Talk:Decline of the Roman Empire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Good and Bad

This is a great little article, neatly separating out some basic ideas that would otherwise be buried in other articles. But please don't fall victim to the usual Wikipedia trivia collection mania. Making a complete copy of Demandt's list bloats the article and doesn't really tell the reader anything useful. Better to just refer to Demandt's book. ----Isaac R 04:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the list and replaced with a link to a web source since one exists, if it ever disapears the article history contains a back up. Stbalbach 05:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move

This article should be called "Fall" and not "Decline" because the majority of incoming links use "fall". "Decline" is the minority usage on Wikipedia, "Fall" is the majority. Stbalbach 05:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Updated the WP:RM entry. See the "What Links Here" for this article, "Fall" is in more common use than "Decline". Stbalbach 05:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Fall" and "decline" refer to two distinct concepts, and even historical theories: the first to the supposed singular disestablishment of the Western Empire by Odoacer, and the second to a gradual erosion and evolution of Roman institutions unmarked by any particularly significant "fall".--Pharos 09:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes thats one theory. Another theory by Gibbon says the Decline and Fall are implicit. You cant seperate these things, at least at this level. If you want to write an article just about the transformist (decline) view, then Late Antiquity is a good start. But this article simply is a collection of all theories regarding decline and fall, for practical linking reasons, since so many people use the terminology in articles, this is a gateway article. Stbalbach 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Pharos above. This article is essentially about theories about the decline. "Fall" should be an article in its own right with an opening pointer to "Decline". --Theo (Talk) 10:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article was created for a practical reason, that so many Wikipedians write "fall" or "decline" interchangeably in wikipedia articles (see "what links here"), it is a common phrase of expression for most people, who take it from Gibbons title, but dont really understand the underlying historigraphical issues. Seperating to two articles would be confusing to the majority of readers and create inappropriate links. "Fall of the Roman Empire" is a POV term of periodization, like Dark Ages or Enlightenment, it is entirely "made up" after the fact and was phrased by Gibbon to support his thesis, we should not detail the actual history in this article as if it was a matter of fact because that would be POV, thats allready done in other articles, this article is about historiographical periodization issues, both decline and fall belong here they are related as terms of periodization. Stbalbach 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment why not take a lead from Gibbon and move it to "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire"? Philip Baird Shearer 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Too easily confused with the title of his book, often shortened to Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Stbalbach 18:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Why not Fall and decline of the Roman Empire ? 132.205.45.148 20:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Or the Roman Empire's decline and fall? Philip Baird Shearer 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That might upset the transformationists and the Greeks. Its hard to get a title that includes all the theories without excluding others. We could call it "End of Roman Empire theories", and then have redirects for the specific theory names like decline and/or fall. Stbalbach 02:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • "Decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire"? Philip Baird Shearer 07:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I like "Decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire". Why not just have a disambiguation link at the top of the page to Gibbon's book? - Christopher 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
          • But why do you like the phrase "decline and fall", do you believe that is what happened? Not every historian agrees with that, it's POV, some believe it was a "transformation of the roman empire". A more neutral descriptor would be simply "end of the roman empire" (with qualifiers in the text). --Stbalbach 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- The whole point of this article is that there is this specific event that by convention marks the Fall of Rome and the end of the Classical Era. I'm talking about deposition of Romulus Augustulus as Western Emperor by Odoacer on September 4, 476. There are all kinds of problems with this label -- Imperial institutions persisted in various forms for many centuries -- but that doesn't matter. What matters is that on 9/4/476 people started telling each other "There's no more Roman Empire!", and that date has been accepted as a key historical turning point ever since. That turning point has always been called "The Fall of Rome" and we might as well go along with it. It's a convenient label, and all the quibbles can be dealt with in the article. ----Isaac R 20:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

postmodernism

re: this:

"postmodern thought, which regards all cultures as equally worthy"

