Anyone else here had the pleasure of reading Edward Gibbon?

[Caligula_K2]

Again, I'm not a historian, but I believe throughout most of the republic only citizens could serve in the army. This was changed by late republican reformers such as Marius and Julius Caesar, which extended citizenship to the provinces of Hispania and Galia, but those people had long been "romanized". They also allowed the disposessed to serve the army, turning soldiering into a profession.

From the creation of the Praetorian guard by Augustus to the reign of Septimus Severus, only Italians were allowed to serve on that prestigious elite "bodyguard", assuring that its members had at least a small sense of loyalty for Rome.

But after a praetorian mutiny that assassinated the previous Emperor, Severus ordered the massacre of all its members and instead of scrapping that noxious institution for good, he opened it to barbarians and increased their number from 10.000 to 40.000, offering them huge donatives. This turned the empire pretty much into a crime syndicate.

I think this is massive oversimplification. To start with, Caesar and Marius never extended citizenship to entire provinces- some Gallic elites (mainly southern Gallic) and even fewer Spanish elites gained citizenship and started participating in Roman politics as time went on, but that's about that (during the Republic, at least). And I can't think of anyone who would argue that Hispania was "romanized" (itself a kind of outdated and problematic term) by the time of Caesar. As for citizens serving in the Republican army: Throughout most Republican history, only Roman citizens could serve in the army (and they had to be of a certain property class). But as of the 4th-3rd centuries B,C about half of Rome's manpower was provided by their Italian "allies", the socii, who were not citizens. These allies were most often defeated city states that retained political independence (though less and less, as time went on) but which were forced to supply soldiers to the Roman army. Many of these allies continued to revolt throughout republican history, until the Italians all gained citizenship after the Social War at the beginning of the first century. So the use of provincial auxiliary forces from the time of Augustus on wasn't unprecedented.

Also, the idea that Italian= loyal and not-Italian= unloyal to Rome is pretty unconvincing, especially once we get past the middle of the second century AD. Most Emperors stopped coming from Italy (Septimius Severus came from North Africa, for example) and Italy became less and less relevant to the empire as time went on except as a symbol- the emperor Constantius, for example, only visited Rome for the first time well into his adulthood. It's also worth noting that a lot of these "foreign mercenaries" were the ones holding the empire together. You're also skipping over a huge amount of time here- the actions of Septimius Severus at the end of the 2nd century were what caused the western Roman empire to collapse at the end of the fifth? You could make a case that his praetorian policies led to the instability of the third century crisis, but that's about it, I think.

As for Gibbon, obviously his work is a monument and is extremely important in the development of ancient history. But ya, as Larry points out... Nobody exactly takes his ideas seriously anymore. It's definitely a work worth reading, especially because it influenced so much later scholarship and because it's so fun, but nobody argues that Christianisation led to the fall of the Roman Empire, or accepts his hostile interpretation of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire, or thinks his handling of the sources is nuanced or methodologically sound at all.

[James Arryn]

I think the above is a little unsafe. I would say that almost no one accepts his arguments as made anymore.

Some of his points are still raised occasionally, just not supported in the same way.

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

What are your credentials as a historian to make such claims that no one uses Gibbon anymore? for starters Caligula many of your points reguardign Caesar, Marius and the Army are just plain wrong I am afraid.

[Saci Targaryen]

I think the above is a little unsafe. I would say that almost no one accepts his arguments as made anymore.

Some of his points are still raised occasionally, just not supported in the same way.

I recently read a book by English author Peter Heaher called "Empire and Barbarians: The fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe". This book is the standard read on Late Antiquity in any history course through the world. Heather writes that he has studied Gibbon extensively and though he doesn't agree with some of his conclusions he says that there is little to complain in terms of fact-finding, Gibbon never made anything up and narrates the facts as they happened.

Those that have actually read his work know that when narrating an important historucal event he usually goes like this: X happened. Tacitus thinks its because of Y, Cassios Duo thought W and Zosimus Z. I agree with Tacitus because of this and that.

He also warns his reader that most roman historians were from the senatorial class, and therefore had obvious grievances with the emperor, leading them with a bias to highlight the negative and extravagant characteristics of each emperor.

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

Peter is a close colleague of mine as a matter of fact and we often used to have lengthy discussions regarding his literature and construction of it, indeed we both give merit to old Edward where it is due and it makes me very sad to see so many people disregarding him.

[Saci Targaryen]

Peter is a close colleague of mine as a matter of fact and we often used to have lengthy discussions regarding his literature and construction of it, indeed we both give merit to old Edward where it is due and it makes me very sad to see so many people disregarding him.

Oh, you know Heather? Please tell him that his work is read and respected as far as here in Brazil. His knowledge of early Germans and Slavs is second to none. In fact, he is one of the few western historians to have tackled the very interesting interesting history of the early Slavs.

[James Arryn]

I recently read a book by English author Peter Heaher called "Empire and Barbarians: The fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe". This book is the standard read on Late Antiquity in any history course through the world. Heather writes that he has studied Gibbon extensively and though he doesn't agree with some of his conclusions he says that there is little to complain in terms of fact-finding, Gibbon never made anything up and narrates the facts as they happened.

Those that have actually read his work know that when narrating an important historucal event he usually goes like this: X happened. Tacitus thinks its because of Y, Cassios Duo thought W and Zosimus Z. I agree

with Tacitus because of this and that.

He also warns his reader that most roman historians were from the senatorial class, and therefore had obvious grievances with the emperor, leading them with a bias to highlight the negative and extravagant characteristics of each emperor.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. There are movements within history as in all other fields. My generation of profs mainly ascribed to the social historian trend, and either as a consequence or more likely a reflection of my own priorities, I have always been more of a romantic. So when I am talking about common perceptions or accepted views, I am not necessarily saying I agree with them. I am merely giving a nod to the gods of convention.

I think most modern historians would feel Gibbon takes too closely after Plutarch or Livy, in terms of injecting moral lessons into historical accounting. I myself don't have an issue with it, even if the lessons he sees aren't mine...in part because I think it's a deception to believe other historians don't do the same.

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

Oh, you know Heather? Please tell him that his work is read and respected as far as here in Brazil. His knowledge of early Germans and Slavs is second to none. In fact, he is one of the few western historians to have tackled the very interesting interesting history of the early Slavs.

He supervised my PHD at Oxford, during this time we became very close, mainly because of our love for the peoples and cultures of late antiquity, such as the Huns and the Goths, which as you quite rightly pointed out, he is one of the leading experts in. I'm sure he will be delighted to hear of your praise.

[Caligula_K2]

I think the above is a little unsafe. I would say that almost no one accepts his arguments as made anymore.

That's fair enough- I phrased that badly.

What are your credentials as a historian to make such claims that no one uses Gibbon anymore? for starters Caligula many of your points reguardign Caesar, Marius and the Army are just plain wrong I am afraid.

Please be more specific. What is wrong about these statements? As for my credentials, not that they're relevant, but I'm a P.hD student of Roman history.Aadmittedly I study the Republic a lot more than the imperial period, especially late antiquity, so it's very possible that I'm mistaken about this- but I don't see Gibbon used for more than historiographic reasons in anything I read, including Peter Heather's work.

I'm not trying to take away Gibbon's due, any more than I would take away Mommsen's. What they did was exceptional and phenomenal- for their time. But when you're writing a paper about an aspect of Roman Republican history, you will look at Mommsen, sure, but in very few cases will anyone accept his argument as it stands.

[James Arryn]

He supervised my PHD at Oxford, during this time we became very close, mainly because of our love for the peoples and cultures of late antiquity, such as the Huns and the Goths, which as you quite rightly pointed out, he is one of the leading experts in. I'm sure he will be delighted to hear of your praise.

Might be heading to Oxford next year. Do you mind if I ask what college?

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

Worcester College, Oxford. Good luck with your application!!

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

I think this is massive oversimplification. To start with, Caesar and Marius never extended citizenship to entire provinces- some Gallic elites (mainly southern Gallic) and even fewer Spanish elites gained citizenship and started participating in Roman politics as time went on, but that's about that (during the Republic, at least). And I can't think of anyone who would argue that Hispania was "romanized" (itself a kind of outdated and problematic term) by the time of Caesar. As for citizens serving in the Republican army: Throughout most Republican history, only Roman citizens could serve in the army (and they had to be of a certain property class). But as of the 4th-3rd centuries B,C about half of Rome's manpower was provided by their Italian "allies", the socii, who were not citizens. These allies were most often defeated city states that retained political independence (though less and less, as time went on) but which were forced to supply soldiers to the Roman army. Many of these allies continued to revolt throughout republican history, until the Italians all gained citizenship after the Social War at the beginning of the first century. So the use of provincial auxiliary forces from the time of Augustus on wasn't unprecedented.

O.K Caesar was the first Roman to extend senatorial rights and power to Roman provinces such as Trans and Cicalpine Gaul, Greece and much of spain, in this way he took steps to merge the Roman empire into a more singular state rather than a selection of principalities. He also gave roman rights to an awful lot of provincials, thus beginning the the romanization of the provinces.

Secondly, the reforms of Marius meant that anyone in Rome could join the army regardless of their social status or land, the result of this was that the size of the army greatly increased and it no longer became equestrian dominated, instead the ranks were made up of the plebs of society, much like the modern armies of USA and Britain. Also as far as I am aware auxilaries were used in the Roaman army for a very long time, even before Marius and after 8 years of service I believe were granted citizenship.

[Saci Targaryen]

Its hard to argue against the "romanization" of Spain and France, since to this day they carry a strong roman cultural legacy on their language, law, religion, and manners. The romans institutions in those countries persisted for centuries after the fall of the WRE.

[James Arryn]

You guys are determined to go down this road? Arguing the cause of the Fall? if just for fun, awesome. An exercise in perpetual motion if you're actually hoping to settle on a solution.

[Guardian of the Lhazareen]

You guys are determined to go down this road? Arguing the cause of the Fall? if just for fun, awesome. An exercise in perpetual motion if you're actually hoping to settle on a solution.

well it is far to big a topic to be debated here but just for fun here is my view

Unlike the Achaemenid and Macedonian Empires, the Roman Empire experienced a long decline. The historian Edward Gibbon stresses the importance of internal problems to explain the decline of the Roman Empire, and for the most I fully agree with his interpretation. The Empire declined because it lost its ability to defend itself. Mainly as a result these three internal points.

· At the end of the end of the second century trade began to fall, with this so too did the Empire’s wealth and thus the ability to upkeep a large army.

The Cyprian plague (250-270 A.D) had huge negative implications on the Empire’s man power capability.

An increase in civil unrest. Every Emperor from Severus Septimus

(193-211A.D) had to deal with at least one internal threat, this shifted military focus from external to internal problems, this caused a change in mentality of the Emperors, they became overly cautious of delegating military power and started trying to deal with every military issue themselves, however due to the vast size of the Empire this was impossible to do. This point is best exemplified by how in 376 A.D, Emperor Valens had no choice but to allow a tribe of Goths to cross the Danube and settle in the Empire as the Roman army was currently occupied on the Persian frontier.

These internal points show us why the Empire declined and how it was able to fall, but not why it fell. For this we must look to the external threat of the barbarians.

I estimates there to have been 110,000-120,000 barbarians in total that contributed to the fall of the Empire. The Roman Empire had a barbarian threat wherever it turned. Combine this point with the fact that the Empire couldn’t defend all its frontiers; the Empire, as a result began to experience severe military issues.The migration period/barbarian invasion, began in the late fourth century and in my opinion is the main reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, it was characterized by the vast migration of various nomadic peoples such as the Vandals, Goths, Visigoths and Huns into the Roman Empire, and resulted in many notable events such as the Visigoth’s sacking Rome in 410 A.D. This hugely damaged Roman reputation. Set a precedent for further invasion by highlighting Rome’s weaknesses, and reduced Roman military power. The Vandal’s takeover of Carthage and all the North African provinces in 439 A.D had huge reduction effects on the Empire’s taxes as North Africa was the most prospers Roman provinces and the main producer of food. However the main Barbarian threat came in 451 A.D when Attila the Hun and his hoards crossed the Rhine marching west into Gaul. Attila prompted the Empire’s fall because at the Battle of Chalons in 451 A.D although Attila was defeated, the Romans relied heavily on allied assistance from King Theodoric of the Visigoths and other barbarians such as the Franks to gain victory. This showed the Barbarians that Rome was weak and needed them more than they needed her. I believe that this sudden realization prompted the final wave of barbarian invasions that climaxed in September 476 A.D with the overthrowing of the last Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus at the hands of the German mercenary commander Odoacer, thus marking the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Serious Callers Only]

Its hard to argue against the "romanization" of Spain and France, since to this day they carry a strong roman cultural legacy on their language, law, religion, and manners. The romans institutions in those countries persisted for centuries after the fall of the WRE.

It's hard to argue for it either because there was the whole conquest-by-a-foreign-culture-centuries-long-low-intensity-warfare-aristocratic-domination-reconquista-pope-meddling-serfitude thing.

I swear roman nut-lickers are a plague for alternate history, almost as much as US civil war denialists. (unrelated aside)

[Larry.]

