Was the Germanic tribes victory over the Roman armies really a victory?

[Ramo]

Justinian probably would have been able to restore the Empire were it not for the plague.

Even if he pulled it off (I seriously doubt he could recapture Gaul), not for very long... The Western Roman population was simply depleted even before the bubonic plague. The Germanic peoples would've taken control eventually.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Dan Severn
By 535, Rome was a city in the Kingdom of Odacer.

That's quite an achievement for Odoacer, considering that he had already been rotting for a couple decades in 535.

And in general, people here are hopelessly overestimating Justinian. He was a very poor leader, esp as far as the necessary internal reforms were concerned.

[DanS]

"250 years."

Which is an awful long time. I am not a big believer in these long trends. I read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and while it was interesting to learn about new things, I didn't agree with his "inevitability" argument.

If the Western empire had wanted to reform, they could have, as they did in the early part of the first century BC. If they had wanted to repopulate Italy, they could have, as they did any number of times before and after Christ.

"Ships bring ivory to Constantinople brought the plague to the Empire in 542."

Sounds about right. As I recall (not very clearly), the population of Constantinople was halved in a span of a couple of years. From over a million to about 500k.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Justinian probably would have been able to restore the Empire were it not for the plague. Even Celtic Britain was hit by the plague, because it was still in contact with the Empire. It still traded with them and lived in cities. Where ever this was the case, the plague struck.

Che, Perhaps. But the Plague hit Constantinople in 542. The Romans were successful in beating the Goths and Franks in 556 and retaking the whole of Italy. The country was devastated by the 20 year war of reconquest. Particularly, Rome was destroyed and depopulated. The Goths had destroyed its aqueducts.

But Justinian died in 565. His former allies, the Lombards invaded Italy. This brought on 200 more years of war between the Romans and Germans. In the late 700's, the Pope formed an alliance with the Franks, and got the upper hand over the Lombards. But in the mid 800's the Arabs invaded and sacked Rome!

War, not pestilence, was the primary cause of the Dark Ages.

[Bosh]

I personnally believe that the Empire in its last century had become a very humane place to live largely due to Christianity. However, taxes were high, feudalism was rising and the the trade economy was already falling apart prior to the German takeover.

So if the peasantry was slipping into serfdom from the old days of free citizen-soldiers how exactly were things becomming more humane? There was certainly still every bit as much bloody politics.

Bubonic plague came from asia.

Actually we don't know wether it came from the African Rift valley or the Himalayas origonally.

And climatic change DOES often result in barbarian invasion since it lowers the carrying capacity of barbarian lands and gives them a good incentive to go conquering.

They were able to hold on as a city for several hundred years after that.

Well Constantinople is a FAR more defensible city than Rome.

However, by the time such a leader emerged - Justinian - it was already too late for the West.

As far as Justinian goes he's a bit overrated, he over-extended the Empire by conquering land that couldn't be held and hobbled the attempts of his greatest general (Belisarious right?) to operate effectively, and his wife was a *****

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
War, not pestilence, was the primary cause of the Dark Ages.

War and pestilence and famine brought about the dark ages. The population of the Empire dropped considerably because of the plague. They stopped counting the dead in the capital after a quarter of a million. After the plague, the clock was ticking on the Empire.

[Ned]

Well Che, the Plaque certainly didn't help. In order to finance his wars, against the Avars, the Persians, and the Vandals, Goths and Franks, and to finance his construction projects, Justinian had to raise taxes. It certainly didn't help that half the citizens of Constantinople died - from a tax base point of view. It also didn't help from the army manpower point of view.

Perhaps the problem his successors faced in holding Italy was due to the exhaustion of the Empire's financial structure that was caused in large measure by the plague.

It is interesting that disease seemed to have a significant impact on the Empire. This loss in population meant the cost of maintaining the army and infrastructure fell on significantly fewer citizens. In contrast, the Germans and other barbarians did not require a tax base in order to maintain their armies.

[Shadowstrike]

If Justinian had left Belisaurus alone in Italy and didn't send Narses, they coyuld probably have held onto Italy for a bit longer - possibly even long enough to move the capital back to Rome, which could have revived the Empire. Or just killed it faster.

[chequita guevara]

Oh, the capital was never moving back to Rome. Rome was a backwater by the late 4th Century. It was sacked so many times, in the 5th Century it's not even funny. The Western Empire was in tatters. Even had it been reconquered, it would have taken many generations to rebuild it.

[Al B. Sure!]

I agree with Chegitz... there's a reason why the Western Roman capital was moved to Ravenna... Rome was in ruins and the central location that had allowed to grow to such heights made it far too easy of a city to plunder with no real natural defences. And didn't the Pope briefly reside in Ravenna during the 5th and early 6th century?

[Ned]

Albert, Honorius moved the capital to Ravenna from Milan in 402 because Alaric had invaded Italy and threatened Milan. Below is a quote from a Roman empire site,

"After the Visigothic invasion of Italy in 402, Honorius and the imperial court retired from Milan to the inaccessible and heavily defended city of Ravenna. Only rarely did later emperors reside for any length of time elsewhere. Meanwhile, palace intrigues resulted in Stilicho's assassination in 408, and Honorius was left to deal with Alaric and the Visigoths. The indecisive emperor, influenced first by one adviser and then by another, vacillated between resistance and conciliation. The end result was the sack of Rome in 410."

By the time the Romans had retaken Italy from the Goths in the mid-500's, Rome was totally destroyed and uninhabitable. The Goths had destroyed its infrastructure, including its aqueducts. Until reconstruction began sometime centuries later, the population of Rome probably never exceeded 30,000, IIRC. Just prior to Justinian's reconquest, Rome was still a thriving city of a million or so, and the Coliseum was still in operation. Ostia was still inhabited, and the port near Ostia was still functioning IIRC. But after the war, parts of Rome and the whole of Ostia largely silted over. They were buried for 1500 years 'til modern times.

[chequita guevara]

You helped me with something, BTW, Ned. Thanks! Some events I'm writing for Europa Universalis II regarding a revival of the Kingdom of Italy. I wasn't sure where the capital should be, but you've helped me settle it. Milan it is. I knew it was the Lombard's capital, but I wasn't aware it was the capital of the Western Empire.

[Adam Smith]

Interesting reading on the relationship between natural disasters and the fall of civilizations. Just wanted to kick the tires on this theory with a couple of questions.

1. Are there other cases where natural disasters are suspected of causing the fall of civilizations, or is it just this one case? Other possible examples include Mazama (Crater Lake, OR) c 5000 bc; c 1420 bc (Minoan civilization?); Tambora 1815; Krakatoa 1883. All presumably had an effect on climate. Did they have an effect on civilization? Why or why not?

2. Consider the converse of this theory. Are there cases where major disasters had little or no effect on civilizations? Vesuvius (79 ad) practically in the center of the Roman Empire does not seem to have fazed the Romans in the least.

3. If the 535 eruption of Krakatoa had such a disasterous effect on civilization, why did some civilizations recover much faster than others? For example, in 535 China was nearing the end of the Second Period of Disunity. By 581 China had consolidated into the Sui Dynasty,which in 617 gave way to the Tang Dynasty, probably the greatest period in China's history. Could other factors have had more important roles in some cases than climate?

edit: typos, and a brain cramp

[Bosh]

Could other factors have had more important roles in some cases than climate?

Disease in many cases, was a large wave of epidemics that ushed out Late Classical civilizations, Roman territory was severely depopulated and China got hit by a good deal of disease at a similar time as the flowering of classical civilizations and increased trade let many diseases increase their range.
McNeill gives an amazing account of this in Plagues and People's definately worth reading (and blows Daimond out of the water intellectually) although he does over-state his case occasionally...

[Roland]

Originally posted by Ned
Just prior to Justinian's reconquest, Rome was still a thriving city of a million or so, and the Coliseum was still in operation.

Very unlikely. Most estimates I've seen show a decrease to 100k-300k around 400, and after the chaos in the 5th century ? No.