Im not sure thats an accurate portrayal of postmodern thought? I may be wrong. It implies political correctness, that worthiness is contrived for an idealistic purpose, which is a pejorative concept. Stbalbach 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I may have been combining culture and cultures too readily. Postmodernism does blend high culture and low culture, i.e. opera and porn, and declare then equally worthy. It seems similar to the high esteem in which the classical period was previously held in comparison to the barbarous dark ages and how these distinctions are being disregarded. I'm not sure postmodernism says that cultures meaning societies are equal.MeltBanana 18:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gibbon quote

re: this quote on Byzantine

"In the revolution of ten centuries, not a single discovery was made to exalt the dignity or promote the happiness of mankind. Not a single idea had been added to the speculative systems of antiquity, and a succession of patient disciples became in their turn the dogmatic teachers of the next servile generation."

Is there any reason we need this? It is polemic and flat wrong. Theres really no reason to illustrate the point with a quote, in particular one that continues to spread misconceptions. If we must keep the quote, then it needs to be explained as being incorrect, which is really beyond the scope of this article. Stbalbach 01:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, maybe you're right. I think I put that there originally due to the paragraph that basically said that any theories about why the West fell were wrong, since the East didn't fall. This would be Gibbon's rebuttal (i.e., even though the East did last a long time, it was a stagnant and pointless existence). Maybe make it clearer that this is what Gibbon thought, and that others disagree. Or maybe just delete that whole 2nd paragraph under "Philosophy of theories". "the eastern half of the Empire was even more Christian than the west" is kind of an odd statement anyway. --JW1805 01:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph is standard historiography. J.B. Bury said it, a class I took the teacher said it, Ive read it elsewhere as well. I'll dig up citations and add footnotes and quotations if there is a need to. Really, the second paragraph should come first because it is THE main argument historians have traditionally used to refute most (all?) theories. The first paragraph is an interesting observation, but it implies the theories are wrong because of historical perspective, which may or may not be a factor, its not an argument of fact, just a somewhat cynical observation about the history profession and IMO bordering on original research. If we keep it, it needs to be qualified that just because there is the problem of historical perspective, it doesnt mean its not possible to come up with a theory that is correct. This is true with anything. Stbalbach 03:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The Postmodernist bias on the this page

The problem is that the postmodern POV pervades the historiography section where it is given an aura of objective truth. Historians who think that something actually happened are in a separate section where the fact they can't agree serves to create an impression that only the postmodernist have seen the light. I was thinking of adding a bit but this page is so slanted that it seems unsalvageable.Dejvid 21:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC) The final layer of bias is the refusal to detail the events which from reading the above is intentional.Dejvid 06:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

delete theory

  • I deleted the last reference to as it cannot be described as a mainstream theory. It is a Marxist interpretation and was only published two months ago. Perhaps vanity/plug.--jucifer 00:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted it again. It is not a major part of the discussion on the fall of the Roman Empire. It has been around 2 months, this has been a debate for a millenium. Maybe it will be appropriate to add it in 10 years time.
Well it depends what your definitin of "mainstream" is. I wrote that section originally, intending to keep out quackpot theories, not to exclude valid theories. The book in question is not quackpot and if its 1 or 100 years old is irrelevant to that test. But I wont push it and dont want to get into a discussion of the books validity -- although I do find the anti-marxist comment suspect for POV reasons, the book isnt marxist. (btw your tirade below is directed at the wrong person, see the edit history). --Stbalbach 15:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your question, no, wikipedia is not a Marxism free zone. It does maintain a policy of neutral point of view - there are in fact dozens of articles discussing Marxism.

It is out of order to change someone else's writing on the talk page. Do NOT do that again EVER.


Yours appropriately,

jucifer 05:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In point of fact I didn't change your writing, I just addeded a sub tittle where there was one needed. I should not have been so flipant and I not been less tired I'd have chosen a politer way to do it. I never expected it would remain. If it was not inteded as a new topic then I appoligize for misunderstanding your pointDejvid 15:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK

OK apology acepted, I was just annoyed that someone changed the header.

jucifer 20:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Ancient Rome

This information is far too specific for a heavily summarized article like Ancient Rome, and should be integrated into this article wherever it isn't already present:

The study of the Decline of the Roman Empire is a classic field of study in History. There are numerous theories as to the main cause for the decline, many of which are not mutually exclusive.

