Posted on 09/04/2010 2:34:07 PM PDT by hc87
A people elated by pride, or soured by discontent, are seldom qualified to form a just estimate of their actual situation. The subjects of Constantine were incapable of discerning the decline of genius and manly virtue, which so far degraded them below the dignity of their ancestors; but they could feel and lament the rage of tyranny, the relaxation of discipline, and the increase of taxes. The impartial historian,who acknowledges the justice of their complaints, will observe some favorable circumstances which tended to alleviate the misery of their condition. The threatening tempest of Barbarians, which so soon subverted the foundations of Roman greatness, was still repelled, or suspended, on the frontiers. The arts of luxury and literature were cultivated, and the elegant pleasures of society were enjoyed, by the inhabitants of a considerable portion of the globe. The forms, the pomp, and the expense of the civil administration contributed to restrain the irregular license of the soldiers; and although the laws were violated by power, or perverted by subtlety, the sage principles of the Roman jurisprudence preserved a sense of order and equity, unknown to the despotic governments of the East. The rights of mankind might derive some protection from religion and philosophy; and the name of freedom, which could no longer alarm, might sometimes admonish, the successors of Augustus, that they did not reign over a nation of Slaves or Barbarians.
It’s good practice to re-read Gibbon from time to time.
Gibbon’s fun to read but so wrong in so many ways beginning with ascribing Christianity as a cause of the “fall” - saying that Christianity caused the decline and fall of Rome by undermining the faith of the people in paganism (official religion), adn thus undermining the state apparatus which that religion supported and blessed.
So Gibbons is a fun read but so wrong and narrowly illogical in so many ways.
There’s a story about Edward Gibbon Eating at a restaurant in Paris during the early years of the American Revolution at the same time that Benjamin Franklin was there drumming up French support for the colonists. Franklin was apparently a massive fan of Gibbon and sent someone over to ask if he could meet him. Gibbon sent the messenger back saying ‘I don’t consort with rebels and traitors’. To which the deeply offended Franklin sent a message back ‘I just thought I might be able to help you write a sequel to your book, entitled “The Decline and Fall of the British Empire”...
Your link seems to go to a different section of the text. Alternatively, see page 94 of http://books.google.com/books?id=XQkUAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+History+of+The+Decline+and+Fall+of+the&hl=en&ei=gL2CTJOzD4-8sAOA56y5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Religion had nothing to do with the Fall of Rome. Notwithstanding all the other signs of decline, the most fatal defect was Rome's failure to solve the problem of succession. Every time an emporer died there was basically a free for all for power, which sometimes even resulted in multiple "emperors."
Good one. I’ll have to remember that.
On another note-—In a real sense Louis XVI’s French financial support to the colonists helped bring about the downfall of the “ancien regime” there...tough.
Yes, my error.
Correct link in the Project Gutenberg text is here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/891/891-8.txt
However, Gibbon was a constitutional monarchist by conviction, and Franklin was a republican. When I read Gibbon's first volume, his justification for monarchy made a lot of sense (for the time). He partly ascribed the collapse of the Roman Republic on democracy, which to his horror, seemed to be being advocated by the American colonists, and blamed giving the 'mob' legislative power for the downfall of the Roman republic and the rise of the hypocritical despotism of the Roman Principate. As far as he was concerned, the best form of government was a British style hereditary monarchy tempered by an independent legislature that controlled the purse strings. The hereditary monarchy ensured continuity and a peaceful transfer of power, whilst the legislature (parliament) ensured that in the event of a bad monarch residing on the throne, the worst excesses could be avoided by the legislature refusing to grant money to support the monarch's crazier schemes, as well as threatening to do so if the King tried to turn his kingdom into a tyranny. He also would have been aware of the pitfalls of getting rid of the lawful king given what had happened with England's brief republican experiment in the previous century (which had led to Cromwell's military dictatorship).
He viewed the kind of government Franklin advocated, rightly or wrongly, as a recipe for disaster that would eventually lead to the collapse of order and the rise of a military tyranny, which as well as being oppressive, would also be unstable as army commanders fought with each other to become emperor as the did during the third century in the aftermath of Alexander Severus' assassination. I don't think that the colonists attempts to model themselves partly after Rome inspired confidence in Gibbon, given what he knew about the fate of Rome from his extensive research.
Franklin for his part wasn't very forgiving of those who took the opposite view to his own considering he disowned his own son for siding with the Tory cause. If it wasn't for the war which had broken out which was in many respects an ideological conflict as well as a secessionist one, these debates between the too men could have remained as a source for amusing coffee table debates between the too men, but in light of the fact that the two sides where at war with each other and spilling blood, I don't think it was possible for the two men to converse with each other about their two respective positions without their being bitterness and enmity between them...
Ha! I am reading Jeff Shaara’s ‘The Glorious Cause,’ which relates that story within the novel. I was wondering if it was true or just poetic license.
If anyone loves historical fiction, Shaara’s ‘Rise to Rebellion’ and the sequel I just mentioned are good reads about the American Revolution.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geog PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
Hmm? Not true at all. Rome had a very strong civil religion.
Yes, it is. That was a GREAT book.
History is repeating itself.
Yes, the vestal virgins were a State institution along with other offices usually held by government officials.
As for the cause of the fall of the Roman empire, I would say as Tacitus did in the Annals, that the growth of the welfare state and the dependency of the citizenry on that welfare, and the corruption of government officials that goes along with it was as big a cause as any.
Another factor in the fall was the kind of greed syndrome we have seen on Wall Street. Romans had huge absentee landlord estates often with slave labor. Diocletian decided to fix the class structure, almost destroying any possibility for upward mobility. This move basically destroyed any Roman middle class. This is what I am afraid is happening today. I have been in Mexico and seen what it is like when you only have the very well off and rich and at the other end grinding poverty.
Yes you are right-—In general Gibbon has done more damage to the accuracy of historical narration than not. He is the most well known of historians to allow his biases to take over when reporting historical events.
The way I interpreted Gibbon’s statements about Christianity is that it, unlike the “old” pagan religion of Rome, emphasized the promise of life after death. In that sense, the Romans could disregard problems and hardships on earth since they would be set right in the next life.
In other words, the old Romans worked harder at maintaining the world they lived in because it was all they had.
Tacitus was commenting on the fall of the Republic. I don’t believe that he even considered the possibility of the fall of the Empire
Perhaps not, but it seems that the fall of any form of government is preceded by widespread corruption of everyone from the most elite to the lowest peasant.
A society can handle a few leaches, but when everyone is a leach the end is near.
It’s the same old story repeated over and over from the beginning of civilization.
Tacitus was pretty insightful so I wouldn’t be surprised if he thought the empire would eventually collapse.
It is possible, but saying anything like that publicly would have been bad for his health.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
