.png){kind=avatar}
You have my blessing of being humbly excused. Now then, on with the AAR, eh?
In the Footsteps of Rome: A History of Europe in Late Antiquity
- Thread starter volksmarschall
- Start date
-
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.
You have my blessing of being humbly excused. Now then, on with the AAR, eh?
You will be happy to know that in one of the future updates in the "fall of the Roman Empire" section deals briefly about the Isles. However, I think I will probably have a more formal one now that you would like to have one as well.
And I'm most eager to see you take a smaller Scottish lord into EUIV as you did with your Tales of the Egypto-Norse... which I have sadly read long after you completed it. Hopefully you'll all enjoy another pre-game update on the final days of the Roman Empire in the West!
Chapter 1: The Burden of Empire
Although Rome is remembered as an empire, with the de jure head of state being the emperor and the continued existence of the Roman Senate to provide him guidance and assistance in rule, the de facto power in the West was held by councilors, provincial governors, as well as the military generals – many of them hired mercenaries from the Germanic tribes whom Rome failed to conquer. Rome was only nominally an empire and in reality, a collection of private fiefdoms, military factions, and disconnected villages and towns with almost no influence of Roman law and order much like the succeeding kingdoms of Western Europe until the advent of modernity, but especially true of the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires. It is for these reasons, the breakup of the Roman Empire in the West created the large collection of personal fiefdoms, disconnected kingdoms, and independent towns that emerged in the sixth century.
The last great Roman general in the West was Flavius Aetius, who became the last celebratory Roman hero for his defeat of Attila at the Catalaunian Plains in 451 (sometimes referred to as the Battle of Chalons), a mere 26 years before the final fall of the western half of the Roman Empire. As such, and being a proper Roman, he was much admired in the East as he was in the West. The eastern emperor even tried to court his military services after his impressive victory. His principal rival before his rise to fame however was Count Bonifacius, the provincial governor of the Diocese of Africa. Boficacius also has as much the lucid story of Aetius. Indeed, when Bonifacius was made the magister militum praesentallis – or master of the army, Aetius challenged him in Italy. The resulting Battle of Ravenna (432), 19 years prior to Aetius’s great victory against Attila, ended in Bonifacius’s victory against Aetius in a hard fought struggle that was not sanctioned by the emperor (it was private civil war so to speak). Although Bonifcaius was victorious, he would later die of his wounds – leaving Aetius as the most powerful man in the Roman Empire as it quickly withered away.
Both men, as other governors and generals in the realm, had the ability to recruit and administer their own armies. In times of crisis, the emperor and Senate would call upon these powerful men to rally their resources and men to come to the aid of the empire. In many aspects, the Roman Empire had completely ceased being an empire and was nothing more than a collection of personal fiefdoms that had de jure allegiance to the emperor in Milan [1]. In additional, these powerful men had full control over their armies and territorial resource pool, and the pooling of resources to aid the crippled empire did not serve in the best interests of the governors and generals who were all jockeying for prestige, power, and wealth. Only when the emperor himself would call upon their aid, was any sense of power sharing and resource pooling actualized – but always temporarily until the crisis was defeated wherein the primitive alliance of governors, generals, and localities returned to fractional rivalry and bickering.
The future European art of calling upon local levies to aid in military matters can also be traced back to this practice of the late period Roman Empire. There were few centralized standing armies in Europe, just as the standing Roman legions had all but become non-existent; provincial Roman levies were the closest thing to the ancient legions of Scipio, Caesar, or Augustus. Many of the Roman soldiers were not Roman, but Gallic, Gothic, and Germanic mercenaries hired by the Roman State to serve in place of the more professional soldiers that had all but evaporated from the Roman military arm.
During the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, half of the Roman army comprised of the soldiers of Theodoric, King of the Visigoths. The Visigoths had arisen in the former Western holdings of the Roman Empire having moved from the East and had settled in the Roman West – the territories of modern day Spain and Southern France. This powerful force became the most important ally to the dwindling Roman Empire, and the Visigoths themselves intermingled with the future peoples of Catalonia, Andulusia, Anjou, Burgundy, and Aquitaine among others. The Visigoths would become one of the important successor states to the dismantled Roman Empire, and they reached the height of their power around the year 500 CE. The Visigoths in Spain and Southern France, and the Ostrogoths in Italy, would possess the largest theoretically unified political states after the collapse of the Western Empire but were still, more-or-less a petty collection of locales theoretically unified under their titular king.
The Visigoth king Theodoric dies during the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, one of the most important battles in Western military history. The Roman victory saved Western Europe from being dominated by the Huns, and truthfully, the Western Germanic "Barbarians" were not as bad as generally envisioned.
Calling upon these independent bands of warriors, kings, and chiefs also posed a major problem for the Roman Empire – finance. The financially drained empire, which had devoted too much spending on its military and quelling civil wars, was now essentially bankrupt. Unable to sustain a standing army the means to finance war and military forces was ushered to the local power players: generals, politicians (the councilors), and governors. When the empire did raise troops, it was often through mercenary mediums where, while the payment was more expensive than your standard soldier in the short run – in the long run, the burden of paying a standing army was better suited for temporary short term significant payments to mercenaries, but this practice ensured a weakening of the domestic body politic (its inability to defend itself with its own men).
Later medieval warfare followed the same pattern in Western Europe. Kings and counts and dukes would often hire “Free companies” of mercenaries – professional soldiers who would fight for the highest bidder. Dukes and counts also raised their own forces, professionally and by hire, and were often engaged in petty military game theory against one another, often prohibiting the unity of forces in battle. In several instances, local nobles possessed larger and more professional armies than their sovereign overlords, which threatened said overlord’s rule and power.
When the Kingdom of Italy, in 867, was faced with the task of finally driving out the Muslim invaders who had conquered Southern Italy decades earlier, the majority of the soldiers came from the various localities that made up the kingdom. The most powerful of the Italian successor fiefdoms were centered in Tuscany, Milan, and Verona. As Louis II, also known as Louis the German, marched into Southern Italy to claim the glory of dispelling the Muslims from Italy, he readily knew of the dangers of the scheming and powerful counts, dukes, and other nobles in his realm. The large military forces they could provide, while beneficial during wars of that demanded unity within the kingdom, also served as the proverbial elephant in the court. If the nobles rallied together against their king, the nobles would have a larger army than the king himself. The army rallied by Louis himself was four times smaller than the armies recruited by the local levies, lords, and other hegemons, which is not entirely different the composition and recruiting patterns found in the late stages of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. Old habits die hard.
Louis II, King of Italy. This is a romanticized depiction of him, and likely inaccurate.
Indeed, this was the major problem in the final decades of the Roman Empire. Lesser generals, at least in political theory, possessed larger and more powerful army – let along more motivated men, than any of the emperors. If any of the generals decided to march against the emperor, the emperor would be dependent upon far away men, like Flavius Aetius, to muster his forces and come to the rescue of the harlot emperor.
The decentralized political structure of the Western Empire, which allotted for the concentration of power into the hands of robber barons and lesser nobles, was a problem that Western Europe would have to contend with until the advent of modernity! Even under the emperor Charlemagne, the restoration of the Roman lands under a single ruler is somewhat misleading. Much like how the Roman Empire in theory, was unified under its emperor, the empire of Charlemagne was plagued by these same problems of petty lords and nobles wielding significant power over their fiefdoms while Charlemagne was more a symbolic head of these collections of person territories.