  • Henri Pirenne published the "Pirenne Thesis" in the 1920s which holds that the Empire continued, in some form, up until the the Arab conquests, which disrupted trade routes, and thereby the European economy.
  • A theory pioneered by Peter Brown maintains that the Empire never "fell", but transformed in a gradual process into medieval Europe.
  • Historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the Empire itself was a rotten system from its inception. The Romans had no budgetary system and relied on booty from conquered territories or on a pattern of taxation that bankrupted small-scale farmers. Financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded.
  • Ludwig von Mises proposed that the inflation and the price controls promoted by the later emperors destroyed the economic system of the ancient world. [2]
  • The historian Vegetius theorised and has recently been supported by Arther Ferrill that the Empire declined and as a result fell, due to a combination of increasing 'barbarization', as well as a surge in decadence and the following lethargy.
  • Peter Turchin in War and Peace and War : The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations (2005) contends that empires, including Rome, fell because of inequalities within society resulting a lack of internal cooperation. [3]
  • Many historians also agree that the use of lead pipes for the sewage and water supply poisoned the Romans. The Romans used lead because other metals were not available. Data shows that the birth rate of Rome fell significantly. Lead poisoning is associated with many health problems, such as retardation.

Byzantine conspiracy

I've removed this from the list of theories:

Byzantine involvement: After the German chief Odoacer sacked Rome, he sent the regalia to the Byzantine Emperor, and declared himself the Byzantine Emperor's viceroy. The Byzantines would continue to control Rome until defeated by the invading Lombards in the 570s.

My understanding is this is a conspiracy theory without much evidence or taken seriously (now). Byzantine did everything they could to stop the encroachment of the Germans, inlcuding breaking the bank to launch a failed navel invasion to free North Africa of the Vandals in 468, after which it simply had run out of recources and had no choice but let the Western empire go and resort to a political relationship with Odoacer, there was no other option. Not to mention some of the worst fighting against the barbarians between 376 and 475 occured in eastern territories, the idea that they conspired with the barbarians against the Western Roman empire is in the realm of conspiracy theory. --Stbalbach 02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cato institute external link

Regarding this external link:

This article is basically a summary of the Cato Institute paper. Cato is a think-tank in DC that has an agenda for American politics and publishes ideas and theories that promote that political agenda. I'm not sure this is a good Wikipedia:External links based on rule 5, What should be included: 5) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material.. -- this is not neutral material, Cato is using history to promote a specific American policy. It's not academic history. -- Stbalbach 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The article [4] lists its sources in great detail. This is a valid view. If you disagree with this view, it would be best to include an opposing view with sources. Ultramarine 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah the new about.com article you added is fine it's a balanced article like this one, a list of various theories, not just a single theory. -- Stbalbach 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Critique and suggestions

This article devotes more space to historiography than to history. Granted that there are different definitions on the subject, certain facts and dates should be included to provide a framework:

  • The end of the Roman Empire's expansion
  • The empire's official adoption of Christianity as the state religion
  • Barbarians cross the Rhine (winter of 406-407)
  • The sack of Rome (410)
  • Barbarian conquests (Visigoths, Huns, etc.) Outline specific conquests by date, tribe, and region.
  • The spread of Islam (from Muhmmad to the fall of Constantinople?)
  • The Holy Roman Empire (probably just a paragraph plus a link to the main article)

This artcle needs maps:

  • The Roman Empire at its greatest extent
  • Fifth century barbarian invasions
  • others?

Regards, Durova 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If the page was actually about the fall then these maps etc would hav their place. For the article as it stands it really needs merely pictures of the historians who advocate the various theories.Dejvid 08:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Inaccurate, there is nothing stopping you or anyone from expanding any one of the theories and making it into a sub-article with maps and historical narratives. This is a top-level article listing all the theories. Or would you just want to present a single theory as the only account on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 15:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The "last" emperor

An anon user mentioned a while back:

"The last legally recognized Emperor was actually Julius Nepos, who resided in exiled in Salona on the Dalmatian Coast. He was murdered May 9, 480."

This is interesting trivia, but irrelevant to the article; but to be technically correct I've removed mention of a "last" emperor, since the important thing is Romulus was the last functional emperor (but even that is debatable). Anyway, everyone recognizes the end of the Empire with Romulus, the focus of the article. -- Stbalbach 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Empire/reorganization

While contributing to this article, please also consider contributing to the parallel section of Roman Empire/reorganization: Roman Empire/reorganization#Late Empire (395 - 476). Cheers, --Hippalus 12:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Historiography of the Empire's end, but not the history?

The history of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries is covered in other articles. What exactly constitutes the history of the "fall of rome" is a matter of historiography. Some say it never happened such as the Late Antiquity school, some say it was a singular event in 476, some say it was caused by the events of the barbarians between 377 (Battle of Hadrianople) and 476, others see is as a much longer history going back to the Crisis of the 3rd Century through to the Islamic Conquests of the 8th century. In other words, there is no agreement on what the history of the "fall of rome" means, or if the term is even valid at all, there are over 200 theories, each unique. We need to direct the reader to the actual history of Rome which is contained in other articles, this article is an overview of the various theories. Any attempt to present a singular factual history of the fall of rome would automatically be POV, there are too many different ways to approach it and there is no standard agreement on which is the correct view. If you want to expand on any particular theory, then do so within the context of that theory, and point back to this article as central place to find other POV's. -- Stbalbach 16:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, to compare this article to Ancient Rome and founding of Rome is ridiculous, those articles are fairly neutral and objective that most people will agree with. The concept of the fall of rome is perhaps one of the most highly debated issues in all of history, Rome or not. Any version of events is going to be POV. The only solution is to include ALL the versions of events. Which is what this aricle sets out to do. -- Stbalbach 16:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My comparison of this article to ancient Rome and founding of Rome are both accurate; all three of historical conventions, not set-in-stone titles. They are used to describe those geo-historical periods because they're useful names; since this name is equally useful, it should be a daughter article of Roman Empire detailing the historical events surrounding the events called the "decline" or "fall" of Rome, just as the Dominate and Principate are used for their respective historical periods, despite being similarly disputed. The history of the Roman Empire is far too complex and lengthy to address in a single article, so it is vital to divide every period of history into a distinct article to address that period in sufficient history, even if we have to resort to arbitrary dates (as History of Poland, for example, does) to do it. Luckily, in this case using dates is unnecessary, since there is a perfectly good name that can be used for the traditional end of the Western Roman Empire.

The reason "Dark Ages" is a largely useless term for an actual historic period is because it's usually a synonym for Middle Ages! Its article is historiographical because we already have an article detailing that historical period! Well, we don't have that for this period. Your disregard for the bigger picture is cost this article a huge amount of beneficial expansion it could receive during the AIDing if we just create a stub-section for the history of this time period and let people expand to that (and by drawing on History of Rome and Roman Empire, of course. -Silence 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Silence, first off, don't write "stupid" in edit notes, or this will turn into a different kind of problem.
To have a neutral article on the history of events called "Fall" or "Decline" is POV just like Dark Ages. And the fact is, we do have articles for this period, such as Late Antiquity and others. It all depends on your POV on this subject, which this article dab's. I'm sorry this doesn't fit your scheme of article organization to have a single article but it's not that easy when there are 200+ verifiable versions of events.
As for the AID, I already pointed all these issues when it was first nominated. Also, is there some reason people in the AID can't contribute to the huge corpus of historiography? It is an area larger and more complex than the actual history of events. -- Stbalbach 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
First off the period is clear. It is 377 to 476. Sure historians hav different takes on how back before that you need to go to understand the roots of that crisis. They will also differ as to how far ahead you need to go to understand the consequences of that. That doesn't detract from the fact that again and again it is those years where the real focus is. Even the post modern critique has that period in its sights. That the fall is just something that happened one morning in 476 is a strawman. And I say that not with standing that in most list of dates will flag that as THE FALL. I don't know of anyone who considers it more that the completion of the process.
You miss the point that excluding the historical account is highly POV. It givs the impression that everything is very vague and confused and weights the argument in favor of the postmodernist view.
It is only with a coherent account of the events that theories - especially the one that nothing much happened really - can be tested. Hence when you wanted to exclude the Byzantine conspiracy theory you quoted the facts. Why aren't those facts here? There is no coherant detailed account of these events and the the fact that the ref is to the Roman Empire overview speaks volumes.
Having said that I think Silence was mistaken to take out "This article is about the historiography" etc. This a fair description of the page as it stands and is a warning to the reader as to what bias he is likely to encounter.Dejvid 08:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The "fall" has been blamed on everything from lead in water to Christianity (which started before 377), to not happening at all (Late Antiquity). And BTW Late Antiquity is the current vouge in the academic world. The 377 date is the start of the Gothic War (377–382) and picking that date emphasis the fall was due to Barbarians. No matter what date you pick, or what events you pick, you will exclude other theories in the process. This article is not the only one that takes the historiography approach, look at the About.Com article. And there is nothing stopping you or anyone from expanding any one of these theories into a full-blow historical account as a sub-article. If you think 377 is the start, then write an article about it (following the standard theories that support it). But presenting a single historical narrative as THE SINGLE factual account, without proper historiographical context of all the other theories, is POV.-- Stbalbach 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is true that whatever choice is made has POV implications. I'm trying to challenge your assumption that the current situation is neutral. And I see little sign that the postmodernist interpretation is in vogue back here in Western Eurasia.Dejvid 16:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is no exclusion as you suggest, as long as it's presented in the context of a particular theory, this article could branch off into 100s of articles each detailing the version of events for that theory. And basic details of events are covered in other articles already (like the Gothic War article), although more work needs to be done. However pulling those facts together into a discussion of why Rome fell has to be done under the context of a theory. I'm not sure what you mean by "postmodern", that word has lost all meaning, I usually only see it being used as a pejorative these days. -- Stbalbach 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Quran reference

I have removed the following text (between horizontal rules):

Another interesting theory that is found about the Roman Empire is in the Holy Quran. The Surah 30 (Al-Room, The Romans/The Byzantines) shows evidence that the prophecy of the fall of Roman Empire was being foretold in this holy book. The verse in context is: "The Roman Empire has been defeated" (More research is to be done regarding what the Roman Empire had suffered in the 7th Century)

This does not count as a theory, being merely an incident showing conflict between the Byzantine and Islamic civilizations in or around the 7th century. If the contributor (Rummank) would like to expand this into a theory that Islamic incursion in the 7th century directly lead to the fall of the Eastern Empire, I'd be happy to include it again. As it stands, I don't think it has a place in this article. —Ryan McDaniel 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Koran Quote: Surah 30:2 "The Romans have been defeated, 3 in a nearer land, but they will soon be victorius, 4 within a few years; Allah's is the authority before and after; and on that day the Believers shall rejoice,...

This does not say that the Romans will be defeated forever and disappear, it actually says they will again be victorius.

But see in the Book of Daniel (either Tanach, Septuagint, or any Christian Holy Bible) Daniel 2:31-45 explains the dream is fortelling the comming 3 other kingdoms (after the present), and this does fortell that the Roman Empire (the fourth part of the Image: i.e. steel and mirey clay) will one day fall permanently.

Further see Daniel 8:3-26 and you will find an explanation of the the later Greek Empire (including Alexander the Great's defeat of Mede/Persia) Main reference: you can find confirmation of this latter reference only in Polybius a Roman Historian.

Lead Pipe Theory

Regarding this:

Lead Pipe Theory
The Romans use of Lead in their water and plumbing systems has led some to belive that because the rich could afford private pipeing with unlimited water supply, that the Roman Aristocracy drove themselves insane through lead poisining. Because the Roman leaders were Aristocracy, the Empire became without able leadership and deteriorated from the inside out. In a sense Roman invention and brillance killed the Romans. Some argue if this did happen why didn't it happen sooner then the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., and still others question the power of so little lead on the mind. Also there is, in old forts in the U.K. water pipes made of wood covered in pitch that did work, proveing that mabye only a small percentage of pipes were lead. Truth be told we will proably never know.

