"Collapse" by Jared Diamond

[CiceroD]

I received this book for Christmas and I have thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

However to my dismay Diamond barely mentions Rome at all. He instead uses it only to discuss the difference between long term causes e.g. debasement of currency and immediate ones e.g. Odoacer. While it is true that the book's focus is primarily on Environmental mismanagement, the book outlines a five point framework for causes of collapse. They are

 

1) Environmental Damage

2) Climate Change

3) Enemy Cultures

4) Loss of a critical ally or trade partner

5) Societal Responses to Problems

 

I assume we all can credit #3 as having an important contribution in the fall. It also seems that most of the scholarly work on the fall concerns #5 the poor policies choices of the Romans. These include the rise of Christianity, the debasement of currency to stretch gold & silver reserves, and the barbarianization of the army. My question to the Forum is are there any examples of environmental damage or the other Diamondian factors that weakened the later Roman Empire?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

We have some elements pertaining to the other Diamond's factors, including climate change ( a trend in a worse climate beginning in late empire and which is clearly still in effect until the Carolingian but shall only stops only two or three centuries later ), environmental mismanagement and damages ( exhausted mines in Gaul, reduction of Fayoum's area productivity in Egypt, ... ). About the loss of critical allies and/or trade partner one may say that the barbarian were trade partners and protected the Romans from direct contact with the steppes' tribes until they got pushed too hard and forced to flee, thus invading Rome.

 

But factor 5 seems to be the most damaging one in the roman case, for even 3 is partly an evolution of 5 : until the barbarisation of the army Rome could still reform herself and produce great things as the 4th century Constantine's renewal showed.

[Primus Pilus]

I received this book for Christmas and I have thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

However to my dismay Diamond barely mentions Rome at all. He instead uses it only to discuss the difference between long term causes e.g. debasement of currency and immediate ones e.g. Odoacer. While it is true that the book's focus is primarily on Environmental mismanagement, the book outlines a five point framework for causes of collapse. They are

 

1) Environmental Damage

2) Climate Change

3) Enemy Cultures

4) Loss of a critical ally or trade partner

5) Societal Responses to Problems

 

I assume we all can credit #3 as having an important contribution in the fall. It also seems that most of the scholarly work on the fall concerns #5 the poor policies choices of the Romans. These include the rise of Christianity, the debasement of currency to stretch gold & silver reserves, and the barbarianization of the army. My question to the Forum is are there any examples of environmental damage or the other Diamondian factors that weakened the later Roman Empire?

 

There has been a good deal of work regarding climatic change (and resulting drought) in northern and eastern Europe that led directly to the Germanic "migrations" of the 4th through 6th centuries. However, I admit to having only a cursory knowledge of the theory and have always been more interested in the effects of such movements rather than the causes.

[CiceroD]

environmental mismanagement and damages ( exhausted mines in Gaul, reduction of Fayoum's area productivity in Egypt, ... ).

 

I honestly haven't heard of this. What happened in the Fayoum?

[Northern Neil]

Foctor 4, loss of a critical ally, could apply to the division of the Empire, and that the East from 395 started to follow its own destiny, involving itself less in the affairs of the West as time went by. This was definitely the case in the 5th century, when Constantinople was implicit in encouraging barbarians to invade the West.

 

I have got this book, and by largely skipping over the demise of the Western Roman Empire, by omission he supports recent revisionists who argue that Rome 'evolved' rather than 'fell'. He also fails to mention the demise of Persia in the 7th century. I think that, in the case of Rome and Persia, his omission is twofold;

 

1) Rome and Persia did not suffer total collapse; East Rome survived, , and the Persian Empire simply became incorporated into a greater entity.

 

2) The societies Diamond describes underwent a total and utter extinction which must have appeared apocalyptic to the people at the time. This did not happen to either Persia or Rome; in the West, the people remained, as modern romance languages prove, and their religion and certain aspects of law survived.

 

The Roman provincials of Spain and Gaul did not suffer total extinction; they just got taken over by different political entities, who then proved inadequate to maintain the status quo. Yes, within a few generations the population drastically fell, the economy plummeted, and living standards fell, but the people of the west, to this day, have never lost sight of their Roman heritage. The Greenland Vikings, the Pitcairn and Henderson Islanders and the Anasazi, on the other hand, became extinct.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Gaius Octavius]

N.N., wish I could have said it better! Amen! In the end, Roma Victor!

[CiceroD]

Foctor 4, loss of a critical ally, could apply to the division of the Empire, and that the East from 395 started to follow its own destiny, involving itself less in the affairs of the West as time went by. This was definitely the case in the 5th century, when Constantinople was implicit in encouraging barbarians to invade the West.

