Collapse of society ?

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, Wroxeter is quoted as a good example of things evolving, but not really changing. However, it is built by refugees in the far West of England. Further East the cities have gone. Wroxeter is re used stone and wood and thatch,. Compared to the buildings of third century Corinium it is a substantial step down . Stand on the ramparts of Silchester and look upon the ruin of Roman Britain, empty walls surround an abandoned city, now a field.

I know several archaeologists who would kill to have your sources - why was Wrozeter built by 'refugees in the far West of England'? By that I think you refer to refugees from the East of the island, but still...
Seriously though building in wood and thatch has been known in late and post-Roman cities during the later 4th and 5th centuries on a wider scale than just Wroxeter, although the palatial builing next to the former baths was exceptional.
Of course it's a step down (several indeed) to Corinium or indeed any city during the 3rd centuery, but wasn't that the whole point? My argument was that even after the so-called 'collapsed society' there was still room for grand building, and therefore the 'collapse' in my opinion was not all that spectacular as sometimes sketched.
Yes, look at the empty field of Silchester within the walls - but let's not forget that very often, stone was plundered from ruins to use in keeps, abbies and city walls, including the stones of Silchester and Wroxeter.

One huge indicator if decline is that the Romans no longer settle barbarians within the Empire after formal surrender and breakup of their tribal power structure. The Romans have to accept that the new barbarians are settled with their own kings, an acceptance of the alienation of Roman land to a foreign sovereignty.

I agree that it's a factor, but I disagree that's a killing factor. Much has been made of this, but the Roman 'weakness' that lead to this practise was more of a problem that the result, which saw barbarians under their own leaders being settled within the borders.

Lastly ,where did all this land come from? Gaul, when conquered by caesar was full of people, 400 years of Roman civilisation and it is now so empty that half a million barbarians can easily be settled there. Gaul should be full of productive people.
Truth is that Rome was a society in which the rich got richer and did so by oppressing the poor. This leads to a state which no one will fight or except hired foreigners and internal barbarians such as Dalmatians and Isaurians. At the end the mercenaries revolt and take over.
Roy

Well there you have it. Although I disagree with that 'half a million' the point is clear: too much 'deserted land' made the economy weak, and therefore the means of the governemnt to exert force. If this was mainly due to the social system can be doubbted, much ink was spilled about it already. My main reason is the economic collapse, others have (indeed) blamed social differences, others the climate, others religion, or lead-poisoning.