If we are going to have this theory in the article, it needs to be properly sourced with who is the leading proponent, the primary work it originates from (with date), and current mainstream thinking about it. I suspect the theory is as much urban myth as anything else. I'm sorry I know this requires research, but this "theory" is so commonly heard that, for an encyclopedia article, all the more reason to find the truth of it. -- Stbalbach 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead theory needs sourcing, and why is Bury not discussed in this article?

First, as to lead, it has been utilized for watersupply in the late 19th and early 20th century and some systems still exist in dwellings. The lead is covered in those buildings with a bacterial layer, preventing the water from absorbing any of the metal. But this layer gives the water a sligthly odd smell any trained nose easily detects. As another editor points out in another aricle, the use of Lead(II) acetate as sweetener is a completely different and more dangerous matter. As far as the lead in the Roman acqaducts, you would have to source that it lacked the protective bacterial layer, find evidence in bones from the 3-5th centuries which show lead poisoning, et al. Secondly, this article lacks any mention of Bury's works on Rome, which is stunning, since he is the most highly regarded historian on Rome save possibly Gibbon. old windy bear 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bury should be here, what was his position on the "Fall of Rome"? --Stbalbach 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Stbalbach Bury's position is fascinating. He presents the class "christianity vs. pagan" theory, and debunks it, citing the relative success of the Eastern Empire, which was far more Christian. He then examines Gibbon's "theory of moral decay," and without insulting Gibbon, finds that too simplistic, though a partial answer. He essentially presents as the "modern" theory, which he implicitly endorses, a combination of factors, primarily, (quoting directly from Bury, [5]:
"the Empire had come to depend on the enrolment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army, and that it was necessary to render the service attractive to them by the prospect of power and wealth. This was, of course, a consequence of the decline in military spirit, and of depopulation, in the old civilised Mediterranean countries. The Germans in high command had been useful, but the dangers involved in the policy had been shown in the cases of Merobaudes and Arbogastes. Yet this policy need not have led to the dismemberment of the Empire, and but for that series of chances its western provinces would not have been converted, as and when they were, into German kingdoms. It may be said that a German penetration of western Europe must ultimately have come about. But even if that were certain, it might have happened in another way, at a later time, more gradually, and with less violence. The point of the present contention is that Rome's loss of her provinces in the fifth century was not an "inevitable effect of any of those features which have been rightly or wrongly described as causes or consequences of her general 'decline.' " The central fact that Rome could not dispense with the help of barbarians for her wars (gentium barbararum auxilio indigemus) may be held to be the cause of her calamities, but it was a weakness which might have continued to be far short of fatal but for the sequence of contingencies pointed out above."
In short, Bury held that a number of factors coincided at the same time, Germanic expansion, depopulation of Italy, dependancy on German foederati for the military, Stilcho's disasterous (though Bury believed unknowing) treason, loss of martial vigor, Aetius murder - all came together in one disasterous set of sequencies which led to the fall. It is probably the best reasoned theory for the Fall, frankly, and I have read them all. Bury was truly brilliant, especially in his revised History, printed a dozen years after his first. I have added a section with an abridged and non-POV version of this to the article, and welcome input.old windy bear 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Bury is probably right at a certain level - contingencies - history can be seen as a series of contingencies - in which case why study history, what happened then could never happen again, it's interesting from an antiquarian point of view, but has little relevancy today. I think for many it's a deeply unsatisfying answer, perhaps why Bury's conclusion is not more widely known? -- Stbalbach 00:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Stbalbach Good evening my friend! I think you have hit the nail on the head at least in large part. Bury, if right, is saying that history is a series of contingencies, in which fate plays a huge role. People intensely dislike that theory - or so they taught me in college - because it basically says s--- happens, and if it happens in a particular way, bad luck being a huge factor, you are just out of luck. In other words, no matter what you do, sometimes fate is against you. That particular theory really bothers people. I do think it is relevant though, because of all the theories that have been offered to explain the fall, it alone attempts to integrate all the factors known at that time. The only major factors he did not try to extrapolate were the lead and weather theories, and as you have pointed out, weather effected the Eastern Empire, which survived, as much as the Western, which did not, and no one has offered any definitive scientific proof that lead is a compelling reason for depopulation and moral decay, lol. Personally, I think Bury was right. The West did not have to fall. A series of events, any of which alone would not have brought it down, happened either similtaneously or consecutively, and together they proved overwhelming. It lacks the clarity of Gibbon's "Christianity and the promise of eternal bliss took away their martial vigor, and moral decay finished the rest," or some of the other more structured theories, but it actually plays out in a statistical model, where the greater number of factors, the more statistical drift leads you into the unknown. I do think while it may lead people to say "why study history, if it cannot happen again," but that attitude neglects one huge and salient point Bury makes: MOST OF THOSE CONTINGENCIES WERE PREVENTABLE. That alone makes history worth studying, even if Bury was right. The majority of those events which together led to the fall could have been stopped singly, and if they had, the fall would not have occurred. Just my thoughts, and I am interested in yours - you obviously know history and look for meaning in it. old windy bear 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead Pipe and Vitruvius

