StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Maxentius wrote:For what it's worth, Kitsune, avoid using Wikipedia at all costs. If you need a general source for Roman history, www.roman-empire.net is a vastly superior place to go.

If it can be shown where Wiki is wrong, that is fine. Just attacking it because it is Wiki is wrong. It agrees pretty well with Philip Daileader's lectures which is much of what is my source.

Thanas wrote:Yes, but those measures are solutions to a crisis and not an indicator for the continuance of those.

Maybe if it really worked.....

It was not really successful. While some people were forced to stay tenants, the taxes they paid went to their overlords and not to the emperor / empire in most cases.

Kitsune wrote:

Maxentius wrote:For what it's worth, Kitsune, avoid using Wikipedia at all costs. If you need a general source for Roman history, www.roman-empire.net is a vastly superior place to go.

If it can be shown where Wiki is wrong, that is fine. Just attacking it because it is Wiki is wrong. It agrees pretty well with Philip Daileader's lectures which is much of what is my source.

Yes, Wiki is that bad. My university bans the use of it. For a serious online resource, use DIR.

Besides, why are you even considering Daileader? He is a medievist, not someone specialising in ancient history. Why is he even teaching that? He has done no research in that area, has never published anything in it. I wouldn't hesitate to claim that he is only using common knowledge about the subject. And why is anyone even letting him teach ancient history, if he has no qualifications in the matter?

Oh wait, per his faculty page he teaches the history of "Europe up to 1715". What the fuck is that? How can one seriously claim to study the history of Europe up to 1715 in one semester? I really must question the quality of any program that does that. How many hours are even devoted to late antiquity? Four? Six?

My advice - get rid of those materials and start reading some good work about the subject. Like Averil Cameron's work.

It was not really successful. While some people were forced to stay tenants, the taxes they paid went to their overlords and not to the emperor / empire in most cases.

Once again, this is a simplistic viewpoint. Read up on the subject and then come back. I am getting tired of you posting fucking one-liners. Either post a detailed analysis of why the program did not work (with cites and sources, and no, a half-assed lecture by anyone not specialising in the field is not enough) or keep quiet.

And here is another fun fact for you: In the fourth century, the roman empire could afford to guarantee price stability in the urbs for wine, pork, olive oil and grain. Oh golly, I wonder how they managed that with a free-falling economy. Especially considering that this is a feat which was not managed during the principate.

So really, maybe you should go and examine the situation on a provincial basis and then come back.

Maxentius wrote:My opinion is that the Empire only began to show signs of serious erosion under the Theodosian/Valentinian dynasties.

I agree that after Theodosius II. the empire went into steep decline. The question is why the process was not reversed in the following five decades it took the empire to wholly disintegrate. And that is something I cannot answer (yet).

Thanas wrote: I agree that after Theodosius II. the empire went into steep decline. The question is why the process was not reversed in the following five decades it took the empire to wholly disintegrate. And that is something I cannot answer (yet).

I would (hesitantly) say that it had a lot to do with the mediocre succession of autocrats that followed Theodosius II and Valentinian III. Valentinian III's time, in particular, was marked by increasing incursions from barbarian tribes. In particular, Valentinan's assassination and the utterly worthless reign of his 'successor', Petronius, which was followed by Gaiseric's sack of Rome, was (in my opinion) a very big blow to the central authority of the Western Empire. The army, too, was in a very destitute state following the Hunnic campaign, the loss of portions of Africa to the Vandals, and the extension required to make attempts at staving off invasions of Gaul and (I believe) Iberia, as well. Aetius' assassination also deprived Roman forces of an incredibly able commander, and given Petronius' marginal and mediocre reign of something like twelve weeks, Gaiseric's sack of Rome was certainly a very crippling blow to Imperial administration and authority.

I'm tempted to say that the East fared somewhat better, but Marcian was competent at best. Avitus was nothing more than a Visigoth puppet, and while Majorian did a very good job of pushing back the frontiers, his untimely death stymied that resurgence, compounded by the completely useless reigns of his successors succh as Libius, Anthemis, and Olybrius, whose reigns are all characterized by intense clashes with Ricimer.

