DanM

I love to do alternative history exercises so here goes. I believe Justinian could have reunited the Empire if he was someone other than Justinian. Theodoric had a daughter who was regent for her son for a period of years (he died while still very young). If Justinian had made a political marraige with her, then he could have retaken Illyria and Italy with little to no loss of life or treasury. Her position was politically weak so I am sure she would have been highly motivated for such a union. The fact that she was a well educated, insightful woman and had proven herself to be a good leader would have made it likely that she would have been an excellent viceroy for Justinian. With Italy secured, the Burgundian kingdom would have also been easily absorbed. In the early 530s (shortly after the political marriage I suggested above), the Kingdom of Burdundy was absorbed by the Franks. If the Romans had been able to provide a strong counterweight, however, Burgundy could have easily fallen to Rome instead. I believe the last king of Burgundy actually asked for Roman protection near the end. If the Franks had disputed the matter, then a Gothic-Roman army led by Belesaurius could have more than held its own. If Justinian's policy in Africa had been more old school, then he would have co-opted more of the tribal leaders into being friends of Rome and actually turning them into Roman aristocrats. He could have done this by giving substantial tracts of his private lands recovered in Africa to tribal leaders in exchange for their friendship and protection. This was a long held tradition in the early Empire and a practice that was responsible for so much of the peace and prosperity in Africa during that period. The tribal leaders would use their infuence to hold their tribesmen in check and even have these same warriors attack tribes that remained "unfriendly" towards Rome. The end result is that Justinian could have secured a lasting peace in North Africa at a fraction of the cost of his actual efforts which were of questionable merit. Also, the manpower drain would have been a small fraction of what it actually was since so many of the tribal warriors they fought would actually be the ones protecting them instead. As for Iberia, the Gothic kingdom went through a serious civil war in the middle of the 6th century. A tiny Roman army under an 80+ year old commander took a significant part of the kingdom during the confusion. Imagine what would have happened if Rome securely held Italy, Illyria, the former kingdom of Burgundy and northern Africa? I seriously doubt the Romans during the time of Justinian could have taken northern Gaul or Britain without a long, bloody and costly campaign, but they still could have recovered the most populous and wealthy parts of the west. As for the Persians, I agree 100% that they were a serious threat. Still, if Justinian could have recovered Italy by a marriage alliance and avoided outright war, then he could have completed the rest of the proposed moves without imposing a serious drain on the resources dedicated to the Persian front. Also, lets not forget the Danube front. The way Justinian went about his reconquests in the west, the Balkans were left virtually undefended. This resulted in their constant plunder and eventual depopulation. It also forced Justinian to pay huge bribes of gold for the "friendship" of these same tribes.

I don't dispute that the Church diverted financial and manpower resources, but I question whether that makes the church a cause for the fall of Rome of simply one of the factors that contributed to its fall. During the early Empire, the backbone of the imperial government was the collection of city governments that raised levies, collected taxes and built public projects such as baths, aqueducts and harbors. These local city governments were led by the wealthier members of the city population and they were called decurions. In the later Empire, however, this class was seriously curtailed because people began to do everything they could to avoid service in their city government. Many of the wealthier members joined the Senate and by virtue of their new class were exempt from curial service. Many bribed influential members of the Comitatus for some bogus appointment that had absoutely no use except to exempt them from curial duties. Many others also joined the clergy for exactly this same reason. You ever wonder why so many people were willing to do so much to avoid the public service that was so vital to the Empire? Maybe that is a more important reason for the fall of the Empire since it pushed so many wealthy and educated people out of government service and, therefore, weakened the Imperial government's ability to hold its ground.

I picked the early Republic because those guys were absolutely relentless. You could wipe out an entire Roman Army and they would be back the next year with another one. How many times did Hannibal crush the Romans in battle without being able to break their fighting spirit? The only way you could have possibly defeated the Romans of the early Republic would have been to exterminate all the men of fighting age.