 

I have got this book, and by largely skipping over the demise of the Western Roman Empire, by omission he supports recent revisionists who argue that Rome 'evolved' rather than 'fell'. He also fails to mention the demise of Persia in the 7th century. I think that, in the case of Rome and Persia, his omission is twofold;

 

1) Rome and Persia did not suffer total collapse; East Rome survived, , and the Persian Empire simply became incorporated into a greater entity.

 

2) The societies Diamond describes underwent a total and utter extinction which must have appeared apocalyptic to the people at the time. This did not happen to either Persia or Rome; in the West, the people remained, as modern romance languages prove, and their religion and certain aspects of law survived.

 

The Roman provincials of Spain and Gaul did not suffer total extinction; they just got taken over by different political entities, who then proved inadequate to maintain the status quo. Yes, within a few generations the population drastically fell, the economy plummeted, and living standards fell, but the people of the west, to this day, have never lost sight of their Roman heritage. The Greenland Vikings, the Pitcairn and Henderson Islanders and the Anasazi, on the other hand, became extinct.

 

Im not so sure N.N.

 

After all there are still Maya and their religion (without human sacrifice) and language persist still.

 

Rather I think Diamond wants to portray non-western examples since many do not hold preconcieved ideas on their collapses. Thus in his words they are more "Instructive" Than Rome would be.

[caldrail]

My question to the Forum is are there any examples of environmental damage

 

Yes there are. Some important ports silted up and disrupted trade. There's speculation that an eruption of krakatoa caused weather problems this side of the world, the increasing dryness of the north african climate (although the romans themselves collapsed before this really bit). Disease was a large factor in city life of the late empire.

[Gaius Octavius]

Deforestation.

[Aurelius]

I have to differ with some of you in several points about the factors that affected the alledged 'fall of Rome'.

 

Firstly, I have read from other sources, including Heather's 'The Fall of The Roman Empire', that the climate which persisted in the Mediterranean during the period of Roman collapse remained relatively unchanged up until the little Ice Age during the middle ages, only with the exception of the disappearance of some fauna. Therefore, I believe that climate change is not a feasible explanation for Rome's demise. In starkingly blatant contrast, strong archaeological evidence of agricultural intensification and a blossoming population in both halves of the Later Roman Empire(I believe one of the archaeologists was a Frenchman named Goffart, cited by Peter Heather), that leads me to doubt the idea that the Western Empire was overthrown solely by environmental/resource mismanagement. Though, i would like to learn more about the evidence some of you cited about resource depletion in Gaul, Spain, and Egypt.

 

Secondly,I believe the argument that the barbarization of the army led to the decline and fall of Rome is utter rubbish. 'Barbarization' occured even during the republic, as half of the consular armies were composed of 'socci' or allies, many of non-Italian origin. So-called 'barbarians' had been always drafted and recruited into Roman armies for their valour and their military prowess. Many emperors and high-ranking generals in the Late Empire were 'barbarians' including: Stilicho, Aetius, Flavius Constantius, Ricimer, Majorian. Many of these 'barbarians' were even more loyal to the Roman 'cause' than the local Roman elites in the provinces themselves. It was only in the incorporation of whole groups of 'barbarians' into the Empire as military overseers, which gave them a considerable share participation in Roman realpolitik, that tore apart the balance of power in the West.

 

Thirdly, there is strong evidence that the Eastern Roman Empire was no mere backbencher in the field of Western Roman Politics. During the turbulent invasions of the Rhine and the Danube, both East and West armies coordinated to intercept whole barbarian tribes crossing the frontiers of the Empire. Though it can be said that their military sources were stretched to the limit, as a considerable portion of the Eastern Roman armies were stationed in the Eastern frontier where the threat of Sassanian Invasion was a very real one.

Even during the rise of Attila, Aetius' counter-attacks in Gaul and Italy coincided with Eastern Roman intervention in the Great Hungarian Plain, prompting Attila to stop his advance into the WRE two times. As late as 468 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire still intervened in Western politics to appoint a suitable emperor, Anthemius, and to finance and send military expeditions that would have crushed the Vandals in North Africa and curtailed the Visigothic ambition in both gaul and spain but sadly ended in failure. Therefore, there was no shortage of assistance from the East thus debunking the notion that the WRE fell because of the East folowing its own 'destiny'.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Aurelius

[CiceroD]

even though foederati had fought with the Romans in the later empire they had become most of the force at the beginning it was a strength to have Balearic slingers and Barbarian Cavalry but according to Wikipedia (Roman Infantry Tactics) at Chalons the legions did little except occupy an important piece of ground.

 

Attila apparently derided them and told his men to forget about them!

 

How can you say that Barbarization wasn't a factor Aurelius?

[caldrail]

Firstly, I have read from other sources, including Heather's 'The Fall of The Roman Empire', that the climate which persisted in the Mediterranean during the period of Roman collapse remained relatively unchanged up until the little Ice Age during the middle ages, only with the exception of the disappearance of some fauna. Therefore, I believe that climate change is not a feasible explanation for Rome's demise. In starkingly blatant contrast, strong archaeological evidence of agricultural intensification and a blossoming population in both halves of the Later Roman Empire(I believe one of the archaeologists was a Frenchman named Goffart, cited by Peter Heather), that leads me to doubt the idea that the Western Empire was overthrown solely by environmental/resource mismanagement. Though, i would like to learn more about the evidence some of you cited about resource depletion in Gaul, Spain, and Egypt.

Climate change is not being put forward as the cause of Rome's demise, rather as a contributory factor. You can argue how deeply the effect was felt - I might even agree - but lets remember that civilisation at the time rome was very dependent on agricultural production, itself vulnerable to enviromental factors. Without food, the urban population of the city of rome, a million at its height, could not maintain its prosperity. The intensification of agriculture partly results from demographic changes in the late empire as rural estates become almost independent. Also, the burdgeoning population was as much the result of immigration both hostile and passive as it was from successful farming. Farms do not become huge successes for no reason. If the food surplus is too large, prices fall, unsold produce rots, and farms actually go out of business. This to me means that any increase in rural production is the result of increased demand.

 

Secondly,I believe the argument that the barbarization of the army led to the decline and fall of Rome is utter rubbish. 'Barbarization' occured even during the republic, as half of the consular armies were composed of 'socci' or allies, many of non-Italian origin. So-called 'barbarians' had been always drafted and recruited into Roman armies for their valour and their military prowess. Many emperors and high-ranking generals in the Late Empire were 'barbarians' including: Stilicho, Aetius, Flavius Constantius, Ricimer, Majorian. Many of these 'barbarians' were even more loyal to the Roman 'cause' than the local Roman elites in the provinces themselves. It was only in the incorporation of whole groups of 'barbarians' into the Empire as military overseers, which gave them a considerable share participation in Roman realpolitik, that tore apart the balance of power in the West.

No its not rubbish. Barbarization in the republic was done to a formula. A barbarian could join the regular legions as an individual, or en masse as auxillaries under roman command. Either way, training was done to roman pattern and the troops conducted themselves accordingly. They became romanised as part of the army. In the late empire, this process collapses. Because of the demand for soldiers and the lack of enthusiasm of potential recruits, the late empire found it necessary to include barbarian formations under their own command. The romanisation of earlier periods was being set aside by necessity.

 

Thirdly, there is strong evidence that the Eastern Roman Empire was no mere backbencher in the field of Western Roman Politics. During the turbulent invasions of the Rhine and the Danube, both East and West armies coordinated to intercept whole barbarian tribes crossing the frontiers of the Empire. Though it can be said that their military sources were stretched to the limit, as a considerable portion of the Eastern Roman armies were stationed in the Eastern frontier where the threat of Sassanian Invasion was a very real one.

Even during the rise of Attila, Aetius' counter-attacks in Gaul and Italy coincided with Eastern Roman intervention in the Great Hungarian Plain, prompting Attila to stop his advance into the WRE two times. As late as 468 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire still intervened in Western politics to appoint a suitable emperor, Anthemius, and to finance and send military expeditions that would have crushed the Vandals in North Africa and curtailed the Visigothic ambition in both gaul and spain but sadly ended in failure. Therefore, there was no shortage of assistance from the East thus debunking the notion that the WRE fell because of the East folowing its own 'destiny'.

Yes I can see your point. But then one of the reasons for the empires split was because government had become too difficult for one man. It was if you like a failure of local government that forced decisions up the chain until the emperor became overwhelmed. Having split, and despite any internal arguements, both halves were linked by common political and cultural history which is a strong factor in the way two nations do business with each other. After all, britain and france ought to linked given we share royal families but we've been arguing since the 14th century!

[CiceroD]

Apparently Gibbon also mentions the degradation of the land

 

"Since the Age of Tiberius, the decay of Agriculture had been felt in Italy; and it was a just subject of complaint that the life of the Roman people depended on the Accidents of the wind and waves. In the division and decline of the Empire the tributary harvests of Egypt and Africa were withdrawn; the numbers of inhabitants diminished with the means of subsistance;and the country was exhausted by the irretrievable losses of war, famine, and pestilence."

 

Now does he mean an actual loss of soil fertility or just in the number and effectiveness of farms?

[Gaius Octavius]

On a tangent, the edicts of both emperors were law in each 'half'. If there were only one 'cause', the Empire would not have fallen.

[caldrail]

On a tangent, the edicts of both emperors were law in each 'half'. If there were only one 'cause', the Empire would not have fallen.

Not necessarily. The problems in the west would have been the same in a united empire, although I accept they may have been better able to cope militarily or economically. The problem is that the united empire was becoming ungovernable by one man (which is why it split in the first place) so the united empire would have found it harder to cope on a political level, and the empire would have lost territory under pressure anyway in my view.