Monday, October 28, 2019
Roman Empire Culture Essay Example for Free
Roman Empire Culture Essay Wikipedias entry on the Fall of the Roman Empire is a comprehensive and multifaceted survey of the scholarship which seeks to indicate a certain period or event or series of events which caused the fall of the Roman Empire. One of the main differences between the Wikipedia entry and a traditional encyclopedia entry is the extensive analysis with which the Wikipedia entry is able to devote to sub-sections and sub-theories under the general banner of discussion.            The question of assigning a specific date for the fall occupies a great deal of the Wikipedia article. The traditional date acknowledged is September 4, 476 when Romulus Augustus, Emperor of the Western Empire, was deposed by Odoacer. But the Eastern Empire continued until the fall of Constantinople nearly a century later in 1453. Other dates in contention are 395, the year of the death of Theodosius, the last time the Empire was united; the crossing of the Rhine by Germanic tribes in 406 after the withdrawal of the legions to battle Alaric I; or the disintegration of the western legions following the death of Stilicho in 408. Many scholars disdain the term â€Å"fall†, preferring to describe what was happening as a â€Å"complex transformation†. The Wikipedia entry while seeming to dwell inordinately on a specific time or date of the fall is in actuality providing the researcher with a varied primer on the myriad theories which attend the question of historical dates of the Roman Empires fall.            Though the tone of the Wikipedia entry is scholarly, the lengthy digressions and somewhat scattered patterns of information make the entry less streamlined than a typical encyclopedia entry. In addition, the numerous off-site links and cross-references can prove to be distractive. And although the Wikipedia entry itself closely resembles scholarly writing there can be no assurance regarding the veracity of off-site links.            The most obvious bias that is apparent in the Wikipedia entry is resounding insistence that there is a date of collapse for the Roman Empire. The entry cites Edward Gibbon who argues the Roman population lost its way by allowing the Germanic tribes and other barbarian mercenaries a greater role in defending its interests. Gibbon claims Christianity was a contributing factor as well, turning the populations attention to other-worldly as opposed to here-and-now events.            Rather than examine contradictory theories in detail, the Wikipedia entry consumjes most of its energy revealing the survey of theories which argue for a date of collapse for the Roma Empire. Wikipedia surveys the â€Å"Pirenne Thesis†, wherein Henri Pirenne argued the Empire continued until the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, which disrupted Mediterranean trade routes and depressed the European economy. Pirenne sees the crowning of the Frankish King Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor in 800 as a continuation of the Empire.            But it is J. B. Bury’s contention in his â€Å"History of the Later Roman Empire†which receives critical attention in the Wikipedia article. His theory is that what amounted to a â€Å"perfect storm†of events combined to spell the downfall of the Empire:            *Economic decline            *Germanic expansion in the population and military            *De-population of Italy            *The treason of Stilicho            *The murder of Aetius and the lack of a leader to replace him            Bury says the Empire could have survived any of these events separately, but could not overcome the convergence of them.            William Carroll Bark’s â€Å"Origins of the Medieval World†reasons that basic economics was the Empire’s undoing. As a pre-cursor to feudalism, the tenant farmer’s obligation was to pay a fixed assessment of taxes on his grain supply. The oppressive taxes kept the farmers impoverished and unlikely to move into the more prosperous middle class. In fact, what middle class there was was forced to become collectors of the taxes for the inefficient central government. Government coffers suffered as a result. Also, the scarcity of gold late in the Empire made matters worse. Inflation of the currency in relation to its value in gold resulted in more people demanding payment in gold. The government’s cash-flow problems required them to seek cheaper mercenaries as defenders.            Radovan Richta says technology contributed to the Empire’s demise. The Germanic invention of the horseshoe and use of the new Chinese compass allowed mercenaries quicker access to Roman defenses.            Arnold Toynbee and James Burke also examine economic causes at the root of the Empire’s fall. The Romans had no budgetary system and wasted available resources as a result. The economy was basically based on plunder rather than production of new goods, and that declined along with territorial expansion. Landowners were exempt from taxation, making revenue production inefficient and unfair. The middle-class, the backbone of any free economy, was nearly non-existent. Exports were scarce. Military and bureaucratic costs increased. In overthrowing Romulus Augustus, the barbarian conqueror Odoacer assumed neither the title nor the responsibility of governance.            William H. McNeill in â€Å"Plagues and Peoples†notes a 20-year-long plague in the late second century killed half of Europe’s population. The reduced tax base was unable to support the government and military and the resultant economic and social decline also killed the Empire.              Further theories of the cause of collapse proliferate through the Wikipedia article. So much so that one begins to feel that each sub-section of the article has been contributed by an enthusiast of that particularly pet-theory, sacrificing a general tone of scholarship for a tone of specificity and personal expertise. Examples of this include Wikipedias survey of Peter Heathers theory: that the threat posed by the Sassanid Persian Empire has been overlooked as a cause for the Roman Empires fall. He used archaeological evidence to suggest the Romans were stretched militarily by their preoccupation with the Persians, allowing a succession of Huns, Goths, and Germanic barbarians access to their territory.            A researcher who is searching for a very good primer regarding the abundance of theories which exist in scholarship to examine the historicism of the Roman Empires fall will find excellent information in the Wikipedia article, as a general and unverified outline of the scholarship. However, a deep-researcher would probably find the entry inconsistent, erratic, and of little value for serious scholarship as a go-to source; rather the Wikipedia seems to serve better as a thumbnail sketch of info and links to other sources of potential value. REFERENCE            The Fall of the Roman Empire. wikipedia.com. Retrieved from the Internet March 16, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.