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
multiple personalities ftw?
TWT, please for once, I beg you, give in to historical data and historical proof instead of your own preconceived notions! Pope Innocent III led the Papacy to its height of power and prestige!
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/pgc.a....html#Innocent III: The Papacy at its Height
http://www.nndb.com/people/536/000092260/
http://academics.witcc.com/language_...HCH09Notes.htm
Conrad, I used your own sources to disprove your thesis, to get deeper into this I will have to get the Chronicles of the Crusade, a copy of Lateran, and the Letters of Innocent, Boniface, Montefeat, and others which I don't happen to have laying around my apartment as I did not exspect this topic to provoke this debateQuote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
Please, TWT, it is fine to make mistakes. Just admit it and let us continue with the discussion.
Conrad, your own sorces said that he was not the greatest Pope, how is that my mistake, also this if getting off topic and has nothing to do with weather the Church was the Succesor to Rome
The sources stated that he was the most powerful pope in terms of the power and prestige of the Papacy. That is historical fact!
Conrad - 1
TWT - 0
At Best this is an opinion, and 'Innocent III, the Greatest of the Popes after Gregory' how does this equate to the Greatest Pope Ever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
And how powerfull and prestiges could he have been when the Doge so openly defied him?
The Greatest Pope title is debatable, just like Greatest President or Greatest Emperor. They are based on personal opinions, and are NOT set in stone.
TWT, your theory on the Catholic Church being a continuation of the Roman Empire is indeed intriguing, I have never heard it before. However, I would say that the Papacy has fallen as well. While the Catholic Church is still around, it no longer has anywhere near the power it once did. I would consider the Great Reformation to signal the start of the decline of the Papacy, but I am not exactly an expert on this particular time period.
On to my opinion of the posed question:
I believe it was mostly internal issues that brought Rome to its knees, and the Byzantines after that. Corruption in the government is often the cause of the fall of empires. This rule goes from the Roman and Byzantine Empires, to the Third Reich.
Neither the size of an Empire, nor its military can save it from having irresponsible, or otherwise incapable men at the helm.
Heraclius, I and the historical data have not stated that Pope Innocent III was the greatest pope as that is opinion. What is fact is that under him the Papacy reached its height in prestige and power.
Conrad - 1
Heraclius - 1
TWT - 0
I am referee.
Ok, it is clear the Conrad wants to have a twelve round cage match over Innocent, and as this is not the topic here I invite him to create his own thread for said debate. Hearacus, I agree in principal, but for the sake of argument, I would say, diminished, yes, destoyed, no
Edited for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by iRovster
Well I wouldn't say diminished TWT. When you have civil war destroying entire legions while barbarian tribes are being mismanaged, I'd say that Corruption and poor decision making are the main reasons for the fall of the Western Empire. The Eastern Empire fell almost entirely to corruption.
Rather I am merely defending historical truth; as a historian I cannot let fallacies win the discussion.
(Last two paragraphs):
http://www.medievaltimes.info/mediev...e-middle-ages/
(Basic Information):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III
Oh, sorry I wasen't clear, I ment the Pope was diminished, sort of a kepping my argument going thingQuote:
Originally Posted by Heraclius
Conrad, off topic, I am not going to resond to your provocations any longer, not this is not a concetion
Truth is not a provocation, I was just trying to help you. You have not given me any concise data that supports your "view". I have only your word which has been proven wrong in two separate situations.
Ah the Pope, yeah I'll need to agree with you in that case.
But your right about the Empires, both east and west
Under the Twelfth Century Section:
Pope Innocent III:
http://dic.academic****/dic.nsf/enwiki/1581778
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire collapsed due to internal conditions, such as the failure of the themata system as strategoi often rebelled against the integrity of the state and the sacred reverence of the Basileus/Autokrater, with a dichotomy between the civilian administrators based in Constantinople and the great military administrators of the themata system as located in Anatolia being predominant.
The foreign policy of the Byzantines led to their downfall as it was mixed and confusing: Basil II Bulgaroctonus dealt with the Arab caliphates in the east, achieved hegemony in eastern Sicily and the southern part of Italy, or the Catapanate of Italy; Nikephorous II Phocas concentrated in the east; Manuel I Komnenos was erratic as he tried to push the borders on all fronts instead of achieving a specific and possible goal in which his world-wide ambitions were chimerical. In addition, Justin II as Augustus/Caesar of the Eastern Roman Empire descended into frenzied madness as Dara was captured by the Sassanian Persians; Tiberius II Constantine struggled to hold onto Byzantine territory; Heraclius' conquests were lost to the Arab caliphates, etc.
On the military front, the loss of central Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks of Iconium at the battle of Manzikert: 1071 CE was a great loss as that was the recruting grounds for the Byzantine kataphractoi/cataphracts. The Komnenian Dynasty from 1081-1185 CE recaptured some loss ground but shrank to the civil and military incompetence of the Angelid Emperors.
Conrad please just stop. You're only making a fool of yourself at this point. It was okay when you were arguing, but now that TWT is ignoring you...
I do not understand? I was just defending historical fact.
and it did not help the East that fourth crusade tookover for a short time
TWT, you have not stated any historical fact(s) to defend your argument. Either you are invidious or you made a simple error.
if you mean I am not footnoting you are correct, but this is a forum not an academic paper, if you doubt my statmets ask for clarification of check them yourself
Exactly, this is a forum and thus do not spread misinformation TWT. I know the historical data on this matter from personal research and interest, as well as the scholars/historians/researchers/writers that I have cited.
I will not be drawn back into this with you, please stop trying to provok me
Just accept that we all make mistakes as you have done on two separate occasions. I do not think that you know more than history researchers, professional published books, theology websites, etc.
Conrad, stop, at this point you are just flaming, I am not saying I was wrong, simply that I will no longer be provoked by you
So, any other opinions on the particular topic at hand in regards to the viewpoints on the Roman Empire?