-
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.
Chapter XXI
This renaissance however, should not be construed as just a flourishing of the arts and culture, but it also extended into the realm of state religion, and brought far reaching and drastic changes upon the face of church and state in the late period empire. First and foremost, the high ecclesiastical language of the Scriptures had been translated into vernacular Georgian in the hills of the far eastern provinces once they had come under the control of the empire. These conquests themselves, but will be a later focus of my current work.
Indeed, these eastern conquests had a direct influence upon the renaissance in Greece and the ironic strengthening yet backlash against the privileges of the Greek (Roman) Church. Interactions with Persia and the rest of the Near East had brought forth Persian style into the Greek arts and literature, and new exposure of the union of Greco-Persian philosophy reached deep into the academy in Athens and newly consecrated academy in Constantinople. Painters especially, included the styles of the Macedonian Renaissance with traditional Persian aspects—even extending this to religious iconography. But more importantly, the changes wrought by the inclusion of new lands, peoples, and the treasury lost in these campaigns had far reaching effects upon the church.
Left, a surviving fresco from the Greek Renaissance. Right, a medieval Persian artwork depicting Mohammad's ascension into heaven in Jerusalem. Unique styles of Persian artwork would come to have later influence on the burgeoning Macedonian Renaissance back in Greece, but also upon the new iconographic and tapestry industries that would grow in Armenia and Georgia. Some later pieces depict halos with the eternal flame, coming in Zoroastrian (and later, Persian-Islamic) artwork.
Although privileged ever since the Edict of Thessaloniki under the emperor Theodosius I, perhaps the most sweeping religious reforms under emperor John was the taxing of the church. Rather than remaining exempt, the emperor introduced a new yearly tax on the church, decreed at about 6% annually. Although the church itself remained the favored state religion with the full backing of the imperial state, the ending of tax exemption could be seen by anti-institutionalists as a great moment in the confrontation of the theocratic monarchy. For traditionalists, John was viewed as the anti-Christ himself, although he held favored status among the bishops and the Patriarch himself. This view, in particular, only extended to the laity, and is captured by a confrontation between the bishop of Athens and some of his parishioners upon hearing the decree of the new taxes to be levied against the church.
However, neither side is right for, ironically, the introduction of taxes only strengthened the union of state and church. With the church paying taxes, the imperium would guarantee the status and conservative hierarchy of the church itself. Furthermore, the move itself was purely pragmatic. The campaigns in Mesopotamia and Persia had bled the coffers of the imperial treasury dry, and the church, with its great wealth, was the obvious target. In this manner also, the church and its leading officials saw itself as helping the state through providing it with some of its loose change, so to speak. Special offerings were even held by some of the larger parishes for the specific task of “strengthening” the theocratic monarchy.
Perhaps more revolutionary was the translation of the Bible into Georgian in 1518. As I already mentioned, the vernacular translation occurred deep in the foothills of Georgia by a monk in Batumi named Demetre. At first, the state and the church stroke back against him and the translated Bibles. A handful, by all accounts, were collected by authorities and burned. A subsequent riot broke out in Georgia by the “Band of the Faithful,” only to be suppressed by the local aristocrats. Upon hearing the news, John reversed his decision and allowed for the translation of the Holy Scriptures into vernacular languages, not just contained to Georgia or neighboring Armenia, but also in the various minority languages of the empire. Again, this had the paradox of de-stabilizing the favored status of the Greek Church, which, through conquests, had come to, by state authority, to have superseding authority over the other churches that had long been rooted in Armenia, Georgia, and northern Mesopotamia.
Yet, the vernacular Bibles saw a rise in literacy and church attendance by the lowly commoners, who flocked in droves following these new reforms. This was subsequently followed by the endorsement of state missions into the east. Funded by the state and church simultaneously, the expansion of missionary efforts sought to strengthen the faithful and convert as many non-Christians as possible in the new lands that had come under the authority of the empire. A certain religious homogeneity was the obvious effort undertaken here. The religiously diverse empire, especially true in the eastern provinces, had become a mess of cultures and religions that made managing these regions very difficult. Under the older decrees of the Council of Constantinople, non-Christian religions were afforded the same protections under the law as the church, although there were always constant efforts at evangelization aimed at the Mohammedans. Under the table taxation and extortion was common too, which always caused resentment to the church and state officials, who were seen as one and same by the majoritarian Mohammedan population in some of the provinces.