I don't think anyone would dispute the bad leadership issue. But why not be a little more specific? Do you think it was just a series of bad emperors making bad choices, or do you want to attribute some of blame to the system of leadership that was adopted by the Empire after the fall of the Republic? What about the continual stream of corrupt govenors and tax collectors who impoverished the farmers and prompted economic contraction? What about a tax system that allowed the wealthiest citizens (senators) to escape taxation to such a large degree? What about a military where effective commanders were often killed exactly because they were good at their job? Even exceptional Emperors could do little more than mitigate many of these fundemental flaws in the system. As for the barbarian invasions, lets go into a little more detail. Why did the Germanic tribes invade the Empire? Was it to escape Asiatic tribes that were pushing them out of their homelands? Why did they stop serving as allies and become masters instead? What about their treatment by the Empire. For example, if the Romans had not exploited the Gothic refugees so ruthlessly, is it possible they would have become peaceful, productive citizens of Rome instead of sacking the Balkans at will and eventually setting up their own kingdoms in the Italy and Spain? As for your blaming Christianity, I think I have to disagree. I just think you are giving Christianity too much credit. I just don't believe it was a cause of Rome's fall because I do not believe it happened in a vaccum. Christianity was a means to an end. The end was a desire by the upper classes to avoid public work in the decurions and a desire by the lower classes to avoid compulsory military service. While I agree that huge amounts of financial and human resources were diverted from the defense and economic benefit of the Empire, I do not think Christianity was an independent force. It was simply a means to an end that allowed certain members of Roman society to escape less desirable duties such as public service and/or the military. As such, I think it would be more accurate to assign blame to the root causes that prompted Romans to use Christianity as a means of escaping public service.

I am most certainly not an expert. I am just a history buff. As for my area of interest, I would say late roman history. Primarily the 5th and 6th centuries. While I am interested in both eastern and western Roman history, this period obviously puts more weight on the east. While the military side of things is of interest to me, the economic, religous and administrative sides of late roman history are the things that really hold my interest. Some of the specific questions I am pondering right now include the demise of the decurial class and the resulting additional pressure towards centralization (and corruption), strategic mistakes Justinian made in this reconquest of Africa and Italy, likely governmental reforms that could have reversed some of the decline in the cities and the many different forms of religous heresy.

My favorite has to be AHM Jones. No one covers the details of late imperial history like the late professor Jones. His writing style is a little like a VCR manual, but he really does know how to present the facts and the likely conclusions in a detailed manner. If you are willing to work for it, few authors can give you better access to the details of late Roman history. I would probably rank John Julius Norwich as the most enjoyable read. His 3 part series on Byzantium was a real page turner. His writing style is a lot of fun to read and he made me feel as if he was talking about people we both knew instead of historical figures who died more than one thousand years ago. Also, I would like to mention Bury, Peter Brown and Runciman. I felt I gained a lot from each one of these men.

1. Economic failure that was brought about by failures in tax policy and administrative corruption. 2. Civil wars that drained the manpower and financial resources of the government. 3. Pressure on the Germanic tribes to leave their lands as Asiatic tribes moved west. This resulted in massive migrations of Germanic tribesmen into Roman territory that simply would not have happened otherwise. For example, look at the movement of the Goths into the Balkans.

The germanic kingdoms set up in the west after the fall of the Western Roman Empire did not follow a uniform policy with respect to their attitude towards the Empire. Each one was driven by the political realities it faced and by the temperment of its leaders. Italy, Spain and Illyria were controlled by the two branches of the Goths (Visigoths and Ostrogoths). These rulers made a big show of their deference to the Roman Empire in the east. I believe they usually styled themselves as viceroys of some form or another. The main reason for this policy can be debated, but I think its based in the fact that there were very few Goths and very many Romans. Most estimates I have read show that the Gothic nation was in the range of 300-400 thousand when it occupied Italy and that includes women and children. When you compare that with the several million "Romans" in Italy, you can easily see that the Goths had to make accomodations. This theory is further supported by the fact that the Roman Senate survived for a long period after the fall of the Empire and that Gothic leaders made a big show of consulting the Senate even when it had no practical power. Also, there is the matter of how the new Germanic immigrants were given lands. Each landowner, by law, was required to give up 1/3 of his estates to the new Germanic overlords, but he was allowed to keep 2/3 for himself. As such, the senatorial and decurial leaders were co-opted into the new order. And its worth mentioning that Roman administration continued in much the same form during the Gothic period in Italy. In Burdundy, the information sources are not as plentiful, but it is likely that a similar land sharing deal was struck, religous toleration was practiced and Roman administrative practices in the government continued. As a result, its safe to say the Burgundian overlords faced similar demographic challenges in their new kingdoms. Very few records are present about the early Frankish kingdom. It is believed, however, that some Romans held on to their property for a time and some Roman administration survived for a time even if it was less of a survival than in sourthern Gaul, Italy and elsewhere. Since the ratio of Germans to Romans was probably not as severe as in the south, its likely that showing any respect for the old order wasn't as important. The Vandals were different. They persecuted the native Roman citizens who did not follow the Arian brand of Christianity as they did. They siezed land in a more agressive and erratic manner, although some of the wealthy Roman landowners did survive. And they gave no lip service to the Roman Emperors in Constantinople. In fact, they would tell them off whenever it suited them to do so. I hope this helps. There are a lot of good books on this subject, but unfortunately most of them are not in English. Many of the books that address these subjects are written either in German or French. AHM Jones is a great writter of books in English on this subject if you are interested in learning more for yourself.

The Romans used 3 types of metal when coining currency. They used gold, silver and copper. The denarius was a copper coin as were the nummi and later the follis. The talent, like the carat and pound are weights of measure and its certain their monetary value changed over time with inflation and with revisions in the currency standards. For example, a gold coin may be issued at 60 or 70 to the pound at different points in time. An important thing to remember when looking at Roman currency policy was that it was highly erratic. The Empire when through a highly inflationary period whereby much of the economy when back to "in kind" transactions. According to what I read in AHM Jones' "The Later Roman Empire", I beleive much of this came about accidentially, but still as a matter of failed policy. To make a long story short, they flooded the market with copper coins and imposed an artificial exchange rate. Initially, this let them create wealth out of thin air, but it eventually led to a massive devaluation. As a result, many emperors tinkered with currency policy. The number of coins to the pound would go back and forth. Government imposed exchange rates between gold and copper would go back and forth. Etc. As for the most wealthy Romans, I think the best place to look is the senatorial class. All of my information sources show that this class continued to grow in wealth until the very end of the Empire. These guys had massive land holdings. Especially in the west. They were also exempt from many forms of taxation and public service since they were exempted from service in the decurions and many people might say that was the most desirable aspect of being a senator in the Roman Empire. Usually anyone who obtained significant wealth outside of the senatorial class was admitted on the merit of his obtained wealth.

The common perception that Hannibal could have marched on Rome after one of the victories where he totally destroyed a Roman army is false. Rome was a huge city with strong walls and Hannibal lacked the needed siege equipment and engineers. He also lacked the number of troops needed to cut off all access to the city and eventually starve it out. As for Roman successes outside of Italy, lets look at them in detail. In Spain, Scippio did not face Hannibal. Therefore, Rome had the leadership advantage. In Africa, much of Hannibal's army was comprised of a more unreliable element that what he had in Italy. Yes he had many of his Italian veterans in Africa as well, but he also had a lot of much greener troops as well. Also, Scippio had use of the Numidian cavilry so the typical cavilry advantage that Hannibal usually enjoye was gone. Finally, Hannibal faced Scippio in this battle. While I give Hannibal a slight edge over Scippio as a General, the difference in their leadership qualities was not enough to overcome the material advantages enjoyed by the Roman army. At least thats my take on it.

I love the USA with all of its flaws and faults. My family is here. My friends are here. My life is here. Still, I would love to travel more and several European locations are at the top of my list of places to see along with the obligatory destinations like Fiji.

As I said in my first post within this thread, I really think Julian the apostate could be a lot of fun as a character in a book. You ever notice how few fictional books do a good job at creating a flawed, but sympathetic protagonist? A man whose greatness is not some absolute score to be measured but a magical combination of good qualities, bad qualities and circumstance. Its a shame, because the flaws can add emotional depth and humor to a story and do so very much to make the character more sympathetic. For me its a lot easier to emotionally invest in a character if he seems 3 deminsional and not just some artificially constructed plot device that fits neatly into a story outline.

There are some similarities. Rome was big on sharing the Roman government with the rest of the world. GWB wants to give the rest of the world an American-style democracy. Durings its rise, the Roman Empire had an unmatched military. Their discipline & professionalism set them apart from any army they faced until they fought the Parthians. Ditto for the USA right now. Due to American technological superiority, the armies of many nations can be effectively destroyed before they engage the American army. The Romans looted the newly won provinces they won. Leading citizens would govern provinces and loot the populations without mercy. America has big multi-national corporations that promote slave labor wages and pollute the environment so we can buy 6 dollar shirts and cheap televisions at Wal-Mart. Still, I think the similarities are more symbolic. The Romans were brutal on a scale not comparable to anything in the USA. The Romans did not have the ACLU or Amnisty International. They did not have live telecasts and a public that could become outraged and ruin the careers of its political leaders. The Romans did more than pay slave wages too. They actually bought and sold human lives as if they were cattle. Massacres were an acceptable strategy. Decimation of local populations was an acceptable tool in foreign policy. The poor died of neglect, disease and starvation. The poor would abandon babies they could not feed. Etc. If civil liberties were suspended, the government was turned over to dictatorship and America became intensely militaristic, then maybe we could be a modern day version of Rome. Until that time, however, I think any comparison is a reach.

You might want to read Peter Brown's "Poverty and Leadership in the later Roman Empire" to get another view of why the Christian church was able to gain some traction. There are a lot of theories on why the Christian church gained ground at this time. Its just that the issue of how they treated the poor has always been one that caught my eye. At least as a significant reason for the success of the church if not the whole answer. Before Christianity, the Roman aristocracy defined their sense of otherness or superiority more through the moral code of the day and public service. The sense of civic duty did a lot to garner the sort of prestige that these guys craved. The early Christian Church, however, threw this standard on its ear. Instead of service to your city as a way of demonstrating virtue, it became a matter of how you treated the poor. Also, Christianity did a lot to Democratize the moral thinking of stocism and neo-platonism and I believe part of the reason the establishment resisted it early on was its influence in breaking down morality as a line of seperation between the aristocrats and the masses. To support the theory on giving to the poor, look at how Julian the Apostate attempted to counter Christianity. One of the big things he did was to give a lot of Imperial cash to the Pagan temples so they could set up charitable works for the poor like the Christians and Jews did it. He knew that their charitable works were winning converts and he sought to counter their success and possibly even use the tactic to advance the cause of paganism. Of course there were a lot of other issues such as the effectiveness of their organization, etc. I don't mean to oversimplify the issue. I just wanted to point out this one factor in why Christianity may have gained the upper hand.

Who says Hannibal had no chance of winning and how can you be sure it was so obvious to him before he started? Many people blundered in the second Punic war, but I think its hard to say that Hannibal did so. Even if Hannibal had been a pacifist, Rome would have ultimately conquered Carthage. Hannibal took his shot and lost more due to the failures of the Carthagenian government that did support him than to anything else. To me, its a reach to call that a blunder.

To answer your question first, the two things that makes the Norwich book about the Normans in Sicily so entertaining are (1) the characters and (2) the way Norwich develops the charactrers. He really seems to bring them alive. Robert and Roger Guiscard are a lot of fun and Norwich does his best to play them up as the classic rogue types. As for the 3 book series on Byzantium, I would highly recommend the Norwich take on events. Since you are familiar with his writing style, I am sure you know how easy and enjoyable his books are to read. Especially when compared to other non-fiction writers. I honestly felt more like I was reading a gossip column about the various emperors and less that I was reading a dry, halting historical report. As for Runciman, if you like his writing style and have any interest in early heretical christianity, then you might want to look at the Runciman book titled "The Medieval Manichee". Its an enjoyable read and quite informative. For example, if you have ever wondered about the theological differences between a dualist and a monarchist, this book can draw the distinction for you. Right now I am reading the translations of the 4 books written by Procopius. After that, I am going to read the 2 volume set by AHM Jones of the Later Roman Empire.

This is really all just a theory so I will pose it as a series of questions in the hope of getting confirmation from someone with a stronger background. Here are some random bits of information I have picked up on Roman slavery. I''m not even sure all of this is correct, but its what I have read. 1. Roman slaves were primarily from internal sources such as collections of foundlings and people selling themselves or family members into slavery for a variety of reasons. 2. The demographic trends show that Roman slaves (both agricultural and household) were overwhelmingly male. By some accounts, it was upwards of 80%. 3. The manumission rates were very high so a lot of slaves were constantly leaving the class. 4. in the 3rd and 4th centuries with the rise of Christianity, we hear more and more talk about the rising numbers of "the poor". It also seems like this is the point where slavery declines and it also seems like the time when Roman Emperors start making laws and rules about coloni (farmer peasants) being tied to the land. I assume the last point was in response to the declining slave base so the wealthier land owners could maintain a dedicated labor force for their estates. 5. I also remember reading an earrlier Imperial account that said the poor often did not raise their children. They simply abandoned them to a death by exposure or, if they were lucky, to collection by a slave trader. This same source said that many slave traders hired people to find babies that were abandoned and to raise the foundlings as slaves. 6. Finally, I read something about how it was a common practice to free a female slave if a free man wished to marry her and he had the resources to acquire her. I think this was done to ensure the status of the children from such a marriage were free. So here are my questions.... Do you think the constant references to the poor birth rates among slaves could be due to a disparity in the gender makeup? I mean, if the slave traders were much more likely to save male babies, wouldn't that be a contributing factor to lower birth rates among the slave class? Do you think the rise of Christianity and the increases in the ranks of "the poor" had anything to do with the reduced infantcide rates? If (1) most slaves came from within the Empire (2) a large majority were male and (3) the females were more likely to be freed, then doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that such a population would quickly shrink without a constant resupply from outside of the class? If the primary source of resupply was the collection of babies left for exposure by parents unwilling or unable to raise them, then it would seem reasonable to assume that a reduction of infantcide rates would have to go hand in hand with a reduction in the number of slaves within the Empire. By diverting public giving away from civic projects such as parks, harbors, aqueducts and circuses in the Imperial cities and dedicating it to financial support for the poor, is it possible that the Christian church gradually eliminated the practice of infantcide by gradually eliminating the economic need for it? Could this trend be linked to the rising numbers of "the poor" in late Roman cities. Instead of these people being raised as slaves, maybe they grew up as the self-perpetuating, disenfranchied class dependent upon the church for financial support. By disrupting this flow of humanity from an exploited slave class and into a class that needed protection and support, what are the economic and sociological impacts on later Roman society? While it seems like the practice of Christian charity was much more humane, it is possibile that such a practice led to a reduced tax base and less spending for infrastructure by private, local sources. If anyone would care to answer any part of the post, I would appreciate it.

Not a problem primuspilus. Thanks for the answer. I think this site is a great idea. Hopefully it will catch on and more people will join up.

Thats OK Ursus. Maybe you can help me on another question. I remember reading once that earlier Roman society had different ideas about virtue. Supposedly the upper classes held themselves to a higher standard than the masses (at least within their own minds) and this was somehow part of their creation of a sense of "otherness" that seperated them from the rest of the population. According to a book I read, this involved all sorts of self denial with respect to sex as well as other things. It also seems to have played a role in the engenderment of civic duty. Things like giving large amounts of money to your city were ways of being acknowledged as being virtuous. Ditto for public service. Of course, public service often required large public gifts so its kinda hard to seperate the two items. Maybe I am missing the point, but it almost seems like the upper classes were more comfortable with the lower classes not living a virtuous life. As such, schools of thought such as stocism and christianity with their democratizing influence on virtue would have been a disruption to the more conservative elements of early Roman society. It would have pierced the wall of otherness that the upper classes so carefully nurtured and possibly altered the upper class view of proper public behavior. First question, do you think virtue as defined by early Romans was a way of defining otherness and, therefore, something that made public giving a public service a brass ring to reach for? Second, do you think there was an attempt by the upper classes to cultivate this otherness in other ways I am not describing here? Third, once other schools of thought brought the concept of a virtuous life to the masses, do you think this influenced upper class Roman attitudes towards things such as civic giving and service to the government?

For those of you who want a good blow by blow account of the second Punic War, this book might be helpful. The author does a great job of describing the different elements that comprised each army, the background leading up to the wars, the major personalities and he gives a great detailed account of all the major battles. While the author is extremely detailed, his writing style is not as fluid as it could be. Still, if you are looking for a detailed and informative book about the second Punic War then this one is a great pick.

Does anyone have any information on this group. I think they are an organization that publishes papers on the subject of the Roman Empire and I think they have been doing it for a very long time. All I know is that I sometimes find references to their works in the bibliographies of some of the books I read and I occassionally find these same works for sale at something around $100 each. Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Hey Ursus, I really have an interest in learning more about the "softer" aspects of Rome, but its not nearly so easy to find books on the subjects and its much, much harder to find anyone willing to talk about these subjects. Right now I am on a 2 track study of the religous and economic aspects of latter Roman life. For the religous work, it seems a lot easier to find commentary on orthodox and gnostic forms of Christianity than it does to find anything that addresses the monophysites. Specifically their origins and their reasons for becoming so popular in Syria and Egypt. Also, I am looking for evidence of anti-clerical movements in Syria and Egypt during this period. These areas seemed to be perpetually unhappy in the 4th -6th centuries and I am looking for a link between the intense economic exploitation of these regions and their rejection of an orthodoxy that seemed to be increasingly Hellenized. For the economic side of things, I am in the middle of AMH Jones' 2nd volume. While its full of great information, it reads like a VCR manual so its taking a while to really digest it. Any suggestions you have for reading about religous and economic life in the latter Roman Empire (4th to 6th centuries) would be greatly appreciated.

Hey Zeke, I think Ursus is on to something here. Don't forget that Julian aped Christian and Jewish practices like charity for the poor in an attempt to counter their rising popularity. Also, I think he tried to impose some of the religous hierarchy that was so effectively employed by the Christians. In short, he borrowed a lot from the Christians in terms of methods and organization so the fact that he opposed them through his support of paganism isn't really the same thing as saying he rejected all that was Christian. And like Ursus said, the early church borrowed a lot from non-Christian thought as well so its hard to say there is a clear line of seperation.

Are there any other Norwich fans here? His 3 part series on Byzantium was great and his book on the Normans in Sicily was one of the most entertaining non-fiction books I have read in years.

I fully expect this question to sound stupid, but can someone tell me what "UNRV" stands for? I assume its a university, but I am in the dark. Thanks.