The collapse of the Roman Empire.

[lord of the mark]

re law.

Is there not some confusion due to considering western europe (even with Britain excluded) as a unit? From everything Ive read, Roman law survived as actual practical law on the ground in Italy and Southern France, while it pretty much whithered in northern France, the low countries and Germany, despite Charlemagne. When Roman law was revived in the north, by the newly developing states and statelets, and with growing literacy, they looked to Italy and southern France for training and texts, not to their own Carolingian heritage.

[Colon™]

Uhhh, the University of Bologna was founded some 600 years after the death of (western) Rome. It's fostering of Roman law does not constitute the survival of the Roman state. Six hundred years is a long time to wait for CPR.

Try reading what I said in full: "I suppose the University of Bologna, and the existance of scholars educated in Roman law and Greek philosophy that led to it ..."

I'm sure it's helpful to pretend every instance of Greco-Roman culture should be viewed in isolation.

And how hard can it be to understand me when I say I am not arguing the Roman state survived. I literally said it didn't, repeatedly.

Is there not some confusion due to considering western europe (even with Britain excluded) as a unit? From everything Ive read, Roman law survived as actual practical law on the ground in Italy and Southern France, while it pretty much whithered in northern France, the low countries and Germany, despite Charlemagne. When Roman law was revived in the north, by the newly developing states and statelets, and with growing literacy, they looked to Italy and southern France for training and texts, not to their own Carolingian heritage.

The thing is that canon law is Roman law as well. The organisation and legal procedures of the Church are modelled after those of the Empire. The Romanisation of law in Europe was thus two-pronged, firstly through direct reading of Roman legal texts (as you have indicated) and secondly through the adaption of canon law in wordly affairs. The very reason that Britain did not know Romanisation to the same extent as the continent is likely that England broke with Roman Catholic Church.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon™

The thing is that canon law is Roman law as well. The organisation and legal procedures of the Church are modelled after those of the Empire. The Romanisation of law in Europe was thus two-pronged, firstly through direct reading of Roman legal texts (as you have indicated) and secondly through the adaption of canon law in wordly affairs. The very reason that Britain did not know Romanisation to the same extent as the continent is likely that England broke with Roman Catholic Church.

IIUC the legal distinction is older than that - Roman law spreading on the continent (in the north, that is) from 1200 or so on, while England was replaced customary feudal law with the Common Law. Attempts to impose Roman law (called "Civil Law" in England) were made by the Tudors, even as they adopted the Reformation, and were opposed by Parliament and Common lawyers. Civil Law courts, like the Court of Star Chamber, were used to strengthen royal power, but were ultimately considered incompatiable with english notions of a limited monarchy, notions which evolved even during that struggle.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Colon™


The very reason that Britain did not know Romanisation to the same extent as the continent is likely that England broke with Roman Catholic Church.

It's more to do with the replacement of Celtic/Romano-Celtic law codes with Anglo-Saxon and Norse laws and customs, then these were overlaid with Norman laws.

King Edgar's code said in 962 a.d.:

'...measures common to all the nation, whether English, Danes, or Britons, in every province of my kingdom, to the end that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire...

Anglo-Saxon law codes and punishments:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/560-975dooms.html

Scotland has a separate Roman(ish) legal system, with all sorts of interesting concepts not found (or named the same) in English law. I like avizandum- it's always sounded like somewhere exotic in Mediaeval Asia or a lost outpost of Byzantium...

Scottish legal language:

http://www.govanlc.com/dictionary

[binTravkin]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/davidson1.html

The Roman Empire never fell. It was a state of mixed totalitarian/feudal system after the 3rd century crisis and not much changed in 5th century. What people now admire in Rome was long gone by 476. It was more like USSR before WW2 in regards of totalitarianism, bureaucracy and other aspects. Indeed, some claim that roman totalitarianism tradition was transfered from the remaining part of the Empire - Byzantium to Russia and later USSR.

The two key events which transferred the distinctive Roman culture into the basis of Italian culture we know now were:
- Gothic war, which destroyed much what remained of Roman economy and infrastructure (population was declining at this time already).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_%28535%E2%80%93552%29

- Lombards, who filled much of the empty space left after depopulation and are credited with establishment of the Italian feudal system as it survived through Medieval and partly up to Napoleonic wars. Lombards were the first people to really start diffusing with the local populace (Roman people), the barbarians before them preferred to live in their own territories by their own laws while usually letting Romans abide their own laws and even retain the administration (under Odoacer and Theodoric) as long as they paid tribute.


