May 8, 2023·edited May 8, 2023Liked by Classical Wisdom
A question for the ages! My recent pet theory is the “fall” of the Roman Empire is a bit overrated. They moved their capital East and dominated hundreds more years. But shrank then sacked by the Ottomans, who viciously erased much of their accomplishment, I think a narrative set in Western Europe that very little was accomplished from 500-1400. The older I get, the more dubious this seems. The center of power moved east and then a threatening people with a different religion took over that turf.
whatever you want to call it, I think Christianity did it. The Roman Empire was built on a moral and societal structure that simply became untenable after a critical mass adopted the teachings of Christ as the center of their morality. Can’t really control the population with brutal gladiator games and other atrocities in the coliseum when they are living for the afterlife and are not buying into displays that drive home how leadership’s might makes them right. So the empire reinvented itself as a Christian one with a new, second seat of power closer to the holy land. Meanwhile, Rome itself became more and more destabilized until it fell, the Western administration and territories with it. Endless conquering for glory isn’t particularly Christian so expansion was mostly out of play. And so what remained of the Roman Empire shrank over centuries until the Ottomans finally sacked Constantinople
The Byznatine apparently viewed themselves as “Romans.” Not Eastern Romans. And prior, among Romans, the schism between East and West wasn’t so much viewed as two states, but rather as two administrations overseeing a vast turf for reasons of practicality
May 8, 2023·edited May 8, 2023Liked by Classical Wisdom
The Roman government became corrupt! The government expanded by debasing their money; Less and less gold and silver was found in their coinage. Fear of the authorities kept their citizens in line until nobody believed in the government anymore. Fear lost its grasp on the population when the people finally understood that the government no longer supported them and it was every man (and woman) for himself (herself). Their money no longer worked. People cheated on their taxes because everyone was cheating. Revenues fell and the coinage suffered further. Soldiers did not fight as hard because they felt that there was nothing left to defend. The Empire began contracting and eventually collapsed on itself due to the hatred of their enemies (who the Romans abused) who saw the weakening of the empire and took advantage of their opportunity. Seems to me that America is in its final stage of Empire building and the collapse has begun. We would do well to learn more about the Fall of Rome before it is too late!
The difference between Ideology and Philosophy is a worthy discussion topic. As a conservative I am always telling people that conservatism is a philosophy not an ideology, having gotten this idea from Russell Kirk. The same could be said for Classical Liberalism, that it is(was) a philosophy, although perhaps a philosophy bordering on ideology in some respects. Progressivism, on the other hand, is pure ideology, as are Socialism and Communism. So what is the difference? Ideology implies that history is moving and that the forward looking component is more important than the historical one. Ideology stresses instrumentality, means and will. Philosophy is interested in the nature of reality and the underpinnings of knowledge and truth. In this sense Philosophy emphasises the ontological and historical in the pursuit of knowledge and looks askance at futuristic, instrumental constructs, especially those that are inconsistent with historical and traditional knowledge. There are gray areas. Classical Liberalism and Objectivism would seem to contain elements of both philosophy and ideology.
It is worth bearing in mind that Rome fell more than once. The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BCE. The Visigoths repeated this feat in 410 CE and the Vandals plundered the city in 455 CE. So, what was it about the 476 CE sacking that is deemed a turning point in the history of the falls of Rome? Perhaps, the answer lies in the shrewd political manoeuvres of Odoacer, the leader of the revolt against Romulus Augustulus and chief instigator behind his deposition. Odoacer received (at least initially) the backing of both Zeno, the Eastern Roman Emperor, and the Western Roman Senate (which continued to exist). This gave him the authority and time to secure his position in Italy. His intention to remain in Italy and his concern with establishing legitimacy, unlike previous sackers of Rome, proved to be a winning strategy. This was not lost on his Ostrogothic successors who successfully remained the dominant power in Italy until the wars of reconquest under Justinian in the mid-sixth century CE, in which Rome would be re-captured and fall yet again. All that said, I think we should rephrase the question, why did Rome keep falling?
Hello Anya - enjoyed your comments on Rome and the pics. Keep them coming! Had to write and defend Ayn Rand. The comments about "ideology" vs. "philosophy" are silly. (And I'm being polite) Political commentary and critiques (i.e., "Political Philosophy") have been a staple of philosophers from the beginning. Think of Aristotle's "Politics," Plato's "Republic," and Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" (1651). All works of political philosophy; all assertive and dogmatic in their final analyses and conclusions. Are they not "philosophers"?
I chuckle at your “small town.” I live in a town with 4 houses, a church, a cafe, a post office, a gas station, and a fertilizer/chemical company. It’s 34 miles to a town of 12,000 where we often get groceries.
It fell because it became something that it wasnt supposed to. Society is a machine that serves a community. A society is a system of rules, customs and ways. Laws and standards. It is a device for individual people to use to interact with others in a productive way that promotes peace, collaboration and security.
An empire, is not a machine. It is an entity unto itself. It becomes something more than what it was meant to be. It becomes its own identity and so becomes separate from the people it is meant to serve, and is then perceived to be a thing which supersedes the identity of the individuals who make up the community. It becomes.. ideology unto itself. It becomes its own self guiding psychopomp that is so far above the individuals it comes to rule over that it ceases to serve, and becomes that which is served. It becomes a self serving machine called empire which like fire, only knows how to consume for its own sake.
When that happens, the people it enslaves become irrelevant, their needs as humans and as individuals cease to be a concern. The "greater good" of the machine takes precedent. A too big to fail monstrosity. In taking on this perceived identity as its own entity, the people who live in it and help run it cease to really affect a sense of ownership over it. They are carried along by its ideology, and they put too much trust in the machines ability to run itself and solve its own problems, that they cease to provide the basic fundamentals of human interaction such as wisdom and clarity, patience, empathy and understanding of circumstance that is required for a community to continually thrive. Blanket laws and policies start to be created which over-ride individual needs because they are considered irrelevant to the "bigger picture". People simply cease to own the society they then become slave to, and soon the master starts to dictate its all consuming narrative.
When this happens, the PEOPLE who create things in this world and affect guidance. Wise people, creatives, inventors, scholars, those who have dedicated their lives to promoting human excellence. They become disposable to the machine, and they know it. They cease to provide the guidance of society that society needs, and so society itself now bereft of this guidance, then relies on the machine to guide them. The machine of course is not a person with a soul or capacity to feel human emotions or value. The machine therefore just does what is in its nature, which is to rule for the sake of filling the role of ruler which is its purpose for existence. Policies are affected that are enforced not because they are good or bad, but because they are policies and the ideology of the machine dictates that rules must be followed because that is the nature of a rule. A rule exists to be obeyed, that is its purpose.
Society fails to maintain its values, it falls apart, and the machine does its best through tyrannical means to maintain "order" in its single narrative universe. It fails eventually to compensate for the one thing that is factored out of its design from the moment it was assigned its own spiritual leadership.
Human free will.
Only through the freely expressed process of human individuality can a society thrive and grow, and when the people are relegated to a tool to be used by the fire, their only purpose is to act as fuel to run the machine. Their real value ceases to exist, and so the degradation of the machine of society begins.
The roman empire collapsed the day it was perceived to be a republic and made its first large scale blanket law that superseded local municipal policies. The moment those villages combined to make a one city-state, is the day it inherited the flaw of mortality. The only difference is that a person dies within a century, city-states die within a few centuries. Empires can last thousands of years before they eventually die.
A question for the ages! My recent pet theory is the “fall” of the Roman Empire is a bit overrated. They moved their capital East and dominated hundreds more years. But shrank then sacked by the Ottomans, who viciously erased much of their accomplishment, I think a narrative set in Western Europe that very little was accomplished from 500-1400. The older I get, the more dubious this seems. The center of power moved east and then a threatening people with a different religion took over that turf.
whatever you want to call it, I think Christianity did it. The Roman Empire was built on a moral and societal structure that simply became untenable after a critical mass adopted the teachings of Christ as the center of their morality. Can’t really control the population with brutal gladiator games and other atrocities in the coliseum when they are living for the afterlife and are not buying into displays that drive home how leadership’s might makes them right. So the empire reinvented itself as a Christian one with a new, second seat of power closer to the holy land. Meanwhile, Rome itself became more and more destabilized until it fell, the Western administration and territories with it. Endless conquering for glory isn’t particularly Christian so expansion was mostly out of play. And so what remained of the Roman Empire shrank over centuries until the Ottomans finally sacked Constantinople
The Byznatine apparently viewed themselves as “Romans.” Not Eastern Romans. And prior, among Romans, the schism between East and West wasn’t so much viewed as two states, but rather as two administrations overseeing a vast turf for reasons of practicality
The Roman government became corrupt! The government expanded by debasing their money; Less and less gold and silver was found in their coinage. Fear of the authorities kept their citizens in line until nobody believed in the government anymore. Fear lost its grasp on the population when the people finally understood that the government no longer supported them and it was every man (and woman) for himself (herself). Their money no longer worked. People cheated on their taxes because everyone was cheating. Revenues fell and the coinage suffered further. Soldiers did not fight as hard because they felt that there was nothing left to defend. The Empire began contracting and eventually collapsed on itself due to the hatred of their enemies (who the Romans abused) who saw the weakening of the empire and took advantage of their opportunity. Seems to me that America is in its final stage of Empire building and the collapse has begun. We would do well to learn more about the Fall of Rome before it is too late!
The difference between Ideology and Philosophy is a worthy discussion topic. As a conservative I am always telling people that conservatism is a philosophy not an ideology, having gotten this idea from Russell Kirk. The same could be said for Classical Liberalism, that it is(was) a philosophy, although perhaps a philosophy bordering on ideology in some respects. Progressivism, on the other hand, is pure ideology, as are Socialism and Communism. So what is the difference? Ideology implies that history is moving and that the forward looking component is more important than the historical one. Ideology stresses instrumentality, means and will. Philosophy is interested in the nature of reality and the underpinnings of knowledge and truth. In this sense Philosophy emphasises the ontological and historical in the pursuit of knowledge and looks askance at futuristic, instrumental constructs, especially those that are inconsistent with historical and traditional knowledge. There are gray areas. Classical Liberalism and Objectivism would seem to contain elements of both philosophy and ideology.
It is worth bearing in mind that Rome fell more than once. The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BCE. The Visigoths repeated this feat in 410 CE and the Vandals plundered the city in 455 CE. So, what was it about the 476 CE sacking that is deemed a turning point in the history of the falls of Rome? Perhaps, the answer lies in the shrewd political manoeuvres of Odoacer, the leader of the revolt against Romulus Augustulus and chief instigator behind his deposition. Odoacer received (at least initially) the backing of both Zeno, the Eastern Roman Emperor, and the Western Roman Senate (which continued to exist). This gave him the authority and time to secure his position in Italy. His intention to remain in Italy and his concern with establishing legitimacy, unlike previous sackers of Rome, proved to be a winning strategy. This was not lost on his Ostrogothic successors who successfully remained the dominant power in Italy until the wars of reconquest under Justinian in the mid-sixth century CE, in which Rome would be re-captured and fall yet again. All that said, I think we should rephrase the question, why did Rome keep falling?
Hello Anya - enjoyed your comments on Rome and the pics. Keep them coming! Had to write and defend Ayn Rand. The comments about "ideology" vs. "philosophy" are silly. (And I'm being polite) Political commentary and critiques (i.e., "Political Philosophy") have been a staple of philosophers from the beginning. Think of Aristotle's "Politics," Plato's "Republic," and Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" (1651). All works of political philosophy; all assertive and dogmatic in their final analyses and conclusions. Are they not "philosophers"?
I chuckle at your “small town.” I live in a town with 4 houses, a church, a cafe, a post office, a gas station, and a fertilizer/chemical company. It’s 34 miles to a town of 12,000 where we often get groceries.
Rome fell for 3 reasons
Polytheism that punished true religion
Sexual immorality
Bread and Circuses pandering to get votes
Why did Rome fall?
It fell because it became something that it wasnt supposed to. Society is a machine that serves a community. A society is a system of rules, customs and ways. Laws and standards. It is a device for individual people to use to interact with others in a productive way that promotes peace, collaboration and security.
An empire, is not a machine. It is an entity unto itself. It becomes something more than what it was meant to be. It becomes its own identity and so becomes separate from the people it is meant to serve, and is then perceived to be a thing which supersedes the identity of the individuals who make up the community. It becomes.. ideology unto itself. It becomes its own self guiding psychopomp that is so far above the individuals it comes to rule over that it ceases to serve, and becomes that which is served. It becomes a self serving machine called empire which like fire, only knows how to consume for its own sake.
When that happens, the people it enslaves become irrelevant, their needs as humans and as individuals cease to be a concern. The "greater good" of the machine takes precedent. A too big to fail monstrosity. In taking on this perceived identity as its own entity, the people who live in it and help run it cease to really affect a sense of ownership over it. They are carried along by its ideology, and they put too much trust in the machines ability to run itself and solve its own problems, that they cease to provide the basic fundamentals of human interaction such as wisdom and clarity, patience, empathy and understanding of circumstance that is required for a community to continually thrive. Blanket laws and policies start to be created which over-ride individual needs because they are considered irrelevant to the "bigger picture". People simply cease to own the society they then become slave to, and soon the master starts to dictate its all consuming narrative.
When this happens, the PEOPLE who create things in this world and affect guidance. Wise people, creatives, inventors, scholars, those who have dedicated their lives to promoting human excellence. They become disposable to the machine, and they know it. They cease to provide the guidance of society that society needs, and so society itself now bereft of this guidance, then relies on the machine to guide them. The machine of course is not a person with a soul or capacity to feel human emotions or value. The machine therefore just does what is in its nature, which is to rule for the sake of filling the role of ruler which is its purpose for existence. Policies are affected that are enforced not because they are good or bad, but because they are policies and the ideology of the machine dictates that rules must be followed because that is the nature of a rule. A rule exists to be obeyed, that is its purpose.
Society fails to maintain its values, it falls apart, and the machine does its best through tyrannical means to maintain "order" in its single narrative universe. It fails eventually to compensate for the one thing that is factored out of its design from the moment it was assigned its own spiritual leadership.
Human free will.
Only through the freely expressed process of human individuality can a society thrive and grow, and when the people are relegated to a tool to be used by the fire, their only purpose is to act as fuel to run the machine. Their real value ceases to exist, and so the degradation of the machine of society begins.
The roman empire collapsed the day it was perceived to be a republic and made its first large scale blanket law that superseded local municipal policies. The moment those villages combined to make a one city-state, is the day it inherited the flaw of mortality. The only difference is that a person dies within a century, city-states die within a few centuries. Empires can last thousands of years before they eventually die.
Rome ran out of slaves.
Fire in Rome in 476 AD ??? I am not following.