In Reply to: Three Views of Empire posted by Karla Montelongo on January 31, 2005 at 18:00:33:
Forgive me, please, because this is going to be long- the Roman Empire is my pet topic of study. Karla, you make a mistake in postulating that the Roman Empire was created out of nothing with the help of war geniuses like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Consider- with the exception of the Scipios and Cincinnatus, do you know the names of any of the great Roman generals from the early Roman period? Rome was begun as a monarchy. It was not created out of nothing. At a certain point, the people kicked the kings out and created a Republic. This republic then began to expand by slowly conquering the surrounding lands. This process was done over time, and while there were many good generals, the military was less important than the Senate. In fact, the Empire reached its peak under Hadrian, who was well into 100 AD.
Now let me take a moment to explain for a moment why no one should really ever talk about the Roman Empire unless they have read all the source material (and forgive me if I make small mistakes). Many historians are content to read a condensed version of Gibbon and think that they have a full grasp on the Roman Empire. Gibbon put 40 years into The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and it is brilliant, but the conclusions that people draw from it do not necessarily encompass the full, complicated range of factors that led to the fall of the empire. Everyone has seen Gladiator and knows the term “bread and circuses.” This is an aspect of the fall of the empire, but it is a very small one. The city-state of Rome was marvelous, and it is no surprise that it lasted as long as it did. However, many small and separate variables in time built up to bring about its ruin. First of all, when historians speak nostalgically about the Republic, they are misguided. The Roman Republic was one of the most oligarchic governments to exist under the pretext of a democracy. It was only barely democratic, and that was because those who voted were the upper class. It sewed its own demise by creating a system whereby troops became loyal to a particular general rather than the state. This led to the rise of Marius and Sulla, which conflict was then mirrored perfectly by Pompey and Ceasar, the end result being the utter destruction of the Republic and the rise of Augustus. Augustus, by the way, saved Rome by creating the Principate, and his system would have worked like Plato's benign dictatorship if only fate had allowed it. One of the legacies left by the Republic that would eventually lead to the downfall of the Empire was the corn dole. This was begun by a general named Coriolanus, and it was a cheap supply of grain, rather like the precursor of welfare. When Augustus took over Egypt, he supplied grain for all of Rome, and it continued to be the breadbasket of Rome throughout its history.
The problem with “bread and circuses” was that it was only a distraction for the masses. Rome was importing more than it was exporting, and so the people were jobless and with nothing to do. To keep them occupied, the Emperors and other public servants would put on more and more lavish shows (ever hear of bears in areas like Africa and the Middle East? They were hunted to extinction). At the same time, as military prestige decreased, Rome began to use more and more soldiers that were born foreigners. They used Gauls, Spaniards, and newly conquered tribes to swell the ranks of the army. However, because they weren't Romans, they were not terribly loyal. At the same time, the Huns coming out of the East were pushing the other tribes like the Visigoths and Ostrogoths west. The Roman frontier was too long to adequately protect, so Rome kept giving up ground. It even allowed Gothic tribes to settle autonomously on Roman soil as long as they pledged allegience to the Romans.
The pressure, however, was too great and the army too filled with foreign-born mercenaries. The fleeing tribes began to fight in earnest for Roman land, and in the 400s Atila and the Huns came very close to sacking Rome. Later it was finally sacked by the Visigoths. The Eastern Empire, however, survived well into the next millennium. However, it should be emphasized that the East was not at all like the Western Empire. The East was decadent. After the reforms of Diocletian, dividing the East and West, the East began to acquire an Asian flavor. The kings wore diadems and were worshipped as gods. The courts were very lavish, and they adopted very oriental practices. The adoption of Christianity had some effect upon the empire, but not as much as it is made out to be. In my opinion, the later Empire was so different from the early Empire that the two should be considered separately, and also the East and West.