On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 4:59:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > I believe the Roman army was well paid, had a prestigious status in > society, and had superior tactics in battle, using superior weapons, and > perhaps most important was able to fight as a unit. But as Rome expanded it > didn't do a great job in assimilating "the barbarians". Over time they > became incorporated in the Roman army, acquired its weapons, and perhaps > most important learned its tactical methods for fighting as a unit. Thus, > over time, the Roman army lost its advantage, which led to the demise of > the Empire. How correct is my thesis? TIA, AG >
There are a number of reasons the Roman Empire fell. I think probably the biggest reason is with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the cultural paradigm of the empire became irrelevant. The Orphic cultural and mystical basis of the classical world from the time of Homer through the philosophy of Plotinus was largely abandoned. This left the culture without strong roots, and the new Christian civilization and power based on the Vatican rendered the empire of little importance. The coins or denominations of the Roman Denarius were in the Republic and early Empire periods forged in gold and silver. This began to change as the Roman gold mines in Spain and elsewhere began to deplete out. Then eventually the silver mines became less productive, and the coins were made in copper and even more base metals. The Romans did not develop new mining techniques and the Roman money became less valuable. This lead to problems with debasement and inflation that by the 4th century went rampant. This weakened the empire. The barbarians were not really that numerous. The waves of invasions from 410 to 476 of Visigoths and Ostrogoths involved at most a few 10 thousands. The Roman legions were far better disciplined and could have handled this. The problem was there was rampant corruption. In fact the reason for the upheaval with the Goths along the Danube was due to corruption, and this lead to the defeat of the Eastern Roman legions and the death of the E. Emperor Valens at Adrianople in 398 or so. The E. Roman Empire paid the Goths off to "Go West Young Men," and so they directed themselves there. Still the problem could have been managed, but corruption has lead to a defeat of moral in the legions. Pay to soldiers, the term salary (root word sal = salt) came from the payment of Roman soldiers, had been withheld. The Roman legions were firmed up by Stilicho, and corruption abated for a while, but the die were cast. The simple fact is the legions largely let the Goths in. The only barbarian group they rallied against were the Huns under Attila, where the Goths were enlisted as allies. Finally, with the end of the empire it might have been possible for civilization to continue, but it broke down because in effect the stage coaches ended. On the Roman roads were stations with stabled horses that were cycled out and there was a constant traffic of coaches, wagons etc that kept people and goods moving. That ended, which broke Europe up not only just politically but economically and culturally. Of course remember, the Eastern Roman Empire, later termed the Byzantine Empire, continued well enough. In fact under Justinian the Eastern Roman Empire reasserted itself in Rome and much of Italy in the 6th century. This did not last terribly long. The other hammer blow to western civilization was the Islamic sweep that crimped Byzantium and cut Europe from the middle east and north Africa. LC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aa0dc4d6-30ab-4753-aefe-87c3b647aaf7%40googlegroups.com.
