Fall of Rome - Revision history

M. Lucretius Agricola: /* Renaissance */

2009-06-08T18:42:25Z

Renaissance

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 8 June 2009
Line 89:		Line 89:
	==Renaissance==		==Renaissance==

−	The 14th c. CE Italian writer Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch) looked back on the Roman era and gave the term "dark age" to the period that intervened between that time and his own. Whereas Augustine of Hippo was offering an explanation for certain calamities that befell Rome, Petrarch ~~percieved~~ that the entire world of classical literature had ended. Petrarch's conception that the classical world had ended and that the subsequent age was fundamentally different in character established a conceptual framework (the "fall of Rome") that was more or less unchallenged until very recently.	+	The 14th c. CE Italian writer Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch) looked back on the Roman era and gave the term "dark age" to the period that intervened between that time and his own. Whereas Augustine of Hippo was offering an explanation for certain calamities that befell Rome, Petrarch perceived that the entire world of classical literature had ended. Petrarch's conception that the classical world had ended and that the subsequent age was fundamentally different in character established a conceptual framework (the "fall of Rome") that was more or less unchallenged until very recently, notably in the work of Henri Pirenne.

	==Edward Gibbon==		==Edward Gibbon==

M. Lucretius Agricola at 13:30, 8 June 2009

2009-06-08T13:30:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 8 June 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\| publisher=Penguin Classics		\| publisher=Penguin Classics
	\| ISBN=0140433937		\| ISBN=0140433937
−	~~\| ISSN=~~
−	~~\| worldcat=~~
	\| comment=Paperback. Includes first 2 original volumes.		\| comment=Paperback. Includes first 2 original volumes.
−	~~\| name=~~
	\|format=compact		\|format=compact
	}}		}}
Line 26:		Line 23:
	\| publisher=Penguin Classics		\| publisher=Penguin Classics
	\| ISBN=0140448942		\| ISBN=0140448942
−	~~\| ISSN=~~
−	~~\| worldcat=~~
	\| comment=Paperback		\| comment=Paperback
−	~~\| name=~~
	\|format=compact		\|format=compact
	}}		}}
Line 38:		Line 32:
	\| publisher=Oxford		\| publisher=Oxford
	\| ISBN=0192807285		\| ISBN=0192807285
−	~~\| ISSN=~~
−	~~\| worldcat=~~
	\| comment=Paperback. Argues against the theory of Rome's "peaceful transformation".		\| comment=Paperback. Argues against the theory of Rome's "peaceful transformation".
−	~~\| name=~~
	\|format=compact		\|format=compact
	}}		}}
Line 50:		Line 41:
	\| publisher=Harvard Univ Press		\| publisher=Harvard Univ Press
	\| ISBN=0674511735		\| ISBN=0674511735
−	~~\| ISSN=~~
−	~~\| worldcat=~~
	\| comment=Hardcover		\| comment=Hardcover
−	~~\| name=~~
	\|format=compact		\|format=compact
	}}		}}
Line 62:		Line 50:
	\| publisher=W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.		\| publisher=W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.
	\| ISBN=0393099938		\| ISBN=0393099938
−	~~\| ISSN=~~	+	\| comment=Part of Norton's "Historical Controversies" series. Paperback.
−	~~\| worldcat=~~	+	\|format=compact
−	\| comment=Part of Norton's "Historical Controversies" series. Paperback.	+	}}
−	\| ~~name~~=	+	{{Bookinfo
		+	\| title=Mohammed and Charlemagne
		+	\| author=Henri Pirenne
		+	\| date=1937 (Dover Ed, 2001)
		+	\| publisher=Dover Publications
		+	\| ISBN=0486420116
		+	\| comment=Paperback
	\|format=compact		\|format=compact
	}}		}}

M. Lucretius Agricola at 10:54, 8 June 2009

2009-06-08T10:54:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:54, 8 June 2009
Line 109:		Line 109:
	<blockquote>"Why did the Roman Empire in the West collapse? It has remained a vital question because each age has seen in the tale of Rome's fall something significant and relevant to its own situation." - Donald Kagan<ref>Kagan, D. (1962). Problems in European Civilization: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Why Did It Collapse?</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>"Why did the Roman Empire in the West collapse? It has remained a vital question because each age has seen in the tale of Rome's fall something significant and relevant to its own situation." - Donald Kagan<ref>Kagan, D. (1962). Problems in European Civilization: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Why Did It Collapse?</ref></blockquote>

−	'''Michael Rostovtzeff'''	+	'''Michael Rostovtzeff''' (1870 - 1952)

−	'''Tenney Frank'''	+	'''Tenney Frank''' (1876 - 1939)

	'''William Heitland'''		'''William Heitland'''

−	'''A. E. R. Boak'''	+	'''A. E. R. Boak''' (1888-1962)

	==Pirenne and beyond==		==Pirenne and beyond==

−	'''Henri Pirenne''' <ref>Pirenne, H. (1939). Mohammed and Charlemagne. New York</ref>	+	'''Henri Pirenne''' (1862 - 1935) <ref>Pirenne, H. (1939). Mohammed and Charlemagne. New York</ref>

M. Lucretius Agricola at 08:30, 8 June 2009

2009-06-08T08:30:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:30, 8 June 2009
Line 53:		Line 53:
	\| worldcat=		\| worldcat=
	\| comment=Hardcover		\| comment=Hardcover
		+	\| name=
		+	\|format=compact
		+	}}
		+	{{Bookinfo
		+	\| title=The Origins Of The Middle Ages: Pirenne's Challenge to Gibbon
		+	\| author=B. Lyon
		+	\| date=1971
		+	\| publisher=W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.
		+	\| ISBN=0393099938
		+	\| ISSN=
		+	\| worldcat=
		+	\| comment=Part of Norton's "Historical Controversies" series. Paperback.
	\| name=		\| name=
	\|format=compact		\|format=compact
Line 91:		Line 103:
	<blockquote>"It is the design of this, and of the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth." - Edward Gibbon<ref name="gibbon">Gibbon, E. (1776). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>"It is the design of this, and of the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth." - Edward Gibbon<ref name="gibbon">Gibbon, E. (1776). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire</ref></blockquote>

−	==~~Since~~ Gibbon==	+	==From Gibbon to Pirenne==

	Since the publication of "Decline and Fall", additional historical detail has been added to Gibbon's framework, primarily through the contributions of archaeology and the related field of [[epigraphy]]. Gibbon's fundamental factual framework has stood unchanged in its essentials. Subsequent editions, updating and commenting on Gibbon's original include those by J.B. Bury (1909-1914), Hugh Trevor-Roper (1993-1994) and David Womersley (1994). The interpretation of these facts, however, has provided an opportunity for expression of a very wide range of views. When attempting to explain "why Rome fell" authors often provide a view of the concerns of their own time, rather than an objective account of Rome.		Since the publication of "Decline and Fall", additional historical detail has been added to Gibbon's framework, primarily through the contributions of archaeology and the related field of [[epigraphy]]. Gibbon's fundamental factual framework has stood unchanged in its essentials. Subsequent editions, updating and commenting on Gibbon's original include those by J.B. Bury (1909-1914), Hugh Trevor-Roper (1993-1994) and David Womersley (1994). The interpretation of these facts, however, has provided an opportunity for expression of a very wide range of views. When attempting to explain "why Rome fell" authors often provide a view of the concerns of their own time, rather than an objective account of Rome.
Line 99:		Line 111:
	'''Michael Rostovtzeff'''		'''Michael Rostovtzeff'''

−	'''Tenney Frank'''	+	'''Tenney Frank'''
−		+
−	~~'''Henri Pirenne''' <ref>Pirenne, H. (1937). Mohammed and Charlemagne</ref>~~	+

	'''William Heitland'''		'''William Heitland'''

	'''A. E. R. Boak'''		'''A. E. R. Boak'''
		+
		+	==Pirenne and beyond==
		+
		+	'''Henri Pirenne''' <ref>Pirenne, H. (1939). Mohammed and Charlemagne. New York</ref>
		+

	==In popular culture==		==In popular culture==

M. Lucretius Agricola: /* Since Gibbon */

2009-05-28T09:14:41Z

Since Gibbon

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:14, 28 May 2009
Line 101:		Line 101:
	'''Tenney Frank'''		'''Tenney Frank'''

−	'''Henri Pirenne'''	+	'''Henri Pirenne''' <ref>Pirenne, H. (1937). Mohammed and Charlemagne</ref>

	'''William Heitland'''		'''William Heitland'''

M. Lucretius Agricola: /* Since Gibbon */

2009-05-28T09:04:15Z

Since Gibbon

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:04, 28 May 2009
Line 97:		Line 97:
	<blockquote>"Why did the Roman Empire in the West collapse? It has remained a vital question because each age has seen in the tale of Rome's fall something significant and relevant to its own situation." - Donald Kagan<ref>Kagan, D. (1962). Problems in European Civilization: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Why Did It Collapse?</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>"Why did the Roman Empire in the West collapse? It has remained a vital question because each age has seen in the tale of Rome's fall something significant and relevant to its own situation." - Donald Kagan<ref>Kagan, D. (1962). Problems in European Civilization: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Why Did It Collapse?</ref></blockquote>

−	Michael Rostovtzeff~~, a Russian, took an economic view, framing his "decline and fall" argument in terms of capitalism and revolution while Otto Seeck and~~ Tenney Frank ~~(late 19th - early 20th c~~.~~) stress the importance of race, to name just a few examples~~.	+	'''Michael Rostovtzeff'''
		+
		+	'''Tenney Frank'''
		+
		+	'''Henri Pirenne'''
		+
		+	'''William Heitland'''
		+
		+	'''A. E. R. Boak'''

	==In popular culture==		==In popular culture==

M. Lucretius Agricola at 00:06, 25 May 2009

2009-05-25T00:06:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 25 May 2009
Line 74:		Line 74:

	<blockquote>"...we should seek perhaps another path and examine the terms we're using to express the problem, especially what we mean when we speak about "Rome falling." Indeed, close study calls the very question into question. "Why did Rome fall?" may be a line of inquiry that has no clear resolution because the question itself is fundamentally flawed. It might be better to ask, 'Did Rome fall?' " - Mark Damen<ref name="damen">Damen, M. (2008?). [http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/08ROMFAL.htm 1320: History and Civilization]</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>"...we should seek perhaps another path and examine the terms we're using to express the problem, especially what we mean when we speak about "Rome falling." Indeed, close study calls the very question into question. "Why did Rome fall?" may be a line of inquiry that has no clear resolution because the question itself is fundamentally flawed. It might be better to ask, 'Did Rome fall?' " - Mark Damen<ref name="damen">Damen, M. (2008?). [http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/08ROMFAL.htm 1320: History and Civilization]</ref></blockquote>
−		+	__TOC__
	==Late Antiquity==		==Late Antiquity==

M. Lucretius Agricola: /* Renaissance */

2009-05-23T23:50:14Z

Renaissance

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 23 May 2009
Line 83:		Line 83:
	==Renaissance==		==Renaissance==

−	The Italian writer Petrarch looked back on the Roman era and gave the term "dark age" to the period that intervened between that time and his own. Whereas Augustine was offering an explanation for certain calamities that befell Rome, Petrarch ~~became aware~~ that the entire world of classical literature had ended.	+	The 14th c. CE Italian writer Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch) looked back on the Roman era and gave the term "dark age" to the period that intervened between that time and his own. Whereas Augustine of Hippo was offering an explanation for certain calamities that befell Rome, Petrarch percieved that the entire world of classical literature had ended. Petrarch's conception that the classical world had ended and that the subsequent age was fundamentally different in character established a conceptual framework (the "fall of Rome") that was more or less unchallenged until very recently.

	==Edward Gibbon==		==Edward Gibbon==

M. Lucretius Agricola: /* Renaissance */

2009-05-23T11:39:18Z

Renaissance

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 23 May 2009
Line 83:		Line 83:
	==Renaissance==		==Renaissance==

−	The Italian writer Petrarch looked back on the ~~past~~ and gave the term "dark age" to a period that intervened between ~~himself~~ and the ~~era~~ of ~~the~~ classical ~~authors that he admired~~.	+	The Italian writer Petrarch looked back on the Roman era and gave the term "dark age" to the period that intervened between that time and his own. Whereas Augustine was offering an explanation for certain calamities that befell Rome, Petrarch became aware that the entire world of classical literature had ended.

