Did elite education contribute to the fall of the Roman Empire?

[Childress]

In early ancient Rome, education was a private affair, the state played little part in schooling. The rich hired tutors.

As the Republic rose in power and wealth affluent Romans shipped their sons off to academies in Greece to acquire a patina of eliteness. In an earlier era, Aristotle pursued science but later the curriculum became heavily centered on philosophy. The 1st century witnessed a proliferation of Roman universities, notably in Milan, Gaul, Carthage, and Rome itself, all exclusively offering philosophy, rhetoric, and law. The result: a significant uptick in bureaucrats and attorneys.

Higher education in the ancient world always remained more of a status symbol than a practical concern. But the expansion of universities continued unabated.

The number of ministers, of magistrates, of officers, and of servants, who filled the different departments of the state, were multiplied beyond the example of former times…A welfare state system taught the people of Rome and other big cities the ease of idleness.
- Edward Gibbon, on the Late Roman Empire

By the 4th century, the Empire had degenerated into a top-heavy, nightmare state. The dwindling middle-class classes, hamstrung by onerous laws, oppressive taxation, and legal vultures, evaporated. Constantine legislated that tenant farmers were to be restricted to their land - forever-prefiguring the entire apparatus of feudalism.

There's a passage of Ammianus Marcellinus in which the late-imperial historian converses with a Romanized Greek who had lived among the Huns. The Greeks found their society less regimented and blessedly free of lawyers.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Childress

[Childress]

One aspect that divided Roman life into haves and have-nots was the knowledge of the Greek language; it distinguished the prole from the gentleman. The acquisition of that language was essential if one aspired to rise into the higher realms of government. At some time in the late Republic, the mastery of Greek (previously despised) became an essential part of an educated- and, presumably, well-heeled- Roman child. Was the average citizen marginalized?

[LegateLivius]

Very late response and I hope you still lurk here to read my response.

But yes its one of the downfall of the Roman Empire but paradoxically one of the reasons the Roman Empire survived so long. A great introductory book is The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Its not specifically on the Roman Empire but he does note some universal factors that led to the downfall of civilizations among which he quotes events in the Roman Empire.

 

I'll try to look for quotes. But I hope you are here to see my post. Go read The True Believer and you will see how much education and the elitist intellectuals both destroyed and ensured the survival of the Roman Empire.

[caldrail]

I wouldn't accept the rationale behind this post. Education was vital for anyone becoming a politician or lawyer in adult life, but please note, the Romans were not concerned with general education in the manner we are. They emphasised language and rhetoric, with exercises in debating and oratory. Military experience was also a great teacher for the young man, an officer post also considered a must for future career prospects. Not really sure where 'academies' fit into this.

Downfall of the Roman Empire? People love that phrase but there's so little truth to it. Sure, the West declined after the money went to Constantinople, but even after Romulus Augustulus was ordered into retirement by Odoacer and the Gothic Kingdom installed, the population still considered themselves Roman and indeed, major elements of the former Western Empire were still in place (The Senate continued to meet for at least another hundred years or more). In the east, the Byzantines continued for another thousand years, eventually being conquered by the Ottoman Turks.

[Childress]

Academic inflation was not the only cause of Rome's decline. There was the religion issue. (Dear to Gibbon)

During his reign Augustus encouraged the observance of and loyalty to the old Roman religion; he appeared to grasp the symbiotic relationship between religion on one hand and fertility and morality on the other. Disturbed by the increasing childlessness among the higher classes, he passed laws encouraging marriage and the production of children as well as criminalizing adultery.

These enjoyed, at best, a transitory success. The rather arid pagan faith had always been more ceremonial than emotional. And it was vulnerable; Greek philosophers and playwrights had been undermining or ridiculing paganism since the time of Socrates and before. 

Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?
― Aristophanes, The Knights

These elite attitudes eventually traveled to Rome, discrediting the state religion, first among the educated then the masses but religion appears to abhor a vacuum. Well before the Principate of Augustus, numerous foreign imports were already competing in Rome, among them Cybele, Isis, and Mithra- all intensely emotional. The monotheistic rigor of Judaism posed difficulties for Roman policy at times leading to intractable conflict. (Jews began to arrive in Italy following the destruction of the Temple) .

 Christianity, a vigorous proselytizing offshoot of Judaism, first appeared in Rome in the mid- 1st century. The Augustan peace and the expansion of an efficient road network contributed to the rapid expansion of that upstart religion throughout the empire; St Paul, with his countless missionary travels, was a beneficiary.

