When did the Roman Empire Fall? A fun thread.

[Nea Byzantia]

But then why is it that throughout History, Despots and Autocrats usually centralize more and more power into their own hands?

Into their own hands does not necessarily mean centralization of power. Take the provincial reforms of Diocletian, for example. He took power away from the Senate, a central institution, and gave their powers to a greater number of lesser officials all directly subordinate to him personally, thus effecting both an increase of power into his own hands AND a decentralization of power from the centralized apparatus. See: feudalism.

But that was ultimately meant to increase his own power and political advantage, no?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Source on loss of metal production? Because AHM Jones and Peter Heather, two renowned historians of the period, generally say that the late Roman economy was economically powerful.

Give me a bit to find my original source. I have one on lead production on hand but I want the iron one too in part because I regard that as more important.

But you don't dispute the decline in trade? Because if so, then that brings me to another point of the increasing weakness of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

As for military strength, the Romans continued to win the vast majority of battles, and their military performed well overall. As for military supply, we know metal armor was in widespread use due to archaeology.

Desertion was rampant, units were constantly understrength, the creation of elaborate class divisions between units destroying cohesion, tactical maneuvers decline in complexity, and they lost far more battles against barbarians than they did in the Principate. Furthermore, metal armor being in widespread use does not contradict a decline - looking at Vegetius' criticisms in light of his biases and the advice offered in the Strategikon a century later, it strongly suggests that fewer Roman infantry wore armor; combined with the increased use of foederati over traditional auxilia formations, it seems hard to believe a maintenance of standards in light of the decreasing economic strength of the empire.

Agriculture was also more productive.

This right here is absolutely incorrect.

I disagree on Christian meekness being a building block, as we still see powers struggles and the like, as well as popular discontent overall with tax rates.

Christian meekness in obeisance to the powers that be* was a very important tool in the suppression of the lower classes of Roman citizens. It's no coincidence that the baugadae of the Dominate were concentrated in the largely unchristianized provinces of the west. Not because of some nonexistent pagan idea of freedom, but in part simply because of the lack of the idealization of suffering and obedience preached by Christianity.

*apparently only when the powers that be share their religion

1) there was definitely a decline in trade, looking back from my source, which resulted in relative decline of the Western Empire, however, that decline did not necessarily happen in the Empire's Eastern portions.

2) Most books I have read (Warfare in Late Roman Europe, Elton) does give what you say some credence, the military, due to population decline and need to keep tax rates, had a very difficult time finding enough recruits for the army, and especially quality recruits. This resulted in a doctrinal change in which the army fought battles less aggressively in the hopes of reducing casualties instead of fighting battles of annihiliation. That said, the late Roman army won most of its battles against Barbarians, more losses are to be expected against foes that had adopted Roman fighting techniques already. While you're right about metal armor being less in use, this describes the situation nearly a century (and in the case of the strategikon, more than two centuries) after the period I'm referring to (the fourth century).

3) See post above about differences in parts of the empire.

[The New California Republic]

2) The Emperor is not the entire Empire, hell, there had been non-Roman Emperors before.

I didn't say he was; but the Emperor being Christian was a whole different kettle of fish, and set a chain of events in motion.

3) It contradicts you saying there was widespread persecution before then.

Where did I say that? I said late Roman empire...

4) The Constitution does not proscribe ethics at all, as evidenced by how dramatically ethics have shifted without constitutional change. Even so, the Constitution has been massively edited to change society.

See Ronald Dworkin's work.

5) Maybe a simplified interpretation. A better interpretation would be self-respect and dignity.

"Better" is questionable.

[United Muscovite Nations]

2) The Emperor is not the entire Empire, hell, there had been non-Roman Emperors before.

I didn't say he was; but the Emperor being Christian was a whole different kettle of fish, and set a chain of events in motion.

3) It contradicts you saying there was widespread persecution before then.

Where did I say that? I said late Roman empire...

4) The Constitution does not proscribe ethics at all, as evidenced by how dramatically ethics have shifted without constitutional change. Even so, the Constitution has been massively edited to change society.

See Ronald Dworkin's work.

5) Maybe a simplified interpretation. A better interpretation would be self-respect and dignity.

"Better" is questionable.

2) Not anymore than the Emperor being an Arab.
3) Late Roman Empire is after 284 AD.
4) The problem with reading the constitution as a moral document is that the interpretations of the constitution have changed so dramatically that it's hard to ascribe any particular morality to it. The same constitution that allowed slavery and the genocide of the American Indians is the same one we still have today, that's a radical value shift.

[Conserative Morality]

Into their own hands does not necessarily mean centralization of power. Take the provincial reforms of Diocletian, for example. He took power away from the Senate, a central institution, and gave their powers to a greater number of lesser officials all directly subordinate to him personally, thus effecting both an increase of power into his own hands AND a decentralization of power from the centralized apparatus. See: feudalism.

But that was ultimately meant to increase his own power and political advantage, no?

Yes, that's general what autocracy means.

[The New California Republic]

2) Not anymore than the Emperor being an Arab.

You forget that Marcus Julius Philippus may have actually been a Christian...

3) Late Roman Empire is after 284 AD.

And what I meant is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... man_Empire

4) The problem with reading the constitution as a moral document is that the interpretations of the constitution have changed so dramatically that it's hard to ascribe any particular morality to it. The same constitution that allowed slavery and the genocide of the American Indians is the same one we still have today, that's a radical value shift.

Certain values, yes, but not across a very broad base; as is the case for the empire adopting Christian values etc.

[Hurdergaryp]

That's not how they considered themselves or how others considered them. They were each the Roman Empire, and they were together the Roman Empire. Just with two Emperors.

And the HRE considered itself to be the Third Rome.

But wait, there's more! Both the German and Russian word for emperor, Kaiser and czar, are versions of caesar.

[Nea Byzantia]

And the HRE considered itself to be the Third Rome.

But wait, there's more! Both the German and Russian word for emperor, Kaiser and czar, are versions of caesar.

Isn't it Tsar?

[United Muscovite Nations]

2) Not anymore than the Emperor being an Arab.

You forget that Marcus Julius Philippus may have actually been a Christian...

3) Late Roman Empire is after 284 AD.

And what I meant is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... man_Empire

4) The problem with reading the constitution as a moral document is that the interpretations of the constitution have changed so dramatically that it's hard to ascribe any particular morality to it. The same constitution that allowed slavery and the genocide of the American Indians is the same one we still have today, that's a radical value shift.

Certain values, yes, but not across a very broad base; as is the case for the empire adopting Christian values etc.

2) So would you say that the Empire ended under him?
3) Which is largely not under the emperors you mentioned.
4) It is a very broad base, certainly across the spectrum of society you had even greater changes in attitudes.

[Conserative Morality]

1) there was definitely a decline in trade, looking back from my source, which resulted in relative decline of the Western Empire, however, that decline did not necessarily happen in the Empire's Eastern portions.

The decline in trade was very important in the reduction of the overall economic efficacy of the Empire by reducing the capability of the economy to take advantage of regional comparative advantages; combined with the increasingly self-sufficient border and field armies which largely procured their own equipment (civilian contractors for the former, mobile army fabricae for the latter), this seems likely to have resulted in increasing inefficiency in procurement both due to an increased reliance on local economies and a reduced economic efficiency of those local economies.

2) Most books I have read (Warfare in Late Roman Europe, Elton) does give what you say some credence, the military, due to population decline and need to keep tax rates, had a very difficult time finding enough recruits for the army, and especially quality recruits. This resulted in a doctrinal change in which the army fought battles less aggressively in the hopes of reducing casualties instead of fighting battles of annihiliation. That said, the late Roman army won most of its battles against Barbarians, more losses are to be expected against foes that had adopted Roman fighting techniques already. While you're right about metal armor being less in use, this describes the situation nearly a century (and in the case of the strategikon, more than two centuries) after the period I'm referring to (the fourth century).

I was thinking in terms of using the justifications in the Strategikon for lower numbers of troops wearing armor to account for Vegetius' dubious assertions that infantrymen no longer wore armor; ie seeing a continuity of thought in the Strategikon from the Late Empire.

Be back, getting food.

[United Muscovite Nations]

But wait, there's more! Both the German and Russian word for emperor, Kaiser and czar, are versions of caesar.

Isn't it Tsar?

Depends which you prefer: Linguistic or Phonetic

Czar is favored by some because it looks more like Caesar, however, it's not pronounced like the Russian word because the Ts in Tsar is pronounced like the ts in Donetsk.

[Nea Byzantia]

Isn't it Tsar?

Depends which you prefer: Linguistic or Phonetic

Czar is favored by some because it looks more like Caesar, however, it's not pronounced like the Russian word because the Ts in Tsar is pronounced like the ts in Donetsk.

Ah.

[Hurdergaryp]

Isn't it Tsar?

Depends which you prefer: Linguistic or Phonetic

Czar is favored by some because it looks more like Caesar, however, it's not pronounced like the Russian word because the Ts in Tsar is pronounced like the ts in Donetsk.

And Moscow tried to establish itself as the Third Rome. Not that this really made an impression, because everybody claimed to be Third Rome.

No, seriously.

[Nea Byzantia]

Depends which you prefer: Linguistic or Phonetic

Czar is favored by some because it looks more like Caesar, however, it's not pronounced like the Russian word because the Ts in Tsar is pronounced like the ts in Donetsk.

And Moscow tried to establish itself as the Third Rome. Not that this really made an impression, because everybody claimed to be Third Rome.

No, seriously.

Moscow definitely had a better claim than the Ottomans...

[The New California Republic]

2) So would you say that the Empire ended under him?

Nope, as his status as a Christian didn't really affect his reign to any discernible extent. And the empire as such didn't even end under Constantine, but Constantine certainly pushed the boat out in that regard.

3) Which is largely not under the emperors you mentioned.

Are you conveniently forgetting Constantine's swan song of pillaging?

4) It is a very broad base, certainly across the spectrum of society you had even greater changes in attitudes.

With a significant core preserved. Arguably not the case in this instance.

[Hurdergaryp]

And Moscow tried to establish itself as the Third Rome. Not that this really made an impression, because everybody claimed to be Third Rome.

No, seriously.

Moscow definitely had a better claim than the Ottomans...

Depends on your point of view. The Russian-Orthodox church has Byzantine origins, but the Ottomans actually held the territories of Byzantium.

[Nea Byzantia]

Moscow definitely had a better claim than the Ottomans...

Depends on your point of view. The Russian-Orthodox church has Byzantine origins, but the Ottomans actually held the territories of Byzantium.

Yeah but they were Muslims and had zero cultural relationship to the Greco-Roman Civilization they lorded over.

[Vistulange]

The Ottoman claiming of the Roman legacy stems not from them leaving some Roman legal systems intact - I'm not sure if that's even true - but due to several Ottoman sultans, specifically Mehmet II, claiming descent from the Komnenoi. Indeed, prior to the fall of the empire, about a century ago, Eastern Roman princesses often wedded Ottoman sultans and their sons. This was to provide the basis for the Ottoman succession on the Roman Empire, and the assumption of the title Kayzer-i Rûm by Mehmet II upon his conquest of Constantinople - not a legal structure they inherited.

Still illegitimate, though...

Eh, what does it matter?

For the record, though, we can't really judge the legitimacy of a government from about six hundred years ago. Times really do change. Nowadays, many in Western civilisation do not consider monarchies to be legitimate - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG love monarchy because they're so different and woke - while monarchies were seen as the natural order of things just a little more than two centuries ago. Tomorrow, liberal democracy may very well be seen as an entirely archaic system - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG already call it an archaic and rotten system because they're so different and woke - and certainly not the "natural order of things" as was prophesied by some scholars such as Fukuyama. Now, before people jump on the bandwagon of "but monarchy is good like this!" and "but democracy sucks because this!" and "Fukuyama is good/bad because that!", kindly recognise that those are definitely not what I'm arguing in this post.

What I'm saying is, our values and ideals change so much in the course of a mere century or two that it's basically incredibly useless to discuss the legitimacy of a six-hundred year old claim to a throne. Mehmet II claimed the successorship of the Roman Emperor due to his descent from the Komnenoi. Whether or not you or I think it's illegitimate, frankly, doesn't make the slightest difference in the world. The world at the time probably considered it illegitimate, though they couldn't do much about it, and that's what ultimately mattered, really.

We, however, have moved on.

I'm not even getting into how you measure "legitimacy". The Roman Empire certainly did not have a systematic method of succession, which arguably was one reason for its immense political instability and perhaps eventual collapse, so really, anybody could be "legitimate" so long as they were supported by the coalition needed to govern. That coalition did not necessarily look at the religion of a claimant, either - Bayezid I played on that, actually. (Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire by Nevra Necipoğlu is a decent source on this, specifically Chapter 6: The Byzantine Court and the Ottomans: Conflict and Accommodation, though it does have a little bit of extra detail which I found somewhat extraneous.)

"Part of the city's population, judging that the realization of peace with the Ottomans could lead to the re-establishment of internal peace, spoke out in favor of surrendering to them." (p. 146) This does not by any means suggest that the Romans wanted an Ottoman "emperor", but it does give some food for thought in that at least some Romans were actually quite fine with the prospect of being under Ottoman rule. Who decides the legitimacy of a Roman Emperor, if not the Romans themselves?

[Hurdergaryp]

Depends on your point of view. The Russian-Orthodox church has Byzantine origins, but the Ottomans actually held the territories of Byzantium.

Yeah but they were Muslims and had zero cultural relationship to the Greco-Roman Civilization they lorded over.

Yet the Muslim world actually had rather good libraries filled with many great works from that very same Greco-Roman civilization. The fact that there were quite a few of those libraries in Spain helped the Renaissance quite a bit, since those works were quickly translated into Latin after the Reconquista.

[Nea Byzantia]

Still illegitimate, though...

Eh, what does it matter?

For the record, though, we can't really judge the legitimacy of a government from about six hundred years ago. Times really do change. Nowadays, many in Western civilisation do not consider monarchies to be legitimate - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG love monarchy because they're so different and woke - while monarchies were seen as the natural order of things just a little more than two centuries ago. Tomorrow, liberal democracy may very well be seen as an entirely archaic system - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG already call it an archaic and rotten system because they're so different and woke - and certainly not the "natural order of things" as was prophesied by some scholars such as Fukuyama. Now, before people jump on the bandwagon of "but monarchy is good like this!" and "but democracy sucks because this!" and "Fukuyama is good/bad because that!", kindly recognise that those are definitely not what I'm arguing in this post.

What I'm saying is, our values and ideals change so much in the course of a mere century or two that it's basically incredibly useless to discuss the legitimacy of a six-hundred year old claim to a throne. Mehmet II claimed the successorship of the Roman Emperor due to his descent from the Komnenoi. Whether or not you or I think it's illegitimate, frankly, doesn't make the slightest difference in the world. The world at the time probably considered it illegitimate, though they couldn't do much about it, and that's what ultimately mattered, really.

We, however, have moved on.

I'm not even getting into how you measure "legitimacy". The Roman Empire certainly did not have a systematic method of succession, which arguably was one reason for its immense political instability and perhaps eventual collapse, so really, anybody could be "legitimate" so long as they were supported by the coalition needed to govern. That coalition did not necessarily look at the religion of a claimant, either - Bayezid I played on that, actually. (Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire by Nevra Necipoğlu is a decent source on this, specifically Chapter 6: The Byzantine Court and the Ottomans: Conflict and Accommodation, though it does have a little bit of extra detail which I found somewhat extraneous.)

"Part of the city's population, judging that the realization of peace with the Ottomans could lead to the re-establishment of internal peace, spoke out in favor of surrendering to them." (p. 146) This does not by any means suggest that the Romans wanted an Ottoman "emperor", but it does give some food for thought in that the Romans were actually quite fine with the prospect of being under Ottoman rule. Who decides the legitimacy of a Roman Emperor, if not the Romans themselves?

I know that certain elite aristocratic families in Constantinople benefited greatly from the Ottoman takeover - I'm referring of course to the Phanariots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariotes); in particular, the Houses Kantakouzenos and Mavrokordatos. These however, were a tiny minority (but a very influential one, in Late Byzantium). Furthermore, the Imperial Regime in Constantinople had lost a lot of legitimacy with its People because of its capitulations to the Roman Papacy, in return for promises of military aid; these acts of Uniaitism, especially in the final decades of the Empire were seen as the highest treason by the strongly Greek Orthodox population; to the point that some said "Better the Turban of the Sultan; than the Tiara of the Pope". People had grown tired of the pushiness of the Latins, the Crusaders, and their Uniate mouthpieces in the Imperial elite, in the politics and religious affairs of the Empire; and it was clear, especially by the 15th century, that the Emperor in Constantinople, was not only not going to do anything about it; but was thoroughly "in bed" with such people himself.

All that being said, the pro-Ottoman camp wasn't what brought down the Empire, necessarily. Rather, it was a loss of faith in the traditional mores of the Empire. People no longer believed the Emperor in Constantinople was worth listening to, or for that matter, saving - the Romans had become mere spectators in the affairs of their own Empire; watching foreigners and other Great Powers decide their political fate for them; essentially. One can argue when exactly this state of affairs (which still afflicts modern Greece to this very day) came into being. Personally, I would point to the Fourth Crusade as the beginning f this. It was by no means too late for the Empire; even then. They did recover some hope in 1261, when Constantinople was liberated from the Latins; however, it was thrown away when Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos humiliated the Empire; and betrayed the trust of his People, by grovelling at the Pope's feet, and proclaiming himself a Catholic, in return for military aid. This, and the continued unfettered meddling of the Venetians, Genoese, and small Crusader Warlords spread throughout the Aegean, ultimately brought the Empire to its knees - for the vile Turks to scoop up.

[Nea Byzantia]

Yeah but they were Muslims and had zero cultural relationship to the Greco-Roman Civilization they lorded over.

Yet the Muslim world actually had rather good libraries filled with many great works from that very same Greco-Roman civilization. The fact that there were quite a few of those libraries in Spain helped the Renaissance quite a bit, since those works were quickly translated into Latin after the Reconquista.

Only some...Believe me, they had no problem tearing down Greco-Roman Civilization; and this doesn't apply to the Turks in the slightest.

[Novus America]

Not really. Warlordism is despotic and autocratic.
Having 4 brutal warlords within an official (but obviously no longer functioning state) is more despotic and autocratic than having a single more liberal government.

You think the Roman Empire before Diocletian was "more liberal"? What is Septimius Severus, Nero, Commodus, Caligula, Domitian, etc.

Well it at least had more a pretense of rule of law. Admittedly it had been sliding into warlordism long before Diocletian made warlordism official and destroyed the Empire as a single functioning entity.

[Novus America]

And Moscow tried to establish itself as the Third Rome. Not that this really made an impression, because everybody claimed to be Third Rome.

No, seriously.

Moscow definitely had a better claim than the Ottomans...

Both claims are silly tbh.

[Novus America]

And the HRE considered itself to be the Third Rome.

But wait, there's more! Both the German and Russian word for emperor, Kaiser and czar, are versions of caesar.

Actually after every Slavic state started using “Tsar”, it cheapened it so much that Peter I changed his title to “Imperator” (even in Russian). Tsar ceased to be considered a imperial title and was used to mean a mere king.
There was no “Tsar of Russia” after 1721.

[Vistulange]

Eh, what does it matter?

For the record, though, we can't really judge the legitimacy of a government from about six hundred years ago. Times really do change. Nowadays, many in Western civilisation do not consider monarchies to be legitimate - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG love monarchy because they're so different and woke - while monarchies were seen as the natural order of things just a little more than two centuries ago. Tomorrow, liberal democracy may very well be seen as an entirely archaic system - yes, I know, I know, some people on NSG already call it an archaic and rotten system because they're so different and woke - and certainly not the "natural order of things" as was prophesied by some scholars such as Fukuyama. Now, before people jump on the bandwagon of "but monarchy is good like this!" and "but democracy sucks because this!" and "Fukuyama is good/bad because that!", kindly recognise that those are definitely not what I'm arguing in this post.

What I'm saying is, our values and ideals change so much in the course of a mere century or two that it's basically incredibly useless to discuss the legitimacy of a six-hundred year old claim to a throne. Mehmet II claimed the successorship of the Roman Emperor due to his descent from the Komnenoi. Whether or not you or I think it's illegitimate, frankly, doesn't make the slightest difference in the world. The world at the time probably considered it illegitimate, though they couldn't do much about it, and that's what ultimately mattered, really.

We, however, have moved on.

I'm not even getting into how you measure "legitimacy". The Roman Empire certainly did not have a systematic method of succession, which arguably was one reason for its immense political instability and perhaps eventual collapse, so really, anybody could be "legitimate" so long as they were supported by the coalition needed to govern. That coalition did not necessarily look at the religion of a claimant, either - Bayezid I played on that, actually. (Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire by Nevra Necipoğlu is a decent source on this, specifically Chapter 6: The Byzantine Court and the Ottomans: Conflict and Accommodation, though it does have a little bit of extra detail which I found somewhat extraneous.)

"Part of the city's population, judging that the realization of peace with the Ottomans could lead to the re-establishment of internal peace, spoke out in favor of surrendering to them." (p. 146) This does not by any means suggest that the Romans wanted an Ottoman "emperor", but it does give some food for thought in that the Romans were actually quite fine with the prospect of being under Ottoman rule. Who decides the legitimacy of a Roman Emperor, if not the Romans themselves?

I know that certain elite aristocratic families in Constantinople benefited greatly from the Ottoman takeover - I'm referring of course to the Phanariots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariotes); in particular, the Houses Kantakouzenos and Mavrokordatos. These however, were a tiny minority (but a very influential one, in Late Byzantium). Furthermore, the Imperial Regime in Constantinople had lost a lot of legitimacy with its People because of its capitulations to the Roman Papacy, in return for promises of military aid; these acts of Uniaitism, especially in the final decades of the Empire were seen as the highest treason by the strongly Greek Orthodox population; to the point that some said "Better the Turban of the Sultan; than the Tiara of the Pope". People had grown tired of the pushiness of the Latins, the Crusaders, and their Uniate mouthpieces in the Imperial elite, in the politics and religious affairs of the Empire; and it was clear, especially by the 15th century, that the Emperor in Constantinople, was not only not going to do anything about it; but was thoroughly "in bed" with such people himself.

All that being said, the pro-Ottoman camp wasn't what brought down the Empire, necessarily. Rather, it was a loss of faith in the traditional mores of the Empire. People no longer believed the Emperor in Constantinople was worth listening to, or for that matter, saving - the Romans had become mere spectators in the affairs of their own Empire; watching foreigners and other Great Powers decide their political fate for them; essentially. One can argue when exactly this state of affairs (which still afflicts modern Greece to this very day) came into being. Personally, I would point to the Fourth Crusade as the beginning f this. It was by no means too late for the Empire; even then. They did recover some hope in 1261, when Constantinople was liberated from the Latins; however, it was thrown away when Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos humiliated the Empire; and betrayed the trust of his People, by grovelling at the Pope's feet, and proclaiming himself a Catholic, in return for military aid. This, and the continued unfettered meddling of the Venetians, Genoese, and small Crusader Warlords spread throughout the Aegean, ultimately brought the Empire to its knees - for the vile Turks to scoop up.

Hold up, there. That's a lot of assumptions made.

How do we know that a loss of faith in the "traditional mores of the Empire" were the cause of the collapse of the Empire? You seem to be establishing a causal link between this loss of faith, and the collapse of the Empire. The collapse of the Empire can be attributed to a great number of things, and perhaps among them is the loss of motivation to fight on, but I have not seen sources indicating such.

Arguably, the Empire stopped being an Empire on 1204, when the crusaders sacked Constantinople - from then on, the Empire never really got back into shape even after the Palaiologos restoration. I also can't find anything on Michael VIII Palaiologos converting to Catholicism, by the way. You sure that's not revisionism?

But yes, the Genoese, Venetians, and the Ottomans basically manipulated the politics of the Empire at this stage, you've got that right. At that point, the Empire was little more than a vassal.