Vitruvius is the first writer to write (ca 25BC) about lead poisoning, and mentions it in book 8 (water) of the 10 book series on architecture (which includes civil and military engineering) , chapter 6 (water supply), paragraph 10. "Ceramic pipes have this advantage. First of all, if there is some flaw in the system, whatever it is, anyone may repair it. Furthermore, the water from clay pipes is much more healthful than that from lead, because it seems that lead is toxic; white lead is derived from it, and that is said to be harmful to the human body. If that which is produced from lead is harmful, than threre can be no doubt that lead itself is not healthful either. 11. We can take an example from the lead workers, whose coloring has been overcome by pallor. When lead exhales as it is poured, its vapor comes to rest in the limbs of their bodies; day by day it snatches away the strength of their blood by burning it away. It seems, then that water should be conducted as little as possible through lead pipes if we want it to be healthful. That the flavor of water from terracotta pipes is better is clear from everyday cooking, because everyone, although they may have tables piled high with silver vessels, nonetheless uses terracotta for cooking, in order to preserve good flavor." From the 1999 translation edited by Rowland and Howe.

The book also mentioned that Vitruvius was apparently the one who set up a uniform system of lead pipe sizes in Rome, based on the circumpherance (sp) of the lead sheet (about 1/4" thick) allowing about a quarter inch or so for lap. There is some talk that the main pipes, when used to form inverted syphons to cross a valley, kept water flowing and there wasn't much time for the lead to pass to a given amount of water. Presumably pipes in houses, and lead goblets etc were more the problem. Ancient lead pipe and bronze valves have been found, and my copy of the book shows drawings of them. Vitruvius also mentions the use of what we now know as "thrust blocks" for those are deep into plumbing, although they were called something else, and the editors didn't pick up on it.

BTW, most all Romans were creamated. Although some bones were found in Pompei and Hercaleneum (sp).

My only and meager contribution was the addition of the Krakatoa volcano. 12.72.205.93 aka [[WonderWheeler 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)]]

Lead Pipe and Hot Bath Water

Some interesting notes on the relationships between Lead Poisoning and Roman Baths. In "Hot Springs of Bath", results of a symposium, edited by Kellaway, 1991, Pub. by Bath City Council. re Ch 5, Lead, gout and Bath Spa therapy, by Audrey Hayward. That immersion in a minimum of 3.5' of hot water helps the body flush lead from the system (through urine). This, combined with drinking the fresh Bath mineral water helps replenish the helpful calcium and iron also lost, and staying away from alcohol (such as port that was adulterated with lead acetate as preservative and to increase sweetness). A pretty effective cure (over several months, average 24 weeks) in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's in England, when the well-to-do suffered from the related gout (gouty arthritis by impared urate excretion), and the poor tradesmen working with lead from the related paralysis of the limbs (and eating less protein, which would have helped provide protection in some way). It looks like the cure rate for lead poisoning (colica pictonum)was well over 90% using the above treatment. It was also helpful from lead caused infertility in women.

