Talk:Roman Empire/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

What was the "Roman" Empire?

My I most humbly submit that the longest lasting bit of the "Roman" Empire is hardly even mentioned here? The Byzantine Empire was the direct heir of the Western Roman Empire and considered itself to be such throughout the whole of its 1100 year existance.~~

Absolutely. And after them, for that matter, there is the Ottoman Empire which also considered itself a, if not the, successor of the Romans. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

<Edit conflict, damn it!>Byzantine Empire was the direct heir of the Eastern Roman Empire. Regarding remnants of the Western Empire, let's not forget the Papacy, still alive and well. The phrase 'Roman Empire' became increasingly irrelevant in the middle ages. For example, a confederacy of Germany, Austria and most of central Europe was called the Holy Roman Empire. It was only "Roman" in the sense that Emperors were crowned by the Pope. weaseLOId~ 08:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Not quite - also in the sense that the emperors self-identified as the successors of the old Roman Empire and as inheritors of their universal imperium. Also, the distinction between an 'Eastern' and a 'Western' Roman Empire is more based on later events being projected backwards in time by historians than on any actual differences by the end of the 5th century. It's probably better to say that there were both eastern and western provinces of the Roman Empire - culturally different from one another, but part of the same general political entity. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:20, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with AKjeldsen, the Byzantine Empire is an important part of Rome's history and is the Medieval incarnation of the Roman Empire. It at least deserves a mention. Protoman (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the founder of the Holy Roman Empire was Otto I in 962.It's strange because the description seems to describe exactly Otto, while Frederick I actually "lost" Italy (he had to concede some degree of autonomy to its cities) ^{— Unsigned, by: JustMax / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 23:21, 05 January 2015 (UTC)

The theory of military decay and its supposed "ring of credibility"

It is not made clear in the section "The Fall", why military outsourcing and heavy use of mercenaries is a problem. There is no explanation at all and it certainly isn't self-explanatory. The possibility to refer to the given reference does not excuse the initial confusion for a reader who is not inclined to acquire the book and study it.

(It is also not clear to me how there was a decay of military prowess, and strategy, but I don't think I can really criticise that adequately without reading 'Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire', since it doesn't bring any inherent confusion as a statement. It's just that I was taught that the Romans adapted as effectively and adequately as they could to changing circumstances and that they had always had a solid tradition of reliance on auxiliaries and mercenaries. There wasn't necessarily a decay in military prowess or strategy, as many ill-informed Roman military enthusiasts claim, but rather just increasing pressure from the outside and inside.) Nullahnung (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I checked a bit on Luttwak's source, and as I suspected, his claims about the decay of Roman military are said to be controversial. I'll paste this here from wikipedia:

"The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century AD to the Third is controversial among professional historians. Luttwak is seen as an outsider and non-specialist in the field. However, his book is recognized as seminal because it raised basic questions about the Roman army and its defense of the Roman frontier. Although many professional historians argue against his views on Roman strategy, some at book length, his 1976 book has undoubtedly increased interest in the study of Roman frontiers and strategy (for a summary of his thesis and criticism: Defence-in-depth (Roman military).)" (for the link to that Defence-in-depth, go to wikipedia's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak)

I'll also provide some more sources I found on the side that argue against Luttwak's claims and are more recent than his book (which was back in 1976). This is pasted from history forums I have frequented in the past, so take with a grain of salt, but I found it to be very well presented and easy to double check should anyone have the books and the interest:

“..Significant numbers of recruits were drawn from communities of barbarian tribes settled with imperial approval within the empire. Often the treaty granting them land required them to supply a set number of recruits on a regular basis. These were known as “Laeti” or “Gentiles”, but did not usually serve in distinct units and were treated much like other conscripts. Many men from outside the empire were drawn into the Roman army. At the end of a conflict prisoners of war were often conscripted into the army, though they were normally posted far away from their place of origin. A defeated people might also provide a number of warriors as part of the peace settlement imposed by the Romans. Some individuals also chose to travel to the empire and volunteer.

The recruitment of barbarians appears to have been fairly routine, and in principle was nothing new, for the Auxiliaries of the Principate had also included men from outside the empire proper. However there are no reliable statistics to establish the scale of barbarian recruitment into the late Roman Army. In the past it has often been seen as a sign of a desperate shortage of recruits, and perhaps additionally the low quality of many of the conscripts from the provinces. Steadily, the Roman army became barbarized, as more and more of its officers and men were drawn from the uncivilised peoples and in particular the Germanic tribes. These men had little reason to feel political or cultural loyalty to Rome. The problem became worse with the growing use of “Foederati”, units in which barbarians served under their own tribal leaders rather than Roman officers. The Roman army is supposed to have decayed until it was little more than a mass of mercenary warbands led by barbarian chieftains. This is sometimes held to have been a major factor in the collapse of the Western Empire.

As early as 69CE Tacitus had depicted an army from the Rhine provinces, both legionaries and auxiliaries, as uncouth barbarians, shocked by the splendour and size of Rome. Similar rhetorical exaggeration may well have influenced the few late sources which criticize the spread of barbarians within the army. In the main, our sources for the period do not appear to have seen this as a problem. Barbarian recruits were in general seen as loyal and efficient as any others, even when fighting against their own people. Occasionally barbarian soldiers turned traitor, but so in this period did some Romans. By the late 4th Century many senior officers were of barbarian descent, yet most of these men appear to have been culturally assimilated into the Roman aristocracy. The belief that barbarization of the army contributed to the fall of Rome has now been largely discredited.”

Adrian Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, Thames & Hudson 2003 ISBN 0-500-05124-0

see also:

Peter Heather, The fall of the Roman Empire: A New History, Macmillan 2005 ISBN 0-330-49136-9

Terry Jones & Alan Ereira, Barbarians, BBC books 2006 ISBN 0-563-49318-6

Phil Barker, Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome 150BC-600AD 1981 [out of print]

Well, anyways, I would suggest to at least remove the "ring of credibility" phrase and maybe include more text to reflect that Luttwak's claims have been under fire. Nullahnung (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Colorable

What (ignoring the execrable USian spelling) does "… although it is a colorable argument that … " mean? Scream!! (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think "colourable" means something like "seemingly reasonable, or at least not so ridiculous as to be dismissable at first glance." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it mean something that kids with crayons can do? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)