Although crowned by the Pope as the unifier of Europe, lesser counts and petty nobles held wealth of Charlemagne’s empire. Upon his death, his empire was carved up to his sons, further fragmenting and decentralizing his formerly “unified” European empire. The successor kingdoms would often war with one another, and powerful nobles would march against each other to increase their power and authority against weaker men. The fractional political topography of the Western Empire doomed Western Europe after its fall to become a land of kingdoms, counties, and duchies that were disunited politically, only loosely united through the common religious faith of the Catholic Church.
It is in the East, where centralized power was still concentrated in the hands of the emperor and a handful of his closest confidants, the continuation of the old Roman Empire would survive. As the Western Empire was also becoming land of robber barons, strongmen, and personal kingdoms and fiefdoms – which in turn created the fragmented and divided Western Europe after the fall of Rome, the East became the new beacon of light and empire. Even as the Muslims stormed out of Arabia, they simply inherited the Byzantine codes of law and governance practices and incorporated them into their own rituals, practices, and laws. For instance, Roman taxes were simply renamed in Arabic after the Umayyad Empire came into existence – which also incorporated Roman rituals and styles into their ritual practices and courtship. It is truthful to claim that the Arab empires in the Middle East were neo-Roman, having been significantly influenced by Roman political thought, theory, law, and science.
In total irony, the burden of empire in the West ensured that, by the time of its fall – there was no empire in any real sense. Rather, there was a titular empire ruled by a harlot emperor who surrendered his dignity to the highest and most powerful bidders until he himself had to sell himself and his crown to the men who he had entrusted to protect him. In the decades leading up the collapse of the Rome in the west, while there remained an empire in the east, the last 100 years leading up to Odoacer’s march against Little Augustus showed that there was no longer any resemblance of empire in west. Just a symbolic throne and crown was all that remained of the empire of Augustus, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.
[1] The emperor and Senate was seated in Milan by the fourth century, which was the new gravitas of imperial power and politics in the Western Empire. While Rome was still the largest city and still the symbolic capital of the empire. After the city was besieged in 402 by the Visigoths, the imperial residence moved again – this time to Ravenna, where it remained until the fall of the empire in the West in 476.
Chapter 1: The Burden of Empire
Although Rome is remembered as an empire, with the de jure head of state being the emperor and the continued existence of the Roman Senate to provide him guidance and assistance in rule, the de facto power in the West was held by councilors, provincial governors, as well as the military generals – many of them hired mercenaries from the Germanic tribes whom Rome failed to conquer. Rome was only nominally an empire and in reality, a collection of private fiefdoms, military factions, and disconnected villages and towns with almost no influence of Roman law and order much like the succeeding kingdoms of Western Europe until the advent of modernity, but especially true of the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires. It is for these reasons, the breakup of the Roman Empire in the West created the large collection of personal fiefdoms, disconnected kingdoms, and independent towns that emerged in the sixth century.
The last great Roman general in the West was Flavius Aetius, who became the last celebratory Roman hero for his defeat of Attila at the Catalaunian Plains in 451 (sometimes referred to as the Battle of Chalons), a mere 26 years before the final fall of the western half of the Roman Empire. As such, and being a proper Roman, he was much admired in the East as he was in the West. The eastern emperor even tried to court his military services after his impressive victory. His principal rival before his rise to fame however was Count Bonifacius, the provincial governor of the Diocese of Africa. Boficacius also has as much the lucid story of Aetius. Indeed, when Bonifacius was made the magister militum praesentallis – or master of the army, Aetius challenged him in Italy. The resulting Battle of Ravenna (432), 19 years prior to Aetius’s great victory against Attila, ended in Bonifacius’s victory against Aetius in a hard fought struggle that was not sanctioned by the emperor (it was private civil war so to speak). Although Bonifcaius was victorious, he would later die of his wounds – leaving Aetius as the most powerful man in the Roman Empire as it quickly withered away.
Both men, as other governors and generals in the realm, had the ability to recruit and administer their own armies. In times of crisis, the emperor and Senate would call upon these powerful men to rally their resources and men to come to the aid of the empire. In many aspects, the Roman Empire had completely ceased being an empire and was nothing more than a collection of personal fiefdoms that had de jure allegiance to the emperor in Milan [1]. In additional, these powerful men had full control over their armies and territorial resource pool, and the pooling of resources to aid the crippled empire did not serve in the best interests of the governors and generals who were all jockeying for prestige, power, and wealth. Only when the emperor himself would call upon their aid, was any sense of power sharing and resource pooling actualized – but always temporarily until the crisis was defeated wherein the primitive alliance of governors, generals, and localities returned to fractional rivalry and bickering.
The future European art of calling upon local levies to aid in military matters can also be traced back to this practice of the late period Roman Empire. There were few centralized standing armies in Europe, just as the standing Roman legions had all but become non-existent; provincial Roman levies were the closest thing to the ancient legions of Scipio, Caesar, or Augustus. Many of the Roman soldiers were not Roman, but Gallic, Gothic, and Germanic mercenaries hired by the Roman State to serve in place of the more professional soldiers that had all but evaporated from the Roman military arm.
During the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, half of the Roman army comprised of the soldiers of Theodoric, King of the Visigoths. The Visigoths had arisen in the former Western holdings of the Roman Empire having moved from the East and had settled in the Roman West – the territories of modern day Spain and Southern France. This powerful force became the most important ally to the dwindling Roman Empire, and the Visigoths themselves intermingled with the future peoples of Catalonia, Andulusia, Anjou, Burgundy, and Aquitaine among others. The Visigoths would become one of the important successor states to the dismantled Roman Empire, and they reached the height of their power around the year 500 CE. The Visigoths in Spain and Southern France, and the Ostrogoths in Italy, would possess the largest theoretically unified political states after the collapse of the Western Empire but were still, more-or-less a petty collection of locales theoretically unified under their titular king.
The Visigoth king Theodoric dies during the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, one of the most important battles in Western military history. The Roman victory saved Western Europe from being dominated by the Huns, and truthfully, the Western Germanic "Barbarians" were not as bad as generally envisioned.
Later medieval warfare followed the same pattern in Western Europe. Kings and counts and dukes would often hire “Free companies” of mercenaries – professional soldiers who would fight for the highest bidder. Dukes and counts also raised their own forces, professionally and by hire, and were often engaged in petty military game theory against one another, often prohibiting the unity of forces in battle. In several instances, local nobles possessed larger and more professional armies than their sovereign overlords, which threatened said overlord’s rule and power.
When the Kingdom of Italy, in 867, was faced with the task of finally driving out the Muslim invaders who had conquered Southern Italy decades earlier, the majority of the soldiers came from the various localities that made up the kingdom. The most powerful of the Italian successor fiefdoms were centered in Tuscany, Milan, and Verona. As Louis II, also known as Louis the German, marched into Southern Italy to claim the glory of dispelling the Muslims from Italy, he readily knew of the dangers of the scheming and powerful counts, dukes, and other nobles in his realm. The large military forces they could provide, while beneficial during wars of that demanded unity within the kingdom, also served as the proverbial elephant in the court. If the nobles rallied together against their king, the nobles would have a larger army than the king himself. The army rallied by Louis himself was four times smaller than the armies recruited by the local levies, lords, and other hegemons, which is not entirely different the composition and recruiting patterns found in the late stages of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. Old habits die hard.
Louis II, King of Italy. This is a romanticized depiction of him, and likely inaccurate.
The decentralized political structure of the Western Empire, which allotted for the concentration of power into the hands of robber barons and lesser nobles, was a problem that Western Europe would have to contend with until the advent of modernity! Even under the emperor Charlemagne, the restoration of the Roman lands under a single ruler is somewhat misleading. Much like how the Roman Empire in theory, was unified under its emperor, the empire of Charlemagne was plagued by these same problems of petty lords and nobles wielding significant power over their fiefdoms while Charlemagne was more a symbolic head of these collections of person territories.
Although crowned by the Pope as the unifier of Europe, lesser counts and petty nobles held wealth of Charlemagne’s empire. Upon his death, his empire was carved up to his sons, further fragmenting and decentralizing his formerly “unified” European empire. The successor kingdoms would often war with one another, and powerful nobles would march against each other to increase their power and authority against weaker men. The fractional political topography of the Western Empire doomed Western Europe after its fall to become a land of kingdoms, counties, and duchies that were disunited politically, only loosely united through the common religious faith of the Catholic Church.
It is in the East, where centralized power was still concentrated in the hands of the emperor and a handful of his closest confidants, the continuation of the old Roman Empire would survive. As the Western Empire was also becoming land of robber barons, strongmen, and personal kingdoms and fiefdoms – which in turn created the fragmented and divided Western Europe after the fall of Rome, the East became the new beacon of light and empire. Even as the Muslims stormed out of Arabia, they simply inherited the Byzantine codes of law and governance practices and incorporated them into their own rituals, practices, and laws. For instance, Roman taxes were simply renamed in Arabic after the Umayyad Empire came into existence – which also incorporated Roman rituals and styles into their ritual practices and courtship. It is truthful to claim that the Arab empires in the Middle East were neo-Roman, having been significantly influenced by Roman political thought, theory, law, and science.
In total irony, the burden of empire in the West ensured that, by the time of its fall – there was no empire in any real sense. Rather, there was a titular empire ruled by a harlot emperor who surrendered his dignity to the highest and most powerful bidders until he himself had to sell himself and his crown to the men who he had entrusted to protect him. In the decades leading up the collapse of the Rome in the west, while there remained an empire in the east, the last 100 years leading up to Odoacer’s march against Little Augustus showed that there was no longer any resemblance of empire in west. Just a symbolic throne and crown was all that remained of the empire of Augustus, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.
[1] The emperor and Senate was seated in Milan by the fourth century, which was the new gravitas of imperial power and politics in the Western Empire. While Rome was still the largest city and still the symbolic capital of the empire. After the city was besieged in 402 by the Visigoths, the imperial residence moved again – this time to Ravenna, where it remained until the fall of the empire in the West in 476.
Last edited:
You've addressed how Roman central authority devolved on the regional governors, and you've mentioned the British Isles as being subject of an upcoming post. I'd like to see something about the invitation of the Franks across the Rhine and the temporary kingdom of Syagrius, as a case study of that devolution if you will. Could be in conjunction with the Britain update, since Britain's the best-known case of imperial "you're on your own."
Really enjoyed that update, illuminating about a part of history I know very little about. The mention of the Battle of Catalaunian Plain gave me nostalgic flashbacks to the Hun campaign in Age of Empires .
.
Ah, the fall, in my opinion one of the more depressing topics of history. It conjures images of seven hills, civil wars, and great romantic art.
I wonder if the Emperor Honorius watching the Visigoths coming over the seventh hill truly realized that the Roman Empire was about to fall?*
Anyways, I know of a certain poem I always think of when I remember the fall, Waiting for the the Barbarians. C.P. Cavafy really does set the mood for the event, and shows how low the mighty have fallen. Hopefully you can reverse the tide.
*internet points if you get the refernce
I wonder if the Emperor Honorius watching the Visigoths coming over the seventh hill truly realized that the Roman Empire was about to fall?*
Anyways, I know of a certain poem I always think of when I remember the fall, Waiting for the the Barbarians. C.P. Cavafy really does set the mood for the event, and shows how low the mighty have fallen. Hopefully you can reverse the tide.
*internet points if you get the refernce
I almost can't help but draw that parallel into modern American politics...
(sorry for taking it off topic with that, just couldn't help myself)It is great seeing you over here writing a CKII AAR! I am really enjoying your histories, and feel like I come away learning something new when I read stuff from you. In fact, one of these days I probably should click on some of those links in your signature and read some of your other older work.
But anyways I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with you and CKII
This game tends to bring out a person's inner Tyrant so look forward to seeing if you unleash that...and to see how you manifest it in the history.
Ironically enough, the post I have about the Franks crossing the Rhine coincides with the post that includes the British Isles. But I think I will do more with Post-Roman France once I'm done with the Fall and breakup of the Roman Empire. If I recall, Syagrius was the last Roman(ish) enclave in Northern France after the fall of the empire...that would be a good topic to discuss.
Really enjoyed that update, illuminating about a part of history I know very little about. The mention of the Battle of Catalaunian Plain gave me nostalgic flashbacks to the Hun campaign in Age of Empires
Mentioning Age of Empires just gave me nostalgic flashbacks!
Ironically enough, I have no attachment or sympathy with the fall of the Roman Empire, I'm actually very critical of the empire even though it's my field of study and work. I find Roman history (well, ancient history in the Mediterranean really) to be of the upmost fascination; but I actually have a lot of qualms with the Romans. You can say, I'm glad it was destroyed!
You unfortunately never saw that I am a member of the Star Trek Fan group on these forums!
I almost can't help but draw that parallel into modern American politics...
It is great seeing you over here writing a CKII AAR! I am really enjoying your histories, and feel like I come away learning something new when I read stuff from you. In fact, one of these days I probably should click on some of those links in your signature and read some of your other older work.
But anyways I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with you and CKII
Why thank you! However, if you decide for whatever reason to read older AARs, you will realize - as I do re-reading them, how poor my prose was 5 years ago!
The only one that is really worthwhile is my Presidents AAR in Victoria, started in 2009, now at 55 pages and finally 2 updates from finish! *At long last* :ninja:Ah yes, incorporating in-game decisions to history should be fun. Rather than writing about Giulia being arrested and sent to prison I'll use that as the catalyst to talk about crime and punishment in medieval society possibly.
Last edited:
Properly, Syagrius was the last Roman ruler in the west, son of the last appointed military magistrate in Gaul. He ruled the enclave of Soissons, and there's some debate about whether he was "king of the Romans" or simply the de facto leader of what remained of Roman authority in France. Most of his rule coincided with one of the interminable Frankish succession wars, but at the tail end, Clovis unified the Salian Franks and decided to have done with the rather large Roman enclave. Syagrius offers a tantalizing hint of the transition between the dominate and true feudal rule, because he had no appointment, and came to power about the same time that Britain was cut loose. His rule was, as near as can be told, purely inherited, which Roman imperial succession, especially in magistracies, had never completely confirmed. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot that we know about him, as he exists as a footnote to the Franks on one hand and centralized Roman rule on the other.
