So Why DID the Western Roman Empire Collapse?
- Thread starter asnys
- Start date
TinyTartar
Banned
Kind of odd that the utterly useless ones were the ones that actually lived for a while. I guess maybe he and Valentinian were smarter than they appeared; being shit emperors meant they kept their heads for longer than anyone who showed promise.
Although really, Honorius did almost nothing and delegated to Stilicho and others almost everything.
To be fair, a lot of bad decisions isn't due to Honorius, but either Stilicho own interventionism, more than often going too importantly (even if it was objectively necessary) and the growingly anti-Barbarian senatorial elites (revolt of Eutropos, slaughter of Goths in 400, etc.)
Not that Honorius shouldn't be blamed but he makes me think of a Late Antiquity's John Lackland : percieving the political issues, relatively competent in some matters but generally deeply lacking basic skills to realize whatever he wanted, eventually allowing ambitious as Flavius Constantius to appear.
It was more of a real Roman political problem in the West, with antagonizing senatorial elites that didn't provided a viable alternative to the presence of Romano-Barbarians but still rejected them.
Not that Honorius shouldn't be blamed but he makes me think of a Late Antiquity's John Lackland : percieving the political issues, relatively competent in some matters but generally deeply lacking basic skills to realize whatever he wanted, eventually allowing ambitious as Flavius Constantius to appear.
It was more of a real Roman political problem in the West, with antagonizing senatorial elites that didn't provided a viable alternative to the presence of Romano-Barbarians but still rejected them.
The East-West split also left the Western Empire without the East's resources.
The robot speaks the truth.
I did not white nor mean that It was simultaneous. I mentioned the formation of kingdoms and then the split of these kingdoms into smaller principalities, and the fact that It took centuries.
Concerning feudality, of course it was completed under the last Carolingians and their successors, but the process of feudalization began much earlier. There was already strong signs in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, with the "civil" war between Brunehilde and Fredegonde, and the development of the mayors of the Palace who built very powerful territorial power bases, the most successful of whom were the Carolingians and the Capetians.
Feudality being understood as the mix of benefit (concession of royal or fisc's wealth) usually landed, and vassality (understood as a personal clientelism): or at least with the classical definition used since Ganshof, we're forced to see that it's not existing during Merovingian period.
It's not achieved with Carolingians, it only really appears there at the point both became undistiguishable from each other with the Xth century (before, even in the rare case it was a thing, it was always distinguished).
Which is more a counter-exemple, as we're on a fight over the royal fiscus and an unification trend (that would know its apogee with Dagobert, without a noticable dedication of the fisc), not about its dismembrement (even if Merovingian aristocracy managed to get a certain autonomy with regencies and conflicts, but that's more true with the situation after 640's)
As for the contemporary Gondovald's revolt, we're in the continuity of Late Antiquity co-kingships and usurpations, not a political desintegration as it would happen in the late IXth/Xth century.
Yes, but that's essentially concerning Carolingians, and Capetians (that weren't majordomo) ducal title didn't really provided them with a completly depleted royal fisc (Late Carolingians basically held only Laon) and they didn't benefited from the guardianship of ecclesiastical demesnes as Carolingians did to establish systematical vassality on landed families.
If something, the coronation of Hugues is related to the Robertian decline, and the disappearance of the huge Robertian sphere of influence in Francia after Hugues the Great's death. Not about its capacity to distribute land.
Peppinids/Arnulfians/Carolingians were powerful, but less about privatized political power on Austrasia (if it was that, their power wouldn't have survived the backleash after Grimoald's demise) but about a huge net of private fidelities on which they managed to get the lead on, without depleting their familial lands along the Rhine.
It's hard to give a year to date the process, but let's say the secularisation of ecclesiastical demesnes by Peppin II and Charles Martel could be the first start, with the councils of 743/744, that allowed Carolingians to do so legally (si necessitas cogat, technically, but in fact as much they saw fit).