So, I suppose you could say that the process was not reversed due to a clear lack of state policy and strong central authority, but that's a tenuous guess at best.

EDIT: I almost shot myself in the foot with this post. While Marcian was certainly a competent ruler, his policy of Eastern isolationism was what I meant to critique. It certainly went a long way towards ensuring the longevity of the Eastern Empire, but the lack of cooperation with his Western counterpart (though given the succession of deposed and murdered Western Emperors during this period, real cooperation would have most likely been very difficult) most likely went a long way towards ensuring that the deterioriating of the Western Empire was not reversed. During the 5th century, you get several excellent Eastern Emperors, most of whom (Leo I, Zeno) made economic and military gains to the benefit of their provinces, and ruled for long periods of time, whereas the West is characterized by lame-duck puppets to Ricimer who had no time, and most likely not the skill, to ensure any real change.

Daileader teaches a course in the Early Middle Ages....an important facet
of that is the end of the Roman Period

Provide sources like you stated!

Look, this is support to be somewhere to discuss and maybe learn about history....

If you want to show that Wki is wrong in an area, fine, but do so...just don't dismiss out of hand. I use it to often get a first basis or a grounding for what questions to ask next. I have helped to keep up the section on the USS South Carolina class battleships and it is as accurate as I can make it. In fact, in some cases Wiki may be more accurate because it has more eyes on it correcting errors

You seem to state that everything was wonderful in the Fourth Century as far as economics and you stated you were going to provide sources for this. You did not yet.....

The history of Europe up to 1715 is probably a survey course, Thanas. That is what they called our Western Civilizations.

However, I think a problem you may be having is the lack of information regarding what's taught. A lot of the ancient history classes, even that I have had, have pretty much taught as "fact" what you say is bullshit, so hopefully you can understand how it's confusing.

I have had whole lectures on the influence of the third century in the Roman Decline, the barbarization of the military, and the economic strain from civil wars, internal avarice, and the lack of expansion's impact on the morale of the military (e.g. professors claimed the military grew stale sitting on the frontier without the lure of booty).

It's actually taught like that. I don't know where you learned it, but you are lucky, I guess, to get a "real" education in it. A beginning student can't know what's true and false and typically trusts the professorship he has.

The tax system was also listed as a slow cause of decline as taxes grew more burdensome on the outlying provinces to sustain the cities. Of course, this could be wrong, but then they are to blame for teaching bullshit.

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:A beginning student can't know what's true and false and typically trusts the professorship he has.

That's the difference between a beginning student and a more advanced student - the beginning student just takes the professor's word as gospel, while a more advanced student treats the professor as a secondary source. Of course, it's really the professor's job to train a beginning history student to deal with primary and secondary sources, to understand the differences between the two, and to draw conclusions from them.

Having training in the use of primary sources or having help finding good ones (or at least how to critique them), is a valuable skill. Sadly, at least from my experience in the Monmouth curriculum, they rarely do that. I don't know what they do elsewhere, but here, even the upper division classes we really have no training in that and it's a professor fap-fest.

It might be that I am not an actual history programme, but rather a teaching hybrid, but I have never really had any primary source training or historiography training.

Most of my knowledge of the Roman empire stems from whatever texts we had and the lectures (complete with any of their misconceptions, lies, distortions, etc). It's dismaying knowing that they just say anything to you.

That's one reason I find this history forum valuable. I look up the textbooks mentioned to try to correct misconceptions. Its hard to unlearn misfacts.

=D

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Having training in the use of primary sources or having help finding good ones (or at least how to critique them), is a valuable skill. Sadly, at least from my experience in the Monmouth curriculum, they rarely do that. I don't know what they do elsewhere, but here, even the upper division classes we really have no training in that and it's a professor fap-fest.

It might be that I am not an actual history programme, but rather a teaching hybrid, but I have never really had any primary source training or historiography training.

Wow. That's actually really sad. I was first taught about dealing with primary and secondary sources in high school. To be fair, it was in an advanced placement history class that was the equivalent of a 1st year university class (and gave me university credit), but still. That should be the very first thing that they go over in any 1st year university-level history course, I don't care if it's in an actual history programme or not. Studying history isn't about knowing dates and events, it's about understanding the causes and significance of those events. You can't do that properly if you don't know how to properly analyze both primary and secondary sources.

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Most of my knowledge of the Roman empire stems from whatever texts we had and the lectures (complete with any of their misconceptions, lies, distortions, etc). It's dismaying knowing that they just say anything to you.

Actually, a lot of primary sources that have survived from the Roman era aren't exactly great either. Seutonius was little more than a tabloid author, Tacitus viewed any usurpation of Senatorial authority as outright calamity (one of the most glaring examples off the top of my head is his whining about how during Nero's reign the reconstructed Rome was too hot, or how Domitian apparently spent hours at a time alone stabbing flies), The Lives of the Later Caesars is a mixture of truth and outright fabrications, and Livy makes no effort to write a cohesive narrative (there's at least two different versions of Romulus's death, the founding of Rome, etc.).

Isn't that problem characteristic of many of the ancient authorities? That they often have glaring flaws and dubious portions?

Well, obviously a lot of ancient sources will point to divine portents, auguries, etcetra to indicate fated or important lives that we might find ridiculous.

As I see it, one of the most major flaws with Antiquity literary sources is that we may very little of it all. Of Livy, most of his work is lost, and whole sections of Tacitus's Annals are missing too. Claudius apparently wrote a history that never survived, and the only known biography of Antoninus Pius is the unreliable Lives of the Later Caesars I mentioned before. Furthermore, since we are removed from the authors by about two millenia, a lot of the context of these works is lost as well, which makes an accurate assessment of historiography next to impossible.

Fortunately, we do have the advantage of archeology, thanks to which, the author of my Roman civ. book mused, we know more about the origin of Rome than the ancient Romans did themselves.

First off, I apologize for taking so long to answer, I was very busy this week.

Kitsune wrote:Daileader teaches a course in the Early Middle Ages....an important facet of that is the end of the Roman Period

Okay. Let's do this. Cards on the table:
- How many hours are you required to spend on Antiquity during your entire history programme?
- How many essays (as in over 20 pages) on topics about Antiquity do you have to write?
- How many languages do you have to learn? How many ancient languages?
- How many lectures do you get on Antiquity?
- How many training sessions do you get on how to edit and decypher ancient sources?
- How much training do you get in the field of epigraphy, geography and numismatics?

And a final fact: In a real history program, the answer would be that the course of European history would not be taught by one, but by at least three persons. One being a specialist in antiquity, one a mediavist and one being a "modern" historian.

Provide sources like you stated!

Fine. Look below.

If you want to show that Wki is wrong in an area, fine, but do so...just don't dismiss out of hand. I use it to often get a first basis or a grounding for what questions to ask next. I have helped to keep up the section on the USS South Carolina class battleships and it is as accurate as I can make it. In fact, in some cases Wiki may be more accurate because it has more eyes on it correcting errors

Ah yes, untrained eyes are of course as qualified as actual experts. Hint: I do not give a damm about Wikipedia. It is pure and unqualified idiocy and I do not care for it one bit. Real history is written in books, go read or write one. Real historians do not use wikipedia, or at least those I know don't. Making jokes on the accuracy of Wikipedia is one of the favorite pasttimes of historians.

Also, I don't care about the accuracy of a page you "maintain", since if I would need any information I would look for it in a BOOK or ask the actual experts.

So in short: Wikipedia can bugger off. Or in Dalek talk: EXTERMINATE.

You seem to state that everything was wonderful in the Fourth Century as far as economics and you stated you were going to provide sources for this. You did not yet.....

No, you strawmanning idiot. I did not claim everything was wonderful. I stated that your claim of a free-falling economy was wrong on so many levels it is not even funny anymore.

