western Roman Empire, but the "barbarians" wanted a Roman lifestyle. Roman citizens were appointed to manage all of the fine institutions and public works that have come to be associated with Rome. It is worth noting that the conquest did result in a "brain drain" - with the population of Rome declining from ~1 million citizens to ~10,000 as those who could fled to the Eastern Empire and other nations, but little changed for the average person who stayed. It was a very gradual degradation in the knowledge and skill required to maintain those features that ultimately doomed Roman civilization.

It is an interesting question, what made Rome great and which attributes should be looked at to determine the decline. As you point out, the final size of only 10.000 is certainly a symptom of the fall. But do the continuous wars along the boarders and the splitting of the empire already count as signs or are the factors that led to the demise?

 

[Green Hornet]

Interesting topic but the Roman Empire extended in to the Germanic region. The Germanic tribes did not encroach on the empire, the empire encroached on the Germanic lands. The Edict of Milan gave Christianity a legal status, but did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. It merely made it legal to practice Christianity. Constantine himself did not convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed. And the Roman army was a shell of it's former shelf.

 

[Oberon]

I had a college professor that had a theory; he said that the great civilizations didn't fall, as you are saying, but were merely abandoned by the populace and repopulated by migrations...

Lot of truth in that; the western empire suffered a long native population decline, in no small part due to the long term economic stagnation. The 'middle ages' is noted for its shortage of labor, which then spurred technological advancements that wouldn't have been economically feasible in a society with an unlimited supply of slave labor. The Romans became increasingly dependent on 'barbarian' mercenaries and generals to man the legions.

 

[Oberon]

Christianity, which dominated the Middle Ages, gained a firm grip with Constantine’s conversion, and the authority of church leaders gradually eroded the power and prestige of the emperor and secular authorities.

The Christian sects were noted for their success at operating social and welfare programs for themselves, and Constantine noted this in contrast to failures of the pagan priests and state priests to run adequate operations.

The Council of Nicea [325 CE] and the Council of Constantinople [381 CE] laid the foundations of a unified Christian doctrine and temporal powers of bishops. By threats of excommunication and withholding sacraments, for example, Bishop Ambrose of Milan influenced or intimidated Theodosius into allowing Christians to burn synagogues with impunity and persecuting pagans. Civic duty, the cornerstone of classical Rome, and Christian dogma became inextricably enmeshed in the society of late antiquity.

It should be noted that the 'Four Emperors Era' saw the most severe persecutions of Christians yet seen in the Empire under the three Emperors Constantine was competing with, and the pagan priests and Jews led the way in those mass killings, which is why they were in turn 'persecuted' and driven out of offices. So, yes, as a matter of self-defense Constantine would want them out of power, as they were a threat to his own. This was a normal practice in pre-modern eras, and should be judged as such. The case is that as the political arm of Rome lost influence and the West fragmented into feudal states, the social services arm remained organized and intact, having its own sources of income and 'international' influence it gradually assumed its own political power, yes. It wasn't some planned evil conspiracy or anything, despite all the Protestant Reformation and 'Enlightenment' propaganda that came along later, nor was its power absolute or even dominant.

Thus, by the fourth century, emerged the three orders of medieval society- [1] those who fought, the knights; [2] those who labored, the peasants; and [3] those who prayed, the clergy. The non-secular literature and highly stylized art, which I have not addressed, were cultural changes more identified with the Middle Ages than with classical antiquity.

The population in the Med regions drastically declined, while it rose substantially in France and Germany; there are some books that document a series of climate changes and receding 'mini Ice Ages' that 'warmed up' northern Europe in several cycles over the centuries that one might look up; I have a couple but they're buried in boxes somewhere, The Geography of History or something like that is one of the better ones. Those social divisions roughly correspond with Roman social divisions, in any case; 'Patricians' and 'Equestrians' for 'knights', slaves' and ordinary laborers were 'clients', mostly serfdom resembled 'client' status, as did the whole feudal system followed the Roman model, as did a lot of the legal system. Probably the most unique developing class were the urban merchant and guild 'class', that eventually developed into a major political class of its own.

