Third Century Crisis

[Emperor Goblinus]

In a normal world, the Roman Empire should have fallen in the third century, or been at least greatly reduced in size. But it rebounded and lasted for more than a hundred years. What do you think allowed the empire to survive through those years long enough for Diocletian to eventually pull things back together?

[M. Porcius Cato]

In a normal world, the Roman Empire should have fallen in the third century, or been at least greatly reduced in size. But it rebounded and lasted for more than a hundred years. What do you think allowed the empire to survive through those years long enough for Diocletian to eventually pull things back together?

 

But the Empire WAS greatly reduced in size--until Aurelian reclaimed it.

 

What makes you think Diocletian put it back together? Like Frankenstein, Diocletian simply cobbled together a medieval monster from the parts of a dead world. The spirit of "I am a Roman, and you are just a king" was gone; all that remained of Rome was an inertia-led zombie.

[Emperor Goblinus]

But the Empire WAS greatly reduced in size--until Aurelian reclaimed it.

 

Oh I know that, with the major rebellions and temporary states in Gaul and Egypt. I meant permanently and irrevocably.

 

What makes you think Diocletian put it back together? Like Frankenstein, Diocletian simply cobbled together a medieval monster from the parts of a dead world. The spirit of "I am a Roman, and you are just a king" was gone; all that remained of Rome was an inertia-led zombie.

 

How so? I know that all old vestiges of republicanism were gone, but the state that was reformed by Diocletian and Constantine was very powerful up till the end of the fourth century, and was much more than just a shell of its old self. It was very, very different than before, but still a powerful and unique empire unto itself

Edited December 13, 2005 by Emperor Goblinus

[M. Porcius Cato]

How so? I know that all old vestiges of republicanism were gone, but the state that was reformed by Diocletian and Constantine was very powerful up till the end of the fourth century, and was much more than just a shell of its old self. It was very, very different than before, but still a powerful and unique empire unto itself

 

The old vestiges of republicanism were gone long before that; I'm saying that even the old vestiges of the Principate and Rome itself were gone too! What I mean is--if placed along an axis running from Cicero (a prototypic Roman) to Charlemagne (a Medieval 'Roman' emperor), Diocletian and Constantine would be so much closer to Charlemagne that Cicero wouldn't even have recognized them as his country-men. In my opinion, Aurelian was the last Roman emperor--after him, they were all just medieval kings (except Julian).

[Zeke]

It was probably Aurelian who gave the Empire some of its power but the height of the Empire had been in 180 A.D.

 

 

Zeke

[Fox Hound]

The old vestiges of republicanism were gone long before that; I'm saying that even the old vestiges of the Principate and Rome itself were gone too! What I mean is--if placed along an axis running from Cicero (a prototypic Roman) to Charlemagne (a Medieval 'Roman' emperor), Diocletian and Constantine would be so much closer to Charlemagne that Cicero wouldn't even have recognized them as his country-men. In my opinion, Aurelian was the last Roman emperor--after him, they were all just medieval kings (except Julian).

 

Greetings,

 

Charlemagne did not deserve to be called a Roman Emperor, he earned that title just because the Pope Leo afraid of the claim of the Roman empire in the east (bastarized by scholars and historians as the "Byzantines") for Rome that he finally established a rival emperor, and Charlemagne was the scapegoat. And the Roman emperors pretty much existed until 1453 in the East Roman Empire.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Charlemagne did not deserve to be called a Roman Emperor.

 

Exactly my point. Hence my scare quotes around "Roman".

[sullafelix]

In a normal world, the Roman Empire should have fallen in the third century, or been at least greatly reduced in size. But it rebounded and lasted for more than a hundred years. What do you think allowed the empire to survive through those years long enough for Diocletian to eventually pull things back together?

 

But the Empire WAS greatly reduced in size--until Aurelian reclaimed it.

 

What makes you think Diocletian put it back together? Like Frankenstein, Diocletian simply cobbled together a medieval monster from the parts of a dead world. The spirit of "I am a Roman, and you are just a king" was gone; all that remained of Rome was an inertia-led zombie.

 

A little harsh I feel! Also wide of he mark.What Diocletian did was not medieval, although we are standing at the threshold of the medieval age. His reorganisation of the empire was simply to split it along lines of cuiltural difference anyway, lets not get too romantic about the unity of the old roman empire there had always been the greek speaking east and the latin west. Secondly he refreshed the imperial cult, and reimposed the sanctity of the position of emperor. That's what all those little squat figures of the Tetrarchs are all about

 

 

See how they don't look like anyone? That's so that it is the office of the emperor that is important. Also see the funny headdress, that's the start of the diadems, which is the fancy orientalising bit. I think it is rather naive to imagine that the Roman Empire declined and was replaced by the time of Diocletian, or indeed to think that it declined at all. This is a richly fascinating bit of history that deserves more than sweeping statements.

Cheers

Sullafelix

Edited December 16, 2005 by sullafelix

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, there is evidence of a governmental split stretching all the way back to the late Republic with Pompey's sweeping command. Following him, Agrippa was given near equal imperium to Augustus to oversee the east. Tiberius did the same with Germanicus and so on. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus as co-emperors, essentially split their authority along the lines of east and west.

 

Clearly the stage for a political split had been set since the initial conquest and continued to evolve for centuries.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The spirit of "I am a Roman, and you are just a king" was gone; all that remained of Rome was an inertia-led zombie.

A little harsh I feel! Also wide of he mark.What Diocletian did was not medieval, although we are standing at the threshold of the medieval age. His reorganisation of the empire was simply to split it along lines of cuiltural difference anyway, lets not get too romantic about the unity of the old roman empire there had always been the greek speaking east and the latin west.

 

My objection to Diocletian's changes were not related to his reorganization of the empire, although I can see how my metaphor led to that interpretation. What made the dominate of Diocletian more medieval than the classical Principate (in my view) was his establishment of serfdom, his turning the senate into a of House of (penniless) Lords, and his adoption of all the trappings of eastern kings.

 

When I look at that god-awful porphyry statute above--it doesn't even *look* Roman. It looks like something out of the medieval period. That's my point--not the whole unity/disunity canard.

[M. Porcius Cato]

[i think it is rather naive to imagine that the Roman Empire declined and was replaced by the time of Diocletian, or indeed to think that it declined at all.

 

First, I clearly meant the Roman world declined culturally, but if you're a fan of monarchy and serfdom, I can see why you might think the ascension of Diocletian was a good step for Rome.

 

But really--*never* declined? Not even when the barbarians invaded? You must think that quite a few professional Roman historians are naive then. Perhaps, from your enlightened anti-decline view, you can explain the sudden collapse in the production of luxury goods? Or the sudden halt in the production of tile roofs? Or the drop in imports? Or the collapse of metallurgy? If the Roman world simply transitioned gracefully into the medieval world, as you suggest, where did all this wealth go????

[sullafelix]

[i think it is rather naive to imagine that the Roman Empire declined and was replaced by the time of Diocletian, or indeed to think that it declined at all.

 

First, I clearly meant the Roman world declined culturally, but if you're a fan of monarchy and serfdom, I can see why you might think the ascension of Diocletian was a good step for Rome.

 

But really--*never* declined? Not even when the barbarians invaded? You must think that quite a few professional Roman historians are naive then. Perhaps, from your enlightened anti-decline view, you can explain the sudden collapse in the production of luxury goods? Or the sudden halt in the production of tile roofs? Or the drop in imports? Or the collapse of metallurgy? If the Roman world simply transitioned gracefully into the medieval world, as you suggest, where did all this wealth go????

 

The church

 

By the time Diocletian came to power the church was major force and after Constantine the Great it was the major force in Roman politics.