I stated that you cannot state that the economy was in a general decline, that you cannot state that due to problems in one province one can surmise that the whole empire was circling the drain etc.

But hey, let's look at some sources, especially on North Africa.

Here are some nice quotes:

According to the more recent and authoritative analysis, there was no general decline or transformation of classical cities in the west until the sixth and seventh centuries

Oh and finally, my favorite:

In the North African provinces even modest cities witnessed growth, in fact, there was hardly an African city which did not visibly expand in the late Empire

Both are quotes taken from the Cambridge Ancient History.

If you want to have a closer look at the cities in North Africa, which flourished under Roman and Byzantine rule and who were not destroyed by the oh-so terrifying vandals:

Lepelly, C, Les Cités de l'Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire (Étudies augustiniennes), 2. vols. Paris, 1979-81. (which identifies 361-395 as the main period of growth).

Or if you are one of those poeple who try and study ancient history without the knowledge of foreign languages (good luck with that), you can read an abbreviated version in:

Claude Lepelly, The survival and fall of the classical city in Late Roman Africa, in: Rich, J (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity, Leicester Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society III, London et al 1992.


For another good essay that deals with your views see:

Corbier, Michelle, Did the economic unity of the empire become fragmented? in: Coinage, society and economy, in: Bowman, A; Garnsey, P; Cameron, A (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History XII: The Crisis of Empire A.D. 193-337, Cambridge 2005, pg. 435-439.


So, where are your sources?

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:The history of Europe up to 1715 is probably a survey course, Thanas. That is what they called our Western Civilizations.

However, I think a problem you may be having is the lack of information regarding what's taught. A lot of the ancient history classes, even that I have had, have pretty much taught as "fact" what you say is bullshit, so hopefully you can understand how it's confusing.

I have had whole lectures on the influence of the third century in the Roman Decline, the barbarization of the military, and the economic strain from civil wars, internal avarice, and the lack of expansion's impact on the morale of the military (e.g. professors claimed the military grew stale sitting on the frontier without the lure of booty).

It's actually taught like that. I don't know where you learned it, but you are lucky, I guess, to get a "real" education in it. A beginning student can't know what's true and false and typically trusts the professorship he has.

The tax system was also listed as a slow cause of decline as taxes grew more burdensome on the outlying provinces to sustain the cities. Of course, this could be wrong, but then they are to blame for teaching bullshit.

Having training in the use of primary sources or having help finding good ones (or at least how to critique them), is a valuable skill. Sadly, at least from my experience in the Monmouth curriculum, they rarely do that. I don't know what they do elsewhere, but here, even the upper division classes we really have no training in that and it's a professor fap-fest.

It might be that I am not an actual history programme, but rather a teaching hybrid, but I have never really had any primary source training or historiography training.

Good lord. This is simply frightening to hear. And they expect you to teach that drivel to children? Monmouth is Monmouth College, Illinois, right? I always thaught they had quite a good reputation. I fear I must reexamine that viewpoint. The problem is that all those viewpoints were valid several decades ago. I wonder if the professors simply got stuck at that.

I must confess that I am no expert on the tax system, however it seems ridiculous to me to blame that it caused a slow decline over three centuries since the cities only really started to detoriate in the sixth century.

A word of advice: If you want to get a more balanced viewpoint, go to the Library and look for the Cambridge Ancient History. It is a series of books, most likely with red covers. There, you will find several essays by much-admired researchers and lecturers which give a far more nuanced view and deal with those old theories quite admirably.

Seriously, take ten hours of your life and just read those books. At least then you will be able to say to your future pupils "Listen kids, that is what people in 2007 are saying". And they are all very well written so you won't have to suffer through endless walls of text.

TC Pilot wrote:Actually, a lot of primary sources that have survived from the Roman era aren't exactly great either. Seutonius was little more than a tabloid author, Tacitus viewed any usurpation of Senatorial authority as outright calamity (one of the most glaring examples off the top of my head is his whining about how during Nero's reign the reconstructed Rome was too hot, or how Domitian apparently spent hours at a time alone stabbing flies), The Lives of the Later Caesars is a mixture of truth and outright fabrications, and Livy makes no effort to write a cohesive narrative (there's at least two different versions of Romulus's death, the founding of Rome, etc.).

Yes, but you make a mistake in that you view them from a modern viewpoint. For example, what you dismiss as "whining about Domitian wasting time or Rome being too hot" are probably among the most important things in his work, because they are actually very cleverly designed character attacks which are invaluable to us today. For example, we can gather from them that a) the ideal emperor was responsible for every part of the roman state and if the weather was bad, he was responsible for making it bearable (such by providing sails, prudentia is the key word here) or b) the ideal emperor was not supposed to waste time.

Whether those writings are true or not matters little, what matters is that they tell us about the ancient mindset.

Are your studies mainly in the western empire, Thanas? I'm wondering if the Oxford History of Byzantium is a good source, or if you have heard of it.

Guardsman Bass wrote:Are your studies mainly in the western empire, Thanas? I'm wondering if the Oxford History of Byzantium is a good source, or if you have heard of it.

My studies are in both western and eastern empire and I can confirm that the Oxford History of Byzantium is indeed a good source. I use it quite often, though one should supplement it with Ostrogorsky or Der Neue Pauly / Pauly's Real-Encyklopädie depending on the time period at least. For quick reference it is among the best there are.

Thanas wrote:Whether those writings are true or not matters little, what matters is that they tell us about the ancient mindset.

Personally, I would consider knowing what really happened more important than whatever tenuous observations of the "ancient mindset" one can glean from them. I was really at a loss for how to respond to your post, since, quite frankly, "whether those writings are true or not" seems to have a lot more to do with Boyish-Tigerlilly's "my professors make shit up" comment than "knowing the ancient mindset".

TC Pilot wrote:

Thanas wrote:Whether those writings are true or not matters little, what matters is that they tell us about the ancient mindset.

Personally, I would consider knowing what really happened more important than whatever tenuous observations of the "ancient mindset" one can glean from them. I was really at a loss for how to respond to your post, since, quite frankly, "whether those writings are true or not" seems to have a lot more to do with Boyish-Tigerlilly's "my professors make shit up" comment than "knowing the ancient mindset".

You misunderstand my position, which is essentially: Never take those anecdotes as fact but consider what one can learn from them in context of the roman mentality.

Basically, do not dismiss them out of hand which is what you did without recognizing their importance. Facts are certainly the barebone of history. Yet how those people thought helps us understand why they made decisions. It even helps us recognizes topoi in the sources. For example, without Livius you cannot understand how Ammian glorifies Julian. Without reading pointless little anecdotes you cannot detect the literary techniques of the writers (and yes, writing "pointless" anecdotes to make a character attack is a writing technique) and therefore will fall easy prey to them.


EDIT: Oh btw, did you just miss the conclusions that are possible from looking at the anecdotes? And before you start to screech about "But there is no additional evidence" I assure you that no serious historian will try to form conclusions on the basis of one example.

Thanas wrote:You misunderstand my position, which is essentially: Never take those anecdotes as fact but consider what one can learn from them in context of the roman mentality.

I'm well aware of what your position is. It's just that it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said in the context in which it was said.

Basically, do not dismiss them out of hand which is what you did without recognizing their importance.

I see the point sailed completely over your head. Boyish-Tigerlilly said his knowledge of the empire comes from primary sources and professor lectures "(complete with any of their misconceptions, lies, distortions, etc.)", to which I responded "The primary sources aren't that great either. Here's a bunch of examples." Do you understand now how coming out of nowhere and scolding me with "Ah, but we can understand their mindset!" is laughable?

EDIT: Oh btw, did you just miss the conclusions that are possible from looking at the anecdotes? And before you start to screech about "But there is no additional evidence" I assure you that no serious historian will try to form conclusions on the basis of one example.

No, I didn't miss them, I just don't care, since there's just absolutely no purpose to responding to any of them because your entire argument is pointless, knee-jerk ramblings to yourself.

