DanM

What do you mean by "exhausted". Constant warfare was a way of life with the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Romans of the Pyrrhic and Punic Wars didn't seem to suffer from "exhaustion". In fact, they appeared to come back stronger after each defeat. After the Punic Wars, they showed even less evidence of "exhaustion", defeating one eastern opponent after another. I would think that a prolonged peace would be more hazadous than constant warfare. They would become complacent and lose their competitive edge. 15111[/snapback] Exhausted means that they had no more internal sources of manpower or money to tap. Persia had occupied most of the eastern provinces. While a constant state of warfare was common for decades at a time, it did not involve all of the provinces on such a massive scale. Generally speaking, widespread looting and sacking of Syrian and Egyptian cities for decades at time was not the rule. Mespotamia and portions of the Balkans were constant battlefields and that is why these reasons were not significant sources of money or manpower. Also, to compare the late Imperial period to the Repubican period is to compare apples to oranges. The Romans who bounced back from successive Punic defeats at the hands of Hannibal bears little resemblence to the Empire that held the name several centuries later. The Republican Romans were patriotic, homogeneous and united politically. The late Empire was a diverse mixture of races, religions and cultures. And once again, it really came down to the money issue with the Roman's Arab allies. If those guys had been paid, then I seriously doubt the Islamic raiders from deep in Arabia would have been able to plant their flag in Syria. So its hard to see how a Rome that was poorer after a constant state of warfare could have possibly been better equiped to keep its Arab allies happy. And the issue of the Islamic invasion of Syria would have been much more unlikely if the Syrian people were happy with Roman rule. If they had not spent so much time as a battlefield or if the Romans had been able to ease up on their taxes for a period so they could recover, then its highly likely they would not have opened their arms so widely to the Moslems. This isn't a purely military matter. Its a matter of military issues mixed with cultural, administrative, religous and political. Its not just a matter of doing a headcount for each army and comparing equipment, tactics and the fighting qualities of the soldiers involved. You can win a battle that way, but its hard to win and hold such a big area with such a small number of men unless you bring the other factors into play.

Do you follow north african history during that same period. The Punic and Berber societies of north africa pre and post Roman era are fascinating to me.

If the west had been reunited under my alternate scenario, I think the answer is yes. The Persians were only able to take Syria, Egypt and a very large part of Asia Minor because of the weakness brought upon by Justinian's search for glory. He exhausted the empire. Without this drain on manpower and finances, it is very likley that the eastern front would have held and the Roman/Persian conflict would have remained one of raids and periodic siege warfare around upper Mesopotamia. If this happened, then the people of Syria and Egypt would have likely been far less unhappy with their Roman overlords and the Arab tribal leaders would have been far less likely to have gone unpaid by their Roman benefactors. Don't forget that Islam was only able to hold Syria and Egypt in the early years because of the active aid of the citizens of those regions. Also, its important to note that Heraclius, as a measure of economy for his nearly bankrupt treasury, had stopped paying his arab allies who were monphysite Christians. Without the unhappiness and ultimate change in allegiance of Rome's Arab allies, it is also highly unlikely that the arab raiders from the interior could have held Syria or even beaten the Roman forces there. The Moslem conquest was a very delicate business in the early years. Many things had to go right for them all at the same time for it to work so it would be very easy to create a believable alternate timeline where it did not work. So if the Roman Empire had not been so exhausted by Justinian, then the sequence of events that led to its being exhausted under Heraclius would have been far less likely. And that would have meant that Rome's Arab allies would have been better paid and most likely kept their loyalty to Rome in sufficient numbers to repel the invaders or to have even discouraged their attack in the first place.

The matter of land ownership was touched upon in the earlier parts of the thread and then the tangent about currency sort of took on a life of its own. I don't think anyone meant to say that a conversation about the wealth of the Romans should be limited to currency issues. Thats just the subject that aroused the most interest. Of course land ownership was the primary measure of wealth during the Republic and the Empire. I don't think anyone could seriously dispute that fact.

I guess I would have to go with the war waged by Heraclius to recapture Syria, Egypt and much of Asia Minor from the Persians. Few Emperors ever did more with less.

I hope you are right and the earlier poster simply meant something other than what he said. Otherwise, his comments completely baffle me. As for Scippio's political touch, I don't think you can compare him to other military leaders because he had no political ambitions. At least thats what I got from reading Lidell Hart's book on Scippio Africanus. Scippio believed it was his job to defend the Roman Republic and then retire from public life. How can you compare a man with that attitude to a Julius Ceasar or a Pompey? Its like saying that a person who wasn't participating in a race somehow slower than others. We just cannot know for certain since there is no basis for comparison.

Most books I have read credit Scippio with a masterful strategic touch that forced Hannibal to abandon the field in Italy when no one could seem to defeat him it battle.

I really didn't feel like I was defending the church so much as explaining why it was not so much a cause as a symptom. Going back to the original question of the thread, I was explaining why I did not think it was a cause for the fall of Rome. It was just a means of escape for a people who were already abandoning their state.

The question of Christianity and why Romans quit serving the Empire is really a chicken or the egg kind of question. Did the Romans quit serving in the army and the local city councils because of Christianity or was Christianity a means of escape for people who already wished to avoid public service? When you look at the evidence, I think its hard to see Christianity as the source of the problem and much easier to see it as one of the means of escape from an already motivated population. Roman history from the later Empire is filled with references to laws exempting or requiring people to serve on their local city councils. When was a newly appointed senatorial family exempt from future decuruial service? When was an Imperial appointment to a position such as govenor of a province (even for a day), the basis for being exempted from public service? People would pay enormous bribes for a bogus appointment that exempted them from any meaningful public service. Members of the Imperial entourage made huge fortunes this way. And yes, people could aslo avoid public service if they joined the clergy. To put all of the blame on the church, however, is to ignore the fact that everyone was already moving away from public service anyway. As for military service, the biggest blows the army took were the monetary crisis preceding the reign of Diocletian that effectively made it a poor paying job and the incredible corruption that saw govenors and military officers plunder the funds allocated for equipment, supplies and pay. This later of course resulted in poor equipment, pay and supplies for the men. Under those conditions, is it any wonder that able bodied Roman men did not want to serve when other options offered a better life? Using the rise of the Christian church as a cause for the decline seems really simplistic. To me, it was obviously nothing more than a means to an end for many of the people who wished to avoid being consumed by a corrupt system that offered insufficient rewards for participation.

Its just theory, but I believe Justinian was motivated by a raging inferiority complex. He was from a Thracian peasant family and he was trying to fit in with the sophisticated, Helenistic culture of the capital. Think of it like an intelligent, ambitous man born into a rustic bumkin family. He was ashamed of his past and felt it was something he had to overcome with massive achievements. If you look at his massive building projects and his desire to leave legacies in the form of military conquests and legal reforms, I think you see a man who is constantly trying to prove himself to his subjects. He spent like a drunken sailor for their amusement with lavish games and celebrations. In short, he tried to buy their love and he tried to earn their love and both are disasterous compulsions if you are a leader on the scale of an Emperor. In the words of Harvey Firestien, "All he wanted was to be loved. Is that so wrong?" A more secure man and a more pragmatic leader would not have over reached and committed his Empire to more than its resources could handle. Even when you consider Justinian's remarkable abilities, I think his desire to win the approval of his people made him a disaster for the Empire. Shortly after his death, it all came apart as a result of the exhausted state he left it in.

To quote Ronald McDonald, "You deserve a break today.....at McDonalds."

