[Archive V] Daniel, ma belle
Moderators: Moderators, Ambassadors
-
colbertnationgirl
- Hymn of One
- Posts: 14857
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:42 am
-
colbertnationgirl
- Hymn of One
- Posts: 14857
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:42 am
-
colbertnationgirl
- Hymn of One
- Posts: 14857
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:42 am
-
Cloud_ax
- Hymn of One
- Posts: 26123
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: stealing a plane to Zi's wedding, who wants to come??
YAY!!!!colbertnationgirl wrote:Cloud_ax wrote:YAY!! did we make you not sad??colbertnationgirl wrote:I'M NOT SAD ANYMORE!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys are awesome.
*hugs* I LOVE YOU KARI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~Commander of the LG15 Defense ForceI'm Ziola's Little Brother.
My big sister is getting married!!
"If this is a dream, don't wake me up."
-
colbertnationgirl
- Hymn of One
- Posts: 14857
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:42 am
-
colbertnationgirl
- Hymn of One
- Posts: 14857
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:42 am
John Bagnell Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire gives a multi-factored theory for the Fall of the Western Empire. He presents the classic "Christianity vs. pagan" theory, and debunks it, citing the relative success of the Eastern Empire, which was far more Christian.
He then examines Gibbon's "theory of moral decay," and without insulting Gibbon, finds that too simplistic, though a partial answer. He essentially presents what he called the "modern" theory, which he implicitly endorses, a combination of factors, primarily, (quoting directly from Bury):[3]
"... the Empire had come to depend on the enrollment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army, and ... it was necessary to render the service attractive to them by the prospect of power and wealth. This was, of course, a consequence of the decline in military spirit, and of depopulation, in the old civilised Mediterranean countries. The Germans in high command had been useful, but the dangers involved in the policy had been shown in the cases of Merobaudes and Arbogastes. Yet this policy need not have led to the dismemberment of the Empire, and but for that series of chances its western provinces would not have been converted, as and when they were, into German kingdoms. It may be said that a German penetration of western Europe must ultimately have come about. But even if that were certain, it might have happened in another way, at a later time, more gradually, and with less violence. The point of the present contention is that Rome's loss of her provinces in the fifth century was not an "inevitable effect of any of those features which have been rightly or wrongly described as causes or consequences of her general 'decline.'" The central fact that Rome could not dispense with the help of barbarians for her wars (gentium barbararum auxilio indigemus) may be held to be the cause of her calamities, but it was a weakness which might have continued to be far short of fatal but for the sequence of contingencies pointed out above."[4]
In short, Bury held that a number of contingencies arose simultaneously: economic decline, Germanic expansion, depopulation of Italy, dependency on Germanic foederati for the military, the disastrous (though Bury believed unknowing) treason of Stilicho, loss of martial vigor, Aetius' murder, the lack of any leader to replace Aetius — a series of misfortunes which proved catastrophic in combination.
Bury noted that Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was "amazing" in its research and detail. Bury's main differences from Gibbon lay in his interpretation of fact, rather than any dispute of fact. He made clear that he felt that Gibbon's conclusions as to the "moral decay" were viable — but not complete. Bury's judgement was that:
"the gradual collapse of the Roman power ...was the consequence of a series of contingent events. No general causes can be assigned that made it inevitable."
It is his theory that the decline and ultimate fall of Rome was not pre-ordained, but was brought on by contingent events, each of them separately endurable, but together and in conjunction ultimately destructive.