In the Footsteps of Rome: A History of Europe in Late Antiquity

Dr.Livingstone said:

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?

Click to expand...

There are too many dates for the "end" to Late Antiquity (and yes, it is a much better term/epoch than Dark Ages! ). Depending on who you read you will get different answers. Some historians date the end of Late Antiquity with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476, therefore the immediate aftermath is the Early Medieval Age. Peter Brown, the historian who introduced the term Late Antiquity dates the end around 750. Others date it with the end of Charlemagne's reign. Even others extend it until the onset of the "High" Middle Ages in the 11th Century ending around the time of the Gregorian Reforms and the Crusades.

There is a back and forth tug of war between Early Medievalists and Late Antiquity scholars of when the date should end. 750 is probably where a majority would date the end. Although the growing trend among younger scholars say Late Antiquity should extend until the 1000s, which I tend to have sympathies with, when there is a clear separation of the evolution of the classical Greco-Roman World into the Middle Ages. It's actually very confusing but amazing to read about...

In my opinion, there will probably be an inclusion of Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Era as essentially being the same epoch of history, with Late Antiquity being more focused around the Mediterranean and Early Medieval Period being outside the Mediterranean, like the British Isles, Central and Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, etc.

Dr.Livingstone said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bringing up Chinese history, some scholars date the end of Late Antiquity with the fall of the Tang Dynasty in China, because those of us who only focus on the Mediterranean world are "Eurocentric."

Dr.Livingstone said:

Yes, but what on Charlemagne name? was it originally Charles le Magne, Karl der Grosse, or Carolus Magnus?
As for Peter Brown, I'm guessing the book he wrote is The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750, and not 'Creepy Carrots'.:laugh:

Click to expand...

Charlemagne etymologically comes from the French as a cross Anglo-French phonetic translation. His name was simply Charles. Because the empire stretched into many areas of different languages, you have all the different transliterations of Charles.

Since his father was Peppin, King of the Franks, I would guess the French would be most proper.

Tommy4ever said:

Nice update, look forward to seeing which area of history you look into next. This AAR is impressively informative!

Click to expand...

Since I have decided to skip my posts I had written about culture and religion in the late Roman Empire (mostly because I don't want the Roman background material to delay to extensively the updates that will have finally have gameplay history), we're now going to head straight into the crisis and collapse of the Roman Empire!

And possibly dispel a few myths about what happened in the traumatic fifth century too...

Chapter 2: Crisis and Collapse of the Roman Empire in the West




The crisis and collapse of the Roman Empire in the West comes from a crisis in the east. The imperial political system, with its emphasis on epistemic violence was well-suited with dealing with lesser problems that the empire faced from the time of Augustus well into the middle third century. It was not the onset of the barbarians that posed the great catalyst for the collapse of the empire in the West, but the onset and the rise of a new great empire in the east – the Sassanid Empire.

The Sassanids were the successors and heirs to the ancient Parthian Empire, long a rival to the Roman Republic and early empire. However, the revived empire of the east was itching for a fight with the world’s foremost empire. The Sassanids benefitted from the fact that they could concentrate their military forces and resources against the eastern half of the Roman Empire centered in Asia Minor and the Middle East, whereas the Roman Empire had its military forces widely dispersed from the British Isles and Spain in the West, to the Thracian foothills of Greece, deserts of North Africa, and the deserts of the Middle East.

The renewed Sassanid Empire sought to reclaim the old borders of the empire of Cyrus the Great, and deliberately pressed upon the Romans an ultimatum to cede all their provinces in Asia Minor. Naturally rejected, the two great empires went to war. While the emperor Alexander Severus initially repulsed early Sassanid invasions, the war with the Sassanids took a turn for the worse with the ascension of Shapur the Great to the Sassanid throne.

The new, young, and inexperienced Roman emperor Gordian III marched the eastern armies into Mesopotamia, near modern day Baghdad where he met the armies of Shapur in pitched battle. The outcome of the Battle of Massice (244 CE) is in often debated, since no Roman sources mention the battle. According to Sassanid sources, the Roman expeditionary army was utterly destroyed in a single day of fighting, and the teenage emperor was slain in combat [1]. The defeat at Massice and subsequent death of Gordian III cast the empire into chaos, and a Syrian-born noble rose to the throne of Rome – Philip the Arab. After this disastrous expedition, Roman hopes of defeating the Sassanids seemed dim.

To counter the Sassanid threat, Roman provinces in the West were overtaxed, to compensate for the war in the east. In addition, Roman forces were moved from the west to the east to build up a stronger military presence. This left a fragile power vacuum in the western half of the empire, and started the process of decentralization and financial and economic decay that would plague the western half of the empire until its collapse.

When Shapur sacked Antioch in 253, the Romans once again set upon the Sassanids to drive out their eastern rivals. However, Germanic invasions in the west crippled Rome’s ability to rally a large and effective military force as their armies were split warding off barbarian invasions in the west and a Persian invasion in the east. By 260, the threats of the Germanic tribes in the west had been curtailed, and the emperor Valerian had gathered an army between 70,000-100,000 and marched on the Sassanid Empire.

Confronting Shapur at Edessa, the Sassanid army humiliated the Romans in one of the worst defeats in Roman military history, perhaps rivaled only by the defeats at Cannae or Adrianople. Valerian was taken prisoner, and the entire Roman army was lost in the battle. The Roman emperor was dragged back to the Sassanid palace in Ctesiphon where he was humiliated day by day until his death in captivity. In death, Valerian was beheaded and his body and head cast as a trophy of the royal palace for future Persian rulers [2]. The defeat and captivity of Valerian cast further instability in the Roman Empire, and the growing threat of being repelled in the most prosperous regions of the empire did not bode well back in Milan.

Taxes were increased and more men were pulled away from the western garrisons and shipped east to ward off the Sassanid threat. Finally, under the emperor Carus, the Romans felt comfortable to push into Persia and finally contain the Sassanid threat. In 282, a large Roman army under the personal command of Carus crossed the border and pushed for Ctesiphon. Meeting meek Sassanid resistance, the Romans sacked the city and ran off with the spoils of war. The Sassanids were badly weakened and negotiated a peace with the Romans. After 50 years of war and conflict, the outcome of the Roman-Sassanid Wars were still in doubt until the armies of Galerius defeated the Sassanid king Narseh at the Battle of Satala (298 CE).

Avenging the humiliation of Valerian, the Roman victory was so absolute that the Sassanid king Narseh immediately begged for mercy and peace. Narseh and his family, including the royal harem and Sassanid treasury were captured, and the majority of the estimated 50,000 soldiers were slain or captured. Despite the victory, the drained and deprived Roman Empire was forced to agree the peace terms due to war and economic exhaustion.

The wars themselves took their toll on the empire. It shattered the myth of Pax Romana, and it highlighted the hegemonic weakness of the Romans. Although defeated, the Sassanids would remain a potent and constant threat to the Romans in the east – the elephant in the room that no one wanted to talk about but everyone knew existed. Furthermore, it sped up the discontinuity of the political situation in the west.

Although the war had been fought in the east, and Galerius, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire had finally achieved victory, it was the western half of the Roman Empire that suffered the most from the Roman-Sassanid Wars. Most of the taxes to fund the war came from the west, as did the majority of the soldiers after the failed expedition by Gordian III. The complete desolation of the economic fabric of the western half of the empire and the drainage of soldiers from the west to confront the Sassanids in the east meant that the western half of the empire was the quintessential paper tiger.

Germanic barbarians took constant advantage of the Roman wars in the east and raided the Roman frontier in France and Germany. Unable to confront the problem, the western territories resorted to mercenaries to confront the Barbarian problem. Although the Romans had successfully confronted the Sassanid threat, the high cost of doing so eliminated all hope of the Romans to confront the problems that would soon befall the empire in the west.

It is awkward that the west, the least economically productive and most financially and militarily drained half of the empire had to bear the burdens and cost of the Roman-Sassanid Wars. For whatever reason why the west’s foundation was eroded from a war in Asia Minor, the Roman-Sassanid Wars serve as one of the most obvious external factors in the break up and dissolution of the empire in Western Europe. Had the burdens of war been more split, or had the east bore the brunt of a war that was situated in the east; it is plausible that the Romans could have contended with the barbarian threats of the fifth century more effectively than they did.




[1] Although Sassanid sources claim that Gordian III was killed during the Battle of Massice, most historians do not believe this, and theorize that after the defeat and the poor leadership ability of the emperor, internal factions plotted to murder the emperor and conclude a peace with the Sassanids.

[2] There is much debate about the death Valerian and what happened next. Most historians say that Valerian was killed or died in captivity and was made a trophy for the Sassanid kings. Others say that Valerian and the surviving Roman soldiers from the Battle of Edessa were given good quarter and he died quietly, perhaps even a close friend to King Shapur.

Dr.Livingstone said:

Alternatively, the war could of caused the collapse of the ERE centuries earlier, Constantine may never of invaded Italy, and the world may be vastly different. Alternate timelines within alternate timelines.

And happy memorial day!

Click to expand...

A happy belated memorial day back to you! Yet, this much we do know, the Eastern Roman Empire didn't fall, but was able to weather the storm. Even the equally brutal Byzantine-Sassanid Wars, with less manpower and a smaller tax base than the wars of the third century, the ERE emerged intact, although depleted. Despite my critical approach to the Roman Empire, even I have a soft spot for its decline and fall!

GulMacet said:

Poor Rome. I wonder what would have happened if they had managed to negotiate with the Persians instead of experiencing 50 years of the closest thing to total war antiquity had to offer...

Click to expand...

The sad thing is, the Roman-Sassanid Wars gained nothing for either empire. It was a constant back and forth, not only during these 50 years, but for the four centuries the two giants slugged it out. In the end, the depletion of manpower, money, and resources ensured when the Arabs moved out of the Arabian Peninsula, neither the Byzantines or the Sassanids were able to deal with the threat since the two had basically destroyed each other for the past four centuries. Now what would had happened historically had the Byzantines and Sassanids been on better relationships with the onset of Islam?

I'll be briefly covering this topic in Part 2 of this AAR!

Saltiren said:

This might be a dumb question, but will there be Ck2 gameplay in this AAR? Don't get me wrong, this AAR is actually very interesting but it feels like I'm reading a history article.

Click to expand...

There are never dumb questions! I would first like to thank you for still thinking the AAR is interesting despite there being a lack of gameplay/screenshots, and for taking the time to read this (I realize that historical-narrative AARs, like this one that reads like a history book/article are not necessarily the most popular, but that's how I like to do my AARs since the first AARs I read on these forums back in 2006 were mostly narratives so I naturally have a bias towards such AARs). In my first post (of the AAR) I did write that this AAR (as is my AAR writing habit) to not have an AAR filled with a multitude of screenshots. Like the AARs I usually write, this is textually and historically driven.

volksmarschall said:

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.
- Chapter 1: The Burden of Empire

Click to expand...

This is an example of how I incorporate gameplay results into my AAR, at least the posts that are otherwise not built upon in-game results. However, once I wrap up these posts about the fall of the Roman Empire (Part 1) and enter Part 2 of this AAR, more gameplay oriented posts will begin appearing, with screenshots where I feel appropriate (usually screenshots taken in place of "maps", etc). Even as more gameplay oriented updates appear, they will still have the textual feel. For example, when I post about how I arrested and imprisoned certain people plotting against me, I will use that as a catalyst to write about crime and punishment in medieval society, with the gameplay element akin to "When King Y imprisoned Duke X because of apparent plots against the king..." I will proceed to write a general treatment of how the whole criminal justice system worked back in the day. Even when I start to produce more gameplay driven updates, they will deliberately be written to keep that history book feel that you have already found.

And since you think this has the feel of reading a history article, I have at least done what I wanted to do well, write an AAR with that style and feel! After all, that's pretty much what I do for a living right now as I will slowly be working towards a PhD in the near yet distant future!

Cheers!

Dr.Livingstone said:

The actual gameplay is hidden by a multitude of layers. There are no screenshots, many off-topic discussions (cries for the Romans), and little focus on the game itself. The history article feel is intended, judging from his other AARs.

Click to expand...

Seems like you've gotten to know my writing style pretty well! Although, there will be screenshots appearing, a little bit more in here than Decline and Fall, I just haven't gotten to those parts yet.

Chapter 2: Crisis and Collapse of the Roman Empire in the West



And this is the great tragedy of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, insofar that they managed to ward of Barbarian Threats during the Crisis of the Third Century [1], by the beginning of the fifth century the Barbarians had become hardened by Roman ways. They had learned of the brutality and the epistemic violence of the Roman Empire and had fully incorporated them into their military societies. In yet another stroke of historical irony, these Romanized Barbarian soldiers soon became the backbone of the Roman Armies of the late period empire.

The notion of the Barbarians as hordes is terribly anachronistic. The word “horde” as used to describe the Barbarians was not used by the Romans, and doesn’t enter the western languages until the arrival of the Mongols, who were described as “hordes,” hence the term “Mongol Horde.” To some later historians, the Mongols epitomized what the barbarian tribes that comprised the Huns were like, and therefore, the analogy has stuck ever since. In reality, the barbarians were nothing more than semi-nomadic peoples who were very cosmopolitan, often comprising of many different tribes into a grand confederation, and were expert horsemen. The classic armies of antiquity were never as skilled in cavalry warfare as the barbarians, or the other eastern societies who had domesticated the horse for warfare long before the civilizations of the Mediterranean.

The Barbarians by the fifth century were essentially less beautiful versions of the Romans. By now, many of the nomadic tribes had become sedentary, adopted Roman systems of governance, military structures, and taxation laws. The brutality of the Barbarians is long mythologized, the brutality of the Romans was far worse, and the Barbarians were hardened by the Romans and not the other way around. In Roman society, the Romans dichotomized everyone as being Roman or Barbarian. Even if the Romans had tremendous respect for you, you – not being Roman, would always be Barbarian. The Sassanids, who were just as cultured and educated as the Romans, and were held in great esteem by the Romans, were considered “barbarians” no different than the Germanic tribes crossing the Rhine, or the later Huns who struck fear in the hearts of all their opponents. Even the much more advanced and civilized Chinese, who the Romans had established a trade relationship with, and had sent envoys to over the course of several centuries, were considered barbarians by the Romans.

The Franks, in particular, became important allies and constituted anywhere between 40-60% of the Roman Army in the West by the beginning of the fifth century. Even the more proper Roman commands in Italy, Spain, and North Africa were filled with Barbarian soldiers, and Barbarian generals. The Crossing of the Rhine by the Franks was the result of Roman military invitations, and population policies. The Franks were the most common of the Germanic confederations to be incorporated into the Roman Army. In additional, plagues and bad harvests had decimated the Roman population, and in order to replenish their tax base, the Franks were invited to become the new subjects of the empire. This was the beginning of the “civilizing” of the Barbarians, as they abandoned their nomadic lifestyles and became sedentary as they settled in the Roman Empire and inherited Roman customs and manners of living.

However, the Roman lines were still undermanned and in desperate need of repairs. In 406 CE, the apex of the Barbarian migrations occurred when hundreds of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, mostly Burgundians and Alemani crossed over the Rhine and penetrated the Limes Germanicus, one of the more secure of the Roman frontier defenses. The Romans were incapable of meeting this threat, for the reasons mentioned in the Crisis of the Third Century. The Romans were financially drained, militarily weak, and lacked the political capital to meet the apparent threats of the Barbarians. The attempt to stop the advancement of the Barbarians deep into Roman territory was met at Mainz, where an Army of Franks, on behalf of the Romans, were defeated by a confederacy of migrating Germanic tribes.

The Visigoths then broke the Rhaetian Limes and stormed into Northern Italy. Led by the King Alaric, the Visigoths brought forth a plague of death and destruction to an equally corrupt and immoral Roman society and empire. Fearing the Visigoth invasion, Emperor Honorius moved the imperial capital from Milan to Ravenna, which was in a more defensible position, and it was here that the royal court and Senate would remain until the final collapse of the Roman Empire in 476.

The Barbarian (Vandal) general Stilicho, who had been made magister militum of the Roman Armies, and had put down a Gallic revolt in the late fourth century, was the most powerful man in the empire when the Visigoths and other Barbarian tribes penetrated the Roman frontier defenses. Stilicho was left to defend Italy and France against the Barbarian threat. Although he had defined orders, the resources he had to accomplish the task were less than ample, although he performed exceptionally well all things considered. He managed to save Rome from impending doom for at least two years during his command of the Roman armies.

In the great Roman tradition of betrayal, politicking, and civil war, another Roman general named Constantine, crowned himself Constantine III and declared himself to be emperor of the Romans (co-emperor to be more accurate). He removed Roman forces from Britain to strengthen his position in France, which would be the base of his power and center of control. At first, Constantine III was not recognized by Honorius and the Imperial Court in Ravenna, and Stilicho now had the unfortunate responsibility of having to deal with this pretender in France while defending Italy from the Visigoths. Unable to divide his forces, Stilicho was trapped between a rock and a hard place.

Having failed to challenge the rise of Constantine, and having failed to defeat the Visigoths, Honorius now thought of this great general as a traitor, and brought him to Ravenna on charges of sedition. For whatever reason, Stilicho did not resist the charges levied against him, and he walked into captivity, accepted the verdict, and was executed. The last man who could have prevented the fall of Rome was now dead.

Constantine III was recognized as co-emperor, although he would later lose military support and was also executed by 411. However, the Visigoths still had to be dealt with. And with the execution of Stilicho, the only abled commander in the Western Roman Empire was dead – and all the alternatives were incompetent at best. The Visigoths swept south and besieged Rome. Although Rome had long ceased being the Roman capital, the emperor, the Senate, and the leading nobility having first moved to Milan and then to Ravenna, Rome was still seen as the spiritual capital of the empire; after all, it was the namesake of the divided empire and had a mythic and romantic history and legacy.

The Visigoths had been held at bay at first, having been paid off by the Roman Senate to lift the siege and leave Rome alone. However, the Visigoths were growing impatient and the Romans were unable to prolong the inevitable. The sack could have been averted had the Romans simply given the Visigoths lands to settle, but this was unacceptable to the Roman Senate and to Emperor Honorius. All told, many of the migrating Barbarians were sick, starving, and tired, and repeatedly sent demands for land and food in exchange for subject loyalty. When the Romans turned away Alaric’s demands, the Visigoths returned to lay waste to Rome. Slaves inside the city, who long despised Roman rule and cruelty, opened the gates to the Visigoths who stormed in. The sack of the city itself has long been mythologized. The reality of the sack was, it was not as bad as one would imagine.

The Sack of Rome by the Vandals 45 years later was much more traumatic, with the great works of art, architecture, and treasures accumulated by Roman conquests being dragged away never to be recovered. The Visigoths themselves refused to loot or destroy any of the Christian sites, and rumors had it that they spared all Roman Christians inside the city. The old Pagan triumphs, temples, and buildings however were all targeted in the three days of looting.

The sack was a traumatic event for the Romans. Saint Jerome, writing in the east, said that the “City which had taken the world captive was not taken captive by the world.” Many other Romans, Christians and Pagans, had their own theories. Pagan Romans believed this to be an act of divine punishment from the gods for having abandoned the old pantheon for Christianity. Christians believed this to be a divine punishment from God for their immorality and sins. The sack prompted Saint Augustine of Hippo to write one of the greatest philosophical works in human history, The City of God Against the Pagans, which earned him the reputation of being one of the great Early Church Fathers and theologians (Doctors) of the Latin Church.

As the Visigoths left Rome, carrying with them their loot, treasure, and many slaves, who would be freed in the new Visigoth society, targeted North Africa for possible settlement. However, Alaric soon fell ill and died at the crossroads of Spain and France, where the Visigoths eventually settled down. Within a generation of the sack of Rome, the Visigoths, like the Franks, became one of the most important and strongest allies to the Romans in the West.

However, the Barbarian threat was still readily apparent. The Huns and Vandals swept west like a storm out of the east. The drained Western Empire could not catch a break. Short of men, money, and political will, the worst of the Barbarian invasions was still to come.




[1] Crisis of the Third Century is a term used by Roman historians to designate the end of Pax Romana with the onset of Barbarian incursions, the Roman-Sassanid Wars, and the political disunity and burdens the Roman State was suffering that lead to the empire’s division under the Diocletian Tetrarchy, which only temporarily solved Rome’s problems.

Dr.Livingstone said:

What happened to the richer elements of roman society, such as the senate? Did they escape to the east or stay in the west ruling over the fragments? Or is it a combination of both?

Click to expand...

The Senate in the Byzantine Empire had slowly become irrelevant to the politics of the empire. In the West however, the Senate still had some minor powers (although always had to have the consent of the emperor), Diocletian effectively hampered the powers of the Senate. However, by the fifth century, as Rome was graced by incompetent emperors, Senators with great wealth and power reclaimed some power and were influential in conducting murders and usurping the throne, one of the more unsavory Senators who proclaimed himself emperor this way will be mentioned in my next post when we finally see the collapse of Rome...and then we can finally move into more gameplay oriented updates as I begin talking about the Byzantine Empire!

The Senate in the Byzantine Empire continued until the sack of the city in the fourth crusade, although by the sixth century it was more titular and honorific than having any real sense of power.

Tommy4ever said:

What about the Roman elite in general? What effect did the fall of the Empire have on them?

Click to expand...

You know, this is not particularly one of my fields in Roman history. All I generally know is that some of the more powerful aristocrats managed to hold "enclaves" if you will, during and after the fall, while others moved east and became situated in Greece and strengthened the nobility ranks in the Byzantine Empire.

I'm sure there's someone who has a lot of work on this aspect of Roman history, just not me!