[deleted] OP t1_it3apnb wrote
Reply to comment by AJ_Lounes in Was there mass migration of Roman citizens from Western Empire to Eastern Empire during degredation and after fall of Western part of empire. by [deleted]
I know decline was quite long period, that is why I mentioned in my post decline and fall. Since decline was happening for centuries not over night. That is why it might be bad question. Since many people could migrate during that time but in smaller groups, like we have today in EU. Balkan countires lost up to 1/3 of pop since early 1990s. From migration to wast mostly. I mean it in that way. Not like 1mil from middle east and africa comming in few mounths.
In advance sorry for bringing bit of politics, just wanted to give example of what I want to say.
AJ_Lounes t1_it3cvle wrote
Indeed, I saw afterwards that you've mentioned it was a long period yourself.
No worries for the politics side, that's what History is.
You're right. However, I would go back to what I said about how the barbarians were actually trying to respect and pursue what the Romans had established rather than erasing everything to start their own thing from scratch. The examples you're mentioning are right, but they are people who are moving away from places where sometimes bombs are literally raining and food supplies are almost non-existent.
If we go back to the barbarians, they in fact had all the interest possible of having the roman machine to keep on going, with already established laws, cereals farmed and functioning water systems. As I said above, would the barbarians had come into the empire in a more "viking" way, then no doubt the roman migration would have been much much more significant.
MoreanSwordsman t1_it3ui8b wrote
So the barbarian invaders just wanted to make a regime change while keeping the system functioning?
AJ_Lounes t1_it48qar wrote
In a way, yes. The roman power ran out of recognition and prestige with time. One of the strenght of the Empire through its History was obviously its military. But it also became its weakness during the fall. There are 2 main things to remember when it comes to this :
- Very often, the peoples located on lands the Empire would conquer didn't necessarily pay their tribute with money but with men who would join the military. It was at the time win-win for the Romans. Not only it was growing their ranks but it was also automatically preventing the conquered to make up a new armed force. On the barbarian perspective, joining the roman army was giving them the opportunity of eventually gaining ranks and perhaps lands, and even citizenship.
- That leads immediately to the second point. Lands. Recognized and respected soldiers were given lands by the government. They were not the absolute rulers of their lands, the Emperor was obviously willing to remain the top leader over its territory, but those soldiers with property still had some liberty. Looking at History, such a system can only work when the initial power is strong. Which was not the case during the empire's last century. The Empire got more and more fragmented.
But that's only for the political part. Culturally, the Romans inprint remained in Europe and was respected by the barbarians. When the barbarians rulers arrived with their courts and nobles, they knew that the main people was remaining roman. According to some (rare) testimonies which arrived to us, they understood they needed to work with the people already settled in good terms. One of the best example for this might be the Franks.
According to quite some historians, we might want to thank Christianism for this whole process of (not full, but still) preservation. The barbarian rulers understood they needed the roman people. The roman people was responding positively to the Church. So the barbarian needed the Church. And the Church needed strong protective rulers who eventually all got baptized. The Church ultimately gained power (it was the Franks who actually recognized first the Vatican as a state and well, the Vatican was in a way benefiting of Rome's aura) and more and more churches and cathedrals were built, which also led more or less directly to the preservation of some Ancient texts and works which were also rewritten in churches' offices.
And as we've discussed above, many rulers, even hundreds of years after the Fall, had in mind to restore the glory of the old Empire which was still seen as a wonder.
To conclude : the Fall of the Western Empire was the fall of its political system. But not of its people, culture or infrastructures. Sure, time did its work, adjustments were made here and there, romans and barbarians shared couches, but the whole presence and aura of the Empire was still there.
MoreanSwordsman t1_it4p62v wrote
First, thank you very much for this productive input. I got a question: So why was the Roman infrastructure and architectural culture destroyed gradually? When you go to Rome today, you hardly can find a complete temple. Even the well known Forum Romanum is nothing more than a few stone blocks..
AJ_Lounes t1_it4vorx wrote
Thanks ! It is true the preservation is quite different from one thing to another. There are a bit of various reasons. Time is obviously one of them but not only. It happened sometimes that in order to build other monuments or support economy or war effort in troubled times that some monuments or places actually got destroyed to recycle the materials.
I imagine also that more modern conflicts could have damaged some places. Also, I don't remember precisely the place name, but I believe Mussolini actually ordered the destruction of old buildings to clear space and build a massive street through Rome.
If we look on the brightside however, we do have some monuments such as the Coliseum or the Pantheon which have made it quite good so far despite a few damages here and there. If we think also about the main roads paved by the romans, we are in a way still using some to this day technically, but obviously they're under concrete now..
I would also add that due to the fragmented political power and emergence of brand new regimes across Europe that the places of power changed of location too and so, I guess, the money allowed to maintain certain buildings in good shape.
MoreanSwordsman t1_it8txm1 wrote
Thanks!
Peter_deT t1_it5sxv4 wrote
Squared stone blocks are expensive to make. Cheaper and easier to take them from some abandoned building. Rome went from maybe 500,000 plus to 20,000 over two centuries, and stayed at 20,000 for several centuries more. Basically a mid-size town in the middle of a large field of ruins.
outsidenorms t1_it50mch wrote
As rome unwound, plebeians would take marble and stone from the colosseum to sell for food. This after a full year of no sun, a plague, and hardly any food. Other sites were just ignored as it was too expensive to maintain. The church came in and rebuilt but in their vision.
aphilsphan t1_it56qva wrote
I always think of the symbolic end of Rome as 660. Constans II comes over from Constantinople. He visits Rome which after all is still part of his empire. He walks around marveling at the glories done centuries ago. Rome has only about 50k people at this point, just the Papal bureaucracy really. It isn’t even the capital of Byzantine Italy. That’s Ravenna.
He orders his men to strip all the remaining precious metal gilding from the monuments. He even takes all the copper.
Then no Roman Emperor returns until the 15th century, unless you count Charlemagne and tue HRE.
outsidenorms t1_it5eojg wrote
This is where I start to get sad…
aphilsphan t1_it7r6un wrote
Historians used to think of 410 as almost a rowdy tourist visit. I’m not sure that’s true anymore. It was the Vandals in 455 that really ruined things, then Belisarius versus the Ostrogoths and Lombards that did the coup de grace. But if you think about it, in 405 the Danube and Rhine frontiers are leaking but they are still there and 5 years later the Visigoths are in Rome. Very sad.
clovis_227 t1_it52048 wrote
The new barbarian kingdom let taxation slip, since their armies were mostly landed now, not paid. Moreover, the aristocracy in the west became much more rural. Finally, there was a greater focus on churches and monasteries instead of the usual civil infrastructure.
aphilsphan t1_it563u8 wrote
They didn’t so much let taxation slip as they inherited a system of taxes in kind. The money economy was going away. It becomes much harder to rebuild a needed aqueduct for a city 500 miles away when you can’t pay the workers from the surplus you’ve got elsewhere. All you can do are smaller projects using your local surpluses.
[deleted] OP t1_it3wsfu wrote
[deleted]
LARRY_Xilo t1_it49523 wrote
Well remember originaly barbarian just meant foreigners.
ThoDanII t1_it4ee4z wrote
No, non hellenic speakers which many if not most romans were
[deleted] OP t1_it47dsd wrote
[removed]
Fiona_12 t1_it435ko wrote
Yet so much of the Roman infrastructure was destroyed.
carrotwax t1_it459wh wrote
Over a long time. Upkeep requires investment. There's a lot of American infrastructure seriously in need now, and that's over decades, not centuries.
letsgotgoing t1_it4fu5x wrote
The romans used volcanic ash in their concrete. Huge difference in how long their structures survive even harsh conditions vs modern concrete. https://www.historicmysteries.com/roman-concrete/
carrotwax t1_it4h2rb wrote
Thank you!
TPMJB t1_it5y1m5 wrote
Has anyone tried to recreate this in modern buildings? I'm actually semi-interested in building a house
voss749 t1_it7di7w wrote
Roman concrete has longer drying time and lower strength but it is MUCH more durable. Roman concrete was still gaining strength for DECADEs after construction was completed.
TPMJB t1_it7fdr4 wrote
I want to make a house that will outlast me lol. This brick house I have is 50 years old and falling apart -_-
itsgeorgebailey t1_it4fhj0 wrote
Plumbing in some places in the US is about a century old lol
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments