Reforming/Saving the Western Empire

[Jim Martin]

I've been playing Invasio Barbarorum lately, trying to save the Western Roman Empire from implosion. This afternoon while getting ready for work, I pondered what reforms I might have put in place, were I able to actually go back to ca. 410 AD, and find myself with the Emperor's ear--or as the Emperor himself.

 

Actually, one of the things I came up with was a little off-the-wall, but in fact I think it might be a key improvement: introduce the base 10 number system to the Empire. Would probably improve efficiency and productivity in any number of areas, and open the door to new engineering and scientific achievements. Any other ideas? No, I'm not talking about "Don't give that Varus guy command in Germania". I'm talking about social, political, economic or military reforms that might have preserved the Empire.

 

How 'bout those Limitanae?

[Gregory]

Late Roman empire was really majorly screwed - barbarian invasions every generation or so, economy in the toilet, population crisis from epidemics, new religion with pacifistic overtones. You probably could handle any two of those with some quick fixes, but all of them? You'd need to hold off the barbarians militarily, which implies high military budget, which leaves you with no money to fix the economy...it's a clusterf*ck.

[Gabe]

Long ago I had the idea that the Roman collapse had alot to do with the lack of paper and printing technology. Imagine if civilization today had to handwrite everything on parchment. Books would be rediculously expensive. Records and technical manuals would be very rare. Few people would have the opportunity to read works of philosophy and science. There would simply not be enough stored knowlege for civilization to withstand a major calamity. Once the small percentage of the well educated population is dispersed, it would be very difficult to recreate it.

 

Many prominent early Americans came from humble backgrounds. More than a few grew up in the cliche log cabin. It's difficult to imagine these guys could have educated themselves, to become aware of the concept of laws, government, finance, history, national identity without easy access to books. It's no coincidence that no civilization with the technology of paper and printing ever collapsed into barbarism. Chinese dynasties went through periodic collapse into anarchies, sometimes lasting generations. But civilization usually continued at the local level and a new dynasty is eventually founded. Even unlettered barbarians adopted Chinese philosophy and institutions after taking over. What's amazing about the Roman collapse is how final it turned out to be. Why didn't Roman towns continue to exist without the central authority in Rome? Why didn't the barbarians become Roman themselves? I think the answer has much to do with technology. When information technology has penetrated every village, civilization could exist without central authority, and can recreate it from stored knowlege.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Gabe

[smith]

Late Roman empire was really majorly screwed - economy in the toilet

 

Not according to Heather in his The Fall of the Roman Empire. Not that Heather is on the mark at all times; according to The Catastrophic Era his interpretation of the rock reliefs at Naqs a-Rustem is outdated and erroneous.

 

population crisis from epidemics

This was a serious problem in the time of Aurelius and from c 251-266 but not AFAIK in the fourth or fifth century.

 

 

new religion with pacifistic overtones. You probably could handle any two of those with some quick fixes, but all of them? You'd need to hold off the barbarians militarily, which implies high military budget, which leaves you with no money to fix the economy...

 

The eastern or Byzantine Empire managed to survive. Recently I came across a booklet with a take on the fall of Rome I hadn't seen before. The Catastrophic Era is mainly about the third century wars in the east but it claims the Illyrians were essentially the only people keeping the empire afloat after about 260.

[smith]

Would probably improve efficiency and productivity in any number of areas, and open the door to new engineering and scientific achievements. Any other ideas? I'm talking about social, political, economic or military reforms that might have preserved the Empire. How 'bout those Limitanae?

 

According to Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Military Explanation the key solution, as Vegetius wrote, was more training and discipline for the infantry. (But see Elton Warfare in Roman Europe for a different view.) Ferrill admitted that the needed reforms may have been impossible to impose. As for the limitanae, they are said to have deteriorated even faster than the field armies. Btw, an anonymous writer around then proposed a number of technical solutions but Ferrill dismissed them as secondary at best.

[Gregory]

This was a serious problem in the time of Aurelius and from c 251-266 but not AFAIK in the fourth or fifth century.

Had they not happened, the Empire would've been in much better demographic shape.

 

The eastern or Byzantine Empire managed to survive. Recently I came across a booklet with a take on the fall of Rome I hadn't seen before. The Catastrophic Era is mainly about the third century wars in the east but it claims the Illyrians were essentially the only people keeping the empire afloat after about 260.

 

AFAIK, the eastern empire was not militarily engaged by "rampaging barbarian hordes" to the same degree.

[SCFalken]

Draw back the borders of the Empire until you can defend it without hiring huge amounts of foederati...

 

 

 

Falken

[KingSargent]

Had they not happened, the Empire would've been in much better demographic shape.

And had the epidemics not happened the barbarians would have been in better shape too. You think epidemics only affect "civilized" people?

 

AFAIK, the eastern empire was not militarily engaged by "rampaging barbarian hordes" to the same degree.

They just did a better job of beating them off and/or bribing them to go west.

[Corinthian]

How much better if barbarians were given Roman citizenship? "Extend" the empire to unconquered lands by expanding citizenship. Would that silence the barbarians then, enough to lengthen the Western Empire's longevity?

[SCFalken]

How much better if barbarians were given Roman citizenship? "Extend" the empire to unconquered lands by expanding citizenship. Would that silence the barbarians then, enough to lengthen the Western Empire's longevity?

 

"Extending citizenship" /= "Romanization". You've just got barbs who think they are entitled to a say in everything.

 

Seems familiar, somehow....

[KingSargent]

How much better if barbarians were given Roman citizenship? "Extend" the empire to unconquered lands by expanding citizenship. Would that silence the barbarians then, enough to lengthen the Western Empire's longevity?

Barbarians don't want to talk, they want to take.

 

And if the Empire is broke what benefits do the barbs get for citizenship? The right to pay taxes?

[Gregory]

Isn't that what essentially happened? Each of the preceding waves of barbarians essentially settled within the borders of the Roman empire, and integrated to some extent in the functioning of the Empire.

[KingSargent]

Isn't that what essentially happened? Each of the preceding waves of barbarians essentially settled within the borders of the Roman empire, and integrated to some extent in the functioning of the Empire.

And got their tribal chiefs named generals who then proclaimed themselves Emperor.....

[smith]

And if the Empire is broke what benefits do the barbs get for citizenship? The right to pay taxes?

 

The western Empire was pretty solvent until the loss of North Africa c 430. The East wasn't broke until the failed effort to regain it in 468.

[smith]

They just did a better job of beating them off and/or bribing them to go west.[/b]

 

 

Not the Huns in the 440s.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Colin Williams]

My belief is that by the 200's there was no saving the western Roman Empire. Economic issues, political instability, and the resulting military imbalance relative to the various barbarian tribes were not going to be solved by a few policy changes at the top. The best hope for the Romans would be to replace the "sit tight" approach of Hadrian and company with an aggressive plan to conquer and assimilate Germany at least as far east as the Oder. Military resources for this could be found by avoiding the conquest of Britain altogether. Britannia was never a particularly prosperous part of the Empire and probably a losing proposition when the costs of conquest, occupation and defense are added up. Better to stake out a buffer zone in Germania.

[smith]

My belief is that by the 200's there was no saving the western Roman Empire. Economic issues, political instability, and the resulting military imbalance relative to the various barbarian tribes were not going to be solved by a few policy changes at the top.

 

I think the division of the Empire doomed the western part, which was not as populous.

 

 

The best hope for the Romans would be to replace the "sit tight" approach of Hadrian and company with an aggressive plan to conquer and assimilate Germany at least as far east as the Oder.

I think they were on their way to doing that by 178-180 but Commodus prevented consummation of the effort. That Rome undertook the effort and nearly succeeed despite its weakened condition then suggests it was feasible.

 

Military resources for this could be found by avoiding the conquest of Britain altogether. Britannia was never a particularly prosperous part of the Empire and probably a losing proposition when the costs of conquest, occupation and defense are added up.

 

Considering the more urgent need for troops along the Rhine frontier, I'd agree. But the Romans took Britain before the Germanic barbarians became a real threat, which didn't happen until a century later. Abandoning Britain would've meant a loss of prestige, and conceivably, it might've reawakened Celt independence movements in Gaul.

[toysoldier]

what about splitting it on vene smaller pieces? no longer a large empire with a huge burocracy and a centarl admin uncapable of handling the local issues. sucessor states... thats waht happened on the long run. look at what lasted more of the Eastern Empire: Asia Minor, Its a compact, rather homogeneous country.

if you split into Galia, Hispania, Italia and Panonia, you have better admin for local issues, while you keep some sort of federation or alliance.

[Sikkiyn]

Actually, one of the things I came up with was a little off-the-wall, but in fact I think it might be a key improvement: introduce the base 10 number system to the Empire. Would probably improve efficiency and productivity in any number of areas, and open the door to new engineering and scientific achievements. Any other ideas? No, I'm not talking about "Don't give that Varus guy command in Germania". I'm talking about social, political, economic or military reforms that might have preserved the Empire.

 

Part of the problem was the military expense in a system which derived its' funding from taxation of the people during inflationary periods, (e.g. nile flooded, not enough grain, etc). With the economy slowly going tits-up, increased political corruption, over-expansion of the empire, plague, and throwing citizenship to damn near anyone in the hopes of having a larger tax-base, there wasn't a lot anyone could do except move. All of this has a familiar ring to it eh.

 

 

The best approach, (which was totally un-doable within the current political realms, {since no one was going to plunder the temples again,} aka Nero,) would be to lessen the expanse of the empire thus lowering the expense of the army, (tightening their ranks and removing them from over-extended border missions, e.g. Titus & Hadrian,) and concentrate more on agricultural, domestic, and

monetary issues.

 

Keep Africae, Germania, Gaul, and piss on the rest. Co-op auxillary forces from ea, (e.g. Spanish cohort of the V Macedonian,) and allow them to patrol the backwoods at a much reduced cost vs regulars...with direct benifit for the families of the service members without the inclusion of citizenship, hence not taxable but able to enjoy extra privlages for service.

[Sikkiyn]

There were a number of plagues that decimated the ancient world, including Rome. There was Galen's plague, Cyprian plague, Justinians plague, etc. The decription of the plague in 166 C.E., by Galen in his work "Methodus Medendi," and metioned again in Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations," was believed to be either Smallpox or Measles due to the vivid description of the illness he provided. Likewise this wasn't to be its' first visit as it reappeared again in 251 C.E. and 500 C.E.: Poor buggers just couldn't catch a break.

 

With a decimated population, army, and tax base, the empire would have been wise to shorten its' reach, post-haste, raid the temples, (aka. Nero style,) and temporarily lower taxation in an effort to survive. Instead the patricians did the exact opposite and levied heavier taxes against the survivors, left the temples alone, and in a vain effort to pump up the gold coming in allowed inclusion of barbarians into the citizenship roles.

[Jim Martin]

There were a number of plagues that decimated the ancient world, including Rome. There was Galen's plague, Cyprian plague, Justinians plague, etc. The decription of the plague in 166 C.E., by Galen in his work "Methodus Medendi," and metioned again in Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations," was believed to be either Smallpox or Measles due to the vivid description of the illness he provided. Likewise this wasn't to be its' first visit as it reappeared again in 251 C.E. and 500 C.E.: Poor buggers just couldn't catch a break.

 

With a decimated population, army, and tax base, the empire would have been wise to shorten its' reach, post-haste, raid the temples, (aka. Nero style,) and temporarily lower taxation in an effort to survive. Instead the patricians did the exact opposite and levied heavier taxes against the survivors, left the temples alone, and in a vain effort to pump up the gold coming in allowed inclusion of barbarians into the citizenship roles.

 

 

The problem with identifying ancient diseases from contemporary accounts is that diseases mutate. Syphilis used to be a horribly ravaging disease, and early European accounts of persons afflicted with it describe symptoms such as flesh falling from the face, etc. Unfortunately for the syphilis microbe, these symptoms didn't lend themselves to easy transmission (who's going to bed someone with their face falling off?) and modern syphilis has adapted itself to this; combined with better immune responses from a population which has aquired some mitigating resistance, results in a syphilis microbe with much milder symptomology.

[smith]

With a decimated population, army, and tax base, the empire would have been wise to shorten its' reach, post-haste

 

To an extent this was done e.g. Dacia was abandoned in the time of Aurelian and so was part of Germany IIRC. But the Empire didn't seem to fare badly in the years right after Marcus Aurelius and later, Diocletian, who attempted to gain some ground. The northern barbarians didn't cause trouble for a long time after the campaigns of Aurelius deep into barbaricum. Had he lived longer and finished his work the result might have been even better. Likewise the new defense system in the East, based on the territorial gains of Diocletian, worked pretty well for years.

Edited October 25, 2007 by smith

[pikachu]

Rather than reform the Empire (which was a lost cause by then), what about reforming the barbarians instead? To some extent this was already done with the Goths, Vandals and Franks, who in the end actually fought to take control of the Empire rather than destroy it. Even Charlemagne long after the fall still respected Roman culture enough to accept the purple. Romanization was not needed, just a paradigm shift.

 

In China, the Chinese dynasties spent unparalleled effort trying to get the barbarians to value the little things that made their civilization work as "culture". The first thing every barbarian conqueror did was learn how to write (Chinese) and teach their heirs Confucianism. Even Kubilai's Mongol dynasty ended up learning Chinese script despite themselves already being literate from a generation before. Most successful barbarian conquerors came with at least basic understanding that the wealth of the Empire was theirs for the taking if they would just keep its institutions in place. Some "barbarian" conquerors even started their careers by copying Chinese institutions before making war with China. The Manchus are the prime example of this, having already established a functioning Chinese state in Manchuria long before the Ming dynasty fell. In Rome's case, barbarians (especially hostages) were taught that the decadence and majestic buildings were what constituted civilization, without much care being taken to show the role of the underlying system and philosophy of state (which was not helped by the Roman aristocracy's own cynicism). Romanization failed because the barbarians were never given a complete picture of what made Rome work.

 

Another problem with the Roman system was the continuing ambiguity of the Imperial title. To the fall, Western Emperors never bothered to institutionalize the Imperial system, and therefore did not leave a clear line of succession capable of absorbing barbarian chieftains the way the Chinese Empire, and in fact the Byzantine Empire (from Zeno's time) could. The key to successful assimilation is acceptance of the group to be assimilated into the normal state of affairs, which first requires that the group itself understands what the normal state of affairs is. The Romans never got this knack of educating barbarians. They should, and could, have tried long before Alaric marched his Goths to the gates.

Edited November 8, 2007 by pikachu

[smith]

Rather than reform the Empire (which was a lost cause by then), what about reforming the barbarians instead? To some extent this was already done with the Goths, Vandals and Franks, who in the end actually fought to take control of the Empire rather than destroy it.

 

They destroyed it by establishing their own independent kingdoms on former Roman territory.

 

 

The key to successful assimilation is acceptance of the group to be assimilated into the normal state of affairs, which first requires that the group itself understands what the normal state of affairs is. The Romans never got this knack of educating barbarians. They should, and could, have tried long before Alaric marched his Goths to the gates.

 

They did try to assimilate them. Since the time of Aurelius, captive barbarians were settled within the Empire. But there was just an endless flow of them and Rome in the end just wasn't sufficiently strong to absorb and "tame" them.