And what was the result of these new missionary efforts? A Mohammedan uprising of over 8,000 strong in north central Anatolia that captured the longstanding fears of the Christian minority but overbearing and tyrannical nobles who pillaged the land for all its worth. Duke Michael, the presiding noble, fled to Constantinople like a whipped dog. In a fit of rage, and after the Mohammedans had routed a smaller Roman Army of 5,000 men in the foothills, the emperor himself led the Imperial Army of 15,000 against the rebels. At first, a man of peaceful intentions and ever the negotiator, John sought to reconcile the differences by convening a council of grievances, but by now, it was far too late and there was no going back from the inevitable. The Mohammedan army was confronted and butchered in a terrible battle that scattered the optimism of the rebels and cemented the dominance of John and his new model army over the Near East through the rest of his reign.
In the end, the Greek Renaissance was more than a great return to art and culture, it presided over a religious revolution in the east that was occurring simultaneously with the Reformation in the west. Perhaps then, it would be proper to see these events as part of the wider Reformation, or as a reformation in the east itself—although it did not end with the division of the church as in the west, the far reaching changes had dramatic changes upon the religious landscape of the diverse east, the contested fields of the great Abrahamic faiths.
The Renaissance and the Christian Reformation in the East
This renaissance however, should not be construed as just a flourishing of the arts and culture, but it also extended into the realm of state religion, and brought far reaching and drastic changes upon the face of church and state in the late period empire. First and foremost, the high ecclesiastical language of the Scriptures had been translated into vernacular Georgian in the hills of the far eastern provinces once they had come under the control of the empire. These conquests themselves, but will be a later focus of my current work.
Indeed, these eastern conquests had a direct influence upon the renaissance in Greece and the ironic strengthening yet backlash against the privileges of the Greek (Roman) Church. Interactions with Persia and the rest of the Near East had brought forth Persian style into the Greek arts and literature, and new exposure of the union of Greco-Persian philosophy reached deep into the academy in Athens and newly consecrated academy in Constantinople. Painters especially, included the styles of the Macedonian Renaissance with traditional Persian aspects—even extending this to religious iconography. But more importantly, the changes wrought by the inclusion of new lands, peoples, and the treasury lost in these campaigns had far reaching effects upon the church.
Left, a surviving fresco from the Greek Renaissance. Right, a medieval Persian artwork depicting Mohammad's ascension into heaven in Jerusalem. Unique styles of Persian artwork would come to have later influence on the burgeoning Macedonian Renaissance back in Greece, but also upon the new iconographic and tapestry industries that would grow in Armenia and Georgia. Some later pieces depict halos with the eternal flame, coming in Zoroastrian (and later, Persian-Islamic) artwork.
Although privileged ever since the Edict of Thessaloniki under the emperor Theodosius I, perhaps the most sweeping religious reforms under emperor John was the taxing of the church. Rather than remaining exempt, the emperor introduced a new yearly tax on the church, decreed at about 6% annually. Although the church itself remained the favored state religion with the full backing of the imperial state, the ending of tax exemption could be seen by anti-institutionalists as a great moment in the confrontation of the theocratic monarchy. For traditionalists, John was viewed as the anti-Christ himself, although he held favored status among the bishops and the Patriarch himself. This view, in particular, only extended to the laity, and is captured by a confrontation between the bishop of Athens and some of his parishioners upon hearing the decree of the new taxes to be levied against the church.
However, neither side is right for, ironically, the introduction of taxes only strengthened the union of state and church. With the church paying taxes, the imperium would guarantee the status and conservative hierarchy of the church itself. Furthermore, the move itself was purely pragmatic. The campaigns in Mesopotamia and Persia had bled the coffers of the imperial treasury dry, and the church, with its great wealth, was the obvious target. In this manner also, the church and its leading officials saw itself as helping the state through providing it with some of its loose change, so to speak. Special offerings were even held by some of the larger parishes for the specific task of “strengthening” the theocratic monarchy.
Perhaps more revolutionary was the translation of the Bible into Georgian in 1518. As I already mentioned, the vernacular translation occurred deep in the foothills of Georgia by a monk in Batumi named Demetre. At first, the state and the church stroke back against him and the translated Bibles. A handful, by all accounts, were collected by authorities and burned. A subsequent riot broke out in Georgia by the “Band of the Faithful,” only to be suppressed by the local aristocrats. Upon hearing the news, John reversed his decision and allowed for the translation of the Holy Scriptures into vernacular languages, not just contained to Georgia or neighboring Armenia, but also in the various minority languages of the empire. Again, this had the paradox of de-stabilizing the favored status of the Greek Church, which, through conquests, had come to, by state authority, to have superseding authority over the other churches that had long been rooted in Armenia, Georgia, and northern Mesopotamia.
Yet, the vernacular Bibles saw a rise in literacy and church attendance by the lowly commoners, who flocked in droves following these new reforms. This was subsequently followed by the endorsement of state missions into the east. Funded by the state and church simultaneously, the expansion of missionary efforts sought to strengthen the faithful and convert as many non-Christians as possible in the new lands that had come under the authority of the empire. A certain religious homogeneity was the obvious effort undertaken here. The religiously diverse empire, especially true in the eastern provinces, had become a mess of cultures and religions that made managing these regions very difficult. Under the older decrees of the Council of Constantinople, non-Christian religions were afforded the same protections under the law as the church, although there were always constant efforts at evangelization aimed at the Mohammedans. Under the table taxation and extortion was common too, which always caused resentment to the church and state officials, who were seen as one and same by the majoritarian Mohammedan population in some of the provinces.
And what was the result of these new missionary efforts? A Mohammedan uprising of over 8,000 strong in north central Anatolia that captured the longstanding fears of the Christian minority but overbearing and tyrannical nobles who pillaged the land for all its worth. Duke Michael, the presiding noble, fled to Constantinople like a whipped dog. In a fit of rage, and after the Mohammedans had routed a smaller Roman Army of 5,000 men in the foothills, the emperor himself led the Imperial Army of 15,000 against the rebels. At first, a man of peaceful intentions and ever the negotiator, John sought to reconcile the differences by convening a council of grievances, but by now, it was far too late and there was no going back from the inevitable. The Mohammedan army was confronted and butchered in a terrible battle that scattered the optimism of the rebels and cemented the dominance of John and his new model army over the Near East through the rest of his reign.
In the end, the Greek Renaissance was more than a great return to art and culture, it presided over a religious revolution in the east that was occurring simultaneously with the Reformation in the west. Perhaps then, it would be proper to see these events as part of the wider Reformation, or as a reformation in the east itself—although it did not end with the division of the church as in the west, the far reaching changes had dramatic changes upon the religious landscape of the diverse east, the contested fields of the great Abrahamic faiths.
Last edited:
Wasn't there any earlier translation into Georgian? I would have thought that some monks would have translated the Bible already during the first centuries AD from Aramean into Armenian, Assyrian, Georgian/Iberian/Colchisian/Caucasian languages? Heck, they even translated it into Gothic at one point.
- 1
Probably, but I had no other way of incorporating the "Bible translated" event into the game. So I slithered my way around by stating after I captured these regions, the Greek Church with Ecclesiastical Greek triumphed over all. So if there were, (probably was), they got thrown out after they fell under my authority.
I still fail to see the "Decline" part - looking good right now, isn't it? A growing Empire that has beaten France and cemented its position between the West and the Far East with (relatively) small Rebel problems...
Posts like this make me want to blatantly steal from this AAR for my own. Maybe if my 1821-1836 writings are comprehensive enough I will...
The trajectory of this AAR has changed tremendously since I started it. I had anticipated probably being eliminated sometime by the 1460s, hence the title. That never happened, but I want to stay true to the title (there is no irony in it) so now the great anticipation for the readers is, "When?" And perhaps the keen readers will be able to figure out when this will happen...as the author and person who played the campaign, I, of course, know when the house of cards will collapse in the most spectacular grandeur of all time, or at least I think the meteoric decline and fall is spectacular!
By all means, steal, *cough* borrow, whatever you wish! :laugh:
Taxes, all well and good...as long as you aren't the one paying them.
"You want us to pay taxes? You, sir, are the most horrible person in the world!"
Merry Christmas, Volksmarschall! May you have a nice time with your family and beloved. And may your Christmas presents be big and diverse.
On another note: You promised a spectacular decline - I guess a great (Civil) war that will make your country break into small pieces. Did this fall happen to you out of bad luck or did you intentionally drive your (Eastern) Roman Empire against a wall?
On another note: You promised a spectacular decline - I guess a great (Civil) war that will make your country break into small pieces. Did this fall happen to you out of bad luck or did you intentionally drive your (Eastern) Roman Empire against a wall?
Taxes, all well and good...as long as you aren't the one paying them.
"You want us to pay taxes? You, sir, are the most horrible person in the world!"
I believe a wise man once said, "There are only two things certain in life, death and taxes"
Merry Christmas as well LanMisa! My Christmas list is hardly big, or diverse. Generally just amazon gift cards so I can purchase the never ending list of books for my personal library, studies, and work!
Although I must admit, making sure I purchase the right gift just so I don't get the death stare is frightening! Yes, the Decline and Fall is coming. Just depends on how quickly I can arrive at that point in the writing of the text. Although, since I don't want to give anything away, since I feel the updates will foreshadow the eclipse the empire, I can neither confirm, nor deny, that a civil war, that I may, or may not, have intentionally created serves as the foundation for the title of the AAR!
And Now for a video of one of my favorite childhood Christmas, stop-motion, shorts. From, "The Year Without a Santa Claus" (1974):
[video=youtube;dd6MZW78lcw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6MZW78lcw[/video]
Chapter XXII: State and Society under John X
The Greek Renaissance was one of the most creative intellectual and creative forces that consumed the East since the birth of Mohammad and the rise of Mohammedanism. The West too, no less than the East, owes a great debt to the revival of the classics and the new intellectual, philosophical, cultural, and theological pursuits that emerged in Macedon prior to the proliferation of the proto-Enlightenment when a lowly German monk penned his 95 Theses to the walls of a German cathedral and sparked the great Western schism and reformation.
Yet still, the impotent Roman society was always plagued, especially in its late period, with an archaic decentralization that had been imbedded into the imperium ever since the days of the Nika Riots when Justinian nearly fled Constantinople until the intercession of his wife Theodora. To borrow from the French, there was a real ancien regime that dominated the Roman Empire ever since the sixth century, and had now, culminated in the rise of the despotates that I had covered, albeit in brief, in Chapter X, Volume I of my work. It was this devastating weakness--the extreme power held by the minor aristocracy--that had long plagued the entire empire since the introduction of the Tetrarchy under Diocletian.
Pretenders and rebels were a common facet in Roman life. Must we not forget that even the great uniters: Constantine and Theodosius, wrestled unity from pretenders, or in the case of Constantine, simply usurped the western territories from Maxentius in civil war. To hedge against the possibility of this happening further, and at the down of a new epoch in human history, John embarked upon a meticulous, calculated, and bold centralization campaign to break the back of the Roman aristocracy and restore the strong-willed power of the theocratic monarchy that had largely been de jure only since the death of Justinian.
The great power and distributive localism was always a plague for the last thousand years of the empire, as I have already stated. Indeed, people and power in the new Rome had become so diversified that the emperor, and the imperial state cloistered itself around the language of divinity and the Church to bring forth a sense of legitimacy and unity. The strong language of the emperor as the political “vicar of Christ” until his Second Coming, and the close relationship between Church and state were all ploys by preceding and succeeding emperors to try and keep a clamp upon what little power the emperors really had. Although normatively an empire, it was truly a nominal empire, with a nominal emperor, and the petty nobles and generals, local administers and other nefarious servants of the imperium held the true gravity of power within the Roman State. Fearful, however, of the Imperial Army at its height, these nobles tried to keep good relations with the emperor, who was expected to reciprocate the favor by keeping the power and wealth of the nobles in a steady flow.
Indeed, it was when either side reneged on this invisible social contract that the empire descended into anarchy and civil war. Often ending with pretending aristocrats conspiring against the feeble princes of Constantinople and overthrowing their titular overlord, after which a new emperor was enthroned among the minor nobility to serve the interests of the nobility that had promoted his own rise to power. For John, a centralizer and administer of competency, well aware of the need for a more powerful state in the sixteenth century, therefore began his attempt to curb the powers of those aristocrats who could, so easily, conspire and overthrow him.
With the Church firmly behind him, and with the largest Imperial Army since the Komnenoi, and with several segments of the army personally pledged to his loyalty until his own death, John felt a certain sense of security and confidence heading into this titanic showdown with the nobility that had so often wielded the true power and prestige in the empire for nearly 1,000 years.
A painting of the Great Domestic of the Morea, possibly of Andronikus, 1469-1536.
On the second side of this clashing double-headed sword were the despotates and their respected rulers: Albania, Morea, Macedon, Trebizond, and Armenia were all de-facto duchies, or nominally aligned feudal states who were closely associated with Constantinople insofar as paying tribute taxes and honoring the emperor’s titular claims over these lands. But to think that these men, especially the Great Domestic of the Morea, historically the most powerful of the nobles since the eleventh century who held most of the loyalty of the Roman soldiers, would willingly surrender their power, or see it recede by, in their eyes, a heretical emperor, is absolute folly.
Duke Thomas had blamed the incident on his lower servants, who had improperly informed him of a wrong date of arrival--therefore he had not the time to prepare the ceremonial entry as custom dictated. Yet, John was no fool, and was not ignorant of the fact that the aristocrats of his empire, fleeing and scattering upon the setting of the moon to prevent the new dawn, were inwardly distraught at his centralization efforts. John had earlier begun such attempts to curb the power and influences of the nobles, but had it cut short with war with the Turks and additional wars in Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Persia. The coffers had tried up in these military endeavors, and the restructuring of the Church had also taken much of the emperor’s time and effort before returning to combating the Greek aristocracy.
Thus, with new time and almost a decade of peace before being interrupted again, by the later Italian Wars I had covered in Chapter XX, John re-embarked on his on-and-off campaign of centralization. Few of the higher nobles would join him, and why would they? It definitely did not serve in their short-term interests, although for the longevity and security of the empire, of which, in theory, their power rested, it may have indeed been in their interests to cooperate. Yet, some of the very lowly nobles, the barons and low ranking military officers, whom power was on paper, but nonexistent in their present corporeal reality, had shifted their allegiance from their local overlords to the emperor. Thus, the stage was set, for the last 20 years of John’s reign--and the constant struggle for power and control over the empire proper.
*This is a largely accepted belief in Byzantine studies, that the minor aristocracy wielded tremendous power and the emperor, himself, was mostly titular and serving/ruling in the best interests of the Greek aristocrats. A new book, written in English, that will come out in February 2015 is Dr. Anthony Kaldellis’ The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome. I have an advanced order copy on the way, not familiar with this author’s prior works, I am nonetheless expecting a fairly good book.
John Against the Aristocracy
The Greek Renaissance was one of the most creative intellectual and creative forces that consumed the East since the birth of Mohammad and the rise of Mohammedanism. The West too, no less than the East, owes a great debt to the revival of the classics and the new intellectual, philosophical, cultural, and theological pursuits that emerged in Macedon prior to the proliferation of the proto-Enlightenment when a lowly German monk penned his 95 Theses to the walls of a German cathedral and sparked the great Western schism and reformation.
Yet still, the impotent Roman society was always plagued, especially in its late period, with an archaic decentralization that had been imbedded into the imperium ever since the days of the Nika Riots when Justinian nearly fled Constantinople until the intercession of his wife Theodora. To borrow from the French, there was a real ancien regime that dominated the Roman Empire ever since the sixth century, and had now, culminated in the rise of the despotates that I had covered, albeit in brief, in Chapter X, Volume I of my work. It was this devastating weakness--the extreme power held by the minor aristocracy--that had long plagued the entire empire since the introduction of the Tetrarchy under Diocletian.
Pretenders and rebels were a common facet in Roman life. Must we not forget that even the great uniters: Constantine and Theodosius, wrestled unity from pretenders, or in the case of Constantine, simply usurped the western territories from Maxentius in civil war. To hedge against the possibility of this happening further, and at the down of a new epoch in human history, John embarked upon a meticulous, calculated, and bold centralization campaign to break the back of the Roman aristocracy and restore the strong-willed power of the theocratic monarchy that had largely been de jure only since the death of Justinian.
