S.J.A.Turney's Books & More

Reviews, news and inside the world of books.

The latter days of Rome

with 2 comments

Ok here we go. It might take a while to load as this is an image heavy blog post. There follow 23 images. And here’s your big quiz question to begin: which of these images are Roman. Go for it…

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERAKONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERABC6KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERABC4KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERABC2BC1AD1AD2AD3AD4AD5AD6AD7AD8AD9AD10AD11AD12AD13AD14AD15

***********

Ok? Got your answers in order? Here we go…

It was a trick question. All of the above are Roman. Or, if I need to put it another way, if you could ask the builder or designer or commissioner of these structures, they would all tell you they were Roman. And they cover a period of over 2000 years. Yes, I know. It’s often staggering to think of that. At the end of the post, I shall detail the pics, if you’re interested.

Right, the reason for all this tomfoolery is because I keep finding myself confronted with words like decline, fall, and twilight applied to the Roman Empire. It is mostly the fault of Edward Gibbon and his renowned ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, of course. And because of him Alec Guiness was in a film with the same theme. And you know what? They are talking about the period following the death of Marcus Aurelius and the reign of Commodus. And here’s the thing: Rome had existed for 933 years when Aurelius died (if you take the founding in 753 as Gospel, anyway.) But if you count an emperor of an empire that consider themselves Roman in an unbroken chain back to the days of Augustus, then the empire went on til 1453 when Mehmed the Conqueror took Constantinople. That means there was still 1273 years of being Roman to go. So this decline and fall seems to have taken place less than half way through? Pah!

Ian Ross has written a series of novels based around the rise of Constantine around 305 AD. His series is called Twilight of Empire. Now don’t get me wrong, they are very good books and I would recommend them. It’s just that monicker that makes me twitch. 305? 1148 years is a hell of a long twilight, isn’t it? Especially in a day that’s 2206 years long. So can even that era really be called a decline or twilight?

Because here’s the thing: Rome changed. Everyone seems to have this set view of the Roman Empire being the legions in their segmented plate with rulers in togas building playing-card shaped forts, shouting in Latin, worshiping Jupiter and conquering barbarians. Think again. Rome had been through many phases even by Gibbon’s time of theoretical fall. It had been an Etruscan monarchy with a military heavily based on the Greek model. It had been a republic with a Hellenistic/Etruscan/Gallic model of armies. It had been a principate with the first true professional standing army. And it had been an empire that meets common public expectations.

And if we accept that Rome had changed, morphed and grown from its start as an agricultural village to the great empire Aurelius left to his son, then why should we consider the changes that follow a decline or fall?

There was a century or so of political turbulence, yes, and the borders came under much pressure, yes. But even during that time there were periods of golden stability. Gallienus ruled for 15 years with a record that does him credit, for example. And during this time, art changes and blossoms. The mosaicists become multichrome and complex following African influences. Paintings become more varied and imaginative. Religion starts to become a much wider and more complex animal. Cultural identity is becoming mixed. What is a Roman in the late 3rd or early 4th century? Many emperors have now come from Africa, Syria and the Balkans. This is, to my mind, not a decline but a period of change driven by struggle and need, but one of glorious revolution. Sometimes change is difficult, but that does not mean it loses its value.

And so Constantine marks another turning point, as he for the first time shifts the focus of power. Rome is no longer the heart, but Constantinople. Does that make it less Roman? No. The inhabitants are still Roman, ruled by Roman emperors. The army is now a more diaphenous, complex and mobile thing, and includes members of the very peoples they used to fight. The equipment owes as much to the Germanic peoples and the Parthians as to ancient Rome and Greece. But they are still, in their minds, Roman.

Then Rome (the city) falls to the Goths and a short while later the last western emperor disappears into obscurity. Chisel that headstone of empire then, as Gibbon predicted. But no… wait a minute… there’s this thing we now term the Byzantine Empire, centred around Constantinople. But guess what? They did not think of themselves as Byzantine. That is a modern monicker. To them, they were Roman. It was the Roman empire, plain and simple. It spoke Greek, and was centred on Constantinople, and it was a Christian world. But it was still Roman.

So there you have it. Rome, to my mind, fell in 1453 after 22 centuries. It did not decline and fall between the 2nd and 5th centuries. Commodus did not mark the crucial apex before the downward slide. Equally, Constantine ruled during an earlier period of empire, not its twilight. In fact, its final decline I would put at 1204, when the Pope’s crusaders sacked Constantinople and crippled imperial power for good. THAT is the decline and fall. Two and a half centuries at the end  consisting of desperate emperors clinging on in the face of Italian belligerence and Turkish expansion.

Anyway, that’s my two-penneth for the day. And it gave me the opportunity to post some nice piccies too. Back soon with another book review.

***********

Pic details:

  1. The ‘Romulean Huts’ on the Palatine in Rome (8th century BC)
  2. Outfall of the Cloaca Maxima sewer in Rome (circa 7th century BC)
  3. Temples at San Omobono in Rome (6th century BC)
  4. Temple of Castor & Pollux in the Roman forum (5th century BC)
  5. Servian Walls of Rome (4th century BC)
  6. Temple in Largo Argentina, Rome (3rd century BC)
  7. Walls of Tarragona in Spain (2nd century BC)
  8. Mausoleum of Augustus, Rome (1st century BC)
  9. House of Argus, Herculaneum (1st century AD)
  10. Hadrian’s Wall at Willowford, England (2nd century AD)
  11. Walls of St Albans, England (3rd century AD)
  12. Aqueduct of Valens, Istanbul (4th century AD)
  13. Theodosian Land Walls of Istanbul (5th century AD)
  14. Haghia Sophia, Isanbul (6th century AD)
  15. Church of St Titus, Gortyn, Crete (7th century AD)
  16. Haghia Irene, Istanbul (8th century AD)
  17. Church of St Paolo Fuori le Mura, Rome (9th century AD)
  18. Monastery of Constantine Lips, Istanbul (10th century AD)
  19. Chora Church, Istanbul (11th century AD)
  20. Church of the Pammakaristos, Istanbul (12th century AD)
  21. Palace of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Istanbul (13th century AD)
  22. Brontochion Monastery, Mistra, Greece (14th century AD)
  23. Bridge over the Armira River, Bulgaria (15th century AD)
Advertisements

Written by SJAT

June 26, 2016 at 12:11 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Thank you, Simon, I was wondering just how and why Rome fell. Must look up some facts. And the only pic I guessed was Hadrian’s Wall!

    Like

    Shirley Blane

    July 2, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    • It was a long and complex business, Shirley. Econonic decline due to the faltering and then end of expansion, the gradual decline of slave labour (though that only truly ended under Justinian in the east in the 6th century), the chaotic successions, the political clout of the military, the increased reliance on Rome’s neighbours to help police their own borders. The list goes on. Essentially, by 410, Rome’s northern borders were mostly protected by barbarians who were given land and money for the job. But when Rome couldn’t pay the promised gold, the inevitable happened. In 410 they swept through the western empire and sacked Rome itself. From then on a Goth sat on the throne in Rome and the emperor existed for sixty or so years in exile until the last one, a young lad, simply disappeared into ignominious retirement. But by then the eastern empire was thriving, so that represents only the end of the west, and a shift in the empire towards the east. 🙂 Gods, but I love to waffle on Rome…

      Like

      SJAT

      July 2, 2016 at 5:27 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: