|
Edited on Mon Jan-19-09 11:22 AM by happyslug
The main reason is the lack of documentation on the poor, unless something affected the ruling elite it was NOT written down, thus we know of the drop in population after 185 AD, more from the ruling elite complaining of the lack of slaves then anything else.
Another thing it ignores, that the other sources clearly show, is the drop in population in Italy after 650AD (i.e. NOT after the "fall" of the Western Empire, but after the attempted reconquest of the West by Justinian).
A third factor ignored is "who traded where". This is the heart of the argument about vases. The Vases showed who traded where and with with, pointing out the Vandals taking of Carthage was the deadliest act to the Empire, it broke the Empire in two. Prior to the Vandals taking Carthage in 560 AD, trade continued within the Empire, even with the parts under Barbarian control. In fact two sets of vases were made in Tunisia, but never used from one part of Tunis to the other, but used to ship goods from "Africa" (Which we not call "Tunis" for we use the word "Africa" for the whole continent, something the Romans did not do) to either the Eastern or Western Empire (and may be why Caesar re-established Carthage, 100 years after it was destroyed in the Third Punic War, about 500 years before the time period we are talking about). One last comment on Carthage, it was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, behind only Rome itself and Alexandria. In many ways these were the three big city of the Empire, joined by Constantinople, but only after about 400 AD as more and more Romans left Rome for Constantinople.
Just a comment on the site, it is a good site but like a lot of sites has its own agenda. That does NOT mean it is a bad cite for facts, but remember its limitations.
One last comment, the site, like most sites, down play the sheer concentration of wealth the Roman Elite had (and the lost of that wealth between 400-700 AD as the Western Empire fell AND Egypt and Africa was lost to the Arabs). Even Gibbon, in his "Decline of Fall of the Roman Empire" had a problem explaining to his readers and understanding himself this concentration of wealth (And Gibbon lived at the start of today's growth in such concentration of wealth).
In many ways Rome between the Second Punic War and the Arab Conquest was much like today's "Global Economy", i.e. the rich had all the money the rest of the population none. In the period between 400 and 600 AD, most of such wealthy elite lost their money. The Barbarians did not take it, the breakup of the Empire, at first, did not lead to the lost of their wealth (Which was mostly in land) but sooner or later the Barbarians found out they needed the support of the Roman Peasants in their wars with each other, and the best way to get that support was to give the Roman Peasants land, land owned by the Roman Elite. It was this transfer of land that caused Justinian to invade first Africa and then Italy (He was under pressure from the Roman Elite to prevent just lost of property), and would lead to the lost of both within 100 years of Justinian's death (The Lombards in 570 AD seem to have been called into Italy by the peasants, probably via their parish priests. At the same time the Avars were attacking Constantinople, both for their own goals AND to help out their long term allies the Lombards when the Arabs attacked and took North Africa around 650 AD.
Yes in the previous paragraph I am ignoring the Persian Wars, which set up the area for the subsequent Arab Conquest. The wars with Persia were bloodier then the subsequent Arab Wars, and for this reason both Rome and Persia had been bleed dry by them (This opening up the Middle East for Conquest by Arabia under Mohammad).
I am also ignoring the failed attempt to conquer Africa right after Egypt fell to the Arabs. Carthage did NOT fall at the same time as Egypt, it took another generation for the Arabs to take Carthage. The problem for the Roman Elite was that by losing both areas the Eastern Empire lost the last two areas of extensive elite ownership of land. Modern Greece and Turkey was the last area of the Empire with small farmers, and this fact cut even the Eastern Empire from the old ruling elite (Which forced the Eastern Empire to drop the Mercenary Legion system for the Thematic system of raising troops locally, and tyeing military service with land ownership, a concept foreign to Imperial Rome, but the heart of the Army of what we call the Byzantine Empire). Thus after the Arab Conquest the Old Roman Elite had lost almost all their lands and could NOT even be a source of revenue to pay for the Army. The Old Roman elite had a Choice either to die out or join some local area as just a local landowner.
This change (and death of the first "World Economy") is ignored by Roman.net and most papers on the Fall of the Roman Empire.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
