- This topic has 5 voices and 25 replies.
-
Posts
-
So why didn't these diseases affect the barbarian hordes as well?
Perhaps they hit more port areas and spread out from there?
Even better, where did these diseases come from? Also, if you know, what were they?
If it was like the episodes of Bubonic plague, the diseases could have come from the Levant. I don't, however, know which kinds of diseases they were. I think the first episode of the Bubonic plague was the Justinianic plague in the 6th century, so it would have had to have been something else in the 3rd century.I skimmed through Ski's source and I didn't see anything more specific than calling the disease a "plague".
I do not know. Disease could have played a role in the decline of Rome. Ski's source says something like a 20% population decline in 20 years, which is certainly bad but does not equal the near 1/3 death rate of the medieval Black death which did not cause medieval Europe to decline. Instead, medieval Europe burst forth reenergized in the 15th century following the devastation and losses of the 14th century plague. Seems kind of implausible that plague could have been a serious contributor to Roman decline, it would have affected the Barbarians too even if we have no records of it.I guess it could be one factor of many but far from decisive in and of itself.
I guess it could be one factor of many but far from decisive in and of itself.
That's basically what Bury says. There were many things happening, none of which would have brought the collapse by itself, but combined they did. I read somewhere else that the population decline led to a labor and demand shortage.
That's basically what Bury says. There were many things happening, none of which would have brought the collapse by itself, but combined they did. I read somewhere else that the population decline led to a labor and demand shortage.
Much like in medieval Europe where the labor shortage post-plague led to the rise of the wage economy versus feudal dues and rents. A good examination of the medieval plague is The Black Death By Philip Ziegler. I have read it a few times and it is a very good narrative account of the spread of the medieval plague. If something like that happened in Antonine times I could understand a more rapid Roman decline given the nature of the Roman state; that did not happen though.The root cause of Rome's failure to secure their northern border is military; specifically, a lack of strategic and tactical foresight. The Limes were an amazing engineering achievement but worse than useless from a defense standpoint given both the extent of Rome?s military commitments and their military resources. Defense is all about the force-to-space ratio and that was decidedly against the Romans in the North. They simply did not have enough troops to concentrate decisive force in time to counter incursions.Cultural decline is another issue entirely. It may be and probably is related to later relative military decline but was not really a factor when Roman frontier defenses were planned in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We must look elsewhere than cultural or material decline for the source of Rome?s failure of strategic vision. I would argue that their choice of a static, forward defense reflected a sense of cultural superiority and even contempt for the barbarians much akin to a lot of the talk about the threat of China to the US today. The Romans could not conceive of the Barbarians as a credible threat and settled for a show the flag defense thinking that is all that was required. They could get away with it in the 2nd and 3rd centuries but not later when the Legions were neither as powerful nor as mobile as they had been previously.
I do not know. Disease could have played a role in the decline of Rome. Ski's source says something like a 20% population decline in 20 years, which is certainly bad but does not equal the near 1/3 death rate of the medieval Black death which did not cause medieval Europe to decline. Instead, medieval Europe burst forth reenergized in the 15th century following the devastation and losses of the 14th century plague. Seems kind of implausible that plague could have been a serious contributor to Roman decline, it would have affected the Barbarians too even if we have no records of it.I guess it could be one factor of many but far from decisive in and of itself.
The source I quoted says the reason for the population decline are not altogether known (and could have varied), but that disease was likely the most significant. To me it seems plausible to me that disease could have hit more densely-packed Roman urban centers than barbarian populations.
That's basically what Bury says. There were many things happening, none of which would have brought the collapse by itself, but combined they did. I read somewhere else that the population decline led to a labor and demand shortage.
True; I think that if there had been anything like a pandemic on the level of Black Death we would have had clear historical records of that. The fact that we evidently do not, yet we still have evidence of shrinking towns, suggests that the effect was more gradual. Twenty percent is still significant if it was that high, though.
One of the problems with pinpointing the reasons for Rome's decline is the lack of good statistical evidence. Mostly what we have is speculation and a few first hand reports that have survived from Antiquity
Mostly what we have is speculation and a few first hand reports that have survived from Antiquity
But isn't all that part of what makes Ancient history fun? ;D
One of the problems with pinpointing the reasons for Rome's decline is the lack of good statistical evidence. Mostly what we have is speculation and a few first hand reports that have survived from Antiquity
The thing is though, Rome was the best empire at taking records and recording census data in the ancient world. We do know a lot about them, but even with this, we still don't know enough.
Oh, what I wouldnt give for a time machine, a digital camera, and unfettered access to extant Roman records and literature about 300 A.D. That is what is frustrating about Ancient history, we know so much, but at the same time we know of so much we have lost and only know the titles of works.
One of the problems with pinpointing the reasons for Rome's decline is the lack of good statistical evidence. Mostly what we have is speculation and a few first hand reports that have survived from Antiquity
The thing is though, Rome was the best empire at taking records and recording census data in the ancient world. We do know a lot about them, but even with this, we still don't know enough.
I really don't understand what the problem is here. We know that Rome declined during this time, and evidence shows us that towns began to shrink at the same time. Could people have migrated to the East? Sure, but then we should have corresponding numbers for that increase in Eastern cities. Could they have been massacred in raids? Sure, the evidence suggests that this would not have accounted for the drop we see. So various scholars have pointed to disease as playing a role - not the sole role, but probably the most significant - in the depopulation of the Empire. This, in turn, probably had an effect on the decline of the Empire in general, though an effect which was not felt immediately. Donnie, in regard to your point about "why didn't these diseases affect the barbarian hordes as well", a few points. First, do we know they did not? Second, regardless, there are several factors which would explain why barbarian groups would be less affected by disease than Romans (population density, trade routes, quarantining during outbreaks, etc.). Third, why did not all cities succumb to the Black Death in the 14th century? As for census data, what do the records say about populations from the 3rd to 4th centuries? I believe that Rome his its height in population either under Augustus, or perhaps Trajan/Hadrian, correct? I think that even a depopulation of 10% by disease would have causes serious problems in the long term operation of the Empire.Anyway, I think the evidence points to disease, and I think was a very likely culprit in the late Empire. Sure, historians can debate over the relative effect it had on the economy, military, etc., but this is true of any kinds of historical phenomena which isn't explicit.
Here is a different approach. In order to run an Empire such as Rome became in an age where the horse and the sailing ship were the fastest method of communication, you needed skilled administrators and bureaucrats.Here is a short poem dedicated to people like I used to be.Imagine Actium is won and young Octavian--not an Emperor--is strolling about his new city named afterthe greatest military commander that ever lived. See him happy.OCTAVIAN IN ALEXANDRIABY W.R. JOHNSONBY HER OWN HAND THE CLEVER FIEND IS DEAD(SO THINKS THE WORLD FOR SO THE WORLD WAS TOLD),AND I, POLITE AND SMILING, SIMPLY DRESSED,I SAUNTER DOWN THE FAMOUS BOULEVARDSWHERE CENTURIES OF PTOLEMIES HAVE PACEDTHEIR PURPLE PATH TO BRIGHT OBLIVION--THE CITY THEY GLORIED IN IS MINE.I'LL PRAISE OF COURSE, THEIR BUILDINGS AND THEIR PARKS,I'LL MAKE A GRACIOUS SPEECH IN CAREFUL GREEK,I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT ALEXANDER'S GRAVE,AND THEN--I'LL HAVE SOME LONG AND COZY CHATSWITH WHAT IS HERE MY SPECIAL PRIZE:THOSE CUNNING DRONES WHO MADE HER EMPIRE WORK,HER LOWLY, FACELESS, BRILLIANT BUREAUCRATSMaybe the whole enterprise just got too big and fractured became, too broke and grew too hard to manage--just an additional idea.
