Collapse of society ?

[Dan D'Silva]

You realise that by definition the Mycenaean age precludes proto-Greek since it has already passed through a few phonological (and morphological) shifts that distant it from Proto-Greek right? right?

'Deed, but I think he means "early Greeks."

[aligern]

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 lije the pointrabout Bagaudae, a problem of internal secession so severe that the Romans settled barbarians nearby to contol them.
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.
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

[Feinman]

Here's an interesting article regarding recent finds concerning the Sea Peoples:
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/scie...01723.html

[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.

[Dan Howard]

Lead poisoning has me baffled. They used lead plumbing for at least five hundred years. Why would lead suddenly be a problem at that time and not the previous half a millenium?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Lead Poisoning would have caused Genetic defects over several Generations. The problem takes a few centuries to emerge, although it wasn't in reality a serious issue compared to the settlement of Foederati.

[aligern]

Hi Robert,
i put a lot of 'blame' on the social system in the sense that the strength of Roman society moved over time from lots of relatively small farmers who provided good military recruits to being much more narrowly based with the rich getting to enlarge their estates whilst the poor become depressed and disengaged. Long term the difference is between the performance of the Roman military against Hannibal versus their inability to eject barbarians in the fourth century. On the one hand Rome could produce army after army, on the other it could not scrape together enough troops to hold Italy with its own citizens.
Of course that is a huge distance in time and geography Across that period the barbarians get a bit better at fighting, but the Romans improve too, Silver drains out to India, there is some climate change, there are regular , debilitating civil wars and all these contribute. Against this tide emperors reconstitute the army and heroically restore things and find new groups of internal and external barbarians to man the defences, but the fundamental is that thg state cannot defe nd itself with its own citizens.
My view of the Wroxeter palace is that it is very likely part of the Romanitas movement inBritain whereby the lowland Romano Britons try and hold on (in the Severn Valley) to their culture in the face of barbarian attacks and the reversion to Celtic warlordism in the West. And yes I think they are refugees, even if only in the cultural sense because the builders are trying to maintain. something that is fading.
However, it would be quite possible to see Wroxeter as a statement by a Warlord that he was the man of power, but that display would still be an attempt to reclaim a Roman prestige.
A couple of recent books have likened the break up of. Roman Britain to that of the Balkans in the 80s and have pictured a continuity between the pre Roman British tribes and the pist Roman mini states created as these tribes throw off the veneer of Romanitas. I'd rather see it as a matter of there being little structure apart from the towns in the lowlands and these either trying a Roman way in which they hire barbarians (Irish, Saxons) to fight or a Celtic way in which the warlord recruits locals to fight and, given that the invaders are in small groups these small firces are enough to hold on for a long time. The Roman method fails because the hired soldiers rebel and the lowland mini states do not have enough military power to avoid being taken over.

[Robert Vermaat]

Lead poisoning has me baffled. They used lead plumbing for at least five hundred years. Why would lead suddenly be a problem at that time and not the previous half a millenium?

I admit, adding this to the list was indeed a bit tongue-in-cheek. ;-) Personally I think the death rate of the Roman population was so high that genetic defects based on lead poisoning would not have gone very far 9especially in the cities where exposion to lead from piped water would be the largest).
But some do take it very seriously! Traces of Roman industrial waste has been found in Iceland I think, so some places of the Empire were not very healthy to live in.

Of course the Romans were themselves already aware of the problem, as Vitruvius writes:
"Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious, because from it white lead is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system. Hence, if what is generated from it is pernicious, there can be no doubt that itself cannot be a wholesome body. This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are of a pallid colour; for in casting lead, the fumes from it fixing on the different members, and daily burning them, destroy the vigour of the blood; water should therefore on no account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it should be wholesome. That the flavour of that conveyed in earthen pipes is better, is shewn at our daily meals, for all those whose tables are furnished with silver vessels, nevertheless use those made of earth, from the purity of the flavour being preserved in them" (VIII.6.10-11).

[Dan Howard]

I have no problem with lead having serious health effects. My scepticism is towards the idea that this had any influence at all on the downfall of Roman society.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Roy,

Perhaps we should discuss the 'reasons' in another thread, because this has been done quite often on this forum, and stick to the effects here?

My view of the Wroxeter palace is that it is very likely part of the Romanitas movement inBritain whereby the lowland Romano Britons try and hold on (in the Severn Valley) to their culture in the face of barbarian attacks and the reversion to Celtic warlordism in the West. And yes I think they are refugees, even if only in the cultural sense because the builders are trying to maintain. something that is fading.

I see no reason for refugees here, Wroxeter was quite Romanised throughout the Roman period. As archaeological reports prove, there was an ongoing process in which the large civic buildings were by and by abandoned (3rd century), fell into disrepair and were sometimes demolished (4th century), after which the building materials and sites were re-used (5th century). I see no sudden influx of refuigees from the East trying to save their Romanitas, but a continuation of Romanitas in the city itself, despite clearly worsening times. No collapse of society there, nor proof of a sudden influx of landless people (refugees). Later on, the inhabitants seem to have demolished what was left and used the material for a refurbished stronghold on The Wrekin.

However, it would be quite possible to see Wroxeter as a statement by a Warlord that he was the man of power, but that display would still be an attempt to reclaim a Roman prestige.

Vortigern! Who, if traditions can be trusted upon, had lands in modern Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire.

A couple of recent books have likened the break up of. Roman Britain to that of the Balkans in the 80s and have pictured a continuity between the pre Roman British tribes and the pist Roman mini states created as these tribes throw off the veneer of Romanitas.

Stuart Laycock et al, with whom I discussed these theories extensively. laycock presents a case of a 'veneer of Romanitas' under which the Iron Age rivalries persisted throughout 400 years of Roman occupation. he has these 'subliminal tribes' contining to fight armed conflicts, despite the quite strict Roman laws against weapon ownership. Britain would have been a 'special case' for some reason. Or just because Geoffrey of Monmouth said it was in the 12th century. :evil:

I'd rather see it as a matter of there being little structure apart from the towns in the lowlands and these either trying a Roman way in which they hire barbarians (Irish, Saxons) to fight or a Celtic way in which the warlord recruits locals to fight and, given that the invaders are in small groups these small firces are enough to hold on for a long time. The Roman method fails because the hired soldiers rebel and the lowland mini states do not have enough military power to avoid being taken over.

Given that it took the newcomers about 300 years to 'overrun' the last remains of the British province (or even longer), I would say that it was something inbetween. Don't forget, locals can rebels as much against their warlords as hired foreigners can.

[Timianus]

Wanted to hop in on a couple of points. "collpase" depends on what area you are talking about and how you define the term. I think that B.W.P. presents a complling case that in some areas of the empire, there was a complete collapse of technology, trade, literacy, etc.. Other scholars have found sites in Europe that remained largerly intact, although most seem to acknowledge the lack of building an/or reusing materials for smaller buildings. To areas that were not subject to frequent raids and seiges, there may well have been no "collapse." But, I think few could argue that a large part of the empire was unaffected by the constant civil wars, sieges, sacks, and destruction of the later empire period. And, I while I recognize that all written sources have an inherent bias, it is simply silly to ignore mutiple writers who are all decrying the end of civilization as they knew it. May there have been some exaggeration? Sure, but when you have multiple sources reporting on a calamatious event, I tend to believe there is a probability that some calamatious element in fact occured.

That said, I do not discount that there may have been some element of "transformation" (peaceful or otherwise) insomuch as local landowners of invaded areas may have found "barbarian" rule and taxation preferable to the roman system...particularly if the "barbarians" were able to maintain local security. Not to mention the frequent exchange of goods and customs in border provinces preceding the collapse.

From the perspective of a local landowner in the provinces, Rome really did not offer much, other than heavy taxation, ad hoc "taxes" in-kind during military campaigns (i.e. state sanctioned theft), forced conscription, and execution of heretics if you happened to beleive in some doctrine other than that which was in fashion at the time. Then, the border units are removed to supplement the field armies, who take turns laying waste to the surrounding countryside in cycles of usurpation. "Barbarian" control may have very well been preferable to your average "joe the farmer." Not that there were many "joe the farmer's left."

But, in the end, my theory of Rome's collapse is quite simple. Rome was built on a plunder economy and was made rich by conquoring other peoples and stealing their resources. Rome stopped expanding, but the cultural need for military "glory" still remained. Thus, Rome spent 400 or so years of internal fighting over an ever-dimishing "pie." As much as Dioceltian and Constantine were praised for restoring "order", and "unifying" the empire, rememberthey did so through conquest, and sacked the cities he "liberated" to pay their troops. As generals continued to fight over pieces of a smaller and smaller pie, the economy and infrastructure crumbled, and the barbarians became better organized and began to take up the crumbs.

By the time of the traditional "end" of the empire, it is hard to say anything "ended" because what was left so little resembled traditional "rome" anyway.

[Walhaz]

Bump!

There are a lot of very interesting points made about the fall of Roman civilization (and civilizations in general), and whether or not these declines can be called "collapses" or not. One recurrent theme that I seem to see however, particularly in discussions with colleagues and others (as well as the article that started this thread), is that of social and economic stratification. The theory goes that the elites started hoarding up all of the wealth while the common people got more and more poor, eventually creating a situation in which the underclasses could not support the overclass.

I am not certain how well this theory describes the decline/collapse of the Western Roman Empire, however. The Roman constitution was based on a sharp divide between the classes, and this class divide persisted throughout the Republic into the Principate all the way to the end. The theory of yeomen farmers making up the bulk of late Republic and Imperial armies is incorrect; we know that they were paid professionals, possibly as early as Marius and maybe even by the end of the Punic wars. The decline of the yeoman farmer and the rise of the large villa system occurred far, far in advance of Imperial decline. In fact if my understanding of the struggle between the Gracchi and the Senators (and later Optimates vs. Populares) is correct, the idea of a "middle class" of farmers and any idea of a more equitable distribution of wealth was slipping away long before the Empire even began.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the stark socio-economic stratification of Roman culture was a fact from the early days of the Republic, which indicates that this may not be the best theory for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The monopolization of wealth by a smaller percentage of the population compared to the population as a whole is not really something you can point at and say "This is an abnormal situation that caused x." Really, it's simply the state of affairs as it existed, and has always existed throughout every civilization in my opinion.

A better focus of this theory might be what the elite DID with their wealth, I suppose. Such as: perhaps as the empire declined the elite no longer invested in long-distance trade due to the increasing risks, causing a drop in the ability of specialized industries to get their goods to market, meaning no one can receive the goods and no one can get paid for them. I'm not really an economist, and I know a lot of factors come into play. But certainly if Rome existed (and thrived) for centuries with their class system of haves and have-nots then the theory of income inequality is rather weak.

[Alanus]

Maybe it's simplistic, but could be exasperatingly true.
As Tim pointed out-- the Romans ran out of pie filling, the crust got stale, the vineyards collapsed, and there wasn't anything left to wash the crumbs down with. :dizzy:

[John1]

I thought it may be worth drawing attention to this paper suggesting a vestige of Roman "civilisation" or at least administration may have survived in the Midlands. It may have been allowed to survive on the basis of it's value as a lead production area where skills and local knowledge need to be maintained to maintain the tax base. it's tantalising to think maybe a christian enclave survived through the Dark Ages;
http://www.wirksworthromanproject.co.uk/Lutudarum.pdf

[Timianus]

I find "better" a dangerous word to use in this context... Seems like the 19th-century idea of "progress of civilization" to me.

I disagree with this entire concept that every civilization is just as "good" as another. Certainly, we can say that a civilization in which a significant segment of the population is literate, well-fed, well-organized, and produces fine goods, high art, music, and literature, is "better" than one in which people sit around a campfire led by shamans. That is not to say that the people in each society are better or to be more valued, but the term "civilization" involves the organization of society. I have no problem saying society A was better organized, run more efficiently, had a higher standard of living, benefitted more people, and was therefore "better" than society B.