Working out the reasons for the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the C5th is a hardy perennial. As
deathbeast correctly pointed out in a comment on a
recent post of mine: The problem with the debate about the fall of the Western Roman empire (or 'transformation' in more postmodern terms) is that you get a real lack of information and evidence. Which
(
Read more... )
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
What you say makes much sense. I am simply interested in the consequences of the change in the basic underlying social contract. That the old Republican system was not coping is clear enough, hence the reforms of Marius and the warlord consequences you note.
Reply
you are quite right, my point I guess was a more supplementary one.
Just as specialisation and the change of the social contract helped to bring down the empire by effectively demilitarising most of the citizenry and separating them from the military profession, it earlier had helped to preserve the empire by making a professional career open to the underclass.
I went and got the book yesterday. As you say, his marshalling of the archeological evidence is impressive, as he uses the degree of sophistication in the material culture as a barometer of ecnomomic health, standard of living, etc.
How about that paragraph where he uses the analogy of a village vicarage being entered by a difficult family. how deliciously English!
How is your book coming along, btw? The concept sounded great when we spoke in Jan.
db
Reply
Of course, one wonders if the increased barbarian economic activity was good for bad for economic activity in Empire itself.
As for the book, it is proceding slowly. Many of the entries in this LJ are working notes towards it.
Reply
Leave a comment