We expect that the all important "Roman Baths" were also acting in Rome as a cure for lead poisoning, as "a large proportion of the population would have been affected to some degree" ... WonderWheeler 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Considering the global epidemic of lead poisoning caused by leaded gasoline (the lead stays in the food supply for 1000s of years due to soil uptake) we should all be taking more hot bathes. -- Stbalbach 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, I shouldn't have used the term "cure" unqualified. The actual text mentions that the treatment made the people improved or cured at a rate of something like 95% or more. There was a modern statistical analysis, by finding one of the old ledgers. Then they were able to include only those persons who's disease was obviously caused by exposure to lead: tinsmiths, painters, et cetera. It seems to show an interesting connection between lead exposure and the baths as a beneficial treatment, regardless. WonderWheeler 05:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please attempt to follow basic wikipedia rules on courtesy

AnonMoos If you disagree with wording, as in whether or not Bury, who alone of the historians attempted a complex mutifactored analysis of the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, then post that disagreement on the talk page of the article, rather than editorializing on the article history page. If you read more history, and did less arrogant editorializing, you would know that other historians referred to Bury's theories as "fascinating" and "complex" - try reading Grant, for instance. That means the wording is not POV. Unfortunately, your talk page shows you are legendary for your rudeness - please try to refrain from it. Discuss your changes, and cease your pompous editorializing on the article history page. I allowed your rude POV edit to stand simply because it was not worth arguing over, not because you were right, as you would have known had you studied the subject. However, your repeated pompous editorializing and contempt for newbies, and your general arrogance in not discussing changes - in the future I will simply revert you where you are factually incorrect - needing commenting on. old windy bear 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good article

Why does it say, "So-and-so thinks that it declined because... , but so-and-so thinks it declined because....?" Isn't that against Wikipedia style? I think this entire article needs to be written to tell the history of what happened, and let the reader decide why it declined. Juppiter 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's called historiography which is how professional historians document the history of history. There is no single right point of view that we can neutrally document, there are lots of them. For an outline of the actual events see the history of Rome articles. Any reader who comes up with their own original theory on why Rome fell I have a lot of respect for. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lot?

Why isnt Ferdinand Lot's theory here? In fact, there is no mention of Lot anywhere on wikipedia..... -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.174.135.50 (talk • contribs) .

Who is Ferdinand Lot? -- Stbalbach 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He was a French historia who also had a theory on the fall. I can't tell you much about him but one of the other students here could.216.174.135.50 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lot basically said the Roman Empire died from an "internal disease" (as its fall was not caused, mainly, by Germanic invasions). I'm not sure if he hold to "continuity theory" so maybe it wouldn't be wise to be added to Pirenne's section. Daizus 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No-Collapse Theory

This is the most interesting and credible theory: the delcine of the Roman civilization began by the separation of the empire into West and East, which created a model for later transfer of central power to regional authorities. Furthermore, because people of the Roman Empire did not share a common language or identity, there was no need for them to fight and reunite under one banner (unlike Three Kingdoms China after unification in the Qin dynasty). Like the famous Chinese saying goes (from Romance of the Three Kingdoms): "An empire long united, must divide. An empire long divided, must unite. This has been so since antiquity." But in the case of the Romans, their empire never united once it started to divide, until now (if you consider the European Union to be a state). All-in-all, the Roman empire never "collapsed" or "fell," but simply divided by power transfers. However, this never justified a bloody reunification as the languages and cultures were so different among the people, thus avoiding a violent "Three Kingdoms" period as experienced in China.--141.213.196.222 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the source for this, who said it? Every theory needs a proponent and associated work(s) in which the theory is laid out - to avoid problems with original research and notability, so editors don't make up their own theories. I'll add a citation tag and wait to hear back, but if nothing is added, I'll have no choice to remove it (even though I think it is a very reasonable idea). -- Stbalbach 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.