What's a barbarian? Aurelian was from Dacia. Diocletian was Illyrian. The Romans had assimilated many other people's before, but after Adrianople, the Goths and other Germanic tribes tended to become miniature kingdoms inside the Roman Empire and were never viewed as "Roman", even if (as in Stilicho's case), they were born of a Roman mother and lived their whole lives in the Empire. I think that was a big part of the problem.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What's a barbarian? Aurelian was from Dacia. Diocletian was Illyrian. The Romans had assimilated many other people's before, but after Adrianople, the Goths and other Germanic tribes tended to become miniature kingdoms inside the Roman Empire and were never viewed as "Roman", even if (as in Stilicho's case), they were born of a Roman mother and lived their whole lives in the Empire. I think that was a big part of the problem.
Hell even untill the fall of Constanople in 1453 emperor postion on paper was never herital it next early emperor could made by other by the christan time period in theory emperor was choices by the army senate and church.
That might have delayed the end a bit, but their control of Gaul and Iberia was nominal by then, and the only reason they had a chance to attack the Vandals was because the East got involved.
Which is irrelevant since the Romans still had some chance at that time. A definitive crushing of the Vandals and regaining of North Africa would have made Gaul and Iberia essentially irrelevent since Rome could finally feed itself again and gets its old revenue back. With such a boon, it would be possible to give the Roman economy some breathing room and free Italy out of the burden of creating its own grain, not too mention how important Tunisian Red Slip was.
They'd lose North Africa again or have Germanic tribes roaming around Italy as soon as Constantinople's attention was diverted elsewhere. They still have the same problems that caused them to lose North Africa in the first place, including a destructive rivalry between their two most powerful generals.
Can someone make a to do list of things that most be done at least a hundred years before the fall of Rome and the west?
If the Emperor Valens waits for Gratian's troops to arrive before initiating the Battle of Adrianople in 378, it would make an excellent start.
Ultimately, the decentralization of Roman society made Rome itself increasingly less relevant. Sooner or later, either it was either going to fracture from the internal struggles between the "mother" city and the more vibrant satellites, or be overrun along the hugely expanded borders. The issue goes back before Gaius Julius, but that civil conflict between native Roman and Greek troops and Julius' Gallic recruits was already a visible symptom of the problem. The split into Eastern and Western spheres of influence was a further symptom, not a cause, and treating the symptoms would only give the Empire a few extra years until the next incident.
Rome's extended 5 year siege of Veii shortly after the institution of the Republic required the creation of a professional army to maintain it, which proved to be both one of Rome's greatest strengths and a seed of its downfall.
Rome's extended 5 year siege of Veii shortly after the institution of the Republic required the creation of a professional army to maintain it, which proved to be both one of Rome's greatest strengths and a seed of its downfall.
As I've always been taught (though I've always found Classical history too boring to get involved in) Rome's decline was caused by a number of factors which had previously been its strength:
- Assimilation of foreign cultures which made acceptance of Roman rule over, for instance, Ptolemaic Egypt easier, but had destabilizing effects in Gaul and other Western territories due to much larger (and less civilized) Germanic 'tribes' becoming more dominant;
- Balanced decentralization which granted some autonomy to local aristocracy, but, due to the decline of military might and prestige after the Germanic and Hun invasions (amongst others), revenue from this system declined steeply;
- A military economy focused on distributing lands amongst retired legionnaires. After conquest stopped military expenses grew, hence increasing military decline as revenue dropped as well;
- The city of Rome being a burden on nearly every other part of the Empire;
I believe the gradual decline of slavery must have played a role as well.
As for short term measures: they could have let the nominal Roman Empire exist some decades, maybe even centuries, but the (Western) Roman Empire itself had ceased to exist long before Julianus Apostata was dethroned. The Eastern Roman Empire's called the Byzantine Empire for a reason: it just wasn't the same state it had been in the third and early fourth centuries.
- Assimilation of foreign cultures which made acceptance of Roman rule over, for instance, Ptolemaic Egypt easier, but had destabilizing effects in Gaul and other Western territories due to much larger (and less civilized) Germanic 'tribes' becoming more dominant;
- Balanced decentralization which granted some autonomy to local aristocracy, but, due to the decline of military might and prestige after the Germanic and Hun invasions (amongst others), revenue from this system declined steeply;
- A military economy focused on distributing lands amongst retired legionnaires. After conquest stopped military expenses grew, hence increasing military decline as revenue dropped as well;
- The city of Rome being a burden on nearly every other part of the Empire;
I believe the gradual decline of slavery must have played a role as well.
As for short term measures: they could have let the nominal Roman Empire exist some decades, maybe even centuries, but the (Western) Roman Empire itself had ceased to exist long before Julianus Apostata was dethroned. The Eastern Roman Empire's called the Byzantine Empire for a reason: it just wasn't the same state it had been in the third and early fourth centuries.