StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Edi wrote:It's cato.org, what do you expect? A neoconservative stinktank that will use any flimsy or outright fabricated excuse to pontificate about the evils of socialism and the supremacy of the free market. Anything they write should be assumed to be false unless they can actually back it up with tangible evidence, that's how reliable they are.

The article is a carefully constructed crock of shit that is not worth the paper required to print it. If anyone wants to learn about Rome, pick up a fucking history book.

These aren't really neocons, just Ayn Rand disciples.

The funny thing is, these are the same people who want the US government to simply write off large sections of the country, like Appalachia and the inner cities -thinking it will make the country better off.

Thanas wrote:

Stark wrote:I don't understand how 'allow the empire to collapse deliberately or in a controlled fashion' = 'solve anything'. If doing what he suggests would result in the barbarians penetrating the borders, fragmenting the empire etc (as he himself says), what's the point? The empire existed for centuries after this point, so isn't that better than deliberately demolishing it in the name of 'sustainability'?

Yes. It really boggles the mind. I made that point above as well and also pointed out there is another thing to consider - if he downsizes the empire that far, there is no need for it to have an advanced culture anymore as this advanced culture is tied to the cities. So there is no benefit in doing so either - it would not save any more people (most likely, the lack of defence would cause in massive invasions, ergo a far more massive loss of life than happened in the OTL), nor would it help to preserve the culture (which coincidentally was preserved in the heavily militarized east with an "oppressive bureuacracy" and a massive dependancy on gold), nor would it do anything than hasten the arrival of the dark ages.

So in short, his whole point is self-defeating. It is akin to suggesting that I tear down my house and lay out my valuables in the hope the jewel thieves will only take a few of them.

The moment I see him talking about Marcus Aurelius, it really feels like he is buying into the theory put forward by all the Hollywood movies like "The fall of the Roman Empire".

I've always found "barbarian hordes" to be a rather more convincing theory on the reason for Rome's decline than any overly complex or theoretical argument of things like the one our rather misguided chemist seems to think applies. That's not to say I discount the idea that these other factors made it possible (hell, I won't even rule out Gibbon's "the Christians did it!"), but I would consider them ancillary at best.

Of course, then you have to ask yourself what constitutes Rome's "fall," since its people and the system underpinning the empire survived in one form or another in most parts of the Western Empire throughout the "Dark Ages." In that respect, I think the article gives a fair definition.

TC Pilot wrote:I've always found "barbarian hordes" to be a rather more convincing theory on the reason for Rome's decline than any overly complex or theoretical argument of things like the one our rather misguided chemist seems to think applies. That's not to say I discount the idea that these other factors made it possible (hell, I won't even rule out Gibbon's "the Christians did it!"), but I would consider them ancillary at best.

Of course, then you have to ask yourself what constitutes Rome's "fall," since its people and the system underpinning the empire survived in one form or another in most parts of the Western Empire throughout the "Dark Ages." In that respect, I think the article gives a fair definition.

Oh come on, you know that Rome has been under constant Barbarian threats for centuries. If the barbarian hordes are the one responsible, then why didn't the Roman Empire fell at a earlier period in time?

^ At the risk of spamming, the concept of relative military strength comes to mind.

ray245 wrote:Oh come on, you know that Rome has been under constant Barbarian threats for centuries. If the barbarian hordes are the one responsible, then why didn't the Roman Empire fell at a earlier period in time?

Why should it have? Sometimes leaders screw up or get lucky. Sometimes things are different one or two centuries later than they were before.

Do you think it's just coincidence that Rome's political control collapsed over a period of time it was beset by massive barbarian migrations and invasions?

TC Pilot wrote:

ray245 wrote:Oh come on, you know that Rome has been under constant Barbarian threats for centuries. If the barbarian hordes are the one responsible, then why didn't the Roman Empire fell at a earlier period in time?

Why should it have? Sometimes leaders screw up or get lucky. Sometimes things are different one or two centuries later than they were before.

Do you think it's just coincidence that Rome's political control collapsed over a period of time it was beset by massive barbarian migrations and invasions?

The question is whether these invasions were caused by lack of roman strength in the wake of civil wars or whether they could have been beaten back without the civil wars. One must remember that the most bloodiest of battles were not really fought between Romans and barbarians, but between Romans and Romans. The Battle of Mursa alone dwarfs the casualties of Adrianople, for example. One must also not forget that up until the death of Stilicho, the frontiers were relatively secure and that until the division of the empire, the romans had still occupied almost all of the former territories they had held for several centuries.

In the end, it was most likely a combination of all factors and really bad luck.

Count Chocula wrote:^ At the risk of spamming, the concept of relative military strength comes to mind.

That is actually a good point and not spamming. However, keep in mind that the army of the roman empire increased a lot during Constantine and Diocletian, so I would not feel very comfortable with making a snap judgement like that.

Your statement is however almost certainly true for the fifth century, when after the Death of Stilicho half of the roman army deserted. This was the heaviest blows of all and the power lost there was never recovered. Killing Stilicho was the stupidest thing the romans ever made and it may only be eclipsed by killing Aetius (which too led to mass desertion and chaos).

TC Pilot wrote:

ray245 wrote:Oh come on, you know that Rome has been under constant Barbarian threats for centuries. If the barbarian hordes are the one responsible, then why didn't the Roman Empire fell at a earlier period in time?

Why should it have? Sometimes leaders screw up or get lucky. Sometimes things are different one or two centuries later than they were before.

Do you think it's just coincidence that Rome's political control collapsed over a period of time it was beset by massive barbarian migrations and invasions?

Those Barbarians has penetrated Roman borders and was pushed back even during the third century.

ray245 wrote:Those Barbarians has penetrated Roman borders and was pushed back even during the third century.

That's nice. Rome is traditionally said to fall in 476, after barbarians penetrated Roman borders and weren't pushed back. A lot happens in 176 years.

By your reasoning, Napoleon wasn't really ousted from power by a coalition of European powers, since he'd been fighting them for over a decade, and therefore should have been defeated sooner. Hannibal didn't really lose to the Romans, because if he had, he would have lost years earlier.

Thanas wrote:The question is whether these invasions were caused by lack of roman strength in the wake of civil wars or whether they could have been beaten back without the civil wars. One must remember that the most bloodiest of battles were not really fought between Romans and barbarians, but between Romans and Romans. The Battle of Mursa alone dwarfs the casualties of Adrianople, for example. One must also not forget that up until the death of Stilicho, the frontiers were relatively secure and that until the division of the empire, the romans had still occupied almost all of the former territories they had held for several centuries.

Hence why I called them ancillary reasons that I wasn't going to dismiss. Admittedly, it's more than just "Barbarian hordes conquer everything," but with, let's assume, an impregnable frontier, what's the worst that all these secondary issues could cause? Granted, this all seems self-evident at this point to the point of not having needed to be said in the first place....

TC Pilot wrote:

ray245 wrote:Those Barbarians has penetrated Roman borders and was pushed back even during the third century.

That's nice. Rome is traditionally said to fall in 476, after barbarians penetrated Roman borders and weren't pushed back. A lot happens in 176 years.

Well, the third century isn't what we would call a stable century for the Romans. It's called the "crisis of the third century" for a reason.

Barbarian incursion into Roman territory is something that has been happening again and again for a pretty long time, and the Romans succeeded in fending them off for centuries. Instead of saying that the barbarians are the ones responsible, shouldn't we look at the reasons why did the Romans fail to push them back instead?

ray245 wrote:Well, the third century isn't what we would call a stable century for the Romans. It's called the "crisis of the third century" for a reason.

Your point being...?

Barbarian incursion into Roman territory is something that has been happening again and again for a pretty long time, and the Romans succeeded in fending them off for centuries. Instead of saying that the barbarians are the ones responsible, shouldn't we look at the reasons why did the Romans fail to push them back instead?

You're assuming that it has everything to do with Roman weakness and nothing to do with barbarian strength, such as the fact that we're no longer talking about random barbarian raids and incursions, but massive migrations of peoples.

It seems your objection is mostly pointless now. Refer to what I said to Thanas.

TC Pilot wrote:

Thanas wrote:The question is whether these invasions were caused by lack of roman strength in the wake of civil wars or whether they could have been beaten back without the civil wars. One must remember that the most bloodiest of battles were not really fought between Romans and barbarians, but between Romans and Romans. The Battle of Mursa alone dwarfs the casualties of Adrianople, for example. One must also not forget that up until the death of Stilicho, the frontiers were relatively secure and that until the division of the empire, the romans had still occupied almost all of the former territories they had held for several centuries.

Hence why I called them ancillary reasons that I wasn't going to dismiss. Admittedly, it's more than just "Barbarian hordes conquer everything," but with, let's assume, an impregnable frontier, what's the worst that all these secondary issues could cause? Granted, this all seems self-evident at this point to the point of not having needed to be said in the first place....

A fragmentation of the empire and countless civil wars? In my opinion, the barbarian incursion really only did lasting damage when the empire could not present a unified front anymore. Anytime the romans had just one emperor who managed to stay in control for a longer time, the frontiers were relatively safe. For example, see Diocletian, Constantine, Constantius II, Julian, Thedosius the Great etc..

That is why I think the barbarian incursions are a secondary problem. Of course they capitalized the most on the destruction of the empire, but that is a different matter from collapse.

Thanas wrote:A fragmentation of the empire and countless civil wars?

Exactly. At worst, you're looking at a situation like China faced.

That is why I think the barbarian incursions are a secondary problem. Of course they capitalized the most on the destruction of the empire, but that is a different matter from collapse.

A fair point. I've just been sorta winging it since I made that first post, so I apologize for the rather... disorganized thoughts I'm spewing out.

Calling all the dynastic instabilities, civil wars, plagues, economic crashes, religious tensions, environmental devastations, etc, 'ancillary causes' to the Barbarian invasion is really stretching it, I think. I mean, everyone is aware that the direct fall of the West was the result of the Barbarian invasions, but by that logic it wasn't the fault of the Vandals, Goths, Franks and Bulgars but rather lies with Romulus Augustus' resigning the crown to Odoacer, and the fact that Odoacer had a vast horde backing him up is ancillary to that point.

Personally, I'm a fan of 'Dynastic Instability' as the real ringer behind the Roman demise, but then, my historical focus is Orientalist, so don't take my word for it.

Manpower shortages and political instability were I think, the chief factors in being unable to deal effectively with the barbarians. Risking a decisive battle means that if you win, you wipe out a potential source of manpower. If you lose, you show weakness that will encourage usurpation. If the Romans had more men, or a system less rife with potential usurpers, things would have been different.

Also, while the barbarians could concentrate their strength, the Romans had frontiers to guard. Even if an army assigned to a Gaul numbered several tens of thousands, it would have to be divided up into smaller units to watch every potential inroads, so the barbarian tribes could achieve local numerical superiority.

With the East, they had a much smaller area to guard, and even if the barbarians broke through, they didn't have the strength to take Constantinople, or the naval power to invade Asia Minor and Egypt, so the most lucrative provinces were never threatened.

One of the most grotesque wastages of manpower was the failed invasion of Vandal-held N. Africa. That was one serious wastage of manpower, and the Western Empire probably never quite recovered from that incident.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:One of the most grotesque wastages of manpower was the failed invasion of Vandal-held N. Africa. That was one serious wastage of manpower, and the Western Empire probably never quite recovered from that incident.

Meh. The casualties there are nothing special compared to other, far more deadlier failures.

Of course, a ship like this one would never have worked. Think of how to feed the oxen. And think of how to manage the final results of feeding the oxen.

That's hillarious.

Ok, it might not have worked well with just six oxens, but in comparison to hundreds of human rowers? In fact, those oxens could be most likely easier be fed than those slaves, and generated more power, more reliable and with less security problems. Also they were probably cheaper in purchase for a non-gouvernment captain. Granted, the design might be a technical challenge, but it's not that impossible.

But the most important part is his concern with animals on board and waste disposal.

Even in later times, ships routiniously carried livestock across the oceans just for provision or transported horses across the atlantic. People were commenting that the sailors had trouble finding places to sleep because of the usual amount of livestock on board. All there mess jsut went into the bilge and had to be removed there by pump and shovel, usually a punishment for sailors. Also one of the reasons thos boats smelled like hell and rotted away in a few years.

And the end results disposal - he might have missed the point in his analysis that the boat was surrounded by the worlds hugest waste disposal facility, the ocean. I don't think Greenpeace would have rowed a bireme in front of their path to stop them from "off-shore waste disposal".

I suspect the medieval artist either enhanced or misunderstood the description. Alternatively, this may very well have been a method for transporting ships over land. Some siege towers were transported in similar ways, though they did not use oxen.

Judging from the picture, it looks like some sort of ox-powered riverboat. It's not that outlandish, considering that before the steam engine, riverboats sometimes used men walking on treadmill-like contraptions to propel the ship. The Romans were certainly advanced enough to build something similar.

It might be a misunderstanding of the artist, but it is not far-fetched to be an actual design being used. Given that ox or ass-driven pumpstations at wells were widely used in the eastern provinces, and the complex mechanical industrial complexes the romans have build using water power, they would certainly have no problem building it. Also, medival painters tend to reduce the numbers of people/bodies in their art, so it could easily be that there were a dozen or more oxes powering the boat. For a cargo vessel, moving along rivers or shores, it would be a good idea.

It might as well be a ox-driven ferry on a calm body of water, with sails to support propulsion or the oxes only be led abord when no wind is available...

And this where the problem starts. Had the one writing the article been a historian, he would have given a direct cite and it would be a trivial thing to check it. As there is no cite, good luck sifting through Vegetius.

Setzer wrote:With the East, they had a much smaller area to guard, and even if the barbarians broke through, they didn't have the strength to take Constantinople, or the naval power to invade Asia Minor and Egypt, so the most lucrative provinces were never threatened.

Where'd you get this idea? The ERE had to defend their borders in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Arabia from barbarian tribes, while they had to defend Mesopotamia and Egypt from a major world power in Persia. If anything, they had more territory to defend against invaders who were more powerful.

If anything fell the WRE, it was the fact that the WRE was always dependent on the ERE for men and money, as the WRE had only a single large, important city and the corresponding people and government to go with it, while the ERE had half a dozen larger cities and a much greater population as opposed to the WRE.

People who do not know what they are talking about should not post in here, Akhlut. Your statement is completely wrong and anybody who paid attention in eighth grade history could do better than you.