Your explanation assumes a lot of things through omission that I cannot agree with. Simply put, this wasn't their great, great, great grandfather's Roman Army. Take a modern day example. Lets say I own a company and I am a total jerk. I denegrate my employees. I blame and punish them harshly for things they did not do. I do not reward capable workers and instead give the bonuses and raises to my worthless kids and drinking buddies. If my company fails, is it because not enough decent, hard working people wanted to work for me? Is it the fault of my workers who quit or stopped caring about the success of the company? Is it the fault of the new workers who would not go to work for my company because of its bad reputation. The same thing applies to the Empire. When the pay of a soldier no longer offered a good living wage, fewer men joined the army. When the soldiers did not receive proper training, equipment or supplies, it became harder to even conscript soldiers. There were laws dealing with people who mutilated themselves to avoid military service. Yes thats right, the act of self mutilation to avoid military service was so widespread in the later Empire that they had to draft laws against the practice. Do you really think a reasonable person would mutilate themselves if the alternative wasn't really, really bad? There are just too many little pieces to the puzzle that are not addressed in your theory. Sorry.

In both the Republic and Empire, however, more people handled and spent copper coins than anything else. As for the later Empire, I believe it was a combination of gold and copper coins for the most part.

Thats the problem with simple answers to complicated questions. They usually tell you more about the feelings of the person giving the simple answer than anything else.

Absolutely yes for 2 reasons. First, the reason the Lombards were able to walk into Italy and set up shop was because of the weakness of Italy after decades of bloody, costly warfare. Even though Narses eventually completed the conquest, Rome could not hold it because it had been ruined during the very war that was waged to acquire it. I contend that if Italy had remained in tact through a marriage alliance acquisition, then the pro-imperial sentiment of the "Roman" population would have remained in tact and the Gothic soldiers would have remained loyal to an Imperial house that had joined the house of their great leader Theodoric (through the marriage of Justinian to Theodoric's daughter). Also, if you follow my whole marraige alliance alternatate history scenario, then you avoid Justinian's disasterous stripping of the Balkan defenses that created so much of the opportunity for the Lombards to invade Italy in the first place.

Exactly! The Brithish Empire was a commercial Empire first and last. For example, they didn't have all that much of a problem with the Boer Republics until gold was discovered on their lands. Heck the Rhodesian colonies were outright commercial ventures in the most vulgar sense of the word. I like to think of much of the early Roman conquest in a similar way. I know its dangerous to generalize an ancient people based upon relatively modern examples, but it just seems to fit in this case. If Ceasar could not have enriched himself in Gaul, I hardly think he would have spent 8 years there.

To quote Will Farrell's character from the movie "Zoolander", "I feel like I am surrounded by crazy people!" lol

While the changing of weights of the gold denominated currency played some role, I believe that it was the over supply of copper coins and the botched attempts to address the resulting inflation that did more to damage the economy than any sort of debasement of the silver currency. Heck, I don't know if silver currency was even in widespread circulation during the crisis period where the Empire started taking its taxed in kind instead of in currency.

Sorry to keep disagreeing with you, but I gotta do it again. I do not think the barbarians invaded roman territory because of Roman mistreatment. Quite the contrary, I believe they often entered Roman territory for either economic opportunity to earn money as a roman federate or to flee other tribes who were stronger (such as the huns). Roman mistreatment was, I believe, the reason they turned against Rome. The Goths, as refugees, were exploited to the point where they were selling their children for a little food. Barbarian federates in Italy were masacred. These things explain much of the trend from servant to master among the barbarian tribes. An important thing to remember is that the lines were not as tightly drawn as you describe above. Stillecho was a vandal chieftan who became the military chief and real power behind the throne in the final days of the western empire. In fact, during this period most of the Roman military commanders were of German origin. Barbarian federates and allies had been serving Rome for centuries. In fact, many tribal leaders learned their skills from their days in the Roman army. Often the reasons for anger and resentment came much later for the barbarians. It came after they had taken up residence within the Empire as its defenders or as refugees. Also, the issue of "blood" was not that meaningful to Romans of the 3rd or 4th century. Roman senators came from North Africa, Spain, Gaul and Britain. Germans ran the army. Syrian merchants supplied many of the trade goods from the east. It just wasn't a matter of some tightly regimented "volk" rejecting outsiders. Heck, they embraced outsiders to a degree that is beyond the capacity of most modern readers to understand. Are you familiar with that Roman laws the highly regulated and usually forbade Romans to bear arms? By the time of its fall, Romans in Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Africa had gone for centuries without knowing anything about weapons or combat. Thats why they could offer no resistance. And this policy was not a Christian policy. It predates the growth of the Christian church into a significant role within the Roman Empire. This policy was intended as a means of control by limiting the opportunity for rebellion.