Ganshof said:
For what matter Merovingians themselves, and that up to the end, we're in the continuation of Late imperial social structures, mixed with direct fidelities as the truste.
It's a bit different in other regions, but that's essentially the same in, say, Gothic Hispania (in spite of the, much outdated, protofeudal theory), where a family can have a "favoured" sphere of influence, but where political power and familial patrimony aren't mixed, safe rarily and incidentally.
Which is a long way to get back to the discussion at hand, I agree, but essentially : the political collapse of WRE isn't directly tied up with Carolingian feudality (and its ulterior mutations), even in a long-time context; but to the consequences of an aristocratic takeover and the necessity to replace fidelities and former dynasty's truste, and thanks to an alliance with Church that allowed Carolingians to use ecclesiastical and monastic demenses to create a new vassalic "class".
Reminds me of History 120: From Rome to Renaissance. The first day the professor, an Austrian, hands out a map of Europe labelled "The Wanderings of the Peoples", with arrows showing the Vandals, Goths etc.
Me: Excuse me, what does this "Wanderings of the Peoples " mean?
Prof: The migrations of the Germanic peoples into territory of the the Roman Empire.
Me: Oh, I see- the Barbarian Invasions.
Prof: DEY VERE NOT BARBARIANS!!!
I think this is probably one of their worst mistakes. They made foreign mercenaries the core of Rome's defense and then game them no compelling reason to actually defend Rome outside of a paycheck. Bringing in the Germanic tribes would have been a fine move if Rome had followed it up by giving them positions of power and authority within the empire and a compelling reason to fight. Of course in the long term that would have meant a Germanic Rome rather than a Roman Rome.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
By that logic Rome wasn't Roman, it was Gallo-Puni-Latin-Greco-Iber-Roman.
It would gain some German characteristics sure, but the Germanic tribes would be subsumed by Roman culture and demographics, and change the definition of Roman.
Good idea though, but you'd want to distribute their power bases. We don't want all the Germanics in Gaul, as they could unite and rebel. Have one in a small part of Africa, Spain, Italy, Gaul, Britain (that could be interesting, use the Germanic tribes to conquer the rest of Britannia and Hibernia - and then make sure they're fed - could free up a legion or two - plus Germans rebelling against the Empire in Britainnia is less costly than the same in the rest of the Empire.
Faeelin
Banned
Hrm. But you do see significant declines in urbanization in the west. Not in the east, but that suggests things aren't hunky dory in Gaul and Hispania.
I've always seen the late empire as more centralized than the early empire, so I find this complaint a bit odd.
Faeelin
Banned
You're ignoring, and I think other posters are, that the Germanic peoples of the 4th and 5th centuries were more sophisticated, more numerous, and better armed than the Cimbri. They hadn't been passive; they had adapted Roman statecraft and built up societies of their own. 4th century Germania was more developed than it was in 50 BC.
Slavery peaked in the late republic and early empire. So this doesn't make sense.
TinyTartar
Banned
I still feel that while the signs of collapse had been set for quite a while, what ultimately undid the empire was the loss of its African cash cow. The foederati system was a poor one at times, but it still was probably the best army in the West and by a substantial margin by the time of the loss of Africa to the Vandals.
How to avoid this loss? I think that the defection of Bonafacius, who probably never should have been given the job in the first place, needed to be preempted. While treason and usurpations among Roman officials was a Roman tradition as long lasting as the regular army and disdain for barbarians, had the Emperor at the time realized the importance of the province in holding up the sinking edifice, he likely would have given it to a trusty right hand man who had no use for Vandalic pretensions.
Also, keeping a stronger defense in the province would not have hurt. As long as Rome held Africa, they could to an extent pay for what they needed to hold Italy and Dalmatia. An empire that holds these three provinces has the defense capabilities to sustain itself and the financial capabilities to sustain its defense. While taking back Spain and Gaul would likely be nigh unto impossible by this point, over time and with a solid recovery, it might not be impossible.