I'm liking the turn this discussion has taken (arguing historians are more fun than consenting ones :P), but as someone whose focus was 1400-1500 years after the Ostrogoth takeover in Italy, I have a few questions for those who are more knowledgeable of the current literature:

1) Which historians approach the 180-550 CE period from a cultural stance, incorporating archaeological evidence of burial practice changes, building design, literacy levels, and religious practice into their theses? I'm very curious about the 6th and 7th centuries as well and if the authors make an argument for transformation of the imperium rather than just a decline/fall/collapse.

2) Which historians focus on environmental factors causing the Age of Migrations?

3) Besides Norwich, which writers/historians have written recent substantive history of the Eastern Empire?

[James Arryn]

Weare,

I don't take issue with your argument, although to be fair I'm not certain I get it...for example, the first part seems to be cause and the rest effect, but the causes themselves aren't specific. Why does trade diminish?

And why does internal strife suddenly have more of an impact than it did in the days of Sulla, Marius, Triumvirates, etc.

But my issue isn't with the validity of any particular argument about this subject, but rather with any faith that there is a definable argument which can ever be agreed upon. I find people's answers along these lines often tell me more about their outlooks than the fall of Rome. For example, I know people who firmly believe the geographic nature of the eastern fronts being so favourable to cavalry meant an inevitable manpower sinkhole out there, which would always strain the rest of the Empire.

Are they wrong? Probably not. But is it alone an answer? Again, probably not. Others can point to all kinds of individual moments, like Arminius or Adrianople, and say 'but for that '...and, again, valid...hard to refute...but also unsatisfying to me as complete answers.

I think we can argue endless points...I could make an argument along Gibbons lines about Christianity, for example, though I would use it differently...short answer; nothing to do with the nature of the religion, but by becoming permissive to grist in the mill, the Romans broke down the machine they had built...although I'm not sure how much I'd believe it. Similarly, you argue about moments of weakness which exposed Rome, but I could argue that perception of weakness wasn't really an issue, in that most of the wandering nations which plagued Rome didn't seek to exploit a weakened state, but rather wanted to join it as they saw it as better. Etc. Arguments broke down over how and how much they would be allowed to join more than simply barbarians at the gates, Attila being an exception.

But there again, I mistrust the uniformity of even my own argument. I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to the uniquely gradual decline, but I think that itself leads to a Gordian knot when we try to determine cause(s)....not because we lack valid arguments, but rather because we overflow with them, and IMO people who focus on some are unfairly dismissing the validity of others.

Hope this makes sense...a bit drunk.

[Joetheogre2]

I recently read a book by English author Peter Heaher called "Empire and Barbarians: The fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe". This book is the standard read on Late Antiquity in any history course through the world. Heather writes that he has studied Gibbon extensively and though he doesn't agree with some of his conclusions he says that there is little to complain in terms of fact-finding, Gibbon never made anything up and narrates the facts as they happened.

Those that have actually read his work know that when narrating an important historucal event he usually goes like this: X happened. Tacitus thinks its because of Y, Cassios Duo thought W and Zosimus Z. I agree with Tacitus because of this and that.

He also warns his reader that most roman historians were from the senatorial class, and therefore had obvious grievances with the emperor, leading them with a bias to highlight the negative and extravagant characteristics of each emperor.

Actually working my way through this book now. Great read so far and Heather seems to have an excellent grasp of what was really going on.

[Caligula_K2]

O.K Caesar was the first Roman to extend senatorial rights and power to Roman provinces such as Trans and Cicalpine Gaul, Greece and much of spain, in this way he took steps to merge the Roman empire into a more singular state rather than a selection of principalities. He also gave roman rights to an awful lot of provincials, thus beginning the the romanization of the provinces.

Secondly, the reforms of Marius meant that anyone in Rome could join the army regardless of their social status or land, the result of this was that the size of the army greatly increased and it no longer became equestrian dominated, instead the ranks were made up of the plebs of society, much like the modern armies of USA and Britain. Also as far as I am aware auxilaries were used in the Roaman army for a very long time, even before Marius and after 8 years of service I believe were granted citizenship.

Yes, Marius' reforms did remove property qualifications for the army, though nearly all historians now agree that his reforms were not as singular as our sources make them out to be- that is, the lowest class (the Head Count citizens) had been enlisting before his reforms. The reforms still did not permit non-citizens to enlist in the Roman army, which is what I was talking about. And before these reforms, the only fighters were certainly not equestrians, who belonged to the highest census class (of which there were eighteen centuries). Any Roman citizen who belonged to the fifth, fourth, third, second, first and equestrian classes could enlist, though as I said most scholars agree that citizens from below the fifth class were enlisting throughout the second century. On all this, although I'm honestly not the biggest fan, Arthur Keaveney's The Army in the Roman Revolution is helpful.

Regarding auxiliaries: The Italian allies again were fundamental to the Roman army from the conquest of Italy onward. But an Italian ally did not gain citizenship by being in the army for eight years- I don't know where you heard that from. When the Romans conquered Italy they signed treaties with individual cities and gave those cities a variety of different terms- some became citizens, some became Latin rights citizens (that is, they had all the rights of citizenship except for voting), some were just made allies and forced to supply manpower. Throughout the second century the Romans became more guarded of citizenship and with a few exceptions (such as a law that granted local magistrates citizenship) the allies were denied citizenship (whether most even wanted it is a question still being debated- see Mouritsen's Italian Unification, Pobjoy's article on The First Italia, etc...). Other than the Italian allies, I can't think of any other group that were used explicitly as auxiliaries during the Republic in the same way that Augustus and the Julio-Claudians began to.

When you say that Caesar extended senatorial rights and power to much of Spain, Greece, and Gaul, you are really stretching it. There was one senatorial family from Spain during the dictatorship of Caesar- the Cornelii Balbi. Caesar did attempt to introduce Gallic senators during his dictatorship (very controversially), but once again, we're not talking about swathes of Gauls. And I am unaware of any Greek senators during this time, though I could be mistaken. Can you provide examples? It was difficult enough for Italians from certain areas of Italy to become senators during the late Republic (i.e., Samnites, southern Greeks, etc...), let alone provincials. The landmark study for all this is of course, T.P. Wiseman's New Men in the Roman Senate, and more recently Farney's book on aristocratic competition and ethnic identity in the late Roman Republic. I have definitely never heard the argument that Caesar "started" romanisation in Spain, Gaul and Greece. Plutarch's Life of Sertorius suggests that processes of romanisation (again, a very loaded term, and may at this time refer no more than to occasional changes of behaviour among elites) were occurring during the 70s, and areas of Transalpine Gaul had been fairly well connected with Rome from the third century on (see Ebel's book on Transalpine Gaul)- this is exactly why Caesar could introduce senators from this area, because their families had had citizenship for generations.

I also think it's slightly dangerous for us to comment on Caesar's aims, since we know so little about what he intended to do other than invade Parthia. Sure, Mommsen has this grand narrative that Caesar was trying to unify the empire in a way it never had been before, but this idea is clearly based on his own views of the unification of Germany and the great man such a project would require. I don't deny that Caesar was more willing than others to extend citizen and senatorial rights to provincials, but it's not like he was crusading for all of Gaul to become citizens or to import senators from Bithynia.

Edit: Sorry for the ridiculously long posts. As you can tell, I love this shit. Too bad I'm going away for the next few days so I won't be able to keep up with it.

Edit 2 to answer some of Larry's questions:

1) Which historians approach the 180-550 CE period from a cultural stance, incorporating archaeological evidence of burial practice changes, building design, literacy levels, and religious practice into their theses? I'm very curious about the 6th and 7th centuries as well and if the authors make an argument for transformation of the imperium rather than just a decline/fall/collapse.

Peter Brown is the pioneer in this sort of history of late Antiquity. He's much more interested in continuity during the collapse of the western Roman empire than change, and in getting rid of the "decline and fall" model. I'm not so sure he'll address some of your questions (such as building design), but I think you can't go wrong starting with his World of Late Antiquity and moving on from there.

2) Which historians focus on environmental factors causing the Age of Migrations?

Well, the debate right now is whether there was an Age of Migrations, or whether these migrations are all completely exaggerated by our sources. Heather right now is the one arguing for a modified version of the migration theory, and his book (which has been mentioned a few times in this thread) is the one you'll want to go to here: Empires and Barbarians.

As for #3, I'd also appreciate any recommendations for good Byzantine historians.

But my issue isn't with the validity of any particular argument about this subject, but rather with any faith that there is a definable argument which can ever be agreed upon. I find people's answers along these lines often tell me more about their outlooks than the fall of Rome. For example, I know people who firmly believe the geographic nature of the eastern fronts being so favourable to cavalry meant an inevitable manpower sinkhole out there, which would always strain the rest of the Empire.

That's the problem that postmodernism has given history, eh? Are we getting closer to understanding the ancient world through increasing awareness of where our ideas derive from and more sophisticated methodologies? Or are we just endlessly coming up with new interpretations to fit our own worldview? I try to be an optimist, but damn, history can be depressing sometimes.