A religious movement claiming exclusivity and intransigent doctrines can foster fanaticism and the newly converted Christians were willing to die for their faith. Roman armies had earlier encountered Jewish fanaticism during the Siege of Jerusalem but, within the City, this was something new, baffling. The initial reaction was fierce, persecutions ensued. But these failed in the end; potential soldiers joined monastic orders, religious establishments challenged imperial bureaucracies, rival Christian sects battled in the streets, emperors converted to the new faith.

We know now that mature Christianity is compatible with the most advanced societies. However, in Ancient Rome, early Christianity appears to have been a destabilizing factor.

@Caldrail. I wouldn't accept the rationale behind this post.

Do you acknowledge that Rome became, through the centuries, increasingly bureaucratized? Gibbon did. If so, how? Were there no repercussions?

@LegateLivius. Go read The True Believer and you will see how much education and the elitist intellectuals both destroyed and ensured the survival of the Roman Empire.

Hoffer is one of my gurus, you have good taste.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

Do you acknowledge that Rome became, through the centuries, increasingly bureaucratized? Gibbon did. If so, how? Were there no repercussions?

Perhaps you could follow Gibbon's reasoning yourself? I haven't read his work but I'm sure his bureaucratisation of the empire is properly outlined as he saw it. In any event, searching for a structural rationale behind a 'fall' of the Roman Empire is to some extent searching for a scapegoat to explain a what might well be merely a popular assumption. 

Did christianity cause the collapse of the west? That would be ironic as Constantine patronised the 'upstart' religion - which at the time was not a unified church but a collection of individual sects with varying teachings - for the express reason of finding means to unify his battered empire. One religion or another was always going to win out in the rivalry of the later empire but never exclusively, given the inability of Rome to fully unify Christianity in the first place.

There are many postulations about why the western empire 'fell'. 237 of them at the last count. Take your pick. 

 

[Childress]

4 hours ago, caldrail said:

Did Christianity cause the collapse of the west?

That's what Gibbon believed. In his works, he pointed to the rise of Christianity and its effect on the Roman psyche; that religion, with its meekness, neutered the Roman martial ardor.

The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister....

Was he right? Obviously, later Christian nations proved him wrong. However, at that time the new religion was perceived as a dissident element. Remember, Gibbon was a child of the Enlightenment, an era often hostile to Christianity.

I proposed that the rise of an overpowering bureaucracy in Rome was, at least in part,  the result of the heedless expansion of universities. Christianity created, over time, a parallel bureaucracy, absorbing much of the highly educated. 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

Meekness? That's a rather idealistic version of Christianity, which as a religion has demonstrated a very high capacity for changing its motives to suit those in power. Romans were Romans, regardless of religion, although I will concede that the prohibition on shedding blood had some effect on such things as blood sports - but bear in mind that such things had religious connotations to the Roman world and therefore a change from individualistic pagan worship to communal christian sects rather diluted the point of such events - the chariot races would be far more popular than the arena anyway. But also it has to be remembered that the development of monarchy in the empire made certain aspects of Roman culture redundant too. Why would an emperor need to seek the opinion and approval of the crowd at the games when he had become the Dominus in fact as well as name?

The bureaucratisation of the empire might well be a factor, but Gibbon was describing the situation as he saw it in his own day when such structures were less obvious in society. Our own modern standards encompass a great deal of significance to bureaucratic institutions in government thus when Gibbon mentions it, we inflate the effect according to our own expectation.

Therefore one can easily see that the redundancy of many formerly important societal aspects probably had a more withering effect than anything specific like bureaucracies or religion. Philip Parker wrote in The Empire Stops Here how an analogy with human life can be seen in an empire that basically had grown old, losing its former dynamism and ability to defend itself, dying a quite natural death. I do agree with this sort of analogy - the human society is a composite of living humans in the same way that we are an assemblage of single cells - it would likely share the same parameters.

Now, to understate this idea, please realise that the Roman Empire was a victim of its own success. Having become the surviving superpower of the region, the lack of major rivalry (bearing in mind that the Parthians/Persians, Rome's persistent enemy, was fighting across an arid no man's land), meant that their society was becoming stale, static, , and as other cultures have demonstrated, this leads toward a decline in the ability of that culture to survive crises.as their society tends toward formality and ritual. Another aspect of this can be seen in Tacitus, where he sometimes gloats over the weakening effects of Roman luxuries exported to societies not used to them. But he fails to realise that Rome's prosperity would lead to indulgence in the very same way. Rome grew weak because it no longer had to struggle. The earlier austerity had long since gone, along with the hardened attitudes it engendered. People paid lip service to Rome's love affair with martial values. Once this had been a driving force in politics and diplomacy. By the later empire, it was becoming a idea that was beloved in theory, but quietly avoided at all costs in favour of a comfortable life.

[Childress]

You added a potpourri- and legitimate- of causes to explain Rome's fall. I'll add diversity; following the Republic became a polyglot entity, the sense of a unified race was lost. A diverse nation over time becomes a submissive nation, ripe for tyranny: divide et impera. (See Robert Putnam on diversity)

For many, the fall of the Roman Empire leaves them with an agonizing sense of loss. In their minds they re-run different scenarios envisioning a different outcome but, as you said, Rome was a victim of its own success. Similarly, some regret the end of the Byzantine Empire at the hands of the Turks; if only the city walls had held!

The earlier austerity had long since gone, along with the hardened attitudes it engendered. People paid lip service to Rome's love affair with martial values. Once this had been a driving force in politics and diplomacy. By the later empire, it was becoming an idea that was beloved in theory but quietly avoided at all costs in favour of a comfortable life.

Their time had come.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

Rome wasn't about race, it was about culture. If you notice, the Romans were always inclusive. It didn't matter where you came from. What did matter was how you conformed to their cultural ideals, and the elite Romans were very quick to grade you according to your ability to 'speak pwoper', adopt the right clothes, hair, manners, etc. The future emperor Trajan was laughed at by the Senate when he made his first speech as a youngster simply because he had a regional accent. Tacitus mocks the Britons for aping their betters (and compliments the Gauls for being the closest to emulate them).

Fall of the Roman Empire? Why do people say that? It's a romantic fallacy. Even after Odoacer successfully appealed to the Pope for permission to be crowned King of Italy the inhabitants of the Gothic Kingdom considered themselves as Romans, and better Romans than the greek-esque Eastern Empire that we now call the Byzantines. Brittania threw the Roman administration out after the empire failed to protect them from Saxon piracy and banditry. An ancient Brexit you could call it. They regretted it of course and later appealed to the Romans for assistance (Groans of the Britons) which was not forthcoming.

The thing is, to say 'Fall of the...' sounds more dramatic and satisfying, an element of our christianised western culture that sees a corrupt and decadent empire collapse as a sort of justice of everything moral. The statement has recently been expanded into the end of the Republican era. I now see 'Fall of the Republic' becoming a standard phrase, which isn't true either. The Principate was an evolution of Republican Rome with single person rule becoming acceptable as a Senate sponsored top level magistrate that we like to call 'Emperor', however false that nomination might be. Only when we reach the reign of Diocletian do we see single person rule established openly as master of the empire.

Now, your comments about diversity. Since when did diversity become submissive? Britain and America are diverse societies, the latter based on immigration particularly, and neither are submissive states. As a diverse entity, if Rome was submissive, I hardly think it would have dominated the Mediterranean region the way it did.

[Childress]

On 3/11/2021 at 3:58 PM, caldrail said:

Now, your comments about diversity. Since when did diversity become submissive? 

A controversial proposal, for sure. Putnam and other sociologists found that when companies 'diversify' their employees they're much less vulnerable to strikes and wage demands. Atomization ensues, the workers fail to put up a unified front. True, the strong Roman culture was able to absorb disparate ethnicities and religions for a considerable time.

As the Empire grew in power the citizen became smaller, gradually losing his voting rights. Augustus sensed Romans were weary with the constant political turmoil and were ready to accept a benevolent despot, provided the pretense of democratic rule continued. Candidates in Rome still offered themselves for government posts but these were now hand-picked by Augustus. However, competitive elections continued outside of Rome as witnessed in the political slogans painted on the walls of Pompeii. It didn't last.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

Putnam can say what he likes. I work for a company that literally has employees from around the world. Our union is in consultation with management right now over benefits for the workforce and the company is actually keen to maintain this dialogue because they are able to sense the grass roots opinion more comprehensively. It also represents respect for the workforce. I've had senior managers ask me questions on certain issues before now. So Putnam would appear to be making generic comments that aren't necessarily de rigeur.

