What if the Western Roman empire downsized to Italy+Illyria?

The real issue was system collapse. There isn't one reason the Roman empire fell, it was declining populations, the devaluation of money, the devaluation of citizenship, and on and on. They no longer had the internal strength to resist the barbarians at the gate.

I don't think reducing the scope of the empire would have set the stage for any kind of comeback.

By the time Nepos becomes Emperor the West was already done for and had been for quite a while.

Consider the fact that Nepos himself - as well as other Emperor's of this period relied almost entirely on confirmation by the Eastern Emperor in order to legitimize their own titles. This speaks clearly to the fact that the WRE was no longer an internally coherent "State" but rather a group of autonomous "Kingdoms" acting in loose Confederation and, fighting over the title of "Emperor" in order to Elevate their own status within this Confederation.

Orestes for instance, who forced Nepos out, had spent most of his adult life as a member of Atilla's Court and one of his most trusted Leiutenants. Having actively served as a leader of a foreign power in war against Rome nonetheless had no impact on Orestes' ability to secure power "within the WRE" as Nepos' Magister Militum or to secure the appointment of his son Romulus Augustus as Emperor. Again, this clearly demonstrates that "Western Rome" is an idea, not a coherent "State" by this point.

As a consequence "abandoning Gaul" wouldn't have done a thing since "Gaul" is already functionally independent.

cachibatches said:

The real issue was system collapse. There isn't one reason the Roman empire fell, it was declining populations, the devaluation of money, the devaluation of citizenship, and on and on. They no longer had the internal strength to resist the barbarians at the gate.

Click to expand...

Indeed the problem was lack of internal strength. Generally, post 408, the WRE was an effete pussycat.
But I don't think devaluation of coinage or declining population had much if anything to do with it. First neither may have been serious issues in the fifth century west as they had been in the empire of c 250-300 CE. Even if they had been, they couldn't have been the core issues. Aurelian reigned in the aftermath of the devastating cyprian plague and was unable to rectify monetary devaluation. But he still effectively repelled invaders and reestablished the unity of the empire. The key difference was that third century citizens were still willing to fight whereas fifth century ones generally weren't.

cachibatches said:

I don't think reducing the scope of the empire would have set the stage for any kind of comeback.

Click to expand...

Of course not; it wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problem.

starman said:

The key difference was that third century citizens were still willing to fight whereas fifth century ones generally weren't.

Click to expand...

This isn't accurate. 5th century citizens were perfectly willing to fight, just not "For Rome." They fought in defense of their homes (Gaul, North Africa, Italy etc.) They fought for personal advancement (again, look no further than Orestes.)

In the East, they happily fought for "The Eastern Empire" while in the "West" they largely ignored a state which had increasingly degraded in value since the crisis of the 3rd Century as @cachibatches says. Mobility had been effectively killed by tying low class citizens to "the land," the value of citizenship had largely been killed because even "Barbarians" could quickly and, easily secure all but the highest office of Emperor in the West. To make this worse, the Western Emperor's had begun to effectively tolerate Kingship within Roman lands during the 5th Century and treated these as peers to be courted or fought rather than outright rebels as they had previously done (Chlodio and Merovech in France for instance.)

At the same time, the coinage was largely useless. Citizens had no guarantee of protection - as the Romano British found out at the beginning of the 5th Century when Rome abandoned them.

Making the whole issue far worse was the dramatic counterpoint that was offered by the Eastern Empire during this time, which remained relatively stable (compared to the West) and must have poignantly highlighted just how ineffectual the "West" was and consequently how valueless it would have been to put the welfare of this "State" that called itself "The Western Roman Empire" above personal or, regional concerns.

So, yes, it was the consistent degradation of Roman Citizenship as a valuable status in the West, beginning with the Crisis of the 3rd Century and, worsening over time in response to certain decisions (fixing people to the land, opening high military offices to non-citizens, devaluing a currency at a point when numerous competing currencies existed as a consequence of the Crisis of the 3rd Century and, directly abandoning territories while outright ceding others to Germanic Warlords) that is at issue not the "a lack of willingness to "fight"" in the general sense. Merely a lack of willingness to "fight for a bunch of losers who'd already thrown away the Western World."

GIJoe said:

5th century citizens were perfectly willing to fight, just not "For Rome."

Click to expand...

That's what I meant. Although, barbarian incursions didn't seem to incur much resistance from anybody. One author attributed this passivity to the fact that Romans had for centuries relied on the army. I think more was involved...

GIJoe said:

They fought in defense of their homes (Gaul, North Africa, Italy etc.) They fought for personal advancement (again, look no further than Orestes.)

Click to expand...

There were mini-civil wars, notably at Rimini 432 CE. But there appears to have been pathetically little resistance to the Vandal invasion of North Africa in 429 and subsequent march clear to Carthage. Apparently neither the small mercenary force nor the civilian population was able to put up any significant resistance.

GIJoe said:

In the East, they happily fought for "The Eastern Empire" while in the "West" they largely ignored a state which had increasingly degraded in value since the crisis of the 3rd Century as @cachibatches says.

Click to expand...

The ERE was pretty weak or ineffectual at the start of the fifth century and again in the 440s, when huns made mincemeat of its balkan territory, and extorted big money from it. The ERE was very lucky the bulk of invasions fell on the west and btw its own recruiting issues weren't solved--in theory--until c 484.

GIJoe said:

Mobility had been effectively killed by tying low class citizens to "the land," the value of citizenship had largely been killed because even "Barbarians" could quickly and, easily secure all but the highest office of Emperor in the West.

Click to expand...

The core problem was unwillingness of citizens to sacrifice for the empire. Even before 400 CE most citizens didn't seem to relate to it strongly--or at all-- anymore. Lower class "humiliores" could serve in the army--they were often conscripted--but proved useless because they'd cut off their thumbs to avoid service, or desert. (Had they been willing to fight many could've risen to high rank instead of barbarians but their effete character compelled the state to rely on barbarians.) Upper class "honestiores" often resisted paying taxes or allowing their laborers to serve in the army.

GIJoe said:

To make this worse, the Western Emperor's had begun to effectively tolerate Kingship within Roman lands during the 5th Century

Click to expand...

That was symptomatic of the weakening of the empire. The state had to tolerate barbarian "federates" on its soil because it just wasn't strong enough to crush or evict them as 3rd century armies had done.

GIJoe said:

Citizens had no guarantee of protection - as the Romano British found out at the beginning of the 5th Century when Rome abandoned them.

Click to expand...

Again just a symptom of the real issue--how could the state protect anyone if nobody supported it anymore?

GIJoe said:

Making the whole issue far worse was the dramatic counterpoint that was offered by the Eastern Empire during this time, which remained relatively stable (compared to the West) and must have poignantly highlighted just how ineffectual the "West" was and consequently how valueless it would have been to put the welfare of this "State" that called itself "The Western Roman Empire" above personal or, regional concerns.

Click to expand...

If the west was ineffectual it was the fault of the masses--including the rich-- who didn't seem to care. Inasmuch as the barbarians posed a deadly threat to the lives and property of people, it was in their own best interest to ensure the army was strong but they just seemed to meekly submit to invaders.

GIJoe said:

So, yes, it was the consistent degradation of Roman Citizenship as a valuable status in the West, beginning with the Crisis of the 3rd Century

Click to expand...

The Roman army was quite effective in the very aftermath of the third century crisis and was still quite capable down to at least 361. It seems the real malaise didn't set in until c 370-80 or so.

GIJoe said:

Merely a lack of willingness to "fight for a bunch of losers who'd already thrown away the Western World."

Click to expand...

The pathologies, or loss of support, were already serious prior to the big losses of territory from 406-76. The attitude of most citizens was the cause not the effect of 'loss of the western world."

starman said:

That's what I meant. Although, barbarian incursions didn't seem to incur much resistance from anybody. One author attributed this passivity to the fact that Romans had for centuries relied on the army. I think more was involved...

There were mini-civil wars, notably at Rimini 432 CE. But there appears to have been pathetically little resistance to the Vandal invasion of North Africa in 429 and subsequent march clear to Carthage. Apparently neither the small mercenary force nor the civilian population was able to put up any significant resistance.

Click to expand...

I think this is an issue of perspective. The Roman Military itself had become a complex, multi-ethnic beast by this point. It's composition was in constant flux, ethnic lines were superimposed in the context of our written sources even though they almost certainly don't represent "real" or "strict" divisions of either command or, recruitment. It's best to view these as being mere "Placeholders" and assume that "When in Rome" as it were, Barbarians who held Roman Offices behaved as "Romans" and that, being often led by warlords with "Roman" military training often essentially "behaved as Romans" in the context of Warfare.

It's also useful to keep in mind that this is all occurring in a political and economic environment dictated by reality with that reality largely being the natural consequences of the Crisis of the 3rd Century coupled with Diocletian's reforms designed to resolve it. These have been widely viewed as serving as the basis for Feudalism.

So, since recruitment has become much more localized, our sources seem to identify by the dominant ethnicity or allied power. That doesn't mean however that there weren't Roman Citizens serving under Barbarian Commanders or, Barbarians serving under Romans as both Mercenaries and, Regulars. The fact that many of these "Barbarians" often hold Roman Offices seems to suggest that our sources are making extremely arbitrary distinctions as a matter of convenience. The fact that they clearly identify many Romans of the Aristocracy as holding titles, commands and positions in "Barbarian" Armies/Kingdoms also strongly suggests this interpretation.

starman said:

The ERE was pretty weak or ineffectual at the start of the fifth century and again in the 440s, when huns made mincemeat of its balkan territory, and extorted big money from it. The ERE was very lucky the bulk of invasions fell on the west and btw its own recruiting issues weren't solved--in theory--until c 484.

Click to expand...

Mani tells us that "Rome, Persia, China and Aksum" were "the Great Powers" of the 3rd Century. Contemporary Scholarship suggests that by the 4th Century and, onward "The Huns" stood among the Great Powers as well.

So, it's probably more accurate to interpret these interactions as representing The ERE successfully resisting another Great Power and thus, remaining among the ranks of the Great Powers while the WRE failed to do so, and fell from the ranks of the Great Powers (the Huns did so as by the end of the 5th Century of course). This lines up with what we see moving forward. The ERE is certainly struggling in the 5th Century but, it will largely survive and recover it's former glory. It was certainly stronger in thr 4th Century CE - but then, so was the WRE. One survived conflict with another Great Power (The Huns) and, would continue to survive conflicts with another (Persia) the other - the WRE - ceased to exist.

So then, looking outward from Europe the first thing a 5th Century CE European (Roman or, Germanic) sees is the ERE and, even at it's lowest ebb, the ERE looks a whole lot shinier and solid than the corpse of the WRE which they're all fighting over looks.

starman said:

The core problem was unwillingness of citizens to sacrifice for the empire. Even before 400 CE most citizens didn't seem to relate to it strongly--or at all-- anymore. Lower class "humiliores" could serve in the army--they were often conscripted--but proved useless because they'd cut off their thumbs to avoid service, or desert. (Had they been willing to fight many could've risen to high rank instead of barbarians but their effete character compelled the state to rely on barbarians.) Upper class "honestiores" often resisted paying taxes or allowing their laborers to serve in the army.

Click to expand...

Again, this is a systematic result of the "self-over-state" politics that had brought about the 3rd Century Crisis to begin with coupled with the extension of the franchise while at the same time reducing the legal benefits that franchise (citizenship) conveyed. This is a big reason the Crisis occurs.

Diocletian's reforms stabilize things, but they also effectively serve as the basis of Feudalism (Feorm or "Taxes in Kind," Processional Kingship models, Scutage "Money in Leiu of Service," hereditary identity and service based on title rather than merit, localization as the result of what was effectively serfdom, etc.)

starman said:

That was symptomatic of the weakening of the empire. The state had to tolerate barbarian "federates" on its soil because it just wasn't strong enough to crush or evict them as 3rd century armies had done.


Again just a symptom of the real issue--how could the state protect anyone if nobody supported it anymore?

Click to expand...

I would suggest that, "The State" couldn't "Evict" the "Usurpers" and instead had to largely "Tolerate them" for decades.

starman said:

That's what I meant. Although, barbarian incursions didn't seem to incur much resistance from anybody. One author attributed this passivity to the fact that Romans had for centuries relied on the army. I think more was involved...

There were mini-civil wars, notably at Rimini 432 CE. But there appears to have been pathetically little resistance to the Vandal invasion of North Africa in 429 and subsequent march clear to Carthage. Apparently neither the small mercenary force nor the civilian population was able to put up any significant resistance.

Click to expand...

I think this is an issue of perspective. The Roman Military itself had become a complex, multi-ethnic beast by this point. It's composition was in constant flux, ethnic lines were superimposed in the context of our written sources even though they almost certainly don't represent "real" or "strict" divisions of either command or, recruitment. It's best to view these as being mere "Placeholders" and assume that "When in Rome" as it were, Barbarians who held Roman Offices behaved as "Romans" and that, being often led by warlords with "Roman" military training often essentially "behaved as Romans" in the context of Warfare.

It's also useful to keep in mind that this is all occurring in a political and economic environment dictated by reality with that reality largely being the natural consequences of the Crisis of the 3rd Century coupled with Diocletian's reforms designed to resolve it. These have been widely viewed as serving as the basis for Feudalism.

So, since recruitment has become much more localized, our sources seem to identify by the dominant ethnicity or allied power. That doesn't mean however that there weren't Roman Citizens serving under Barbarian Commanders or, Barbarians serving under Romans as both Mercenaries and, Regulars. The fact that many of these "Barbarians" often hold Roman Offices seems to suggest that our sources are making extremely arbitrary distinctions as a matter of convenience. The fact that they clearly identify many Romans of the Aristocracy as holding titles, commands and positions in "Barbarian" Armies/Kingdoms also strongly suggests this interpretation.

starman said:

The ERE was pretty weak or ineffectual at the start of the fifth century and again in the 440s, when huns made mincemeat of its balkan territory, and extorted big money from it. The ERE was very lucky the bulk of invasions fell on the west and btw its own recruiting issues weren't solved--in theory--until c 484.

Click to expand...

Mani tells us that "Rome, Persia, China and Aksum" were "the Great Powers" of the 3rd Century. Contemporary Scholarship suggests that by the 4th Century and, onward "The Huns" stood among the Great Powers as well.

So, it's probably more accurate to interpret these interactions as representing The ERE successfully resisting another Great Power and thus, remaining among the ranks of the Great Powers while the WRE failed to do so, and fell from the ranks of the Great Powers (the Huns did so as by the end of the 5th Century of course). This lines up with what we see moving forward. The ERE is certainly struggling in the 5th Century but, it will largely survive and recover it's former glory. It was certainly stronger in thr 4th Century CE - but then, so was the WRE. One survived conflict with another Great Power (The Huns) and, would continue to survive conflicts with another (Persia) the other - the WRE - ceased to exist.

So then, looking outward from Europe the first thing a 5th Century CE European (Roman or, Germanic) sees is the ERE and, even at it's lowest ebb, the ERE looks a whole lot shinier and solid than the corpse of the WRE which they're all fighting over looks.

starman said:

The core problem was unwillingness of citizens to sacrifice for the empire. Even before 400 CE most citizens didn't seem to relate to it strongly--or at all-- anymore. Lower class "humiliores" could serve in the army--they were often conscripted--but proved useless because they'd cut off their thumbs to avoid service, or desert. (Had they been willing to fight many could've risen to high rank instead of barbarians but their effete character compelled the state to rely on barbarians.) Upper class "honestiores" often resisted paying taxes or allowing their laborers to serve in the army.

Click to expand...

Again, this is a systematic result of the "self-over-state" politics that had brought about the 3rd Century Crisis to begin with coupled with the extension of the franchise while at the same time reducing the legal benefits that franchise (citizenship) conveyed. This is a big reason the Crisis occurs.

Diocletian's reforms stabilize things, but they also effectively serve as the basis of Feudalism (Feorm or "Taxes in Kind," Processional Kingship models, Scutage "Money in Leiu of Service," hereditary identity and service based on title rather than merit, localization as the result of what was effectively serfdom, etc.)

starman said:

That was symptomatic of the weakening of the empire. The state had to tolerate barbarian "federates" on its soil because it just wasn't strong enough to crush or evict them as 3rd century armies had done.


Again just a symptom of the real issue--how could the state protect anyone if nobody supported it anymore?

Click to expand...

I would suggest that, "The State" couldn't "Evict" the

GIJoe said:

The Roman Military itself had become a complex, multi-ethnic beast by this point.

Click to expand...

It already had been at least as far back as the 3rd century.

GIJoe said:

It's composition was in constant flux, ethnic lines were superimposed in the context of our written sources even though they almost certainly don't represent "real" or "strict" divisions of either command or, recruitment. It's best to view these as being mere "Placeholders" and assume that "When in Rome" as it were, Barbarians who held Roman Offices behaved as "Romans" and that, being often led by warlords with "Roman" military training often essentially "behaved as Romans" in the context of Warfare.

Click to expand...