It's obvious you're really itching to regurgitate whatever knowledge and opinions of the Roman Empire you have onto me, regardless of the propriety or coherence of doing so. I suggest next time, you pick a person and a place that's actually appropriate for such a "dumping."

TC Pilot wrote:I see the point sailed completely over your head. Boyish-Tigerlilly said his knowledge of the empire comes from primary sources and professor lectures "(complete with any of their misconceptions, lies, distortions, etc.)", to which I responded "The primary sources aren't that great either. Here's a bunch of examples." Do you understand now how coming out of nowhere and scolding me with "Ah, but we can understand their mindset!" is laughable?

No, because unlike the misconceptions his professors may or may not have and which are preventing any serious discussion to take place, the "lies" you seem to be so able to spot are actually valuable to the historian. Which is all I am pointing out, but which you apparently do not get. Case in point: your posts which were all about "ancient writers whining about X" and "I do only care about the actual facts".

Fuck this, I get what you mean - basically: Ancient sources are full of lies etc as well. Fucking A. Every undergraduate knows that. What you don't get and once again, that is all I am saying, is that one can even pick up important concepts from those lies unlike from professors who do not allow any discussion.

No, I didn't miss them, I just don't care, since there's just absolutely no purpose to responding to any of them because your entire argument is pointless, knee-jerk ramblings to yourself.

It's obvious you're really itching to regurgitate whatever knowledge and opinions of the Roman Empire you have onto me, regardless of the propriety or coherence of doing so. I suggest next time, you pick a person and a place that's actually appropriate for such a "dumping."

It's obvious you're really itching to blather on about whatever little thing you may have picked up reading wikipedia regardless of the shallowness of doing so. I suggest next time, you read up on the ancient authors before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself trying to claim anecdotes are unimportant.

There. Want to try another ad hominem?

Thanas wrote:Which is all I am pointing out, but which you apparently do not get.

Once again, the point sails spectacularly over your head. I get your point. The real question is, why the hell did you bring it up to begin with?

Case in point: your posts which were all about "ancient writers whining about X"

No, they weren't. Try actually reading my (one) post: "Seutonius was little more than a tabloid author, Tacitus viewed any usurpation of Senatorial authority as outright calamity (one of the most glaring examples off the top of my head is his whining about how during Nero's reign the reconstructed Rome was too hot, or how Domitian apparently spent hours at a time alone stabbing flies), The Lives of the Later Caesars is a mixture of truth and outright fabrications, and Livy makes no effort to write a cohesive narrative (there's at least two different versions of Romulus's death, the founding of Rome, etc.)."

Yeah, all about "ancient writers whining about X" indeed! Or is your definition of "whining" so broad that it includes "tabloid writer," "I make shit up," and "Here's a bunch of contradictory stories."

"I do only care about the actual facts".

I see your study of Roman history precluded basic reading comprehension:

"Personally, I would consider knowing what really happened more important than whatever tenuous observations of the "ancient mindset" one can glean from them."

Emphasis mine, idiot.

What you don't get and once again, that is all I am saying, is that one can even pick up important concepts from those lies unlike from professors who do not allow any discussion.

And I'll say again: I understood you perfectly fine the last time. Repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn't change the fact it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So go take your oh so brilliant point and fuck yourself with it instaed of trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.

It's obvious you're really itching to blather on about whatever little thing you may have picked up reading wikipedia regardless of the shallowness of doing so.

Don't try being clever. It obviously doesn't suit a pretentious little dipshit like yourself.

I suggest next time, you read up on the ancient authors before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself trying to claim anecdotes are unimportant.

Ah, so you're not just a pretentious asshat, you're a pathetic troll too. Go ahead and fucking try and find anywhere where I made that kind of claim.

There. Want to try another ad hominem?

Go right ahead, illiterate. The last one pretty much proved you haven't even read my posts.

A little bit of Thread Necromancy, but has anyone read "Justinian's Flea"
I puts how much effect Plagues had on Roman history into perspective