Curbing the Senate's growing hatred and intransigence towards Barbarians would be difficult (and really, why couldn't those attitudes been more prevalent earlier on when it might have been helpful rather than at the point where they literally needed to just accept facts of life?), but getting them on board with restoration might make tax collection a little bit easier, as it had utterly faded into a joke by the time of Aetius.
How to avoid this loss? I think that the defection of Bonafacius, who probably never should have been given the job in the first place, needed to be preempted. While treason and usurpations among Roman officials was a Roman tradition as long lasting as the regular army and disdain for barbarians, had the Emperor at the time realized the importance of the province in holding up the sinking edifice, he likely would have given it to a trusty right hand man who had no use for Vandalic pretensions.
Also, keeping a stronger defense in the province would not have hurt. As long as Rome held Africa, they could to an extent pay for what they needed to hold Italy and Dalmatia. An empire that holds these three provinces has the defense capabilities to sustain itself and the financial capabilities to sustain its defense. While taking back Spain and Gaul would likely be nigh unto impossible by this point, over time and with a solid recovery, it might not be impossible.
Curbing the Senate's growing hatred and intransigence towards Barbarians would be difficult (and really, why couldn't those attitudes been more prevalent earlier on when it might have been helpful rather than at the point where they literally needed to just accept facts of life?), but getting them on board with restoration might make tax collection a little bit easier, as it had utterly faded into a joke by the time of Aetius.
I would expect all the population from 300 would have met their creators duing that period
... and probably also some 8-10 generations deep I agree entierly on the decline of urbanisation.
That said, it was concerning regions where urbanisation was more political than societal (most of Gallo-Roman cities had less then 2000 inhabitants, even during the Augustean period), and on which the insecurity of the IIIrd century and demographical decline eventually meant fortification (that didn't covered all the inhabited places of the cities/castri, that said) smaller than Ist century cities size and gradual disappearance of the suburbium at the benefit of cultivated fields.
It didn't meant long-range trade disappeared. Some products that were typical of such exchanges within Romania didn't disappeared before the Vth.
Actually you did have such in the East, but a bit differently : Balkans were ravaged (safe Achaia) and Northern Syria still had to deal with Persian raids in the IIIrd century.
But overall, the region was "sanctuarized", and the municipal/urban model that was way more present in the East to begin with mostly survived and even prospered by the Vth in Syria.
Maybe not much more centralized structurally, but more unified around the imperial persona (urban elites saw more fit to directly deal with the emperor for their careers, for instance) and more bureaucratized (still really far from China standards, with at least 4x more public service employees).
Someone feeling snarky, apparently?I would expect all the population from 300 would have met their creators duing that period
"Meet their creators earlier than they planned". Better?
Indeed. And Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins have made this point repeatedly in recent years.
This is why the exogenous shock theory really does seem to hold the most water. The real test is the reality that the Empire of the Julio-Claudians or the Antonines, were it magically transported to the late 4th or 5th century, really could not have resisted the combined pressure of the Hunnic invasions and more numerous and sophisticated Germanic tribes they were driving before them, to say nothing of the more formidable Sassanid Empire that had replaced the Parthians. It would have fallen even more rapidly.
It doesn't mean that the internal weaknesses that many have identified did not exist, and were not real problems - just that they weren't decisive in determining the collapse of the Western Empire. Especially given that many were even more true of the Eastern Empire, which managed to survive and even expand again in the following century.
I disagree. Arcadius was just as incompetent and yet Arcadius' 13 year rule did not see complete dysfunction arise in the east. It has a lot to do with literally everything hitting the west in a two-three decade timeframe:
-The loss of two successive civil wars to Theodosius
-A weak emperor in the west dominated by a half barbarian general at a time when anti-barbarian sentiment was reaching a boiling point in Italy
-The barbarians breaking across the Rhine and Constantine III crossing into Gaul at roughly the same moment, leading to an inability in the west to deal with those barbarians
-The death of Constantius right after he was declared co-emperor