In 408, when barbarian civilians were killed in Roman cities, the barbarian recruits of stilicho abandoned the army. It's instructive that subsequently, the WRE had very little regular army of its own. It had to use visigoths to fight vandals in Spain and huns to fight burgundians etc in Gaul. Bereft of a regular army, the WRE had to use "federates" or mercenaries, and its dependence on them speaks volumes about the antipathy of most citizens to military service. There is ample evidence of this already in the 4rth century.

GIJoe said:

So, since recruitment has become much more localized,

Click to expand...

They were hiring people from beyond the frontiers.

GIJoe said:

our sources seem to identify by the dominant ethnicity or allied power. That doesn't mean however that there weren't Roman Citizens serving under Barbarian Commanders or, Barbarians serving under Romans as both Mercenaries and, Regulars. The fact that many of these "Barbarians" often hold Roman Offices seems to suggest that our sources are making extremely arbitrary distinctions as a matter of convenience. The fact that they clearly identify many Romans of the Aristocracy as holding titles, commands and positions in "Barbarian" Armies/Kingdoms also strongly suggests this interpretation.

Click to expand...

Itr may be difficult to draw a line between roman and barbarian. The key issue is the increased enfeeblement of the WRE. But the core of the problem had to have been abandonment of the empire by citizens, which compelled increased dependence on barbarians, some of whom "assimilated" to a degree.

GIJoe said:

So then, looking outward from Europe the first thing a 5th Century CE European (Roman or, Germanic) sees is the ERE and, even at it's lowest ebb, the ERE looks a whole lot shinier and solid than the corpse of the WRE which they're all fighting over looks.

Click to expand...

Of course but that owed much to luck. The bulk of barbarian invasions fell on the west. At one point around 447 an earthquake damaged the wall of constantinople; they fixed it just in time to thwart barbarians attempting to exploit it.

GIJoe said:

Again, this is a systematic result of the "self-over-state" politics that had brought about the 3rd Century Crisis to begin with coupled with the extension of the franchise while at the same time reducing the legal benefits that franchise (citizenship) conveyed. This is a big reason the Crisis occurs.

Click to expand...

The third century crisis was mostly due to factors beyond the empire's control, notably plague, shortage of bullion, and stronger enemies in the east and along the Danube and Rhine. There were also civil wars of course but ambitious men had always been willing to fight for power.

GIJoe said:

Diocletian's reforms stabilize things, but they also effectively serve as the basis of Feudalism (Feorm or "Taxes in Kind," Processional Kingship models, Scutage "Money in Leiu of Service," hereditary identity and service based on title rather than merit, localization as the result of what was effectively serfdom, etc.)

Click to expand...

"Creeping medievalization" was already visible in the 3rd century--increased reliance on walls as armies couldn't always be counted on, increased importance of cavalry (precursors of knights) etc.
Btw while the "humiliores" and "honestiores" class system came into being the 4rth century army at least seemed meritocratic. Even people of barbarian extraction rose to high rank.

GIJoe said:

I would suggest that, "The State" couldn't "Evict" the "Usurpers" and instead had to largely "Tolerate them" for decades.

Click to expand...

Because it was increasingly bereft of support.

starman said:

It already had been at least as far back as the 3rd century.


In 408, when barbarian civilians were killed in Roman cities, the barbarian recruits of stilicho abandoned the army. It's instructive that subsequently, the WRE had very little regular army of its own. It had to use visigoths to fight vandals in Spain and huns to fight burgundians etc in Gaul. Bereft of a regular army, the WRE had to use "federates" or mercenaries, and its dependence on them speaks volumes about the antipathy of most citizens to military service. There is ample evidence of this already in the 4rth century.


They were hiring people from beyond the frontiers.


Itr may be difficult to draw a line between roman and barbarian. The key issue is the increased enfeeblement of the WRE. But the core of the problem had to have been abandonment of the empire by citizens, which compelled increased dependence on barbarians, some of whom "assimilated" to a degree.



Of course but that owed much to luck. The bulk of barbarian invasions fell on the west. At one point around 447 an earthquake damaged the wall of constantinople; they fixed it just in time to thwart barbarians attempting to exploit it.


The third century crisis was mostly due to factors beyond the empire's control, notably plague, shortage of bullion, and stronger enemies in the east and along the Danube and Rhine. There were also civil wars of course but ambitious men had always been willing to fight for power.


"Creeping medievalization" was already visible in the 3rd century--increased reliance on walls as armies couldn't always be counted on, increased importance of cavalry (precursors of knights) etc.
Btw while the "humiliores" and "honestiores" class system came into being the 4rth century army at least seemed meritocratic. Even people of barbarian extraction rose to high rank.



Because it was increasingly bereft of support.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, I don't buy that "The State became ineffective because it lost the support of the people."

What I see reflected is that, "The State lost the support of the people because it had become ineffective."

During the 3rd Century Crisis, the competing Empires retained support locally (and therefore were able to compete) explicitly because at this lower level the "institutions that comprised the Roman State remained effective." The core of Diocletian's reform package reflects an acknowledgement of this fact. Consequently, the "Empire as a whole" is able to persist throughout the 4th Century.

At the end of the 4th Century and, into the 5th however, the WRE begins to become increasingly ineffective whereas the ERE doesn't. Consequently, the WRE loses the support of the people and disappears whereas the ERE doesn't and, consequently, persists.

GIJoe said:

Ultimately, I don't buy that "The State became ineffective because it lost the support of the people."

What I see reflected is that, "The State lost the support of the people because it had become ineffective."

Click to expand...

The "ineffectiveness" that mattered most, by far, was in the military sphere. As long as citizens were willing to serve the Empire retained its effectiveness. Despite the catastrophes of c 250-267, in the face of which the empire often seemed powerless, it did not lose support. On the contrary, the empire retained ample support, as the reign of Aurelian and others clearly demonstrates. Many men from the danubian etc provinces were willing to fight hard to crush invaders and reunite the empire.
In sharp contrast, even before the worst problems of the fifth century, martial spirit appeared to be dying. To cite one example, in the 4rth century a number of laws were passed to try to stop men from cutting off their thumbs to avoid service. And, again, it wasn't just a matter of lower class or rural citizens refusing to serve. By avoiding taxes and hindering recruitment efforts, the rich were just as bad.

GIJoe said:

At the end of the 4th Century and, into the 5th however, the WRE begins to become increasingly ineffective whereas the ERE doesn't.

Click to expand...

Both empires became pretty ineffective. As I posted before, in the first years of the fifth century, the WRE had to send Stilicho to help the ERE. In the 440s the ERE was hammered badly by huns. Both empires suffered from the pathologies caused by reduced support; the difference is that the ERE was just luckier. The barbarians tended to invade and settle in western provinces not eastern ones. The ERE had the time to deal with the fundamental issue the west didn't.

GIJoe said:

Consequently, the WRE loses the support of the people and disappears whereas the ERE doesn't and, consequently, persists.

Click to expand...

Citizen support was already clearly waning prior to the division of the empire into WRE and ERE.

starman said:

Citizen support was already clearly waning prior to the division of the empire into WRE and ERE.

Click to expand...

It's fitting that you close your post with this comment because it brings us full circle to the point that @cachibatches made and which I support:

"Citizenship become devalued."

In Rome, Citizenship represented a privileged legal and political status with respect to laws, governance and property of individual Citizens. In context, it was valuable for the same reasons that a "Ivy League Education" is "valuable" which is basically:

"Not many people have one."

Following 212, the Edict of Caracalla extended Citizenship to every free man in the Empire - whereas many had previously held the Latin Right - and put all free women on the same footing as Roman women.

Thus you had a broader base of less educated, less involved (because there was less motivation) and, less committed Citizens. Then, the Crisis of the 3rd Century creates further separation prepped the ground and caused people to start thinking locally. Diocletian ratified this local mentality by tying the poor to the land.

So again, from 212 CE, Citizenship just flat out loses a significant portion of it's previous "Value."

GIJoe said:

Following 212, the Edict of Caracalla extended Citizenship to every free man in the Empire
Thus you had a broader base of less educated, less involved (because there was less motivation) and, less committed Citizens.

Click to expand...

I don't buy it. There is a great temporal gap between 212 CE and the abandonment of the empire by citizens. Sixty -ninety years after Caracalla's edict, there were ample citizens motivated to fight for the empire. And it wasn't a matter of fighting for one's home or community. Aurelian's armies marched from one end of the empire to the other. The empire had adequate citizen support down to at least 361.

GIJoe said:

Then, the Crisis of the 3rd Century creates further separation prepped the ground and caused people to start thinking locally.

Click to expand...

The economy was "restructured on a local basis" as Southern wrote, but the ideal of a united empire remained strong. That enabled Aurelian to achieve what he did.

GIJoe said:

Diocletian ratified this local mentality by tying the poor to the land.

Click to expand...

That owed much to a labor shortage.

GIJoe said:

So again, from 212 CE, Citizenship just flat out loses a significant portion of it's previous "Value."

Click to expand...

Even if that were true there was little if any discernible effect, in regards to the critical issue--strength of the empire--for a century at least, or a century and a half.

GIJoe said:

Thus you had a broader base of less educated, less involved (because there was less motivation) and, less committed Citizens.

Click to expand...

Getting back to this: the best educated and richest citizens were the senators yet by 400 CE or earlier they seemed to care as little about the empire as others.

starman said:

I don't buy it. There is a great temporal gap between 212 CE and the abandonment of the empire by citizens. Sixty -ninety years after Caracalla's edict, there were ample citizens motivated to fight for the empire. And it wasn't a matter of fighting for one's home or community. Aurelian's armies marched from one end of the empire to the other. The empire had adequate citizen support down to at least 361.


The economy was "restructured on a local basis" as Southern wrote, but the ideal of a united empire remained strong. That enabled Aurelian to achieve what he did.



That owed much to a labor shortage.


Even if that were true there was little if any discernible effect, in regards to the critical issue--strength of the empire--for a century at least, or a century and a half.

Click to expand...

Several things jump out at me here. First, the Empire starts abandoning it's citizens by ceding territory to foreigners instead of arguing over which particular Roman is in charge of it. Subsequently Citizens abandon their efforts to reform the Empire. Cause -> Effect.

Secondly, Southern entirely misses the point of what actually happened (which Diocletian did as well.) Speaking as a successful entrepreneur and, a Combat Engineer (I have a bit of first hand experience with "Nation Building") two basic things worked together to dictate the economy between the end of the crisis and, the collapse of the WRE:

1. Coinage circulated that had more value regionally than it did state-wide.

During the crisis, localized coinage was minted and put into circulation. Following the crisis, that coinage retained it's value at a regional level but - due to politics - was artificicially devalued in other regions within the State. As a consequence, Markets continued "looking inward" and regional/local economic exhange became inherently more profitable.

Diocletian's monetary reforms actually exacerbated this trend which would likely have worked itself out over time because the market would have funneled off the old currencies in foreign markets where politics didn't artificially devalue the coinage. Diocletian's policies represented a barrier to this.

2. A bigger Government footprint followed Diocletian's reforms.

Rome's biggest issue was effectively governing such a vast territory affected by so many unique issues. The Republic became the Principate largely because the Republican Government couldn't effectively govern an Empire. Thus, Rome became an Empire.

Following Diocletian's reforms, you had at minimum two different courts in the West - that of the Augustus and that of the Caesar. As a result, economies started to become more decentralized and therefore increasingly more localized. Worse, those courts could move at any point. That meant strong local economies had to emerge in order to be able to "pivot" as needed, redirecting their output to a different market.

That is, in reality what we see because "strong economies" are not necessarily those economies with the greatest output per capita.

Having two courts presents the appearance of greater control but, it actually represents less control. It also conditions people to look for local solutions to local problems (which was part of what Diocletian actually intended.)

The Diocese also help maintain things by imposing more direct, rationalized control.

Again, Diocletian's reforms largely exacerbated this issue.

starman said:

Getting back to this: the best educated and richest citizens were the senators yet by 400 CE or earlier they seemed to care as little about the empire as others.

Click to expand...

Senators were no longer the only educated class. By now, The Clergy competed with them and, did so largely in parallel.

However, I would point put that by the end of the Social Wars of the Republic, Senators (Caesar and others) largely cared more about personal power than they did "the Republic" for similar reasons - the Republic just wasn't working out.

Diocletian followed a similar set of needs, he had a vision and, needed personal power to implement it. Same deal, everyone had a vision, they needed personal power to implement it and, Diocletian had set the the rules in place that power was now most effectively derived locally rather than from special interest groups.

GIJoe said:

Several things jump out at me here. First, the Empire starts abandoning it's citizens by ceding territory to foreigners

Click to expand...

There was no significant ceding/loss of territory until the fifth century, although it began in the 4rth, especially after Adrinanople. In all cases ceding/loss of territory resulted from military weakness.
If the Roman regime of 382 had really had its way, it wouldn't have let the Visigoths stay on its territory under their own kings. It would've either crushed them or thrown them out, just like Aurelian had done. It just couldn't do that anymore, because the growing unpopularity of military service by then meant the state just didn't have the strength that Rome had once had. In other words, the citizens had abandoned the empire, resulting in weakness exploited by barbarians, who progressively took over Roman territory.

GIJoe said:

Rome's biggest issue was effectively governing such a vast territory affected by so many unique issues. The Republic became the Principate largely because the Republican Government couldn't effectively govern an Empire. Thus, Rome became an Empire.

Click to expand...

Lol, I see we don't disagree on everything.

GIJoe said:

Following Diocletian's reforms, you had at minimum two different courts in the West - that of the Augustus and that of the Caesar. As a result, economies started to become more decentralized and therefore increasingly more localized. Worse, those courts could move at any point. That meant strong local economies had to emerge in order to be able to "pivot" as needed, redirecting their output to a different market.
Having two courts presents the appearance of greater control but, it actually represents less control. It also conditions people to look for local solutions to local problems (which was part of what Diocletian actually intended.)

Click to expand...

"Localization" may have not have been conducive to the unity of the empire--it was another portent of the Middle Ages-but again, the key issue was unwillingness to fight. The Roman army remained pretty big and capable down to about the time of Julian, or over a half century after Diocletian's reforms. Likewise the empire remained in one piece until 395-- in theory--civil wars erupted but the idea was to gain control of the whole empire not just the original base, as Constantine had done.

GIJoe said:

Senators were no longer the only educated class. By now, The Clergy competed with them and, did so largely in parallel.

Click to expand...

Educated people had long comprised around 2-3% of the population--many more than senators and clergy even if relatively few in relation to total population. But you don't need much education to be a soldier. If lower class "humiliores" are the bulk of citizens that's no problem if they obey the law and are willing to serve in the army.

GIJoe said:

However, I would point put that by the end of the Social Wars of the Republic, Senators (Caesar and others) largely cared more about personal power than they did "the Republic" for similar reasons - the Republic just wasn't working out.

Click to expand...

Sure Caesar didn't care much for the republic. But he most certainly cared about the state.

starman said:

There was no significant ceding/loss of territory until the fifth century, although it began in the 4rth, especially after Adrinanople. In all cases ceding/loss of territory resulted from military weakness.
If the Roman regime of 382 had really had its way, it wouldn't have let the Visigoths stay on its territory under their own kings. It would've either crushed them or thrown them out, just like Aurelian had done. It just couldn't do that anymore, because the growing unpopularity of military service by then meant the state just didn't have the strength that Rome had once had. In other words, the citizens had abandoned the empire, resulting in weakness exploited by barbarians, who progressively took over Roman territory.



Lol, I see we don't disagree on everything.




"Localization" may have not have been conducive to the unity of the empire--it was another portent of the Middle Ages-but again, the key issue was unwillingness to fight. The Roman army remained pretty big and capable down to about the time of Julian, or over a half century after Diocletian's reforms. Likewise the empire remained in one piece until 395-- in theory--civil wars erupted but the idea was to gain control of the whole empire not just the original base, as Constantine had done.


Educated people had long comprised around 2-3% of the population--many more than senators and clergy even if relatively few in relation to total population. But you don't need much education to be a soldier. If lower class "humiliores" are the bulk of citizens that's no problem if they obey the law and are willing to serve in the army.


Sure Caesar didn't care much for the republic. But he most certainly cared about the state.

Click to expand...

Honestly I think we disagree only on one fundamental point - the relative value of Citizenship and, the "order of operations."

I think, overall, that your interpretation puts the cart before the horse.

My entire adult life (and a good bit of my childhood) has been centered around five key activities:

1. Studying History.
2. Exploiting Market Inequality as an Entrepreneur (landlord, land manager, farmer, restauraunter and, playing the stock market to finance above my reach - which is effectively gambling but I've never lost yet)
3. Propping up or, changing regimes.
4. Counterinsurgency.
5. Teaching others how to do these things in a meaningful way - usually under serious external pressure (either your business is failing or, ISIL is just next door.)

Saying that citizens stopped supporting the state "first" just doesn't line up with either my lived experience or, with what I see in the historical record (and, my interpretations are hardly original or unique to me in this case.)

GIJoe said:

Saying that citizens stopped supporting the state "first" just doesn't line up with either my lived experience or, with what I see in the historical record

Click to expand...

If you want to leave it at that instead of addressing my points above, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.