Although the first two links posted only represent one of the theories about endings of Roman Empire, I consider this theory the most feasible because of following:
- it explains clearly the actual root of changes in Roman life which lead to many of it's later negative changes. Other theories only list those later changes (like economic decline, lowering quality of military force, corruption and so on) without clearly stating the reason that caused them. These theories point at certain roman cultural traits that under right circumstances must have caused all those other things.
- it doesn't have controversial points which are often part of other theories. For example there's quite a long list of stuff that is true for West Roman Empire while not for East and it often raises question as to whether those issues are actually decisive. For example, the mentioned in this thread, Sassanid empire was a very powerful one living through it's golden age just a few centuries after disintegration of Western Empire. Still Byzantium was able to quite successfully cope with Sassanid threat and a few other serious threats (barbarians due to north, and in the deserts of south) and even expand itself, while West didn't even cope with the barbarians who mostly came from one direction.
- it doesn't pretend that this or other factor did not contribute to decline of Rome. Surely, there were a plethora of factors but most of them have a common root in the Roman culture itself.

[binTravkin]

Economy wasn't as important in ancient warfare as it is today. What can you buy with more money? More swords? All swords cut the same. Logistics? They didn't have that back then. Mercenaries? You better not.

Romans lost their peasant base, their army started to seriously suck and that's basically it.

Remember how they came back after Hanibal destroyed them at Cannae? That was fighting spirit!

1.Money has always been an integral part of war effort. Numerous great persons in history, many of greek and roman descent have been cited for saying that 'it's not the swords that win wars, but money'.
Logistics was one major part of why post-Marius armies were so effective. Legoinairres were called 'Marius mules' because they carried so much of stuff with them that the need for logistics was drastically diminished thus increasing mobility.
Also, a major reason of building those excellent and no doubt expensive roads was logistics.
Core of the carthaginian army in Punic wars consisted of mercenaries and it fought rather well being outnumbered and out-armed (meaning Hannibal still had to have good troops to strike those victories).

2.Roman army was the most powerful after Marius reforms, when it became professional. The roman decline has nothing to do with the actual strenght of the army (of course as a side-effect it worsened by the end, but that's side-effect you can always expect from less manpower and weaker economy), rather the political changes Marius brought with army that paid allegiance to it's leader not state.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by binTravkin

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/davidson1.html

The Roman Empire never fell. It was a state of mixed totalitarian/feudal system after the 3rd century crisis and not much changed in 5th century. What people now admire in Rome was long gone by 476. It was more like USSR before WW2 in regards of totalitarianism, bureaucracy and other aspects. Indeed, some claim that roman totalitarianism tradition was transfered from the remaining part of the Empire - Byzantium to Russia and later USSR.

Strange, the authors of both of your referrences seem to be laboring under the delusion that the Roman Empire did fall. Their argument is that the mishandling of the Roman economy unless corrected made the collapse of Rome inevitable. A political entity called the Roman empire existed up through the turn of the 5th century AD, even though said entity may have been suffering from a mortal economic sickness. After around 450 AD said entity ceased to exist, hence Rome can be said to have fallen.

[Dr Strangelove]

I have to admit, I had no idea that Rome's inflation problem had been that serious. You'd think that over a course of 200 years someone would have introduced monetary reform. I wonder why no one ever made a concerted attempt to recall the bad money and replace it with a more sound currency.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I have to admit, I had no idea that Rome's inflation problem had been that serious. You'd think that over a course of 200 years someone would have introduced monetary reform. I wonder why no one ever made a concerted attempt to recall the bad money and replace it with a more sound currency.

Emperors did try to issue new coins, but each time they were forced to overvalue it in order to pay for their armies. Face it, the empire was centrifugal in that most wealth was to be channeled to Rome, a city of well over a million people which was insanely huge back then (with the few exceptions of Antioch, Ephesos etc.). When they could no longer conquer and capture loot and slaves to sell, that couldn't be sustained. The whole system was based on expansion, and when that wasn't possible anymore it collapsed.

In fact, most empires were sort of like this. Expansion was power. It's a bit like big corporations nowadays. They always seem to feel the need to grow bigger. If they don't, that means they're lagging behind and going down and finally get bought by some other corporation

[One_more_turn]

When corporations fall, only shareholders lose their investments and workers their jobs;

When nations fall, millions die.

Just to let you know, the most successful corporations do not expand mindlessly. Many of them may contract willingly.


Romans were a vicious bunch. As long as they were expanding, they could channel their viciousness toward their 'enemies'. But once the expansion stalled (Teutoburg Forest, Loss of Mesopotamia in 117AD), they turned on themselves. Their legions became the most dangerous weapon against their own safety and prosperity.