With the promise of civility restored to the forum, perhaps this might be a better jumping off point for a discussion. Was the Westren Roman Empire, Empire not Republic, destroyed by internal pressures, external threats, or not at all.
With the promise of civility restored to the forum, perhaps this might be a better jumping off point for a discussion. Was the Westren Roman Empire, Empire not Republic, destroyed by internal pressures, external threats, or not at all.
Big wurds make rov's hed hert.
To quote my history teacher, "There are four little words which every emperor under the sun fears: Internal rebellion, external invasion."
No empire dies because of just one thing. There are many, many factors that causes an empire to collapse. it would take both internal and external powers.
My opinion: If we take the model of Immanuel Wallenstein and on the division of empire/state, we can conjure an image of a tripartite division, or a ditrichotomous composition [2 or 3 parts/segments]. There exists the core interstices or core zone. This is all the direct lands through which central authority emanates from; the semi-peripheral zone or the lands fully consolidated and part of the 'greater empire'; and the peripheral zone which were the lands that formed subject buffer states, and were subject to some form of hegemonic control, as opposed to suzerainty which only applied to the core zone and the semi-peripheral zone.
Edward Gibbon stated that the fall of Rome was on the traditional date of 476 C.E and that it was a catastrophe leading to the so-called thousand year decline being the Byzantine Empire; Charles Lebeau and Montesquieu also viewed the Byzantines as a culture of decadent, effeminate and feeble means .
[Byzantine historiography truly began in full force by Hieronymous Wolf, Renaissance scholar/humanist]
In addition, Pirenne's Thesis stated that Rome truly collapsed with the loss of the Exarchate of Africa of the Byzantines as well as the disruption of the Byzantine flow of commodities within the Mediterranean Sea to the Arab invaders around the 7th century C.E.
Finally, as with Adrian Goldsworthy, the military had to adapt to the changing situation; from 4,000-6,000 infantry in a legion to smaller 1,000-1,500 sized units that was carried on by the Byzantines as the themata system. The Constantine/Diocletian reforms attempted to adapt to the changing atmosphere of military thought and is well documented by Ammianus Marcellinus on the Late Roman Empire Period. Gone are the days of optimism as of Virgil, or the disillusion of Lucan with the imperial system, and the coming of the death knell of the anguish and terror to befall the Roman domain.
[Limitanei: garrison/border troops; comitatenses: main field contingents]
The use of infantry which was the predominate arm of the Romans collapsed at the battle of Hadrianople on 378 C.E; cavalry began its long military hegemony over other military branches till approximately the use of the tercio and corenelia formations by Gonsalvo de Cordoba and the Spanish, and the Helvetian phalangiarchies and German Landsknechte + Doppelsoldner units that left cavalry units in a disarray, with the counterattack being the gendarme branch of cavalry under the Valois/Bourbons of France.
[Cataphracts were officially introduced into the Roman arms by Emperor Gallienus as permanent units within the whole Roman military strength. Cataphracts were utilized by the Medio-Achaemenids, carried on to the Seleucids and Attalid Pergamenes as well as the Parthians and Sassanian Persians, utilized by the Pontic and Armenian Kingdoms of Mithridates VI and Tigranes II respectively as well as the Palmyrenes. The counterpart to the Byzantine cataphract was the more heavily armored clibanarii/clibanaphoroi of the Sassanian Persians.]
The costly wars of the Roman Empire such as the Dacian Wars and the wars in Assyria, Mesopotamia and Armenia by Emperor Trajan were costly and only temporarily held with poor defensive lines, overextension of manpower, military expenditure and resultant economic exhaustion.
[For example, the Romans utilized 20-30% of troops to hold the Euphrates River defensive line against the Sassanian Persians whilst the Byzantines utilized 40-50% to hold the Euphrates River defensive line against the Sassanian Persians.]
This is my opinion on the particular topic at hand.
The Roman Principate held the ideas of polity/politeia as in regards to a commonwealth as a guise for despotic rule [Lex Imperio de Vespasiani], but with the Roman Dominate, Tetrarchy period, permanent division of the Empire, a means of internal divisions and external pressures led to the fall of the Empire as a whole. George Ostrogorsky would argue that the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines would carry on the tradition, however, such was not the Roman model as during the days of the Principate and certainly not of the Commonwealth.
I am going to take a controversial stand and say that the Roman Empire never really fell. Let me explain, at the zenith of Roman power in the west a massive effort was made to Christianize the Pagan inhabitants of Roman lands, as the power of Rome, the state, began to decrease even vanish in some areas, read Britain, the power or Rome, the city, increased. The same comparison can be made between the Roman Emperor and the Vicar of Rome, as a result, even after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Holy See retained the powers and authorities previously retained by the Empire, including the most important power, the power to tax. It can even be said that the church achieved a level of control over Europe never dreamed of by the Romans. So, to sum it up, the Pope with his lands and armies replaced the Emperor with his lands and armies, the Bishops replaced the Governor’s, and so on down the line. A change, but one in name only.
Hmmm... the dreams of the papacy: caesaropapism. Thomas Hobbes in his Civil and Ecclesiastical Commonwealth: Leviathan had stated that out of the ashes of the Roman Empire arose the Papacy. Hmm...your opinion is interesting. The height of the Papacy was during the papal reign of Innocent III in terms of the direct suzerainty of the Marches of St. Peter/Papal States with the marches being represented accurately by the term "margraviates" or border lands as well as political hegemony over European affairs. The Papacy then decayed in influence [sack of Rome: 1527 CE by Charles V] as well as the Western Schism with the Avignon, Pisan and Roman papal claimnants.
I cannot agree or disagree with this opinion of the Papal States being the heirs of the Roman Empire as TWT needs to elaborate further on this particular topic.
Well, the premise is simple enough as I already stated, but I would have to disagree that the reign of Innocent III was the height of Papal Power. It was at this time that the Pope began to louse control of his church, he had to launch crusades in order to maintain papal authority in several places, and even then he could not stop the flow of people into the cities and the problems that arose form that. Not to mention the fact that, Lateran III if I recall correctly, was not a show of strength but rather a desperate attempt to resort order in the church, I’m not sure what you want in terms of elaboration, entire books can, and have, been written on the subject, but I will be happy to any questions you wish to pose
Hmm.. a small error, the Papacy was at its height under Pope Innocent III:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6hg...esult&resnum=6
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Innocent_III
Well, I would disagree as Myers says Innocent was the Greatest after Gregory, and even the New world Encyclopedia stipulates the he was the greatest of the Medieval Popes. Was he powerful, yes, well, maybe but that gets into the entire was he competent argument which is a nightmare, but the Greatest, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
Great now there are two Conrads :D