Counting To Ruin

[eggers]

Hey guys, im new here. I added a few tags in some topics, but never started my own topic before.

 

I'm curious about why the empire in the west fell. I know about corruption and barbarian invasions, the plagues etc etc. But i was curious about any other ideas you may have. I'm just looking for more obscure ideas here.

 

And im curious if anyone thinks maths could have something to do with it? After the romans were not known for their skills when number crunching. Today in modern life we use maths for everything, especially companies when they want to push a new product. I mean look at the PSP, i hate to think how much maths was used there!!

 

My point is, if you can use maths properly you can't advance into new technology, not easily anyway, would this have contributed to Romes downfall? I read a thread about a month or 2 ago about Rome invented electricity or something, but i'm sure they couldn't have, because they didn't have the phyics or maths to push it. The Romans used a simple counting board to add stuff up (fore-runner to the abacus), which looked like a grid engraved on a tablet, 10 across the top and 10 down. Then using little tokens they added stuff up and used it to work out very simple addition, mainly for logics for Romes varst army. If fact if you were write a number like 2,846,886,099,123,276 in roman numerals it would take approx. 16 minutes, compared to about 4 - 6 secondsin indian numbers (thats right peeps, the numbers we used today came from india, through persia, arriving in europe in about 16th century).

 

Also Rome never had a figure to represent nothing (zero, 0, to you and me) which is very important in calculations. The Ancient greek for example worked out the size of planet earth, the distance between earth and the sun, the formula to turn a sphere into a cyclinder (for map-making if you need to know), but the romans never did anything like that. Also in business if you lend someone $10 and charge the interest over the year, using a counting board you have to round the numbers up (or down) where with numbers we use today, you can work out exactly how much someone owns you (thats how we use the number we use today, and not roman numerals, thanks be the the greedy assed business men).

 

With rampant corruption, plague and no effienct method of getting any real advances, for the military, or in other field, isn't it possible that rome was destined to fall.

 

P.S. i hate maths, but im looking for any and all reasons that could have turned rome from an Capital of an empire with over a million people living in, to a town with just over 100,000

 

feel free to tear into this, i love a good argument

[phil25]

Your point might be of value in explaining why the Romans may have been limited in the extent to which scientific progress was possible, but i doubt whether it contributed to the "fall" of the empire - whatever that meant.

 

After all Byzantium (the eastern empire) survived as a form of government until 1453.

 

And Roman tecnology improved over the later years of the empire - have you ever looked at the Pantheon in Rome with its incredible dome and mathematical proprtions? or the Basilica of Maxentius in the upper Forum Romanum? Both are improvements over what could be achieved in (say) Caesar's day. Done without maths or an understanding of the laws of force and dynamics, or of proprtion? I think not.

 

In medicine too the Romans became very skilled.

 

Rome fell for political 9and geo-political), social, cultural and environmental reasons (perhaps aided by lead poisoning, epidemics, climate change and natural disaster) as well as invasion.

 

the principles of government may have been ineffective, I doubt there maths were.

 

If in terms of technology or industry Rome was unable to advance, I would be inclined to suggest that slavery had something to do within. A slave-owning state with sufficient labour has no need to invent efficient mechanical devices to augment or replace cheap human labour. That may have stilted innovation.

 

So on balance, I am not inclined to accept your thesis, but it was a thought-provoking one.

 

Phil

[eggers]

Your point might be of value in explaining why the Romans may have been limited in the extent to which scientific progress was possible, but i doubt whether it contributed to the "fall" of the empire - whatever that meant.

 

After all Byzantium (the eastern empire) survived as a form of government until 1453.

 

And Roman tecnology improved over the later years of the empire - have you ever looked at the Pantheon in Rome with its incredible dome and mathematical proprtions? or the Basilica of Maxentius in the upper Forum Romanum? Both are improvements over what could be achieved in (say) Caesar's day. Done without maths or an understanding of the laws of force and dynamics, or of proprtion? I think not.

 

In medicine too the Romans became very skilled.

 

Rome fell for political 9and geo-political), social, cultural and environmental reasons (perhaps aided by lead poisoning, epidemics, climate change and natural disaster) as well as invasion.

 

the principles of government may have been ineffective, I doubt there maths were.

 

If in terms of technology or industry Rome was unable to advance, I would be inclined to suggest that slavery had something to do within. A slave-owning state with sufficient labour has no need to invent efficient mechanical devices to augment or replace cheap human labour. That may have stilted innovation.

 

So on balance, I am not inclined to accept your thesis, but it was a thought-provoking one.

 

Phil

 

Yeah i just re-read my thread and seems i didn't get my point across very well........ damn english language! I'm not saying it was the only reason, there are probably hundred of reasons all combining in one big mess. I was just pointing out that roman maths consisted of counting............... and not much else. probably best to forget about this little thread and move along

 

 

Your point might be of value in explaining why the Romans may have been limited in the extent to which scientific progress was possible, but i doubt whether it contributed to the "fall" of the empire - whatever that meant.

 

After all Byzantium (the eastern empire) survived as a form of government until 1453.

 

And Roman tecnology improved over the later years of the empire - have you ever looked at the Pantheon in Rome with its incredible dome and mathematical proprtions? or the Basilica of Maxentius in the upper Forum Romanum? Both are improvements over what could be achieved in (say) Caesar's day. Done without maths or an understanding of the laws of force and dynamics, or of proprtion? I think not.

 

In medicine too the Romans became very skilled.

 

Rome fell for political 9and geo-political), social, cultural and environmental reasons (perhaps aided by lead poisoning, epidemics, climate change and natural disaster) as well as invasion.

 

the principles of government may have been ineffective, I doubt there maths were.

 

If in terms of technology or industry Rome was unable to advance, I would be inclined to suggest that slavery had something to do within. A slave-owning state with sufficient labour has no need to invent efficient mechanical devices to augment or replace cheap human labour. That may have stilted innovation.

 

So on balance, I am not inclined to accept your thesis, but it was a thought-provoking one.

 

Phil

 

Yeah i just re-read my thread and seems i didn't get my point across very well........ damn english language! I'm not saying it was the only reason, there are probably hundred of reasons all combining in one big mess. I was just pointing out that roman maths consisted of counting............... and not much else. probably best to forget about this little thread and move along

 

 

Your point might be of value in explaining why the Romans may have been limited in the extent to which scientific progress was possible, but i doubt whether it contributed to the "fall" of the empire - whatever that meant.

 

After all Byzantium (the eastern empire) survived as a form of government until 1453.

 

And Roman tecnology improved over the later years of the empire - have you ever looked at the Pantheon in Rome with its incredible dome and mathematical proprtions? or the Basilica of Maxentius in the upper Forum Romanum? Both are improvements over what could be achieved in (say) Caesar's day. Done without maths or an understanding of the laws of force and dynamics, or of proprtion? I think not.

 

In medicine too the Romans became very skilled.

 

Rome fell for political 9and geo-political), social, cultural and environmental reasons (perhaps aided by lead poisoning, epidemics, climate change and natural disaster) as well as invasion.

 

the principles of government may have been ineffective, I doubt there maths were.

 

If in terms of technology or industry Rome was unable to advance, I would be inclined to suggest that slavery had something to do within. A slave-owning state with sufficient labour has no need to invent efficient mechanical devices to augment or replace cheap human labour. That may have stilted innovation.

 

So on balance, I am not inclined to accept your thesis, but it was a thought-provoking one.

 

Phil

 

Yeah i just re-read my thread and seems i didn't get my point across very well........ damn english language! I'm not saying it was the only reason, there are probably hundred of reasons all combining in one big mess. I was just pointing out that roman maths consisted of counting............... and not much else. probably best to forget about this little thread and move along

 

Sorry, major foul up with my last post, im having a bad day

[M. Porcius Cato]

At most, the state of Roman mathematics could explain why the Romans did not rise further, but it can't explain why Roman Europe fell when it did, why the Roman east (overwhelmingly) fell when it did, and why Roman Africa fell when it did. On the other hand, Germanic invasions just so happen to occur at the beginning of each of these falls, leading quite a few historians to suspect that barbarian invasions probably played a larger role in the fall of Rome than the fact that Roman children weren't very good at mathematics. It's a radical idea, I know.

 

I don't doubt, however, that the Roman empire fell--so much pottery, so many roof tiles, and so many coins simply disappeared that if even if the Romans themselves did not describe the fourth century as an apocalypse for them (which is exactly how many described it), the archaeological evidence would justify our calling it an apocalypse on their behalf.

[phil25]

I don't doubt, however, that the Roman empire fell--

 

I agree, but I think we need to be sure of what we mean by the term.

 

In Britannia for instance, elements of Roman culture seem to have survived for decades in some areas? And when did the empire in Britannia "fall" - was it with adventurers like Magnus Maximus? With usurpers such as Allectus? There is even some evidence that in the early 400s the british threw out the imperial government but appointed their own emperors and continued in an independent way.

 

In other areas the empire was simply taken over by Visigothic and other leaders - there is eveidence in the Palatine Palace in Rome of structures erected by one such character.

 

Even before we usually think of Rome as having fallen, non-Italians such as Stilicho were prominent. how do we tell "before" the fall from "after".

 

Emperors were no longer resident in Rome by the time it was raided in 410 - was that move part of the fall? Should Constantine's decision to move his capital to Constantinople be considered part of the fall, or a solution to try to stop it falling earlier?

 

Did Rome "fall" or was it transformed over a period?

 

We no longer perceive the "dark ages" as our forebears did, neither as an age, not as quite so dark.

 

One could say that the British empire "fell" after 1947, but actually it was part retreat, part a realisation of a changed world order, part economic necessity, part transformation into a "Commonwealth" (which still continues.

 

I think there are some serious questions here about interpretation.

 

And eggers, please don't apologies too much about your initial post _ i for one enjoyed it.

 

Phil

[Ursus]

After the romans were not known for their skills when number crunching.

 

Well, they were great engineers, which took some amount of applied mathematics.

 

Someone even invented a workable steam engine in the reign of Tiberius. It merely wasn't put to good use, and was forgotten. I think the Romans could have discovered electricity; they might merely not have know what to do with it (if it had been invented in the reign of Commodus, he would have used it to shock people for a laugh, and that would have been the end of it).

 

 

 

I don't wish to argue the assertion that Arabic numbers are more efficient than Roman numerals. But as others have pointed out, geopolitical realities had a stronger cause for the fall (or "evolution" if you prefer) of the empire than their lack of pure science compared to the Greeks. For that matter, why did the Greeks fall to Macedonians and Romans if they were such sound science students? Geopolitics.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't doubt, however, that the Roman empire fell--

I agree, but I think we need to be sure of what we mean by the term.

True--just as there is a useful distinction to be drawn between intensive and extensive growth, there is an equally useful distinction to be drawn between intensive and extensive demise.

 

Intenisve growth/demise can be seen in the rise/fall of luxury goods and the material goods that make a comfortable life possible (not that only material goods matter, but they do matter and they do provide us with a record). Extensive growth/demise can be seen in the expansion/contraction of borders and spheres of influence.

 

During the republican era, there was both an intensive and extensive rise. During most of the imperial period, the intensive rise continued at a much faster rate than the extensive one. During the early dominate, there was an extensive decline but it was not accompanied by an equal intensive decline. After the Germanic invasions, there was both an intensive and an extensive decline.

 

This is admittedly a simplifying pedagogy, but in broad outlines it's correct.

[P.Clodius]

I have zero input on roman numerals and roman science, obviously our current method of notation is superior.

But as others have pointed out, geopolitical realities had a stronger cause for the fall (or "evolution" if you prefer)...

However, I'm very much behind this sentence as I have stated in other threads. History is cyclical. I don't think there'd be a US, etc. if Rome fell. It evolved end of story.

[Northern Neil]

I think 'evolve' rather than 'fall' just about sums things up. The economic collapse that started in the third century continued unabated until about 800 - long after the 'fall' ( if you folllow the Gibbons hypothesis ) occurred. Only after then does the West start to revive. On the other hand, a recognisably Roman administration survived in the east until about 625, and thereafter the actual Roman state continued a further 800 years still. Roman material culture continued in Italy - along with 'real' Romans - until the Lombard invasion of 600. In 476, hardly anyone noticed that anything had changed - yet this date even now is generally regarded as when the fall reached conclusion. And yet, amphitheatres kept working, peristyle houses continued to be built and Odoacar, although the king of his people, believed he was governing Italy as a Roman province and accordingly sent tribute and tax revenues to Constantinople. It doesn't sound much like a fall, or an eradication of the Roman world, to me. As the evenue started to dwindle, and the germanic 'Governors' started to run Italy as a kingdom, Justinian redressed the balance with military force. Much the same as the Illyrian emperors did with Postumus and Zenobia in the third century.

 

Our gift of hindsight sometimes hinders our view, as does the popularisation of history. The Roman senators who Odoacar believed himself answerable to in the late 5th century may not have worn laurel wreaths and togas, but they were Romans nonetheless. As the senate and the Roman church became indistinguishable round about 550, the late Roman variant of the toga continued to be worn by the clergy - as it does today. Along with correct, antique Latin

 

Speaking as a Brit, I believe that my country is the same state as that which was (arguably!!) founded by William the first in 1066. But will history in 1500 years view it thus? After all, our army no longer wears chaimail and great helms, our religion is now mainly protestant and parliament has replaced the monarchy as the main executive power. When did our empire 'fall' or evolve into something different?

Edited January 16, 2006 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

Having already been through the "fall" versus "evolve" debate, I'm not going to rehearse the arguments again. But I would invite the advocates of the "evolve" side to contend with the evidence marshalled by Ward-Perkins.

[eggers]

cool, thanks guys, learn something new everyday

[Neos Dionysos]

Having already been through the "fall" versus "evolve" debate, I'm not going to rehearse the arguments again. But I would invite the advocates of the "evolve" side to contend with the evidence marshalled by Ward-Perkins.

 

That is only one school of thought, there are a few more... Ward-Perkins has done an excellent job, don't get me wrong I just follow more to the "evolve" school than the "fall", (this is mainly due to my own professors being of this school and that sureidly influences my thought.

[Ursus]

Is it possible the truth lies in the middle? Maybe civilization didn't "collapse" but the "Evolution" was a rather traumatic one?

 

 

I'm just posing some possibilities. I need to closely read Ward-Perkins work as well as those who take the alternate view before I can strongly argue the theory.

[Northern Neil]

Is it possible the truth lies in the middle? Maybe civilization didn't "collapse" but the "Evolution" was a rather traumatic one?

 

I believe that to be the case. Traumatic though the events of the 5th century were, it seems to me that there was still a great deal of 'Roman-ness' around for a considerable time afterwards.

[metforce]

<snip>

 

And im curious if anyone thinks maths could have something to do with it? After the romans were not known for their skills when number crunching. Today in modern life we use maths for everything, especially companies when they want to push a new product. I mean look at the PSP, i hate to think how much maths was used there!!

 

<sniP

 

I would respectfully disagree with the number crunching comment. By the early 5th century the Romans were huge number crunchers. Armies of accountants had to be employed to estimate the needs of the empire. Keep in mind soldiers and administrators had to be paid in currency (gold and copper mainly), rations and equipment had to be distributed (payments in kind), recruits had to be raised and equipped, and public lands and buildings had to be maintained. Each administrator was responsible for estimating his needs then sent his budget to the central authorities who somehow had to figure out how to shift resources around to even things out. This done on a yearly basis. To make matters worse a lot of the figures I've seen often were not rounded to the nearest whole number (they were using odd fractions like 5/8ths). Most taxes were based on land so surveyors had to go out often to assess landowner resources, grade the quality of the land then calculate the taxes due. Again an incredible task considering the number system they used and the lack of paper to record thier figures. The fact that the empire lasted so long is a testament to Rome's greatest attribute in my opinion, superior organization.

 

The point I think you are trying to make is that Rome's lack of technological breakthroughs (like we see today) contributed to its downfall. That's a bit unfair. One could ask why didn't the industrial revolution happen in Arabia, China or MesoAmerica just as easily. All countries, like men, must die.

 

 

Metforce