|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | [[Category:Ancient Rome]] | | [[Category:Ancient Rome]] |
| | | | |
| − | <div style={{Sidebar}}>
| + | {{Include summary|:Fall of Rome}} |
| − | ==Books==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Bookinfo
| + | |
| − | | title=The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1 | + | |
| − | | author= Edward Gibbon (Author), David P. Womersley (Contributor)
| + | |
| − | | date=1996
| + | |
| − | | publisher=Penguin Classics
| + | |
| − | | ISBN=0140433937
| + | |
| − | | ISSN=
| + | |
| − | | worldcat=
| + | |
| − | | comment=Paperback. Includes first 2 original volumes.
| + | |
| − | | name=
| + | |
| − | |format=compact
| + | |
| − | }} | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Bookinfo
| + | |
| − | | title=City of God
| + | |
| − | | author= Augustine of Hippo (Author), Henry Bettenson (Translator)
| + | |
| − | | date=2003
| + | |
| − | | publisher=Penguin Classics
| + | |
| − | | ISBN=0140448942
| + | |
| − | | ISSN=
| + | |
| − | | worldcat=
| + | |
| − | | comment=Paperback
| + | |
| − | | name=
| + | |
| − | |format=compact
| + | |
| − | }}
| + | |
| − | <!--
| + | |
| − | {{Bookinfo
| + | |
| − | | title=
| + | |
| − | | author=
| + | |
| − | | date=
| + | |
| − | | publisher=
| + | |
| − | | ISBN=
| + | |
| − | | ISSN=
| + | |
| − | | worldcat=
| + | |
| − | | comment=
| + | |
| − | | name=
| + | |
| − | |format=compact
| + | |
| − | }}
| + | |
| − | -->
| + | |
| − | </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.<ref>E.L. Skip Knox, Boise State University: [http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/fallrome/01.shtml Why Rome Fell . . . and why it doesn't matter]</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Dates often proposed for the "fall of Rome" are commonly a thousand years, more or less, after the traditional date for the "birth of Rome", and many changes took place over those ten or so centuries. Nevertheless, there was a time when people began to notice that things had become very different, or that "something" had ended, and it was not long before writers took up the theme. Augustine of Hippo (d. 430 CE) wrote ''De Civitate Dei contra Paganos'' as a refutation of the idea that Rome was sacked because the Romans had abandoned their traditional gods. Augustine accurately observes that Rome had suffered reversals long before the Christian era, but in addition to the historical argument, much of ''De Civitate'' is taken up with criticisms of the "pagan" world, its culture, religions and institutions, from a Christian viewpoint. Augustine would not be the last writer to use the "fall of Rome" as a vehicle for the advancement of a particular point of view.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In the modern era, all writers on this topic work in the shadow of Edward Gibbon, whose "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was published as a series of volumes from 1776 through 1789. Hallmarks of Gibbon's work are the preference for primary literature, its thoroughness, and its rejection of supernatural causes, making it an important statement of Enlightenment methodologies and a precursor to contemporary practice.<ref>Stanford Magazine: [http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1997/janfeb/articles/footnotes.html The Decline and Fall of Footnotes]</ref> His basic research has remained an important framework for the work of others. In his interpretation, Gibbon was a historical progressivist, and his work may also be read as a commentary on the British Empire in which he lived.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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. 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. These interpretations attempt to explain "why Rome fell" and also serve as commentary on modern society, often using the "fall" as an implied cautionary tale.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Because of the immense scope and popular appeal of the "fall of Rome", it is possible for specious arguments to gain at least popular acceptance. An example is the role of lead toxicity. It is certainly true that lead is toxic and that lead was used by Romans as water pipes and in cooking vessels, so the claim that "lead poisoning contributed to the decline of the Roman empire"<ref>Jerome O. Nriagu, (1983). "Saturnine Gout Among Roman Aristocrats: Did Lead Poisoning Contribute to the Fall of the Empire?", New England Journal of Medicine, 308, 660-663</ref> is irrefutable in a strictly logical sense, but it is also irrelevant, as the contribution of lead poisoning was either non-existent or trivial compared to other causes.<ref>See Encyclopedia Romana: [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html Lead Poisoning and Rome] for a closely reasoned refutation of Nriagu.</ref> The real problem is with the word "contribute", a so-called "weasel word"<ref>Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word Weasel word]</ref> that fails to specify the magnitude of the contribution, thus making the position proof from logical assault. In spite of this flaw, many specious arguments remain alive in the popular imagination. <ref>See for example [http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/ Fall of the Roman Empire] at rome.info, a travel guide.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The topic of explaining the fall of Rome continues to fill the lives of scholars and to trouble the lives of students. New titles are published regularly<ref>For example, read a Bryn Mawr Classical Review of two recent efforts: [http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-07-69.html Review of Peter Heather, "The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History" and Bryan Ward-Perkins, "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" by James J. O'Donnell]</ref>, and the "fall of Rome" provides a heavy weight for each generation of students to use to exercise their mental muscles as they attempt to master history, academic writing and critical thinking.<ref>John Brown University Undergraduate Journal: [http://www.jbu.edu/academics/journal/2008/files/Little.pdf The Fall of the Roman Empire by Jacob Little]. A nice piece of undergraduate writing which demonstrates the cultural biases of the writer.</ref>
| + | |
| − |
| + | |
| − | ==References==
| + | |
| − | <references/>
| + | |
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.
Learn more ...