Why thank you! However, if you decide for whatever reason to read older AARs, you will realize - as I do re-reading them, how poor my prose was 5 years ago!
Ah yes, incorporating in-game decisions to history should be fun. Rather than writing about Giulia being arrested and sent to prison I'll use that as the catalyst to talk about crime and punishment in medieval society possibly.
I actually have been thinking about heading over and reading your The Presidents AAR. Actually think I may have read a little bit of it a year or two ago. I do know what you mean about your prose not being great in older ones, I'm fairly embarassed about my first three AARs I put up on here, actually do my best to pretend they never existed lol.
But that's a good idea for some in-game decisions connect to an overall discussion on how things were carried out in those days. I'm actually pretty excited to see it to be honest
so definitely looking forward to more!
I'll have to look at the indexes of all my histories to see how much information they contain on Syagrius and his holdings. Frankly, pardon the pun, the post-Roman West is an area I only have a few histories in, since after the Roman Empire in the West falls, I predominately switch to the history of the "Byzantines" in my studies and work, although I have read a few very illuminating works on the subject; Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome" probably being the best about the post-Roman West from 400-1000 C.E.
I actually have been thinking about heading over and reading your The Presidents AAR. Actually think I may have read a little bit of it a year or two ago. I do know what you mean about your prose not being great in older ones, I'm fairly embarassed about my first three AARs I put up on here, actually do my best to pretend they never existed lol.
But that's a good idea for some in-game decisions connect to an overall discussion on how things were carried out in those days. I'm actually pretty excited to see it to be honest
That AAR has the fortune of currently being my magnum opus, and was even listed on the Victoria Anthology AAR list with some of the first AARs I read that got me onto the forums, most notably coz1's "Into the West." And since its an American AAR, it's very special to me (but so is "Saints and Angels" since it was my first AAR and until this year, the only AAR I finished - although I re-read it and found many grammar errors and some typos but I'm far to lazy to want to fix those).
Now you've given me a reason to check your inkwell and read some of your early works since Return of the Welfs and Milan are very good and well-written.
To be honest, I've been so sucked into my work that I now have a hard time not trying to include history into my AARs since, as I hope to accomplish with these AARs, show that a good AAR can be historically driven, historically written, and hopefully - give interest to younger people who may otherwise just like gaming and have some vague interest in the historical period to actually start getting into history after reading or playing. Ironically, I got into history when I was 3, playing an old civil war game on my Dad's computer. Ever since then, I was hooked!
Chapter 1: The Burden of Empire
Ibn Khaldun, one of the world's first economists and most important philosophers and historians.
After the decadence of the Roman Empire was masked by its temporary re-unification under Constantine which continued until the death of Theodosius, the Roman Empire even under the re-unified heads were far weaker than even the empire under Diocletian, the emperor who was the first to split Rome into two-halves under the Tetrarchy. Diocletian of course gave himself the more prosperous and politically centralized and demographically homogenous east than the more fractured and less developed west. When Constantine defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine transferred the newly unified imperial gravitas from Milan to Constantinople – another blunder to the Western holdings and for the future political and economic development of Western Europe.
The more capable line of succeeding emperors after the Diocletian split ruled from the East, over an already developed, prosperous, and geographically blessed region. Constantinople, situated at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, was the center of trade by the age of Late Antiquity. Alexander the Great’s policy of Hellenization meant that, although its people were diverse, much of the eastern population was united by Greek language, culture, and spirit. By comparison, the West had never experienced an equivalent age of “Romanization.” Rather, the conquered Gauls, Britons, and proto-Spanish retained their past heritage – few learned Latin, and a further few ever managed to become Roman citizens; whereas most of the Greeks eventual incorporated Latin/Roman customs to their Greek customs and become full citizens. Furthermore, the eastern empire had come into possession of the fertile crescent, home of 8 of 12 of the world’s leading cereal crops, 14 of the world’s 15 domesticable animals, and very temperate climate suitable for sustainable agriculture.
The vast trade and agrarian network built up the east would then prosper under competent Roman administration and leadership in the succeeding centuries, climaxing sometime in the early eleventh century.* By comparison, the Western Roman Empire was in a far more tenuous position. Geographically, it was divided by arid deserts and plateaus in North Africa and Spain, the mountainous Alps along its northern border, warm and temperate climates in Southern France and Italy, colder and harsher temperatures in Northern France and England, and was not situated on any major trade routes which had all been directed back to Constantinople. The most prosperous city of the late period empire in the West was not even situated in the historical Roman homelands, but in southern France – Marseilles.
A map of Roman trade, ca. 120 C.E., by the late fourth century and early fifth century, the trade routes in the West had all but been dried up, and that which remained had been re-routed to Constantinople.
The western lands, which had been inhabited by the more primitive Barbarians than the agrarian and centralized entities of Greece, Egypt, or Persia, meant that the land was largely uncultivated and underdeveloped. Large areas of agriculture were largely nonexistent outside of a few major urban areas that saw an influx of Roman citizens and merchants following their captures – like Marseilles. Even after Roman occupation, there was little effort in cultivating the fields as the Romans expanded ever eastward and found a natural substitute to cultivation in the already prosperous and cultivated lands in the east. Now separated, and drained of money, the Western Empire could do little in trying to develop its lands – which were nonetheless well suited for agriculture had the Romans been able to centralize their agrarian developmental efforts. Instead, the lands fell into the hands of the aforementioned councilors, nobles, and military generals – who all pursued differing policies depending upon their personal goals.
Unlike a relatively flourishing life in the east, life in the west was harsh and brutal. Agriculture was confined to small villages and towns, with local populations working extra hard to ensure a good harvest – but for the village or town (the practice known as subsistence agriculture). Corrupt or otherwise immoral officials engaged in the policy of tax farming instead of tax collecting – in lieu of money to be collected, these officials simply collected agricultural production in place of taxes, in many cases, leaving the towns and villages in difficult predicaments with shortages of food readily occurring by the end of winter. This, coupled with smaller plagues and diseases, explains the decrease in population in the Roman Empire by the fourth century. While the East was experience a population boom, the West was experience population decline. The majority of those who had died of from starvation, disease, or other plagues – were generally found in the Western half of the Roman Empire. Subsistence agriculture was the lifestyle of necessity in the West.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, subsistence agriculture remained the lifestyle of necessity in Western Europe at least until the Industrial Revolution over a millennia and half later. While subsistence agriculture was also predominate in the east, communal agriculture, administrative farming, merchant trading, the silk industry, and industrial trades were also commonly practiced by the people living in the east half of the empire. The minimal industrial and merchant trading that occurred in the West was often dominated by ethnic and religious minorities.
A mosaic depicting Roman apple farming, presumably in the Western half.
For instance, the Jews had a longstanding relationship with the Romans, even going back to the days of Julius Caesar’s Rhine campaign. Jewish merchants traveled with Caesar’s army into Germany and laid the foundation for German Jewry, and they were excellent traders and merchants. As the Roman Army had needs, they turned to the only people who could supply their needs – the Jewish merchants. In effect, the Jewish domination of trade was completely by accident. The few non-Jewish traders and craftsmen never grew to the size and standing of the Jewish traders who had traveled with the Roman army’s conquests of Western Europe and created long-standing relationships with the Roman elite.
This also meant that the Western Empire had no natural or administrative merchants, traders, and craftsmen to turn to. With the Eastern Empire possessing the homogenous laborers and traders who were contracted by the emperors in Constantinople to supplement the demands and needs of the Byzantine Army, the Roman Army in the west was left to decay beyond repair. Those whom the Western Roman state could turn to had a far superior understanding of economics than the Barbarian mercenaries who swelled the ranks of the Roman Army. Unable to pay the demands of the traders and craftsmen otherwise capable of supplying the Romans with a more permanent army – the weaponry and resources of the Western Army was entirely nonexistent. As mentioned before, the armies were largely conscripted of poor peasants fighting with below average tools and weapons, or comprised of the Barbarian mercenaries who did not have universal weaponry or outfits like the republican or early imperial legions.
Naturally, the underdeveloped and uncultivated lands were to be inherited by the European successor kingdoms and fiefdoms. Like the Romans, many did not have the resources, time, or the capability of developing these lands – at least until the Umayyad conquests restored civilization, agrarian development, and trade networks to the western basin of the Mediterranean.
At the end of the Roman Empire, the treasury was dried up, despite excessively high tax rates. There was virtually no standing army, and the Roman nobility had little concern for the political and diplomatic situation of their day. In fact, the Church took a more active role in politics and diplomacy in lieu of the sensual desires of the nobles. As the Roman Empire fell into disrepair and decay, the Church inherited the political systems of the Roman Empire. Diocese – the Roman provincial territories became the basis for the future Diocese of the Catholic Church (Church jurisdictional authority). The political power amassed by the Church was not the result of scheming and cunningness, but the result that political and diplomatic responsibilities essentially fell into the hands of the Church as the nobles and Senators of Rome did not take responsibility or care for the developing (and worsening) political situations. When Attila swept into the Roman Empire before being defeated by Aetius, it was Pope Leo I who rode out to meet Attila and temporarily save the Roman Empire.
*This is historically true, but seeing that I have not played extensively into the game yet, I will probably have to update this quote to reflect in-game ramifications as time goes on. Historically, the high point of the Byzantine Empire is often debated between Justinian and Basil II.
Chapter 1: The Burden of Empire
The Roman Empire, wrecked from the inside, was unable to cope with the challenges of being the regional hegemon of the Mediterranean world. In particular, the Roman-Sassanid Wars (which I will cover in Chapter 2) and the military burden of its frontier fortifications spelled the final financial doom of the empire. The great Muslim historian, philosopher, and proto-economist, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), empirically deduced that the fall of empires was precipitated by a decline in revenue and an increase in taxation to make up for the shortfalls. Military forces were shrunken to weather the financial burdens of the state, and the population of the country seemed more concerned with fighting over the spoils of the remaining wealth of the society, or had a voluptuous passion for wealth and other wanton desires and needs. He did, no doubt, look at the Roman Empire during his studies.
Ibn Khaldun, one of the world's first economists and most important philosophers and historians.
The more capable line of succeeding emperors after the Diocletian split ruled from the East, over an already developed, prosperous, and geographically blessed region. Constantinople, situated at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, was the center of trade by the age of Late Antiquity. Alexander the Great’s policy of Hellenization meant that, although its people were diverse, much of the eastern population was united by Greek language, culture, and spirit. By comparison, the West had never experienced an equivalent age of “Romanization.” Rather, the conquered Gauls, Britons, and proto-Spanish retained their past heritage – few learned Latin, and a further few ever managed to become Roman citizens; whereas most of the Greeks eventual incorporated Latin/Roman customs to their Greek customs and become full citizens. Furthermore, the eastern empire had come into possession of the fertile crescent, home of 8 of 12 of the world’s leading cereal crops, 14 of the world’s 15 domesticable animals, and very temperate climate suitable for sustainable agriculture.
The vast trade and agrarian network built up the east would then prosper under competent Roman administration and leadership in the succeeding centuries, climaxing sometime in the early eleventh century.* By comparison, the Western Roman Empire was in a far more tenuous position. Geographically, it was divided by arid deserts and plateaus in North Africa and Spain, the mountainous Alps along its northern border, warm and temperate climates in Southern France and Italy, colder and harsher temperatures in Northern France and England, and was not situated on any major trade routes which had all been directed back to Constantinople. The most prosperous city of the late period empire in the West was not even situated in the historical Roman homelands, but in southern France – Marseilles.
A map of Roman trade, ca. 120 C.E., by the late fourth century and early fifth century, the trade routes in the West had all but been dried up, and that which remained had been re-routed to Constantinople.
Unlike a relatively flourishing life in the east, life in the west was harsh and brutal. Agriculture was confined to small villages and towns, with local populations working extra hard to ensure a good harvest – but for the village or town (the practice known as subsistence agriculture). Corrupt or otherwise immoral officials engaged in the policy of tax farming instead of tax collecting – in lieu of money to be collected, these officials simply collected agricultural production in place of taxes, in many cases, leaving the towns and villages in difficult predicaments with shortages of food readily occurring by the end of winter. This, coupled with smaller plagues and diseases, explains the decrease in population in the Roman Empire by the fourth century. While the East was experience a population boom, the West was experience population decline. The majority of those who had died of from starvation, disease, or other plagues – were generally found in the Western half of the Roman Empire. Subsistence agriculture was the lifestyle of necessity in the West.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, subsistence agriculture remained the lifestyle of necessity in Western Europe at least until the Industrial Revolution over a millennia and half later. While subsistence agriculture was also predominate in the east, communal agriculture, administrative farming, merchant trading, the silk industry, and industrial trades were also commonly practiced by the people living in the east half of the empire. The minimal industrial and merchant trading that occurred in the West was often dominated by ethnic and religious minorities.
A mosaic depicting Roman apple farming, presumably in the Western half.
This also meant that the Western Empire had no natural or administrative merchants, traders, and craftsmen to turn to. With the Eastern Empire possessing the homogenous laborers and traders who were contracted by the emperors in Constantinople to supplement the demands and needs of the Byzantine Army, the Roman Army in the west was left to decay beyond repair. Those whom the Western Roman state could turn to had a far superior understanding of economics than the Barbarian mercenaries who swelled the ranks of the Roman Army. Unable to pay the demands of the traders and craftsmen otherwise capable of supplying the Romans with a more permanent army – the weaponry and resources of the Western Army was entirely nonexistent. As mentioned before, the armies were largely conscripted of poor peasants fighting with below average tools and weapons, or comprised of the Barbarian mercenaries who did not have universal weaponry or outfits like the republican or early imperial legions.
Naturally, the underdeveloped and uncultivated lands were to be inherited by the European successor kingdoms and fiefdoms. Like the Romans, many did not have the resources, time, or the capability of developing these lands – at least until the Umayyad conquests restored civilization, agrarian development, and trade networks to the western basin of the Mediterranean.