The great power and distributive localism was always a plague for the last thousand years of the empire, as I have already stated. Indeed, people and power in the new Rome had become so diversified that the emperor, and the imperial state cloistered itself around the language of divinity and the Church to bring forth a sense of legitimacy and unity. The strong language of the emperor as the political “vicar of Christ” until his Second Coming, and the close relationship between Church and state were all ploys by preceding and succeeding emperors to try and keep a clamp upon what little power the emperors really had. Although normatively an empire, it was truly a nominal empire, with a nominal emperor, and the petty nobles and generals, local administers and other nefarious servants of the imperium held the true gravity of power within the Roman State. Fearful, however, of the Imperial Army at its height, these nobles tried to keep good relations with the emperor, who was expected to reciprocate the favor by keeping the power and wealth of the nobles in a steady flow.
Indeed, it was when either side reneged on this invisible social contract that the empire descended into anarchy and civil war. Often ending with pretending aristocrats conspiring against the feeble princes of Constantinople and overthrowing their titular overlord, after which a new emperor was enthroned among the minor nobility to serve the interests of the nobility that had promoted his own rise to power. For John, a centralizer and administer of competency, well aware of the need for a more powerful state in the sixteenth century, therefore began his attempt to curb the powers of those aristocrats who could, so easily, conspire and overthrow him.
With the Church firmly behind him, and with the largest Imperial Army since the Komnenoi, and with several segments of the army personally pledged to his loyalty until his own death, John felt a certain sense of security and confidence heading into this titanic showdown with the nobility that had so often wielded the true power and prestige in the empire for nearly 1,000 years.
A painting of the Great Domestic of the Morea, possibly of Andronikus, 1469-1536.
On the second side of this clashing double-headed sword were the despotates and their respected rulers: Albania, Morea, Macedon, Trebizond, and Armenia were all de-facto duchies, or nominally aligned feudal states who were closely associated with Constantinople insofar as paying tribute taxes and honoring the emperor’s titular claims over these lands. But to think that these men, especially the Great Domestic of the Morea, historically the most powerful of the nobles since the eleventh century who held most of the loyalty of the Roman soldiers, would willingly surrender their power, or see it recede by, in their eyes, a heretical emperor, is absolute folly.
John is Rebuked by Duke Thomas of Athens
Indeed, the first skirmishes between the clashing forces was when the emperor visited Athens, and the presiding noble, Duke Thomas, refused to grant the emperor his honorable parousia--triumphal entry. This was a clear shunning of the legitimacy and authority of John, and in the wake of his recent eastern conquests, came even more a surprise since the victorious campaigns in the east had only served to fill the power and prestige of the local aristocrats, especially those who had campaigned with the emperor. Duke Thomas was, among others, a leading despot in his own regard, and was publicly friendly to the emperor, but a bane in his side for much of the emperor’s reign.Duke Thomas had blamed the incident on his lower servants, who had improperly informed him of a wrong date of arrival--therefore he had not the time to prepare the ceremonial entry as custom dictated. Yet, John was no fool, and was not ignorant of the fact that the aristocrats of his empire, fleeing and scattering upon the setting of the moon to prevent the new dawn, were inwardly distraught at his centralization efforts. John had earlier begun such attempts to curb the power and influences of the nobles, but had it cut short with war with the Turks and additional wars in Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Persia. The coffers had tried up in these military endeavors, and the restructuring of the Church had also taken much of the emperor’s time and effort before returning to combating the Greek aristocracy.
Thus, with new time and almost a decade of peace before being interrupted again, by the later Italian Wars I had covered in Chapter XX, John re-embarked on his on-and-off campaign of centralization. Few of the higher nobles would join him, and why would they? It definitely did not serve in their short-term interests, although for the longevity and security of the empire, of which, in theory, their power rested, it may have indeed been in their interests to cooperate. Yet, some of the very lowly nobles, the barons and low ranking military officers, whom power was on paper, but nonexistent in their present corporeal reality, had shifted their allegiance from their local overlords to the emperor. Thus, the stage was set, for the last 20 years of John’s reign--and the constant struggle for power and control over the empire proper.