You missed one more I was writing while you were in the middle of splitting.

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Its not that I disagree with your statement about the existence of greedy, unpatriotic people in positions of power. Its just that I do not think that was any different from Rome in its heyday. As for the Emperors, its more likely that incompetent Emperors had to rely upon people with ability and without scruples. Being an incompetent dependent instead of a powerful leader, however, meant that the Emperors too often were not a check upon the men they appointed. Still, corruption existed in the times of the Republic. There are many accouts of Roman govenors during the Republican period who were corrupt and enriched themselves at the expense of the provincials. There are even many accouts of Senators during that period "stealing" the land of the small farmholders. So its hard for me to look at corruption or unpatriotic sentiment by itself as a cause of the fall. Large groups of people follow the incentive structures that are either intentionally or accidentially set up by their leaders. Maybe it would be worthwhile to ask yourself how the incentive structure changed from say the first century to the 4th or 5th century for the wealthy landowners? If you look at things like legislation targeting the decurions, tax policy, the growing concentration of wealth and administrative corruption, I think you will find all the answers you are looking for.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Scippio has no understanding of strategy? Please correct me if I misunderstand your earlier statement.

As for Peter Brown, I have only read his book titled "Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire". While the subject matter was obviously different, I can say that his style of writing is easy and enjoyable.

AHM Jones' "The Later Roman Empire" is a highly detailed account of administrative, tax and monetary policy. His writing style isn't too different than a VCR manual, but there is some great information inside this 2 volume account if you are willing to dig for it.

I agree that its frustrating to hear the comparisons of the Nazis to the Romans. Don't forget that the first concentration camps were set up by the British at the turn of the century during the Boer wars. The Boers were fighting a very effective guerilla war and the only way the British could compell the Boer soldiers to surrender was to imprison their wives and children in camps and place them on a dangerously low calorie diet that would not go up unless the husbands turned themselves in. Does that mean the British Empire was as bad as the Nazis. The Greeks who sacked Troy burned the city to the ground and killed its people. Are they as bad as the Nazis? One of the crusader armies killed every arab and jew in the city of Jerusalem. So I suppose they are lumped in with the Nazi crowd too. What about the Spanish conquistadors who killed millions of native americans. What about all of the native americans either killed or enslaved by Christopher Columbus while he was a govenor in the new world? They must be as bad as the Nazis too. Right? What about the Teutonic knights who killed and enslaved Baltic and Slavic tribes in Europe almost a thousand years ago. Let me guess......Nazis. The simple truth is that humanity has an incredible capacity for both good and bad and both have been expressed fully throughout history. If you try to see the world through some prism of moral absolutes that are accepted today, then you are going to spend a lot of time judging and disapproving of most of the people you read about in any history book. I am not defending everything the Romans did. They did a lot of things that would make me uncomfortable. Still, they are not the same as Nazis if for no other reason than their motives. Their motives were simple exploitation and greed. The Nazis believed that you could deserve death based upon your ancestry, politics or sexual preference. For them, being a Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, communist, mentally ill or someone with a birth defect was a reason to be killed. The Romans didn't look at the world that way. At worst, the Romans were thugs who could organize their crimes on massive scales. Still, a man could be Roman citizen no matter the color of his skin. A man could be a Roman no matter who he wanted to have sex with. A man could be a Roman and even an Emperor if he were mentally unstable. Do you see some of the contrasts?