At the end of the Roman Empire, the treasury was dried up, despite excessively high tax rates. There was virtually no standing army, and the Roman nobility had little concern for the political and diplomatic situation of their day. In fact, the Church took a more active role in politics and diplomacy in lieu of the sensual desires of the nobles. As the Roman Empire fell into disrepair and decay, the Church inherited the political systems of the Roman Empire. Diocese – the Roman provincial territories became the basis for the future Diocese of the Catholic Church (Church jurisdictional authority). The political power amassed by the Church was not the result of scheming and cunningness, but the result that political and diplomatic responsibilities essentially fell into the hands of the Church as the nobles and Senators of Rome did not take responsibility or care for the developing (and worsening) political situations. When Attila swept into the Roman Empire before being defeated by Aetius, it was Pope Leo I who rode out to meet Attila and temporarily save the Roman Empire.
*This is historically true, but seeing that I have not played extensively into the game yet, I will probably have to update this quote to reflect in-game ramifications as time goes on. Historically, the high point of the Byzantine Empire is often debated between Justinian and Basil II.
Last edited:
Another fine update. By your description it seems that the economy of Western Europe remained more or less unchanged from before the Roman conquest until the Early Modern Period? And this Khaldun guy sounds very interesting!
I find your opinion of the Late Roman Empire quite callous! True, the western empire was highly decentralized, and true it was extremely corrupt, yet the benefits of living under Roman rule were undeniable. Having a relatively safe and stable empire encouraged trade and prosperity, knowledge spread more quickly between the constituent states, and the Romans are well known for being more tolerant of different religions than there successors. I once recalling a documentary on the subject stating where once you could travel in relative safety to Rome through the Roman Empire, after its collapse you now had to cross through a thousand! This is a bit of an exaggeration, and it does show the decentralization of the late empire, but the level of fragmentation is still staggering. The collapse of the Empire also led to the so called 'Dark Ages' (though I am loathe to use that hated phrase), and most certainly after the decline mortality rates spiked, knowledge, like the empire, fragmented, disease treatment descended into bloodletting, and society in Western Europe became what is essentially a cast system! Thousands of scrolls, books, works of art, and architecture, were destroyed, and I weep for the lost knowledge. Certainly the Empire had many, many, many faults, but none of them compare with the immediate aftermath! You sir may be glad of the empires demise, but I am not, and never will be!
In other news, we have a Star Rrek club? How could I not know of this! I shall join the club immediately! Thank you for alerting me of said club, and great update!
In other news, we have a Star Rrek club? How could I not know of this! I shall join the club immediately! Thank you for alerting me of said club, and great update!
The prevailing consensus among economists and economic historians is that the economy of Europe was relatively stagnant until the early modern period. Angus Maddison, from which this graph is from, is the undisputed master in the field of economic history, and all economic historians are indebted to his research! I basically just reinforced his conclusions in this section covering the Romans.
His work is great if you're interested in economic data and writings!
I agree that I have an extremely negative view of the Roman Empire, but that's mostly because I loathe the often "cool" stereotypes of the Roman Empire perpetrated by young gamers or the History Channel!
The Roman Empire is much more cruel than you have been let on. Roman stability didn't create trade and prosperity, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians are far more responsible for that. The Romans had civil wars nearly every generation. Alexander's Hellenization spread education greater than anything the Romans did. Most of the great ancient histories and philosophical texts are in Greek and not Latin, I would know, I read a lot of them! I reject the term callous, as someone who has read hundreds of articles and books on the subject, I am very well-versed and have come to the conclusions that most historians and scholars would generally agree with.
The successor kingdoms were actually very religious "tolerant" only because they were religiously homogenous, when persecution occurred, it was generally under the directives of Rome (the Church) not the kings. The Muslim successor kingdoms, especially in Spain, were by far the most tolerant of the kingdoms in Late Antiquity and the early Medieval Era. Religious persecution under the Roman Empire was higher than in any of the successor kingdoms. While it is true that the Romans were not as bad as some may portray them, the empire itself persecuted Jews in many wars, Christians, and Zoroastrians, and after becoming Christian, persecuted the Pagans. The empire was built upon violence, and maintained itself with violence. I've read no serious scholar who thinks otherwise.
Dr.Livingstone said:
If you'd like a good history on the fragmentation and breakup of the Roman Empire and its influence on Western Europe, I recommend Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome, of which this AAR shares many agreements with and is sort of a mini tribute to his work! I generally steer clear from documentaries since I've caught about a dozen mistakes in History Channel and other public broadcasting channels when they put out their content. I'm afraid what is included in that "The World Wars" 3 day show coming up for Memorial Day. I'll probably have a notebook filled with mistakes after watching it! (This is what we do as historians for original research!)
Dr.Livingstone said:
wikipedia said:
wikipedia said:
Although I usually don't endorse getting information from wikipedia, the article on Dark Age historiography is very good. Few historians now consider the Dark Ages at all bad. In fact, there were many great advancements in knowledges and the sciences during the "Dark Ages." The idea of a "dark age" and a collapse of knowledge after the fall of Rome has been thoroughly rejected by the scholarly field. Since I will end up with a PhD in Late Antiquity, I am generally grateful for the last 20 years of advancement made in historiography to overturn an archaic and misleading paradigm. The idea that so much knowledge was lost in a complete myth. Roman scientific advancement had already begun stagnating by the late 2nd century CE. I am part of the historical school that completely reject the "Dark Ages" in favor of the term "Late Antiquity," which will probably become the only accepted scholarly position within the next generation.
Livingstone said:Certainly the Empire had many, many, many faults, but none of them compare with the immediate aftermath! You sir may be glad of the empires demise, but I am not, and never will be!
I agree with you, and I also exalt in my writings the many great things from the Roman Empire, especially the Edict of Milan, arguably the earliest document of religious toleration anywhere in the world!
However again, most modern historians do not believe the traditional stories about how bad things got with the Barbarians in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire. The most recent historiographical trend in historical scholarship in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages is that the "Barbarians" and the conquering Muslims played a very positive role in European development, with the Umayyads and Abbasids being closer to the earlier Greek and Roman civilizations of Antiquity!
This is a good and brief article on the historiography of the Barbarians and their contributions to European development. Were the Barbarians a Positive or Negative Influence in Ancient and Medieval History? (the link is a pdf to the file I have in one of my folders).
Regardless, the Roman Empire did fall. And that's how history goes, it gets one shot.
Dr.Livingstone said:In other news, we have a Star Trek club? How could I not know of this! I shall join the club immediately! Thank you for alerting me of said club, and great update!
I love Star Trek, but you sir are probably more well-versed, seeing I have slacked the last 5-6 years, although I saw both Abrams' films in the reboot and came away with a positive opinion about both.
Thanks again for your continued patronage Dr.Livingstone! It is always appreciated and your comments stimulate good dialogue.
Maybe instead of going into the hard sciences I can persuade you into Roman history and you'll probably change your opinions once you start heavy research and writing on the subject! I used to have the same sympathies you had and was mislead that if Rome never fell Christopher Columbus would have been "sailing to the moon!"
Last edited:
Jumping on this bandwagon before it's too late, and it's quite good. Rome is one of my favorite subjects, and you do a marvelous job, volksmarschall.
Why thank you GuG. Roman and Byzantine history is one of my favorite subjects too if you couldn't tell!
I just need to tidy up my historiographical paper and send it off to a journal next, so you can, I also have to love it because of my work! I have no other choice! :ninja:
Last edited:
Chapter 1: The Burden of Empire
The burdens of the empire were, in theory, alleviated by a complex series of frontier fortifications, garrisons, and self-sufficient communities that would provide for the garrisoned forces along the Rhine and Danube Rivers. The longstanding relationship between the Roman Empire and the Jews of the cities and frontier cities were further strengthened when oil for the lights of frontier forces were exclusively provided by Jewish traders and merchants. This strengthened Jewish mercantile positions in Late Antiquity heading into the early medieval age.
The construction of Hadrian’s Wall, which is the beginning of the fortification line that would run from Scotland down along the banks of the Rhine and through the Austrian Alps and Danube River (the Limes Germanicus) – did temporarily solve the empire’s military problems. However, this too eventually became a burden, but more importantly serves as the boundaries for the post-Roman West. As the forts remained in place and garrisoned, over time the forts needed to be maintained which cost the state money. As time went on also, the forts needed to be manned, costing both money and manpower. By the fourth century, the frontier garrison soldiers – the limitanei were nothing more than semi-professional farmer soldiers who could, in number, throw back a prospective small-scale and medium-scale invasion. The frontier troops were the most numerous soldiers of the late Roman Army, so the army was essentially composed of semi-trained militias than actual soldiers. These frontier troops, being less costly than the more professional soldiers of the Roman Army, the comitatenses, who were effectively the crossbreed of the traditional legions and auxiliary troops of the early imperial state, were also backed up by mercenaries when crisis hit. The comitatenses were a flexible, mobile medium-infantry who could be summed up as being a “jack of all trades, but master of none,” type of military unit.
This extensive frontier border essentially drew up the future political map of Europe, especially once the barbarian mercenaries hired to support the frontier forces made more permanent residencies alongside the frontier fortifications. Hadrian’s Wall separated the Celts of Scotland and Ireland from the England and in time, helped to foster the Celtic Irish and Scottish identities and prevented intermingling with the Anglo-Saxons. The Lower Germanic Limes, the frontier fortifications running from the North Sea to the Rhine River, separated the Saxons from the Franks and Northern portion of the empire. The Saxons, who never managed to penetrate these defenses, would migrate to England after the fall of the empire, also remained locked in their territories of Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway – effectively becoming the proto-Norse. The inability of the Christian missionaries to also move beyond these points ensured that the Norse Saxon tribes would remain Pagan into the Middle Ages until the proliferation of later Catholic missions into the Far North.
The Walls of the Limes Germanicus, still standing today.
The Upper Germanic Limes ran from the Rhine to the Alps. Two important developments from this section of the Roman garrisons are important to the formation of the post-Roman West. Three Barbarian tribes in the region would become indispensable in the creation of the future Western European kingdoms, the Visigoths, Burgundians, and the Franks, which would also serve Charlemagne in the division of his empire upon his death.
The Visigoths, who eventually settled down in Southern France and Northern Spain after sacking Rome in 410, became important allies to the Romans at the latter end of Western Roman history (having provided half of the soldiers serving with Aetius in their defeat of Attila). However, the two more important tribes were the Burgundians and Franks. The Franks, a confederation of tribes along the lower Rhine, were on the best terms with the Romans. Many Franks were hired to serve in the Roman Army to boost the frontier fortifications – thus, the Franks crossed over the Rhine to serve in the Roman Army freely. This migration allowed for the Franks to spread out and serve in the frontier lines of the Lower Germanic Limes. The inclusion of Frankish mercenaries into the Roman garrisons formed the basis for the future Frankish kingdoms of Western Europe – and the future development of France. As generations passed, the Franks moved further and further in-land, away from the frontier garrisons and encompassed modern day France, etymologically being derived from the “Land of the Franks.”
After the Burgundians, along with several other tribes crossed the Rhine in 405-406 which I will cover in greater detail in Chapter 3, the Burgundians settled down along the Upper Germanic Limes, and in the border between the Frankish settlements more inland and the Roman garrisons along the river, became the basis for the future Burgundian people and Kingdom of Burgundy. In close proximity with the Franks, the two tribes came together to create a unique culture that was Frankish-Germanic in orientation. The other Germanic tribes, which were kept out of the Roman Empire by the Rhaetian Limes along the Danube River near modern Austria, would develop into the proto-Germans.
When Charlemagne divided his empire among his sons, it was divided along the lines of the traditional Roman limes. West Francia was divided along the lines of the old Frankish tribes and confederacies that had moved into the Roman Empire after being hired to serve as frontier garrisons for the Roman Army. The Kingdom of Lothaire, which becomes the lands of the Kingdom of Burgundy, was divided along the Burgundian lines of the old Roman frontier garrisons. East Francia held much of the territory north of the Rhaetian Limes, where the Germanic tribes were largely kept in check by the Roman garrisons.
Charlemagne, or Anglicized as Charles the Great. Many historians consider him to the be the "first European." His empire was instrumental in the formation of medieval Europe.
The creation of the Frankish successor kingdoms, modern France, and the eventual Germanic kingdoms and principalities that form the Holy Roman Empire, have their origins in the now obscure and forgotten frontier Roman military system. The culturing and isolation of tribes as a result of the Roman Limes prevented any national cultures from arising in Europe. Rather, the Franks remained Franks. The Bugundians remained Burgundian. The Saxons Saxon and the Germans German, etc.
Again, in almost an ironic twist, the Roman attempt to preserve Roman culture actually led to the diminishing of Romanism and the creation of the multiple nationalities of the post-Roman West. Largely confined to their territories based on the old system of Roman forts and roads, these barbarian tribes slowly civilized themselves from within to create the unique post-Roman cultures and kingdoms of Western Europe that remain, even to this day. The burdens of maintaining the empire from the Roman perspective effectually created the political system inherited by the post-Roman West, and ultimately served to fracture and dissolve the empire itself.
The birth of modern Europe as an inheritance of the Roman political situation by the fifth century is all too apparent. The inability of Charlemagne’s empire lay in the faults of the Roman Empire’s complex web of frontier defenses, which cut off the Northern British isles from England, and cut off Central and Northern Europe from Western Europe. With the isolation of the various barbarian tribes in the late stages of the Roman Empire, the many confederacies would have likely united to form large political entities in the fallout of the final decades of the Roman Empire. The division among the barbarian tribes fostered by the Roman defenses also, in another ironic twist, served against the protection of the Romans when Attilla rampaged through Europe. The divided and fractured barbarian kings, disunited because of the Roman military frontier system, rolled over against the Hunnic invasion – allowing the Huns to cross the Rhine having faced minimal opposition. A united barbarian confederation of tribes, which served the basis for the foundation of the larger tribes of Goths, Franks, Visigoths, and Burgundians, may not have only prolonged the lifespan of the Roman Empire in the West, it may have allowed for a unified or more unified post-Roman West than the highly fractured, isolated, and divided world that came about.