*This is a largely accepted belief in Byzantine studies, that the minor aristocracy wielded tremendous power and the emperor, himself, was mostly titular and serving/ruling in the best interests of the Greek aristocrats. A new book, written in English, that will come out in February 2015 is Dr. Anthony Kaldellis’ The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome. I have an advanced order copy on the way, not familiar with this author’s prior works, I am nonetheless expecting a fairly good book.
Last edited:
This is, as always a very interesting chapter. But I don't really know what to say about it. Honestly, nothing comes to my mind. It does convince me, though, that Rome, like most Empires, will fall (mainly) because of internal problems and not because of foreign influences. Just like the other half of it - only after many internal revolts, a declining economy and many other internal problems were the German tribes strong enough to "enforce their demands" on Rome, centuries after the decline of power began. (At least, this is how I interpret the facts and data that I am aware of.)
Worrying developments! Will we be hearing more about these 'eastern campaigns' in the future?
Mostly internal problems, yes, caused the destruction of the Roman Empire in the West as a political entity. As for the German "Barbarians," that depends on how you (or your teachers) have implied "enforc[ing]...demands." The German tribes were largely sedentary people, living in small towns and villages and practiced agriculture and animal husbandry, a farcry for the depictions of Conan Barbarian (the old caricature of the Barbarians is relatively true for the Huns however). These peoples largely wanted to share in the prosperity and the perceived "stability" of the Roman Empire but the Romans kept refusing their offers out of hubris (since the Romans saw everyone but them to be Barbarians, i.e., "uncultured and uncivilized." This was true also of the Roman views of the Greeks, which is why the Greeks kept calling themselves Roman, because in the Greek inheritance--it meant "Civilized.") Of course, when the Huns were sweeping through Europe and forcing the mass migrations of the "Barbarians" into the Roman Empire in a swift and huge "mass immigration" problem, the Romans had little choice but to accept what conditions they had laid down or face a bunch of hungry and angry people right at their doorsteps, and after the experiences of Adrianople, the Romans knew what would likely happen if they went to second route.
It probably would have been somewhat beneficial to the Roman polity in the long-run had they had actually been much more benevolent towards the Germans, who truly wanted to be Roman, but Roman arrogance led to deep divisions, mistrust, which ultimately meant that this primitive multiculturalism in fourth and early fifth century Western Rome was doomed to failure--especially with the imprisonment and execution of Stilicho. Surprise! The man who held the pretender Constantine III and Alaric at bay (but unable to defeat them both because of Honorius's deep mistrust of him) when, killed off, suddenly led to Alaric's sacking of Rome and Constantine's recognition as co-emperor in the West (before his own demise)...
Roman transformation in the fourth and fifth century is actually my current field of work, and find it quite wonderful. However, I won't be replicating that aspect (migrations and such)--just the internal instability!
More foreshadowing on my part than worrying developments. I'm trying to build a coherent backstory to what we have in the future. And yes, our Eastern campaigns into Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Persia will be detailed in the next chapter after this one, Chapter XXIII: Dreaming of Alexander, which I have already started to write the first update for. Just got to start moving on the posting and picture editing for the remaining updates of this chapter, which I personally quite like and enjoyed plotting out.
In time, yes, in time. Someone else's AAR that is filled with rebels, pretenders, and rebellions has fueled my appetite!
Mostly internal problems, yes, caused the destruction of the Roman Empire in the West as a political entity. As for the German "Barbarians," that depends on how you (or your teachers) have implied "enforc[ing]...demands." The German tribes were largely sedentary people, living in small towns and villages and practiced agriculture and animal husbandry, a farcry for the depictions of Conan Barbarian (the old caricature of the Barbarians is relatively true for the Huns however). These peoples largely wanted to share in the prosperity and the perceived "stability" of the Roman Empire but the Romans kept refusing their offers out of hubris (since the Romans saw everyone but them to be Barbarians, i.e., "uncultured and uncivilized." This was true also of the Roman views of the Greeks, which is why the Greeks kept calling themselves Roman, because in the Greek inheritance--it meant "Civilized.") Of course, when the Huns were sweeping through Europe and forcing the mass migrations of the "Barbarians" into the Roman Empire in a swift and huge "mass immigration" problem, the Romans had little choice but to accept what conditions they had laid down or face a bunch of hungry and angry people right at their doorsteps, and after the experiences of Adrianople, the Romans knew what would likely happen if they went to second route.
It probably would have been somewhat beneficial to the Roman polity in the long-run had they had actually been much more benevolent towards the Germans, who truly wanted to be Roman, but Roman arrogance led to deep divisions, mistrust, which ultimately meant that this primitive multiculturalism in fourth and early fifth century Western Rome was doomed to failure--especially with the imprisonment and execution of Stilicho. Surprise! The man who held the pretender Constantine III and Alaric at bay (but unable to defeat them both because of Honorius's deep mistrust of him) when, killed off, suddenly led to Alaric's sacking of Rome and Constantine's recognition as co-emperor in the West (before his own demise)...
Roman transformation in the fourth and fifth century is actually my current field of work, and find it quite wonderful. However, I won't be replicating that aspect (migrations and such)--just the internal instability!
Yeah, the Roman opinion of the Germans is a little bit..."problematic". While the Germanic religions had some gruesome parts (and there were a small number of tribes who sacrificed humans for their rituals) and their warriors tended to be fearsome they were mostly peasants (in a different way than middle-aged ones). And in some areas their craftsmanship was remarkable, they were an important part of the trade networks of their time (amber being the most prominent product that came from their lands, but not the only one) even before Roman had risen to glory - there are reports of Egyptians trying to travel to the amber-filled coasts of Northern Europe. Only when the Huns advanced they were forced to fight with their lives at stake and flooded the Roman Empire. Which was far too weak to survive. On the other hand it's ironic: The Germans trying to become Romans and to embrace their riches (and parts of their culture, too) ended Rome and thus the source of the things they admired so much - bringing Rome down to their level of infrastructure and literacy instead of increasing their own, damaging the old trade networks that made Rome rich in the first place.
And don't worry: If there's one land where History teachers try to show Germans in a more positive light it is Germany. And I've read a few "modern" books about Roman Decline (well, about the Decline of Empires) where the Germans are shown in a more positive light.
P.S.: The rebellion-filled AAR is a Vicky II one, I'd guess? At least it is the one that comes to my mind first. I think you could have left a link, though, to give the writer a little bit more attention.
finally some reformer-revolutionary
But how long will he last, and how long will his reforms hold?
Yes, the irony of the German-Roman relationship at the end of fourth and fifth centuries is about as ironic any moment of history can be. I wouldn't necessarily say that modern works of Late Antiquity are trying to paint the Germans in a more positive light, as much as those of us in the field are attempting to overturn the old (and more importantly, simply inaccurate) depictions of the Barbarians, most of whom happen to be from the German tribes. Even prior to their "Romanization," or conversely, the "Germanization" of the Roman Empire, these images of the German tribesmen as half-naked, wielding giant axes and having huge beards and bent on destruction and pillage is just so woefully awful with the new access of documents, translation of "lost" documents into modern languages, and archaeological discoveries, and most importantly, the reduction of prejudices and biases in scholarship, has helped so much. It is generally acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars that the only group befitting of the barbarian label and the stereotypical images of death and destruction are the Huns--who were the ones who pushed all the German tribes into Roman territory and the Romans, as you said yourself, just really didn't know how to handle the crisis unfolding along their borders.
After all, Late Antiquity proper is only about 50 years old as a field of work, and thus offers a lot of great opportunity for innovative scholarship and for scholars to "leave a mark" in their field (rather than be, what so many PhD's are, basically unknown, to be forgotten upon their death, popular-historians who simply synthesize decades of prior work into an accessible book for the general public to read). Late Antiquity scholarship is also anti-Dark Ages, and I get so perturbed when I hear people use that phrase and repeat 100 year old history that has been so thoroughly overturned with recent scholarship (I am appalled at the amount of American college students who still believe "The Dark Ages happened") :glare: Oh well, we can't educate everyone... although all the language requirements for the degree kind of suck--especially for those of us who didn't receive a classical education.
*Who really wants to spend all that time learning Latin, Greek, and two or three other modern European languages in order to be granted their PhD...*
This page is intentionally left blank, so as to have the update on the beginning of the next page to prevent the readers from having to flip back and forth...