	==Edward Gibbon==		==Edward Gibbon==

M. Lucretius Agricola at 10:03, 23 May 2009

2009-05-23T10:03:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 23 May 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<noinclude>[[Category:Decline and Fall]]</noinclude>		<noinclude>[[Category:Decline and Fall]]</noinclude>
	<onlyinclude>{{LanguageBar\|Fall of Rome}}		<onlyinclude>{{LanguageBar\|Fall of Rome}}
		+
		+	When thinking about Rome, it is easy to see that something, and something very big indeed, ''was'', but no longer ''is''. Something that no longer ''is'' has clearly ended, so natural curiosity brings several rather obvious questions to mind. "When did it end?" and "Why did it end?" Asking and attempting to answer these questions has been an industry of writers and historians for a very long time.
		+
	<div style={{Sidebar}}>		<div style={{Sidebar}}>
	==Books==		==Books==
Line 26:		Line 29:
	\| worldcat=		\| worldcat=
	\| comment=Paperback		\| comment=Paperback
		+	\| name=
		+	\|format=compact
		+	}}
		+	{{Bookinfo
		+	\| title=The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization
		+	\| author= Bryan Ward-Perkins
		+	\| date=2006
		+	\| publisher=Oxford
		+	\| ISBN=0192807285
		+	\| ISSN=
		+	\| worldcat=
		+	\| comment=Paperback. Argues against the theory of Rome's "peaceful transformation".
		+	\| name=
		+	\|format=compact
		+	}}
		+	{{Bookinfo
		+	\| title=Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World
		+	\| author= G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown (Eds.)
		+	\| date=1999
		+	\| publisher=Harvard Univ Press
		+	\| ISBN=0674511735
		+	\| ISSN=
		+	\| worldcat=
		+	\| comment=Hardcover
	\| name=		\| name=
	\|format=compact		\|format=compact
Line 44:		Line 71:
	-->		-->
	</div>		</div>
−	When thinking about Rome, it is easy to see that something, and something very big indeed, ''was'', but no longer ''is''. Something that no longer ''is'' has clearly ended, so natural curiosity brings several rather obvious questions to mind. "When did it end?" and "Why did it end?" Asking and attempting to answer these questions has been an industry of writers and historians for a very long time.
−
	One problem with these questions is the deceptive ease with which one can pose them. A much more difficult thing is to define what "Rome" means when we ask when or why "it" fell, or even to clearly state what "fall" means. "Rome" can mean the city itself, the governance of the city and the people in it, the larger cultural world the these people projected around them, the political structure that maintained a widespread system of taxation, communication and military defense, the large number of communities that came to function locally under that system and that were inspired or influenced by cultural influences flowing out from one or more centers, and many more possibilities. Terms such as "Rome" "the Republic" and "the Roman Empire" mask a degree of diversity and decentralization that is foreign to modern people. Furthermore, when something ''is'' and later ''is not'', it begs the question to say that something "fell" until the idea of "change" has been fully explored.</onlyinclude><ref>Knox, E.L. (n.d.). [http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/fallrome/01.shtml Why Rome Fell . . . and why it doesn't matter]. Boise State University.</ref> From this point of view, talking about the "Fall of Rome" is an example of a "reification fallacy"<ref>Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) Reification fallacy].</ref>.		One problem with these questions is the deceptive ease with which one can pose them. A much more difficult thing is to define what "Rome" means when we ask when or why "it" fell, or even to clearly state what "fall" means. "Rome" can mean the city itself, the governance of the city and the people in it, the larger cultural world the these people projected around them, the political structure that maintained a widespread system of taxation, communication and military defense, the large number of communities that came to function locally under that system and that were inspired or influenced by cultural influences flowing out from one or more centers, and many more possibilities. Terms such as "Rome" "the Republic" and "the Roman Empire" mask a degree of diversity and decentralization that is foreign to modern people. Furthermore, when something ''is'' and later ''is not'', it begs the question to say that something "fell" until the idea of "change" has been fully explored.</onlyinclude><ref>Knox, E.L. (n.d.). [http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/fallrome/01.shtml Why Rome Fell . . . and why it doesn't matter]. Boise State University.</ref> From this point of view, talking about the "Fall of Rome" is an example of a "reification fallacy"<ref>Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) Reification fallacy].</ref>.