 

 

OK OK so a two word answer would seem really smug so I had better elaborate. Firstly that is where the money went, all of it that hadn't already travelled outside of the empire anyway. The church believed that riches prevented a man from getting into heaven because they corrupted the soul. So they would take the money from you as they were holier than thou and save your soul....really

 

There is no sudden disappearance of luxury goods that I can see. The plastic arts of the fourth and fifth centuries are fantastic, the mosaics of Ravenna are fabulous and the graves continue to be just as fab as ever. But the luxury goods were no longer for personal adorment they were for God.

 

Money was admittedly tight, but it had always been tight on an economy scale. The Roman Empire ran with much less in the coffers than people thought. Also the personal fortunes were now in the hands of the church. Trust me the churches had roofs. OK some of the provinces went through a period we call the dark ages. But don't let the label fool you, we don't call them the dark ages coz everyone ate mud and wore sackcloth, we call them dark ages because we know v little about them.

 

The sudden drop in income at the end of the third century crisis was because they had 50 years of fighting and had nothing to do with anything Diocletian did. Serfdom was certainly not his fault either. People had willingly made themselves serfs during the crisis. Big landowner down road has fortified villa, keeps him safe from the marauding bands (terrible problem with those). Local poor have abandoned their land because of same bands and go to local lord for job and protection near his fortified villa. Suddenly serfdom. That is how it happened. As for Diocletian's court being penniless, yup they were but the whole aristocracy was.

 

As for the barbarians invading...oh please the whole of the Western Roman Empire was extensively barbarised as were parts of the East. They made up a vast portion of the army. As for invading why did they invade? It wasn't to destroy like the mindless hairy brutes old fashioned historians would have us belive they were. t was because they wanted a fairer share in government in what was ostensibly their empire too. Also they were being pushed by the Huns. Finally remember the guy who sacked Rome was a Christrian Goth called Alaric and he had wanted the rewards he felt he deserved. The power behind the throne was also a barbarian called Stilicho. These barbarians were extensively romanised and had been living next to the roman empire for hundreds of years, In fact in many places in provinces like Gaul it is almost impossible from the archaeolgical remains of peoples living within 200 miles or so of the frontier to say what culture they belonged to romanised barbarian or roman because the fashion for all things barbarian was so strong.

 

The thing is what looks to us like decline felt to the Romans like transformation if anything. We look at this with hindsight. hese days because we live in cynical times we tend to underestimate the effect of Christianity, but we shouldn't. Rome was all about showy opulence the medieval world was not, it was about the spiritual life. The church ruled everything, and they were not concerned with improving your life they were concerned with saving your soul. In other words the society of the later roman empire consciously rejected all the pomp and ceremony after Diocletian and adopted a simpler life in an effort to get closer to god. So they would not have considered it decline and for us to do so is to patronise them. Read some more up to date historians you will find I am not a lone voice in the wilderness.

 

 

Cheers

Sullafelix

[Northern Neil]

The recovery in fact started under Gallienus and simply reached its conclusion in Diocletian's reign. The empire under Diocletian may have had differences from that of Hadrian, but then so did the Hadrianic empire from that of Caesar's late republic. In much the same way, 18th century England was still the same state as 15th century England, despite the reformation and changes in fashion and architecture.

 

There is a common and to me old fashioned notion that the Later Roman Empire was a base version which had been revived from the ashes of the principate. Put quite simply, I believe that this is merely because people do not 'like' the later Empire and Roman culture as much as they like the High Imperial period. OK, the soldiers no longer resembled classical warriors from 'Quo Vadis', and classical style buildings were no longer built in profusion. But so what? What about the vast continuity that went on until the mid 7th century?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Magnificent post Sullafelix! I'll give your arguments some thought and do some more reading before I respond. Before doing so, I'd be interesting in your opinion--which do you think was the larger factor in the decline of luxury goods: the rise of the church or the invasion by barbarians? Also, what is your opinion of the theses put forward by Ward Perkins and Heather?