The Roman world established a paternal structure for its empire. It was not, as many see it, a wholly uniform tyranny in the manner of more recent european empires. The provinces had local government supported by Roman governors, created out of native tribal links in order to solidify loyalty and cooperation. In fact the Romans were proud of their diversity despite their love of exporting latin culture. They praised the city of Palmyra for its cosmopolitan mix of peoples and architecture. Conformity was never demanded. Self determination and free will were what made human beings. Anything else was an animal or a slave. So if a subject of the empire, citizen or not, chose to wear furry swimming trunks and live as his ancestors did, that was fine by the Romans. All they wanted was tribute, loyalty, and lawfulness.

The voting assemblies were more persistent than you describe. Remember that ordinary Romans were quick to voice opinions and not shy of lambasting or even assaulting their betters. Also, despite a lot of what you read, Augustus did not overturn the Republic - he gave it what he considered a better governmental system, by using republican forms (He said he did not invent anything new in his Res Gestae). Tiberius was the first to limit the assemblies by handing some of their rights to the Senate (since he relied on them to rule in his absence at Capri - notice how the Senate is still given a central governing role). Caligula didn't think much of the Senate, seeing them as an obstruction to his power, and reversed the decision, but it was more or less slowly downhill for the assemblies after that. You might claim, with some justification, that the ruling Princeps need not be too concerned of an adverse vote because he could in theory overrule it. But whilst the Princeps might wish to control what they voted for, would he really want to frustrate his public? Support is essential. Without it, he's in serious danger.

The Roman public had been ready for a charismatic leader for quite some time. Julius Caesar made good on that sentiment. It was easier for them to relate to than a crowd of anonymous important people doing business behind closed doors. But this pretence thing? I see this quite a lot. Many academics repeat it. But like David Braund I don't see any ruse or trick. Augustus was more up front than that. As Suetonius says, he was twice ready to give his position up, and Marcus Agrippa was given enough power (possibly equal) to rule in his place whilst Augustus travelled for a total of nine years. That's a little odd for despot, don't you think?

[Childress]

True, it's futile to speak of universities in the modern sense; in the ancient world, there were simply masters and paying students. However, the groupings could be sizeable and outstanding professors might win celebrity status. 

The trajectory of Augustine's teaching career is informative; it illustrates the impressive extent of the academic world within the Roman Empire.

Augustine taught grammar at Thagaste during 373 and 374. The following year he moved to Carthage to conduct a school of rhetoric and remained there for the next nine years. Disturbed by unruly students in Carthage, he moved to establish a school in Rome, where he believed the best andthe brightest rhetoricians practiced, in 383. However, Augustine was disappointed with the apathetic reception. It was the custom for students to pay their fees to the professor on the last day of the term, and many students attended faithfully all term and then did not pay.

Manichaean friends [Augustine became a Christian later] introduced him to the prefect of the City of Rome, Symmachus, who had been asked by the imperial court at Milan to provide a rhetoric professor. Augustine won the job and headed north to take his position in Milan in late 384. Thirty years old, he had won the most visible academic position in the Latin world at a time when such posts gave ready access to political careers.
-Wiki

"...when such posts gave ready access to political careers."
Think about that.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

"...when such posts gave ready access to political careers."
Think about that.

To what end? Roman politics was always an activity that required qualification via previous achievement of some sort. But military experience far outweighed the relevance of education. Indeed, in the republican era, it wasn't unusual for speakers to pull open their togas and point out war wounds to demonstrate their commitment to Rome. Political speaking was quite theatrical by the way. Slapping thighs, demonstrative gestures, they put on quite a performance of ham acting in order to liven their speeches. There was your education. 

[Childress]

To what end? Roman politics was always an activity that required qualification via previous achievement of some sort.

The university was a conveyer belt to the Roman administration, Those sheepskins came in handy; there were just so many rhetors and grammarians to go around. I've aired my 'elite education' theory on several sites over the years as a major cause of Rome's downfall but most (not all) of the responses were either baffled or hostile. I now know feel how Sisyphus felt the eternal punishment of forever rolling a boulder up a hill in the depths of Hades. So you're in good company.

 it wasn't unusual for speakers to pull open their togas and point out war wounds to demonstrate their commitment to Rome. Political speaking was quite theatrical by the way. Slapping thighs, demonstrative gestures, they put on quite a performance of ham acting in order to liven their speeches. 

Hilarious! Great stuff.