Chapter 1: The Burden of Empire
The burdens of the empire were, in theory, alleviated by a complex series of frontier fortifications, garrisons, and self-sufficient communities that would provide for the garrisoned forces along the Rhine and Danube Rivers. The longstanding relationship between the Roman Empire and the Jews of the cities and frontier cities were further strengthened when oil for the lights of frontier forces were exclusively provided by Jewish traders and merchants. This strengthened Jewish mercantile positions in Late Antiquity heading into the early medieval age.
The construction of Hadrian’s Wall, which is the beginning of the fortification line that would run from Scotland down along the banks of the Rhine and through the Austrian Alps and Danube River (the Limes Germanicus) – did temporarily solve the empire’s military problems. However, this too eventually became a burden, but more importantly serves as the boundaries for the post-Roman West. As the forts remained in place and garrisoned, over time the forts needed to be maintained which cost the state money. As time went on also, the forts needed to be manned, costing both money and manpower. By the fourth century, the frontier garrison soldiers – the limitanei were nothing more than semi-professional farmer soldiers who could, in number, throw back a prospective small-scale and medium-scale invasion. The frontier troops were the most numerous soldiers of the late Roman Army, so the army was essentially composed of semi-trained militias than actual soldiers. These frontier troops, being less costly than the more professional soldiers of the Roman Army, the comitatenses, who were effectively the crossbreed of the traditional legions and auxiliary troops of the early imperial state, were also backed up by mercenaries when crisis hit. The comitatenses were a flexible, mobile medium-infantry who could be summed up as being a “jack of all trades, but master of none,” type of military unit.
This extensive frontier border essentially drew up the future political map of Europe, especially once the barbarian mercenaries hired to support the frontier forces made more permanent residencies alongside the frontier fortifications. Hadrian’s Wall separated the Celts of Scotland and Ireland from the England and in time, helped to foster the Celtic Irish and Scottish identities and prevented intermingling with the Anglo-Saxons. The Lower Germanic Limes, the frontier fortifications running from the North Sea to the Rhine River, separated the Saxons from the Franks and Northern portion of the empire. The Saxons, who never managed to penetrate these defenses, would migrate to England after the fall of the empire, also remained locked in their territories of Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway – effectively becoming the proto-Norse. The inability of the Christian missionaries to also move beyond these points ensured that the Norse Saxon tribes would remain Pagan into the Middle Ages until the proliferation of later Catholic missions into the Far North.
The Walls of the Limes Germanicus, still standing today.
The Visigoths, who eventually settled down in Southern France and Northern Spain after sacking Rome in 410, became important allies to the Romans at the latter end of Western Roman history (having provided half of the soldiers serving with Aetius in their defeat of Attila). However, the two more important tribes were the Burgundians and Franks. The Franks, a confederation of tribes along the lower Rhine, were on the best terms with the Romans. Many Franks were hired to serve in the Roman Army to boost the frontier fortifications – thus, the Franks crossed over the Rhine to serve in the Roman Army freely. This migration allowed for the Franks to spread out and serve in the frontier lines of the Lower Germanic Limes. The inclusion of Frankish mercenaries into the Roman garrisons formed the basis for the future Frankish kingdoms of Western Europe – and the future development of France. As generations passed, the Franks moved further and further in-land, away from the frontier garrisons and encompassed modern day France, etymologically being derived from the “Land of the Franks.”
After the Burgundians, along with several other tribes crossed the Rhine in 405-406 which I will cover in greater detail in Chapter 3, the Burgundians settled down along the Upper Germanic Limes, and in the border between the Frankish settlements more inland and the Roman garrisons along the river, became the basis for the future Burgundian people and Kingdom of Burgundy. In close proximity with the Franks, the two tribes came together to create a unique culture that was Frankish-Germanic in orientation. The other Germanic tribes, which were kept out of the Roman Empire by the Rhaetian Limes along the Danube River near modern Austria, would develop into the proto-Germans.
When Charlemagne divided his empire among his sons, it was divided along the lines of the traditional Roman limes. West Francia was divided along the lines of the old Frankish tribes and confederacies that had moved into the Roman Empire after being hired to serve as frontier garrisons for the Roman Army. The Kingdom of Lothaire, which becomes the lands of the Kingdom of Burgundy, was divided along the Burgundian lines of the old Roman frontier garrisons. East Francia held much of the territory north of the Rhaetian Limes, where the Germanic tribes were largely kept in check by the Roman garrisons.
Charlemagne, or Anglicized as Charles the Great. Many historians consider him to the be the "first European." His empire was instrumental in the formation of medieval Europe.
Again, in almost an ironic twist, the Roman attempt to preserve Roman culture actually led to the diminishing of Romanism and the creation of the multiple nationalities of the post-Roman West. Largely confined to their territories based on the old system of Roman forts and roads, these barbarian tribes slowly civilized themselves from within to create the unique post-Roman cultures and kingdoms of Western Europe that remain, even to this day. The burdens of maintaining the empire from the Roman perspective effectually created the political system inherited by the post-Roman West, and ultimately served to fracture and dissolve the empire itself.
The birth of modern Europe as an inheritance of the Roman political situation by the fifth century is all too apparent. The inability of Charlemagne’s empire lay in the faults of the Roman Empire’s complex web of frontier defenses, which cut off the Northern British isles from England, and cut off Central and Northern Europe from Western Europe. With the isolation of the various barbarian tribes in the late stages of the Roman Empire, the many confederacies would have likely united to form large political entities in the fallout of the final decades of the Roman Empire. The division among the barbarian tribes fostered by the Roman defenses also, in another ironic twist, served against the protection of the Romans when Attilla rampaged through Europe. The divided and fractured barbarian kings, disunited because of the Roman military frontier system, rolled over against the Hunnic invasion – allowing the Huns to cross the Rhine having faced minimal opposition. A united barbarian confederation of tribes, which served the basis for the foundation of the larger tribes of Goths, Franks, Visigoths, and Burgundians, may not have only prolonged the lifespan of the Roman Empire in the West, it may have allowed for a unified or more unified post-Roman West than the highly fractured, isolated, and divided world that came about.
Last edited:
Charlamaigne, the man who would inspire all other european autocrats (and the european union)! Napoleon dreamed of him, Hitler envied him, and the Hapsburg tried to emulate him. Don't most historians claim his reighn as the end of late antiquity (such a better term than dark ages, no?), or do they place the start of the middle ages at a later date, perhaps the Norman conquest or the First Crusade?
Wouldn't Karl be the original name, thus making Charlemagne another Anglicized change? As I understand it, Karl was the original, Charles the Great (Charles le Magne) came next à la the french, then the English(Normans) just mashed it up together forming Charlemagne.
As an interesting side note, the Jin dynasty collapsed around the same time as Rome, leading to a similar period of instability. Funny how things work out.
Wouldn't Karl be the original name, thus making Charlemagne another Anglicized change? As I understand it, Karl was the original, Charles the Great (Charles le Magne) came next à la the french, then the English(Normans) just mashed it up together forming Charlemagne.
As an interesting side note, the Jin dynasty collapsed around the same time as Rome, leading to a similar period of instability. Funny how things work out.