 

[Oberon]

Ive always considered the multiple sackings of Rome by the Goths and Vandals to be the end of the Roman era and the beginning of the Dark Ages. When Alaric sacked the city in 410 AD, he destroyed the tombs of the emperors and burned down any non-Christian temple (Alaric and the others were actually Christian) as well as destroying and defacing every statue they could find that wasn't Christian (a few temples were saved for the simple fact that they converted form pagan to Christian). This to me marked the actual point when old Rome finally met its end.

There are several timelines one can pick. 410 is as good as any other.

 

[Oberon]

As an added opinion, the 'Four Emperors' period could also be taken as a 'beginning of the end' scenario, but the eastern Empire didn't fall, so it gets muddy, until the Mongol invasions and the fall of Constantinople.

 

[blackjack50]

If you haven't listened, I recommend the history of Rome podcast. One of the best podcasts I've ever listened to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[depakote]

The traditional date for the ‘’fall’’ of the Roman Empire, as given by Edward Gibbon, is 476 CE when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, an insignificant event that marks the beginning of the Middle Ages. Historians can argue, however, that the Middle Ages began when Constantine converted to Christianity in 313 CE and that the ‘’crisis of the third century’’ set the stage for early feudal society. There was no dramatic ‘’fall’’ of Rome but rather a transformation of the classical Roman society and culture to an essentially Germanic medieval society and culture created through the following factors-

The constant internecine wars which determined who would be the next barracks- emperor supplanted the orderly imperial succession after the death of Marcus Aurelius, as well as the efficiency of public administration with trained civil servants that Trajan had established with his pedagogium. Together with Germanic peoples allowed to settle within the empire, this chaos facilitated the later military invasions of Rome by the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths. The fragmentation of Europe, ruled by military feudal lords, was characteristic of the Middle Ages.

Inflation and the dwindling of a money economy created serfdom. The double denarius [‘’antoninianus’’] introduced in 214 CE was only 60-percent silver and had become a bronze coin by 275 CE. The coinage reform of Diocletian [10 silver argenti = 1 gold solidus] was short-lived and insufficient, as most coins of the fourth century are unidentifiable bronze coins, even though the silver siliqua [a thin silver coin resembling the medieval English penny] and gold solidus [equal to 24 siliquae] were minted. Unable to pay taxes with the debased and dwindling supply of coins, small farmers turned their land over to larger land owners, who had pre-paid the taxes [hence known as ‘’tax farmers’’], and became serfs tied to the land. Serfdom, of course, was another characteristic of the Middle Ages.

Christianity, which dominated the Middle Ages, gained a firm grip with Constantine’s conversion, and the authority of church leaders gradually eroded the power and prestige of the emperor and secular authorities. The Council of Nicea [325 CE] and the Council of Constantinople [381 CE] laid the foundations of a unified Christian doctrine and temporal powers of bishops. By threats of excommunication and withholding sacraments, for example, Bishop Ambrose of Milan influenced or intimidated Theodosius into allowing Christians to burn synagogues with impunity and persecuting pagans. Civic duty, the cornerstone of classical Rome, and Christian dogma became inextricably enmeshed in the society of late antiquity.

Thus, by the fourth century, emerged the three orders of medieval society- [1] those who fought, the knights; [2] those who labored, the peasants; and [3] those who prayed, the clergy. The non-secular literature and highly stylized art, which I have not addressed, were cultural changes more identified with the Middle Ages than with classical antiquity.

Christianity, which dominated the Middle Ages, gained a firm grip with Constantine’s conversion, and the authority of church leaders gradually eroded the power and prestige of the emperor and secular authorities. The Council of Nicea [325 CE] and the Council of Constantinople [381 CE] laid the foundations of a unified Christian doctrine and temporal powers of bishops.

Constantine was a Roman Emperor from 306 to 337 AD.

In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or medieval period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages

The Middle ages came after Constantine.

Are you speaking about how The Byzantium Empire was overrun by the Church leaders?

I think I understand what you are trying to say.. That Constantine's firm grip on his conversion, made Christianity a dominate religion during the Middle ages. And that after Constantine was not around to keep things in check, the increasing authority of church leaders began to lessen Royal Authority within the places where Church was..

So when Rome fell in 476 or so, the church leaders around the area began to exert their force upon those who had the misfortune of the 'fall.'