Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
The Roman aristocracy.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Saturday, 9th February 2008
While listening to an audio presentation of the novel "Claudius The God" on my iPod the other day I was suddenly struck by the question of what happened the the Roman aristocracy after the fall of the Roman Empire to Visigoths and so forth. Any information appreciated.
-
Message 2
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 10th February 2008
Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:29 GMT, in reply to webplodder in message 1
Christopher Lee can trace his ancestry back to them, apparently (on his mother's side, IIRC). No very helpful, but interesting
-
Message 3
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) ** on Sunday, 10th February 2008
Christopher Lee is descended from Charlemagne and presumably the Frankish kings such as Clovis before him. Do you have details of the conection to the old Roman aristocracy? Not that I am doubting you, just interested.
-
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 10th February 2008
Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:55 GMT, in reply to Colquhoun in message 3
His mother was a Carandini - old Italian aristocracy, who can trace their ancestry back to the late Empire. No solid proof of that, I'm afraid (apart from his mother's family name!) - it's just a memory of what he said in an interview with him I saw on TV a while back. -
Message 5
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 11th February 2008
The Roman oligarchy built up vast fortunes by possession of land in places like Gaul and Northern AFrica, but of course they lost those properties when the barbarians invaded and took over those lands. Then the members of federate tribes which had been granted lands in Italy, under Odoacer (an Ostrogoth I think) revolted in 475 and decided to take a third of Italy for themselves. From then Rome was ruled by goths and I presume that they divided most of Italy's wealth among themselves. The rich senatorial families would have ended up with almost no political power and much reduced wealth.
-
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 11th February 2008
When reading about medieval Italy I remember I had read that certain Italian families in certain small cities near Rome (not Florence or Venice) could trace their ancestry down to some well known Roman patrician families in the same sense that certain modern European aristocratic families can trace their ancestry some 700-800 years back. However you should picture that by 800-900 A.D. these "aristocrats" were seen not even as Romans but partially as barbarians by Romans, that was the Eastern Romans. I mean these were people that could hardly read and write let alone know more things about their past other than what the Latin church told them. A majority of them had substantial Lombardian ancestry, too much to be claiming absolute Roman origins.
I mean in the same sense half of Asia can claim their ancestry to the great Hans of the Mongols, like Timur and Jenkis.
We also have to take into account two things. First, the power had already moved in the east even by Diocletian times (decades before Constantine). Hence, by late 5th century and when Rome had been twice sacked very few aristocratic families remained in the area. If they remained they essentially intermarried with raiders who sought to increase their status - actually much more than common Italic people!!! In that sense much of the common Italic people were much more patricians (who never kept it with their wifes!) than late-medieval wannabe grand-grand children of patricians.
The other thing was that anyway a large part of patricians had been completely out of the scene for having resisted the new religion (being more traditionalists). The establishment of the new religion by the 5th century meant many of these were really "out" of scene (e.g. persecuted out of Italy, murdered etc.) just as it was the case in other places as well. -
Message 7
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Monday, 11th February 2008
The Roman oligarchy built up vast fortunes by possession of land in places like Gaul and Northern AFrica, but of course they lost those properties when the barbarians invaded and took over those lands. Then the members of federate tribes which had been granted lands in Italy, under Odoacer (an Ostrogoth I think) revolted in 475 and decided to take a third of Italy for themselves. From then Rome was ruled by goths and I presume that they divided most of Italy's wealth among themselves. The rich senatorial families would have ended up with almost no political power and much reduced wealth. 听
Interesting. I did manage to find some information on the web which put forward the idea that some individuals of Roman noble families found ways of maintaining their high status by embracing the then spread of Christianity by occupying important positions in the Church. Undoubtedly many noble Roman families were stripped of their lands by the invading forces because that's what tends to happen. Would many have migrated to Eastern Empire do you think? -
Message 8
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Monday, 11th February 2008
When reading about medieval Italy I remember I had read that certain Italian families in certain small cities near Rome (not Florence or Venice) could trace their ancestry down to some well known Roman patrician families in the same sense that certain modern European aristocratic families can trace their ancestry some 700-800 years back. However you should picture that by 800-900 A.D. these "aristocrats" were seen not even as Romans but partially as barbarians by Romans, that was the Eastern Romans. I mean these were people that could hardly read and write let alone know more things about their past other than what the Latin church told them. A majority of them had substantial Lombardian ancestry, too much to be claiming absolute Roman origins.
I mean in the same sense half of Asia can claim their ancestry to the great Hans of the Mongols, like Timur and Jenkis.
We also have to take into account two things. First, the power had already moved in the east even by Diocletian times (decades before Constantine). Hence, by late 5th century and when Rome had been twice sacked very few aristocratic families remained in the area. If they remained they essentially intermarried with raiders who sought to increase their status - actually much more than common Italic people!!! In that sense much of the common Italic people were much more patricians (who never kept it with their wifes!) than late-medieval wannabe grand-grand children of patricians.
The other thing was that anyway a large part of patricians had been completely out of the scene for having resisted the new religion (being more traditionalists). The establishment of the new religion by the 5th century meant many of these were really "out" of scene (e.g. persecuted out of Italy, murdered etc.) just as it was the case in other places as well.听
Yes, that pretty well seems to answer my question. Thank you. -
Message 9
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 13th February 2008
By the same token, did any of the Byzantine aristocrats and royal families survive the fall of Constantinople?
Was there any 'Greek aristocracy' left during the dark centuries of Ottoman occupation?
I believe I read a while back that in the Ionian islands, which remained blessely unoccupied (I think!) (well, by the Ottomans at least, if not the Venetians and then the Brits), there was more of an 'aristocracy' surviving, but I'm not clear on this (or, indeed, whether it was merely derived from a Venetian aristocracy)
When Greece bacame an independent nation again, and got a nice spare Danish prince for a king (I think he was Danish, wasn't he - might have been a spare German prince!)(so many of those....)(and insufficient British princesses around to marry!), was an arisocratic court created around him, with the bestowal of titles, etc? if so, have they all gone with the monarchy, or are there any around still, even if not formally recognised (like the German/Austrian titles aren't either, any more, I think)
??
Many thanks! (Thinking about it, this might be better posted to the History hub, as it's not very 'ancient' ) -
Message 10
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 13th February 2008
Contrary to many suggestions the invading 鈥淏arbarians鈥 of the 5th century AD did not want to destroy the Roman Empire instead they wanted its wealth and power for themselves. But in the process of trying to conquer the Roman Empire they managed to destroy it, probably because they naively thought that Empires are built and maintained by military might rather than the reality that great empires are maintained through the might of bureaucracy.
The landed gentry and ruling elite鈥檚 of the 5th century Roman Empire were not a warrior class, they had largely left the fighting to lower classes and mostly to 鈥渂arbarians鈥 from outside the empire for the last 200 years. They seem to have survived the downfall of the empire but acquired new barbarian masters.
In Gaul the Franks became the new masters and they were a warrior elite, in fact they tried to keep the Roman bureaucracy and middle classes in place but set themselves up as the military rulers.
The Franks adopted Roman titles such as Duke and Count and were perfectly willing to allow the administration of the remains of the empire to be conducted by the ex citizens of Rome.
Many of the barbarian invaders wanted the prestige that went with the Roman titles and positions of high office as a sort of justification for their very real position of power. They wanted the trappings of Empire but did not have the ability to maintain the empire.
I would imagine that many of the Roman elite chose alignment and marriages with the new rulers to guarantee their survival and the barbarians would have been just as keen so that they would be seen as cultured and worthy of power, more to do with snobbery and ego than a strengthening of their power.
In the West the titles and prestige continued even after the Roman Empire had long ceased to exist, and evolved into medieval Europe.
Only in Britain where the barbarian invaders faced stiff opposition, which led to the total destruction of the sub-Roman British culture, did the titles that went with the Roman Empire come to an end. Only the Norman invasion reintroduce these titles to Britain, the very same titles that had survived on the continent, probably within the very same blood lines as the originally Roman and Barbarian associations and marriages. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 13th February 2008
If we compare Romans with Byzantines (Eastern Roman) there is quite a difference as the Byzantine (most of them of Greek origins) aristocrats traditionally did not monitor so close their family lineages. There was no notion of an ever going Imperial family... just anyone could take this title... even a horsecarer like Basilius who rose up all the scales to get the throne and become one of the most popular and successful Emperors. Though in general aristocrats would certainly strive to find a husband/wife from a "good family", they could easily marry a "lower class person" and get away with an unharmed social image (in fact sometimes it aided them!), however generally avoiding marriages with 'barbarians' just to avoid harming seriously their image. E.g. when Frankish king Charlemagne proposed to marry the and share the throne he was rejected on the basis of himself being an illiterate barbarian that had no place anywhere near the City (guess how much near the throne). However that attitude changed by the late 10th century when aristocrat marriages started with the Slavs, initially Russians who showed the most genuine interest in getting "byzantinised" and it was quite a breakthrough (many traditionalists accused that practice). However as the Empire had more to gain than to lose in the short term, it continued that with Slavic, Germanic and even muslim aristocrats. Especially the Ottomans had become more of a Greek-Georgian aristocrat families rather than Turkish (the last Ottoman leader with slashed eyes showing his turkish origins probably died as early as in the 11th century!!!). Do not forget that Mohamed wanted the city not at all to expand any "turkish Ottoman" nation (by then only a linguistic-religious group), but to expand his own power and that of his religious group (himself not any fervent muslim anuwau) - not to mention that half his armies were christians while christians and very-recent-muslims (that had never read and would never go on to read any Coran!) were most of the leadership. Many of them were Greek aristocrats serving both in the army as well as in navy (especially the second was almost singlehandedly Greek - I am not informed if Ottomans had the possibility to bring Arabic navy from the south and I am not informed of any Turkish having learnt seriously how to built ships and control them to the point of jumping lands etc.). At the end of the day even Mohamed had some Greek lineage and I think linked with the byzantine royal family, or if not to some other aristocratic family.
One has to place it in the framework of the time. For Byzantine Greek aristocrats the Ottoman occupation was thought as a brief break just like the so many that the 1000-years old Empire had. It is known that certain of them thought that actually the Ottoman army could be used to unite back all the fragments of the Empire and then at some time "orthodox" people could easily regain the control by direct succession or expulsion of the few Ottoman bureaucrats or somehow like this.
Well as we they in Greece, they planned things without considering the inn-keeper - Ottoman sultans and bureaucrats (most of them anyway actually former christian aristocrats) were very knowledgeable of that possibility. Hence, even Mohamed himself while on the one hand called for a "reconciliation" between muslims and christians (though on an unequal basis of course, nothing like the "tolerance" myth they sell us knowadays to aid Turkeys image in front of E.U.), on the other he had ordered the execution of a really long list of aristocratic families that could easily intefere with the Ottoman plans. His 2 following successors continued that policy and hence by late 16th century there were not many old Byzantine familes left in place. During that period quite a large part of them had moved to the west and that was the 2nd and last wave of aristocrating immigration...the first wave hapenned in the late 13th early 14th century after the Latin crusades, and it is known to have ignited the Renaissance. Many of these changed names and took the catholic dogma to avoid political-religious attacks and undertook higher positions in the administrations of the western kingdoms. E.g. who knows that Christopher Colombus had written to "an uncle" called "De Colon" (i.e. immigrant!!!!), who was the admiral of the French navy but who is ... highly suspicius of being the Gerogios Disupatos Palaiologos one of the brothers of the last Byzantine Emperor? Quite intriguing (given the ainigmatic personality of Colombus, his possesion of maps, and his insistence of writing to Italian bankers in... Spanish (while being born in Italy!), to talk with his brother "in a weird foreign language" according to Spanish and his insistence to sign in Greek XMY (XRISTOS ET'YMON) and not in Latin. Suspitions and not any final proofs but the truth is that this immigration of Byzantine aristocrats in the west is at least badly monitored.
Now If there were any descendants left in the Ottoman empire by 17th century, they most certainly circulated with different names to the point that one could never re-establish his origins even if he knew himself about them. Others would simply take him as an imposter and Ottomans would simply kill him simply for suspicions of declaring an ancient aristocratic origin to ignite local rebellion... we are talking lands that almost every decade would have a minor or a major rebellion.
There were however certain families that stayed in the City that arguably were the descendants of certain Byzantine aristocrats, certainly not of primary scale. These were the Phanariots (from their neighbourhood of Phanari). Since they were highly educated they took high positions in the Empire and actually some of them ruled Roumania in the 18th-19th century. However despite their positive role they were often seen as the "right hand" of the "bad" Ottomans, and it is true that they benefited from Ottomans hence there were not very popular among local christian populations even when they contributed largely to their financial/social developmend (e.g. as they did in Roumania).
During the Greek revolution of 1821, it was mainly the local chieftains that got into it as well as the provincial aristocracies (i.e. we are talking for some local powerfull families not anything close to what we mean by aristocrats!). Greeks, traditionally far away from the scheme of western aristocracy even in Byzantine times would never imagine themselves searching for royal families among them (guess how mucn elsewhere!). Initially, despite their general ignorance (and naivety) they imagined a democratic system, little bit inspired by a few idealists (Greeks and European philellene romantics), little bit by their disliking of "ruling" people (Ottoman muslim and of course their christian henchmen) and of course little bit their inability to accept another Greek in a primary position in front of them. When they realised that European would not recognise any democratic form of governement, they concluded that the scheme of a governor was not bad and for that reason what better than Ioannis Kapodistrias, the ex-minister of external affairs of the Russian Empire. Kapodistrias was a higher officer but of course not any aristocrat, he was chosen for his experience (and indeed his was an excellent forward-looking governor not only by lowly Greek standards but also international standards). However, inside (for "feudal" reasons) and outside (for his links with Russia) he was not wanted, at the end he was murdered. The English and the French grasped the oppoortunity and proposed to provide a king to install a royal family and hence they concluded to a neutral Bavarian king, Otto.
Greeks so desperate for independence accepted it but they never recognised any legitimacy in all that farse. Otto became orthodox for political reasons but hardly ever learnt Greek fluently - Otto was no Otto Rehagel!!! He was a bit "slow" (some say quite half-retarded) and also impotent so poor wife Amalia had to search for pleasure in the hands of locals, mainly army officers, one of whom actually led to the revolution of 1864 that demanded the establishment of a constitution and an elected parliament.
In the absence of a royal kid, a new Royal family arrived this time from Danmark. There were not either accepted as any Greek aristocracy by Greeks, they were seen as something temporary that should be thrown out as soon as conditions permitted it. Despite the fact that the Royal family strived to establish some support among the conservative classes, they did not enjoy much support other than for contemporaneous political reasons (some parties would ally to them but then most of their voters actually could do without a king).
And they were thrown out many times after a few dacedes many times. After the WWII they were re-installed by the English (who worked well to provoke the civil war). That fact did not increase their support, the political doings of the devilish queen Frederiki that surpassed her position meant that the last king Constantine (who still lives), while a nice young chap, one of the few to speak Greek with a decent Greek accent was not at all popular... At the end the extreme right wing that took over power in the 1967-1974 dictatorship kicked them out. Constantine returned in 1975 trying to play somthing like Juan Carlos in Spain but he could not do that since in a referendum of the type of "Do you prefer 1) Democracy headed by a president 2) Democracy headed by a king the 78% including the most various political spectrum voted for 1. For them the royal Greek family were not royal, not aristocrats and not Greeks... that is why still today Greeks, while not negatively positioned against Constantine (he is a likeable man and so are his kids) call Constantine, Glyxburg, using it as his sirname (normally kings have no sirname).
I think the story of the Greek aristocrats is nowhere near that of Roman or later European ones. Even if one could establish some connection to the very ancient families, to call yourself an aristocrat in Greece is more or less to ridicule yourself. -
Message 12
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 13th February 2008
Wow! Thank you very much for an extraordinarily comprehensive 'tour de force' of Greek aristocracy/royalty over two thousand years!
In a way, it's very appropriate I think that Greeks and kings do not go well together...and thats Greeks and democracy does! -
Message 13
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Friday, 15th February 2008
Contrary to many suggestions the invading 鈥淏arbarians鈥 of the 5th century AD did not want to destroy the Roman Empire instead they wanted its wealth and power for themselves. But in the process of trying to conquer the Roman Empire they managed to destroy it, probably because they naively thought that Empires are built and maintained by military might rather than the reality that great empires are maintained through the might of bureaucracy.
听
But wasn't the power of Roman militarism an essential underpinning factor in the maintenance of the Empire? -
Message 14
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Friday, 15th February 2008
But wasn't the power of Roman militarism an essential underpinning factor in the maintenance of the Empire?
***
I'd have said yes. I quite agree that you cannot run an empire on soldiers alone - the infrastructure/bureaucracy/internal maintenance is essential - someone has to keep the aquaducts repaired etc etc.
And, as we can see from the fact that the acquaducts didn't get repaired in the 'barbarian' times, that lesson didn't get learnt.
I agree, sadly, that what the 'barbarians' wanted was not to conqueur the Roman empire for its own sake, but simply to get its wealth and power for themselves, not realising the hard internal work that has to go into STAYING wealthy.
That's the problems with parasitical peoples who simply steal existing wealth, rather than create new ones - the bandits versus the farmers and the engineers. -
Message 15
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Friday, 15th February 2008
I'd have said yes. I quite agree that you cannot run an empire on soldiers alone - the infrastructure/bureaucracy/internal maintenance is essential - someone has to keep the aquaducts repaired etc etc.
And, as we can see from the fact that the acquaducts didn't get repaired in the 'barbarian' times, that lesson didn't get learnt.
I agree, sadly, that what the 'barbarians' wanted was not to conqueur the Roman empire for its own sake, but simply to get its wealth and power for themselves, not realising the hard internal work that has to go into STAYING wealthy.
That's the problems with parasitical peoples who simply steal existing wealth, rather than create new ones - the bandits versus the farmers and the engineers.听
It's interesting to note that, following the fall of the Roman Empire, the world seemed to enter (at least in Europe) a period of decline otherwise known as "The Dark Ages", although I may be open to correction here as I'm no historian. -
Message 16
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Friday, 15th February 2008
I agree it's questionable just how 'dark' the dark ages were, and as has been said ealier (and possibly on other threads!) for some, the end of the roman empire was a good thing (slaves etc).
But in terms, surely, of the economy of Europe, let alone its art/intellectual pursuits, it was a bad, grim time, when the acquaducts fell into disrepair, and the roads weren't mended, and the infrastructure of communication and security fell apart, buildings were abandoned, agricultural output declined, civil safety disappaared, etc etc etc. -
Message 17
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Friday, 15th February 2008
I agree it's questionable just how 'dark' the dark ages were, and as has been said ealier (and possibly on other threads!) for some, the end of the roman empire was a good thing (slaves etc).
But in terms, surely, of the economy of Europe, let alone its art/intellectual pursuits, it was a bad, grim time, when the acquaducts fell into disrepair, and the roads weren't mended, and the infrastructure of communication and security fell apart, buildings were abandoned, agricultural output declined, civil safety disappaared, etc etc etc. 听
One is tempted, however pointless, to speculate on how the course of history would have gone if The Roman Empire had survived, albeit in a modified form, and what today's world would have been like. Of course, this is rather going off at a tangent but intriguing, nevertheless. -
Message 18
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 15th February 2008
But wasn't the power of Roman militarism an essential underpinning factor in the maintenance of the Empire?
听
The Roman military was a tool of the Roman state and as such it was essential to the maintaining of their Empire. But the military is only a tool of the state and not the creator or maintainer of the state, the Roman Empire was built and maintained on bureaucracy and trade.
There is a difference between military conquest and empire building, the Macedonians achieved staggering military conquests but totally failed to build an empire, the same with the Huns.
True the Roman Empire had the military might to defeat practically anybody just like the British Empire and the USA today, but just like them its wealth and power was based on its economic strength through trade and commerce.
For most of its existence the Roman Empire maintain a very small army, it depended mostly on diplomacy and the threat of military action rather than actual military occupation.
In fact the military was not needed for internal security most of the time, the populations that made up the Roman Empire were pretty happy to remain part of the empire for the most part.
There was increasing demand for the military to protect the Empire later and gradually it lost the ability to do so, if anything it was a decline in the economic situation that led to a downfall rather than a military failing.
With the inability of the Roman military to preserve the frontiers the barbarians were allowed to settle within the Empire, and gradually the western Empire became dependant on these tribes for its military. But military might does not maintain an Empire, it needs wealth, trade, commerce and diplomacy to maintain a prosperous Empire. The barbarians eventually replaced the emperor but without the central and regional bureaucracy the Empire simply faded away. -
Message 19
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Friday, 15th February 2008
if The Roman Empire had survived, albeit in a modified form, and what today's world would have been like.
***
Well, I doubt we'd be discussing this in English. Welsh possibly...more likely Italian (asumign that is what Latin evolved into!)
I wonder if we'd still have had slavery?
We certainly might have kept Islam confined only to Arabia - if the Roman empire had stayed stronger, it might have meant the spread of Isalm might have bee ndirectioned only eastwards, or possibly subsaharan africa? Maybe a huge islamic/black empire in southerna africa might have emerged, or Hindu India destroyed? -
Message 20
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Friday, 15th February 2008
Gaul under the Frankish Merovingian dynasty (late fifth through to mid 8th centuries) was a two-tier world. There was the world of the Gallo-Roman, speaking a late form of Latin or early French/Occitan depending on where you draw a line in history. Much of the business of town life, and of Catholic religion, continued. The Frankish rulers had no desire to upset the tax system or any other aspect of society that created wealth or led to stability amongst the ordinary citizens. At the highest level, society was violent and unpredictable. The kingdom would be divided up between the (surviving) sons of the deceased king, and not usually in a geographically coherent way. Uncles would murder their royal nephews, sometimes with the help of their Grandmothers! The language was the Franconian dialect of Germanic, and their weapons were also 鈥榖arbarian鈥 rather than 鈥楻oman鈥.
The Carolingians changed all this. Charlemagne in particular sought to revive learning (even though he probably died semi-literate). He wanted a united Empire, Christian in character. He saw himself as a new King David (i.e. the Old Testament king). His Empire stayed united in the reign of his son. Louis the Pious, but had irrevocably split by the time his grandsons divided it up. The West of course became, in simplistic terms 鈥楩rance鈥, and the East, the Holy Roman Empire. -
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 15th February 2008
I opine that the military was an essential part of the Roman regime. Basically, if the Romans had been without an army, they would have been without an Empire - obviously.
Stating that the end of the Roman Empire was a good thing because they had slaves is a bit misguided because the barbarian peoples who took over also had slaves, for example St Patrick was made a slave, a century after the Romans had left.
As to speculation on what would have happened if the empire had survived - this is an interesting 'what if?'. The Romans might easily have won the battle of Adrianople, in which case they would have had that many more men to hold together and, possibly, hold back the invasions that occured in the early 5th century.
But the character of the surviving Empire is fairly easy to see, because in fact the Roman Empire DID survive - in it's Eastern half.
To my mind, it became an increasingly bureacratic, dogmatic, 'stiff' culture which contributed little to human development. It did not even stand up to the Arab conquests.
It did however preserve some ancient Greek writings and culture in Constantinople I think, so maybe it was all worth while. -
Message 22
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Friday, 15th February 2008
Stating that the end of the Roman Empire was a good thing because they had slaves is a bit misguided because the barbarian peoples who took over also had slaves, for example St Patrick was made a slave, a century after the Romans had left.
***
I agree - I was being a bit of a devil's advocate. Overall, I'm far more 'pro roman empire' than 'pro dark ages' though it is interseting to hear of the revisionism coming through on that subject.
I'm prejudiced by my own fears that Europe and the west - possibly the whole world! - is facing a similar 'dark ages' what with climate change, globalisation, mass immigration, Islamacisation, social decay/non-productive underclass etc etc etc.
On post-roman slavery, I was rather taken aback ot hear on the radio that slaves were not uncommon in Renaissance Italy. I really hadn't realised that. Perhaps I should post a separate thread on it to find out more! -
Message 23
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 15th February 2008
There is certainly a valid viewpoint that the Dark ages brought about a more vibrant Europe. A continuation of the Roman Empire could have led to social stagnation and even greater levels of decadence.
But this is of course speculation and personal opinion.
As for slavery I don鈥檛 see a lot of difference between the Roman slave system and later Feudal serfdom. The word serf comes from the Latin servus, or slave.
In fact Roman slaves probably had more rights than medieval serfs and it was not until very modern times that the peasants of Europe obtained the same opportunities for advancement that Roman slaves had.
Slavery is an emotive word, it conjures up images of African plantation slavery in the Americas, but slavery has always existed, in fact it still does in many parts of the world.
There is no reason to suppose that a continuation of the Western Roman Empire would have led to the abolition of slavery any sooner or slower than happen in reality. -
Message 24
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Friday, 15th February 2008
In fact Roman slaves probably had more rights than medieval serfs
**
Would serfs have been tortured to extract evidence in a court of law (I understand that evidence from a roman slave was not admitted UNLESS it had been obtained under torture!!!)
(Overall, though, not much fun being either a slave or a serf!) -
Message 25
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Saturday, 16th February 2008
There was increasing demand for the military to protect the Empire later and gradually it lost the ability to do so, if anything it was a decline in the economic situation that led to a downfall rather than a military failing.听
What were the factors that contributed to this economic decline? -
Message 26
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 16th February 2008
It is a matter of historical record that a plague struck the empire during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and it is theorised by some that up to a third of the population died as a result. This would have meant a drastic loss of tax revenue, so that paying for the army - which consumed the great majority of public expenditure - would have needed higher taxation. The common people would have been unable to pay it.
I believe that more fundamental aspects of the economy caused a steady decline, starting in the 2nd century.
Economic benefits did arise from the formation of the empire in the 1st century, as new markets opened up. Now, extensive records have come down to us from Egypt in the second century. The Romans inherited the tax system that the Ptolemies, who had been the previous rulers. Most of the revenue was gained from rents. The papyri tell us that many of the tenants were abandoning their lands, rather than pay their rents. I think they did this because they could no longer afford to pay the rents and taxes. I think the reason may have been that, while in the time of the Ptolemies most of the tax revenues would have at least stayed within the country, in Roman times much, including a large amount of grain, was exported. In effect, the country was basically bled. There are also records on the papyri of money having to be paid 'to the centurion', and this corruption may have caused small but significant damage to the economy.
We do not have papyri from other provinces, but archaeological evidence across many places shows a decline, from the mid to late 2nd century, in the number and size of settlements, and the 'nucleation' (shrinkage) of cities.
Most tax revenue, as I said, went to the army. This, again, meant that money was bled from the settled areas, and sent toward the thinly-populated borders, such as Hadrian's wall, the Rhine-Danube frontier etc. The remains indicate the impressive building and goods that were made from this money, but this shows how much had to be taken from the provinces.
One factor I constantly mention, my personal theory that the inheritance laws inevitably lead to a much less equal society. The rich, insulated against economic misfortune, will over generations constantly grow in wealth, while most other people will gradually lose theirs. By the 4th century, the senators had incredible wealth, whereas the ordinary citizens were very poor indeed, and virtually serfs. Since the wealth of an empire ultimately derives from the work of the ordinary people, the fact that these people were now uneducated and malnourished, meant that they could not produce enough to support the state and army. -
Message 27
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
Most tax revenue, as I said, went to the army. This, again, meant that money was bled from the settled areas, and sent toward the thinly-populated borders, such as Hadrian's wall, the Rhine-Danube frontier etc. The remains indicate the impressive building and goods that were made from this money, but this shows how much had to be taken from the provinces.
One factor I constantly mention, my personal theory that the inheritance laws inevitably lead to a much less equal society. The rich, insulated against economic misfortune, will over generations constantly grow in wealth, while most other people will gradually lose theirs. By the 4th century, the senators had incredible wealth, whereas the ordinary citizens were very poor indeed, and virtually serfs. Since the wealth of an empire ultimately derives from the work of the ordinary people, the fact that these people were now uneducated and malnourished, meant that they could not produce enough to support the state and army.听
So had not these inequalities existed to the degree that they did do you think it's a tenable hypothesis to put forward that the decline of the western empire at least would not have come about when it did, or do you think there may have been other important trends at the time which made the demise of Rome simply inexorable? -
Message 28
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) ** on Sunday, 17th February 2008
And yet the Roman empire's economy was still expanding into the late 4th and early 5th centuries if you read Peter Heather's book.
The Roman empire becaome much more centralised from the late 3rd century on in order to produce the huge tax revenues required to support the massively expanded army needed to cope with the Sassanids.
There had always been huge differences in wealth in the empire and late republic. I find it hard to believe that the gap between senators and the poor was less in the 1st century BC when they (the senators) actually had some power, was less than it was in 4th/5th century AD when they had none. -
Message 29
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
And yet the Roman empire's economy was still expanding into the late 4th and early 5th centuries if you read Peter Heather's book.
The Roman empire becaome much more centralised from the late 3rd century on in order to produce the huge tax revenues required to support the massively expanded army needed to cope with the Sassanids.
There had always been huge differences in wealth in the empire and late republic. I find it hard to believe that the gap between senators and the poor was less in the 1st century BC when they (the senators) actually had some power, was less than it was in 4th/5th century AD when they had none.听
Did not the spread of Christianity, replacing the old Roman deities, have a significant impact on the outlook of many Romans? -
Message 30
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
There had always been huge differences in wealth in the empire and late republic. I find it hard to believe that the gap between senators and the poor was less in the 1st century BC when they (the senators) actually had some power, was less than it was in 4th/5th century AD when they had none.听
In the early empire the minimum qualification for a senator was one million sesterces, which should have given an income of 15,000 denarii at the standard rate of interest of 6%. This is 500 times the income of the average soldier. Many senators had a lot more than the minimum; if we guess an average of about 5 million sesterces, that would give an income 2,500 times that of a soldier. In the 4th century, the typical senatorial income has been estimated at 120,000 solidi, which is a remarkable 12,000 times the income of the average peasant. In his book 'Theodosius, the Empire at Bay', Williams & Friell write 'The pitiless polarisation of wealth and power is partly illustrated by the enormous size of the incomes of the Western upper senatorial nobles, many of whom now had vast, multiple estates in Gaul, Italy and Africa, yielding perhaps 5 times the wealth they had enjoyed in the first century.' -
Message 31
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
So had not these inequalities existed to the degree that they did do you think it's a tenable hypothesis to put forward that the decline of the western empire at least would not have come about when it did, or do you think there may have been other important trends at the time which made the demise of Rome simply inexorable?听
My belief is that the level of inequality in the Roman empire, in any economy whose size was basically fixed, was very damaging because far too many demands were placed on the poor, who were simply incapable of meeting these demands. Tracts of land were abandoned, as both the literature and the archaeology show, so the state just did not have enough revenue to pay for the standing army of the size required to repel the barbarians.
Let's suppose 500 senators had been taxed at 10%, that would have raised 6 million solidi, by my reckoning, which would have been enough, if I have got my calculation right, to pay for over half a million soldiers! But instead, we find the later emperors desperately trying to buy off barbarians, or make shaky alliances with them, because of their own lack of troops. -
Message 32
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
My belief is that the level of inequality in the Roman empire, in any economy whose size was basically fixed, was very damaging because far too many demands were placed on the poor, who were simply incapable of meeting these demands. Tracts of land were abandoned, as both the literature and the archaeology show, so the state just did not have enough revenue to pay for the standing army of the size required to repel the barbarians.
Let's suppose 500 senators had been taxed at 10%, that would have raised 6 million solidi, by my reckoning, which would have been enough, if I have got my calculation right, to pay for over half a million soldiers! But instead, we find the later emperors desperately trying to buy off barbarians, or make shaky alliances with them, because of their own lack of troops.听
So in a very real sense the Roman nobles "killed the golden goose" by their own greed. An object lesson to any organized society I think. I suppose that because Rome was one of the early sophisticated cultures of the world they had little to model their social and political practices on.
Was it true that some members of the ruling classes adapted to the barbarian invasions by embracing the beliefs of the spreading Christian doctrine and managed to retain high status by holding important ecclesiastical positions? -
Message 33
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) ** on Sunday, 17th February 2008
'Was it true that some members of the ruling classes adapted to the barbarian invasions by embracing the beliefs of the spreading Christian doctrine and managed to retain high status by holding important ecclesiastical positions?'
The ruling clases adapted to Christainity by obtaining high ecclesesiatical positions before the barbarian invasions. Christianity becoming the offical religion had less impact than one might imagine, just a change of names and titles. -
Message 34
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) ** on Sunday, 17th February 2008
You are not actually comparing like with like e.g. Peasant in 4th century with legionary in 1st. A fair comparison would be 1st century legionary with 4th century comitenses legionary or even 4th century cataphract.
-
Message 35
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
I don't know the wage of the cataphracts in the 4th century. Why do you think we should compare with them? They would have been the minority of higher paid soldiers.
The figure of 300 denarii per year the common soldier got in the late 1st century accords well with the denarius a day which was the supposed standard wage for general labourers (and nearly everybody was a general labourer, in the first and fourth centuries alike).
In fact I have checked the figures again. The wage of a peasant was actually 5 solidi a year in the 4th century, and the average senator earned an incredible 24,000 times that figure. These people weren't just mega-rich, they were hyper-rich. (Yet not as rich as us, they did not have antibiotics, the internet or chocolate). -
Message 36
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) ** on Sunday, 17th February 2008
My point was that you were using a legionary as a comparator for the early empire but using a peasant for the late empire. You should use the same for both.
-
Message 37
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 17th February 2008
Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:40 GMT, in reply to Colquhoun in message 36
I can't find the rate of pay for a late Roman infantryman in my book on them. However, apparently the economic crisis meant that they were usually paid in kind rather than cash. Soldiers who served more than the regulation 20 years got tax breaks, including exemption from the poll tax.
Soldiers were allowed to marry in the Late Empire, and received an allowance for family and even household slaves! Cavalrymen got a seven solidus allowance to buy their own horse. It is impossible to give meaningful equivalents between early and late Imperial coinage, but a solidus was a gold coin and the largest denomination. Therefore it was nominally the equivalent of the old aureus, but of significantly lower value (4.5g to the approx 7.5g aureus of the mid-1st century) and in more common circulation. -
Message 38
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Monday, 18th February 2008
The ruling clases adapted to Christainity by obtaining high ecclesesiatical positions before the barbarian invasions. Christianity becoming the offical religion had less impact than one might imagine, just a change of names and titles.听
Would not a Christian viewpoint have made many Romans pacifists?
I have also read that because Romans used lead in their pipes and cooking vessels, lead poisoning may have been a real problem, possibly affecting even the mental health of Emperors! -
Message 39
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 18th February 2008
My point was that you were using a legionary as a comparator for the early empire but using a peasant for the late empire. You should use the same for both.听
The legionary pay in the first century was about the same as the notional pay of the average labouring peasant. (But the legionary did get a big lump some after his period of service, which would have added about 40% to his 'real' salary). This was a denarius a day (as recorded in the gospels in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, who each got a denarius no matter how long they worked), equating to about 300 denarii a year after taking into account holidays, unemployment etc. It is true that some old papyri which have turned up show a rate much less than this (eg the workers operating the archimedes screws for the water supply in Egypt), about 200 denarii a year if I remember rightly. The senator in the 1st century had income some 400 times that, but the 4th century senator apparently had an income 24,000 times that of the peasant. -
Message 40
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 18th February 2008
You will see that I made a mistake in my calculations in message 30. The minimum income of the senator in the 1st century, at 15,000 denarii, was 'only' 50 times that of the legionary who got 300 denarii.
If the figures given in that book about Theodosious are correct, (and if my calculations are right) the 4th century senators were hundreds of times more wealthy than their 1st century counterparts. -
Message 41
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 18th February 2008
Would not a Christian viewpoint have made many Romans pacifists?
I have also read that because Romans used lead in their pipes and cooking vessels, lead poisoning may have been a real problem, possibly affecting even the mental health of Emperors!
听
You ought to know by now that people have long been able to call themselves Christians, and are still able to go to war, and inflict cruelties, with 'God on their side'.
The Romans knew that lead was capable of causing madness, and Vitruvius wrote that it was undesirable to have lead piping because of this. Nevertheless I have no doubt that lead piping was used a lot. The theory that lead led to the decline in the Roman empire is an old one, and unproven.
The Romans ate a lot of garum, a fish sauce made by boiling down the ingredients in lead vessels, could well have introduced a lot of lead into the diet. But I don't know of any evidence (such as lead being present at high levels in bones or teeth) that lead actually did accumulate in peoples' bodies. -
Message 42
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Monday, 18th February 2008
If the figures given in that book about Theodosious are correct, (and if my calculations are right) the 4th century senators were hundreds of times more wealthy than their 1st century counterparts.听
Do your calculations allow for inflation? -
Message 43
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 18th February 2008
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:39 GMT, in reply to webplodder in message 38
Would not a Christian viewpoint have made many Romans pacifists?听
At least some Christians were 'conscientious objectors'. There is, for example, an account of a Christian conscripted into the Army during the reign of Diocletian, who objected on religious grounds (not that it did him any good!) On the other hand, there were certainly Christians serving in the Army in the Late Empire, and by the end of the 5th century units were even provided with chaplains.
One reason why St Augustine came up with the concept of 'Just War' in the late 4th century was to overcome Christian reluctance to fight even against Barbarian invasions. -
Message 44
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 18th February 2008
Hi Fascinating / WebPlodder,
This is an interesting article on the Romans and lead poisoning:
On the subject of concentration of lead in bones, the following is an abstract of an article which states:
Skeletal material from the Romano-British cemetery at Poundbury Camp on the outskirts of Dorchester is remarkable for the high concentration of lead detected in the bones. In an attempt to discover whether this lead was local in origin or had been introduced in imported commodities lead isotope ratios were determined for a selection of bones. The isotope ratios indicated at least two sources for the lead. Three of the individuals tested appear to have acquired lead derived from local, British, ores while the bone from the fourth individual, a child, had a lead isotope ratio identical to ore from Laurion in Greece. The isotope ratios are so close as to indicate immigration of the child rather than importation of lead in food or wine.听
IDENTIFICATION OF LEAD SOURCES BY STABLE ISOTOPE RATIOS IN BONES AND LEAD FROM POUNDBURY CAMP, DORSET
(Unfortunately the above link doesn't give you access to the paper, just to the abstract)
This is from an article in the NY Times from 1983 on the examination of skeletons found at Herculaneum:
In her analysis, Dr. Bisel found that the bones contained a mean level of 84 parts of lead per million, which she concluded was significantly high. In contrast, the bones of some prehistoric people discovered in a Greek cave contained only 3 parts per million of lead. (Various studies have reported finding 20 to 50 parts per million in the bones of typical modern Americans and Britons.) 听
A CLUE TO THE DECLINE OF ROME
Cheers,
RF -
Message 45
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 18th February 2008
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:02 GMT, in reply to Anglo-Norman in message 43
Forgot to add, the lead theory is now largely discredited. Lead piping rapidly formed an internal coating of minerals from the water which would have prevented lead entering into the supply in any significant measure.
Cooking vessels and cups etc tended to be bronze, iron or pottery. -
Message 46
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Monday, 18th February 2008
It is practically impossible to compare Roman wages with today鈥檚 wages, they are based on very different systems, and it is very difficult to compare 1st century earnings with 5th century earnings.
Depending on how you chose to go by the average legionary wage in 300 AD was either 600 denarii or 1,800 denarii, the confusion stems from differing interpretations of the Panopolis papyri.
There were 3 legionary pay days each year, the Stipendium, and it is not certain how much was paid each time, so either a total of 600 denarii or 3 lots of 600 denarii.
But by 400 AD rampant inflation had made this payment practically insignificant because there had been no pay rise to compensate for inflation.
In Paul Elliot鈥檚 book the Last Legionary he says that the cost of a poor quality woman鈥檚 tunic was 3,000 denarii in AD 301. Compared to a common tunic in AD 100, which cost just 3 denarii.
The main wages for legionaries was paid in kind, Annonae, which was mainly clothes and food.
But the main sum of money came from Donatives paid by the Emperor on 5 yearly intervals. The Emperor Julian in AD 360 paid 5 gold Solidi and one pound of silver to each soldier as his Donative.
It is not possible to compare soldiers pay with the income of a Senator or any rich landowner. But the Roman elite鈥檚 were always obscenely rich compared to the average citizen. This was true in the 3rd century BC and still true in the 5th century AD. It鈥檚 total lack of fairness or equality did not stop the Empire from being created and there is no evidence that it led to its downfall other than ultimately when under greater outside pressure the whole system was incapable of sustaining an Empire.
But the adoption of Christianity among the ruling elite does not appear to have helped the situation, they certainly did not adopt a fairer or more egalitarian policy to their own people or outsiders. If anything the adoption of Christianity by the rich and powerful did more to separate the ruling elite from the poor working citizen or paganus.
The issue of lead piping has even less to offer as a reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. There is no evidence that lead poisoning had any great effect on the citizens of Rome and if there was any than it could equally be argued that lead pies led to the demise of the British Empire.
The Roman Empire recovered from the disasters of AD 236 but the adjustments to the military and it increased size put further strain on Roman economics.
From a military aspect the two defeats, one in Persia in AD 363 and the other at Adrianople in AD 378 were probably the precursors of the gradual collapse in the west, but the Eastern Empire survived and prospered for another 1,000 years. -
Message 47
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
Forgot to add, the lead theory is now largely discredited. Lead piping rapidly formed an internal coating of minerals from the water which would have prevented lead entering into the supply in any significant measure.
Cooking vessels and cups etc tended to be bronze, iron or pottery.听
Yes, I hadn鈥檛 thought of that, but I have discovered that lead was also used in the preparation of wine and also as a preservative and flavour enhancer so it appears lead was present in various forms in Roman society. I have also read that some of the Emperors only produced one or two offspring which may have been a consequence of lead poisoning. It鈥檚 even been speculated on that the erratic behaviour of one or two of the more infamous Emperors was, at least partially, due to the effects of lead poisoning. Also, RainbowFfolly鈥檚 link does seem to provide scientific evidence of higher levels of lead found in Roman skeletons than would be normal -
Message 48
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
The issue of lead piping has even less to offer as a reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. There is no evidence that lead poisoning had any great effect on the citizens of Rome and if there was any than it could equally be argued that lead pies led to the demise of the British Empire.听
From what I can gather I don鈥檛 think any specific cause lead to the fall of the Roman Empire, rather, a complex set of interwoven political/economic and social changes. Lead poisoning may have contributed in some little part to that overall effect. -
Message 49
Posted by webplodder (U3375939) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
At least some Christians were 'conscientious objectors'. There is, for example, an account of a Christian conscripted into the Army during the reign of Diocletian, who objected on religious grounds (not that it did him any good!) On the other hand, there were certainly Christians serving in the Army in the Late Empire, and by the end of the 5th century units were even provided with chaplains.
One reason why St Augustine came up with the concept of 'Just War' in the late 4th century was to overcome Christian reluctance to fight even against Barbarian invasions.听
One wonders if the conflict between army service and personal Christian belief would have seriously undermined morale in the Roman armies and therefore questioned the legitimacy of Roman militarism. -
Message 50
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
Hi WebPlodder,
To be honest, the lead posioning thing is not something I know a huge deal about - I just dug out a few links as you and Fascinating seemed curious about lead in bones and I was curious too. I knew it was a theory and I'd read a little about it - I'd even gone so far as to watch a 主播大秀4 documentary partly based on it when I was coincidentally partly drunk - but that's about all...
AngloNorman usually knows what he's talking about, so I'd be interested in finding out from him more information on why the theory has been discredited - over to you AN?
Cheers,
RF
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.