-
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.
I think you're not taking into account the situation when he came in power. Before him it looked like the empire would collapse soon. He ensured its survival for 100 years more and in the case of the eastern part another 1000. That the western part finally collapsed can hardly be blamed on him.
@Faeelin
I dont see how he could have avoided the price controls, without letting the empire as an institution slip.
Well about everything was in a mess, the economy as well. Only such drastic actions could work, though of course in the longer term it didnt.
There's certainly a lot of factors that make the 'fall' of Rome inevitable... often the same things that lent it strength.
The rise of Rome as a Great Power in the world was more or less gauranteed by the military reforms that were needed in the last century BC to control those posessions that she had already gained. However, there was no mechanism included for a general control of those armies (as opposed to personal), which led to the fall of the Republic, and the continuing inability of the Empire to put a new leader up without interference from the army (which could be a fickle way to get a new leader).
The economic side can probably not be played up too much, especialy since it is impossible to determine what caused it all. It seems likely that inflation had already started before the first round of devaluation, but since the Romans didn't understand that such a thing was really possible, they didn't keep any records of the market forces that would tell us what we wanted to know. So economically, the Empire struggled with something it could only perceive by its effect, and had no body of knowlege to study it with.
In my opinion, it was likely a long-term imbalance between the coinage (or just precious metals) being made available and the goods and services available within the Empire. New metal was coming out of the mines in Spain, some metal was leaving to the orient in return for goods from India and China, and of course there's the constant slow expansion of farming and fabricae in places like Gaul, but I have no idea how these three factors relate to one another.
The rise of Rome as a Great Power in the world was more or less gauranteed by the military reforms that were needed in the last century BC to control those posessions that she had already gained. However, there was no mechanism included for a general control of those armies (as opposed to personal), which led to the fall of the Republic, and the continuing inability of the Empire to put a new leader up without interference from the army (which could be a fickle way to get a new leader).
The economic side can probably not be played up too much, especialy since it is impossible to determine what caused it all. It seems likely that inflation had already started before the first round of devaluation, but since the Romans didn't understand that such a thing was really possible, they didn't keep any records of the market forces that would tell us what we wanted to know. So economically, the Empire struggled with something it could only perceive by its effect, and had no body of knowlege to study it with.
In my opinion, it was likely a long-term imbalance between the coinage (or just precious metals) being made available and the goods and services available within the Empire. New metal was coming out of the mines in Spain, some metal was leaving to the orient in return for goods from India and China, and of course there's the constant slow expansion of farming and fabricae in places like Gaul, but I have no idea how these three factors relate to one another.
I'm inclined to think Honorius and Arcadius dealt the western empire its death blow by bringing the word 'incompetence' to a whole new level, although it doubtless started stumbling into the abyss before that.
As a whole, the Roman Empire's inevitable demise came the day meaningful conquests stopped with Hadrian's reign and his policy of non-expansion, which meant a severe reflex of slaves and wealth that once flowed into Rome. Without these spoils of war, the legions could not be sustained and the barbarian tribes, Parthians, and Persians gained power. The Romans fought the Parthians just about once every two decades after Hadrians reign, never able to subdue them.
With Rome no longer expanding, it could only shrink and decline economically, militarily, and politically. But it may be that the cause of its fall could've been even sooner.
With Rome no longer expanding, it could only shrink and decline economically, militarily, and politically. But it may be that the cause of its fall could've been even sooner.
With the murder of Valentinianus III, or possibly when Orestes deposed Julius Nepos (the last emperor that had something that could be considered a chance to make it survive a tiny bit longer).
That is an easy question - either when the Turkish got cannon, or when the Germans decided to send Lenin to trir up the Bolshevicks, depending on how one defines "Rome". 
Originally posted by Malthus
That is an easy question - either when the Turkish got cannon, or when the Germans decided to send Lenin to trir up the Bolshevicks, depending on how one defines "Rome".
That reminds me, one thing I've wondered, did the Ottoman rulers take over the title of Roman emperor?
Yes, they did call themselves Sultans of Rum.
As for the fall of Rome, how exactly is that defined? The traditional date, AD 476 (or even 480) is nothing more than a barbarian leader deposing a puppet ruler in the west (something which has been happening for decades by then) and pledging fealty to the only remaining *Roman* Emperor.
Here's a good page on the subject:
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm
Just a minor correction. Ottoman monarchs had many titles and they rarely used them interchangebly. Sultan, Shah / Padishah and Han (Khan) / Hakan were among these but all referred to a different aspect of their power.
As for Rum / Roman, Mehmet II and a few others used the title "Kayzer" (Caesar)
So the correct form is Kayzer-i Rum in Ottoman Turkish (and Rum Kayzeri in modern Turkish)
Mehmet II the Conqueror in particular envisioned his realm as a Muslim Roman Empire (he was fluent in Greek and Latin by the way)
After Odoacer proclaimed himself king in AD 476, the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist as a distinct political unit.
Just out of curiosity, what would you say the date is?
There was no more western roman emperor but the Roman empire continued to claim the Italian peninsula etc. Odacer was displaced by Theoderic who was a 'governor' of Italy in Anastasius I's reign. 476 is the traditional date.
Originally posted by fLod
Sultans of Rum sounds... drunk
Ottoman monarchs never called themselves Sultans of Rum, but Rum Kayzeri (Caesar of Romans) please read my previous post
I might have confused it with the Anatolian Seljuks, whose state is usually called Sultanate of Rum.
As for the date, 476 is traditional, yeah, but in reality nothing happened there that didn't happen before. Emperors in the West were deposed all throughout the 5th century, and there were periods of interregnum between them. For all anyone knew at the time, it would only be a matter of time before someone would rise to become the new Western Emperor (disregarding Julius Nepos for the moment).
I guess if a date has to be picked, I'd pick 491, when the Ostrogoths crushed Odoacer and established their kingdom. Even so, that didn't endure for long before Justinian conquered them (hey, check it out... he was a Roman Emperor, ruling the city of Rome...).
I guess a good measure of the "fall" might be the political rise of the Papacy and formation of the Holy See, as that was when Roman Imperial influence was finally removed from Italy. Unfortunately, there's no exact date for that, as it happened over time.
As for the date, 476 is traditional, yeah, but in reality nothing happened there that didn't happen before. Emperors in the West were deposed all throughout the 5th century, and there were periods of interregnum between them. For all anyone knew at the time, it would only be a matter of time before someone would rise to become the new Western Emperor (disregarding Julius Nepos for the moment).
I guess if a date has to be picked, I'd pick 491, when the Ostrogoths crushed Odoacer and established their kingdom. Even so, that didn't endure for long before Justinian conquered them (hey, check it out... he was a Roman Emperor, ruling the city of Rome...
).I guess a good measure of the "fall" might be the political rise of the Papacy and formation of the Holy See, as that was when Roman Imperial influence was finally removed from Italy. Unfortunately, there's no exact date for that, as it happened over time.
Probably that`s the case Solmyr, "Rum" (or Roman) referred to a particular area back in 11th century, Asia Minor. Anatolia was the first point of contact between the Byzantines and the Turks.
Over the centuries, this concept gradually changed as "Rumeli" was pushed ever westwards, until it finally disappeared.
Even today though, European part of Turkey, and even Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania and northern Greece as a whole, is referred to as Rumeli (Land of the Romans)
The underlying cause no doubt was the collapse of the economical foundation: end of expansion. (No more slaves or other spoils of war.)
However, Rome still managed to hang on for 300 years after the expansion stopped. It might have just as well gone on for few centuries more or collapsed sooner.
An interesting essay I read suggested that the immediate cause of the collapse was the (uh lacking a word here) 'germanization' of the army: (around 400 or so wasn't it?) Germanic tribes were allowed to enter the Empire and the legions. This was nothing new: the Empire had always drawn its soldiers from the unruly borderlands. Now the Germans were not only let into the Empire: the legions essentially became Germanic tribes themselves. This wasn't really fatal for the Empire BUT...
By now Rome was essentially a militaristic dictatorship: the strongest general would become the emperor. The Germans however did not adapt the idea of citizenship (I mean they did not consider themselves citizens) and thereby could not become emperors themselves. The German generals now supported puppet emperors rather becoming emperors themselves. This lead to the decline of the imperial throne as an institution and caused the weakining of the central government and eventually the collapse of Rome.
Byzantium purged it's military of the Germans. This is an important reason for why they survived.
Edit: Another point. Wasn't the empire pretty much stable under Theodosius the Great as late as 395? (That's when he died.)
Uh..terrible english. But I'm sure you get the point.
However, Rome still managed to hang on for 300 years after the expansion stopped. It might have just as well gone on for few centuries more or collapsed sooner.
An interesting essay I read suggested that the immediate cause of the collapse was the (uh lacking a word here) 'germanization' of the army: (around 400 or so wasn't it?) Germanic tribes were allowed to enter the Empire and the legions. This was nothing new: the Empire had always drawn its soldiers from the unruly borderlands. Now the Germans were not only let into the Empire: the legions essentially became Germanic tribes themselves. This wasn't really fatal for the Empire BUT...
By now Rome was essentially a militaristic dictatorship: the strongest general would become the emperor. The Germans however did not adapt the idea of citizenship (I mean they did not consider themselves citizens) and thereby could not become emperors themselves. The German generals now supported puppet emperors rather becoming emperors themselves. This lead to the decline of the imperial throne as an institution and caused the weakining of the central government and eventually the collapse of Rome.
Byzantium purged it's military of the Germans. This is an important reason for why they survived.
Edit: Another point. Wasn't the empire pretty much stable under Theodosius the Great as late as 395? (That's when he died.)
Uh..terrible english. But I'm sure you get the point.
Theodosius reconqered the Western Part in 394, the partition was becoming a tradition... it was not stable at all, in a few years germanic tribes invaded it...
I agree that the German soldiers were very important for the Empire. In fact, most of them were actually more "nationalistic" than their Roman counterparts when defending Rome. Aetius was considered "the last roman". And they got only treason... doacru's reign, for example was an excelent rule, the best one since Valentinian I, actually
I agree that the German soldiers were very important for the Empire. In fact, most of them were actually more "nationalistic" than their Roman counterparts when defending Rome. Aetius was considered "the last roman". And they got only treason... doacru's reign, for example was an excelent rule, the best one since Valentinian I, actually