Barbarians and Bishops
Bookmark this page

• Montesquieu – fall empire contributed to inadequacy of Roman troops – less trained, Germanic, less fit, frontiers no longer sustainable.
• Blames little on religion, as Liebeschetz agrees Paganism actually a strong point
• Barbarians needed to aid army, but refused to serve empire
• Gibbon cites Christinaity a factor. Irrational Conservative factors – religious unity in the East may actually have united the East.
• Jones fall aided by failing of public machinery – agrees with Piginaol “the empire did not die of old age, it was assassinated” – internal dissension and selfish bureaucracy.
• Superstate of empire too heavy for agricultural base – peasants pay for luxuries of elite
• Barbarians into empire military needs to be increased, thus even more taxes are levied. Malthusian decline in population.
• De Ste Croix – attitude of peasants indifferent to Empire – hardly ever resisted Barbarians, and occasionally assisted them. Peasant discontent, such as Bagaudic peasant risings.
• Jones sees a line back to decline of political institutions – citizens lose immunity from beatings etc. Vulnerable citizens – became hereditary citizens. Graeco Roman constitutions – even peasant had definitive role in government, lost these rights when they became slaves.
• De Ste Croix – loss of legal rights makes them essentially slaves – Marxist view – “primarily a development that would fcilitate exploitation and as brought about by the properties classes for precisely that purpose” – little or no evidence
• When city had to defend itself then poor had political leverage to gain political rights. But professional army meant less leverage for the peasants.
• Central authority gradually overtakes city government – central authority where privilege lies, and decline civil responsibility means central administration at the expense of the city control. Made it difficult to recruit an army when professional army stretched by invasions etc.
• Tax not only reason for decline in military strength, same in East, but cultural demilitarisation. The landowners got bigger and thus could control labourers and prevent their conscription.
• Spirit of Roman and civil service declined – few places outside Italy Romanised as before.
• Roman citizenship matters less and less. Others become more important like the Foederati and federate mercenaries – not assimilated into Roman nationhood, but allowed to foster tribal nationhood.
• In West – Chief in Command really controlled the Empire, but in the East tried to use civil methods to control military problems. Thus a reduction in the size of the army and power of the generals. EE became conspicuously Christian.
• Jones argues main affect of Christianity was negative – great waste of resources, idle mouths etc. Argues that Christianity did not affect attitude – but paganism promoted patriotic spirit.
• De Ste Croix believes Chrisitianisation divisive as it split the country – as charity instead of equality – little to end torture etc.
• But charity surely better than goodness for political, esp. since centralised and slaves and foreigners were not worthwhile cases. However charity encompasses all these groups.
• Political giving declined with centralisation and loss of self governing institutions, Charity “ceremonies of consensus” replaces self government as community focal point. Keeps social cohesion.

Other Notes in this Category

1. Barbarian Organisation
2. Barbarians and Bishops
3. Crisis 439
4. Introduction
5. Nomadism, Horses and Huns
6. Roman Organisation
7. Roman Strategy against Barbarians
8. The Huns
9. The Huns and the end of the Roman Empire - Peter Heather
10. Vandals and the Collapse of the west
11. Would Empire have collapsed without the huns?

Didn't find this useful?

• Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays