 |
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:21
|
|
"250 years."
Which is an awful long time. I am not a big believer in these long trends. I read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and while it was interesting to learn about new things, I didn't agree with his "inevitability" argument.
If the Western empire had wanted to reform, they could have, as they did in the early part of the first century BC. If they had wanted to repopulate Italy, they could have, as they did any number of times before and after Christ.
"Ships bring ivory to Constantinople brought the plague to the Empire in 542."
Sounds about right. As I recall (not very clearly), the population of Constantinople was halved in a span of a couple of years. From over a million to about 500k.
Last edited by DanS on 08-08-2002 at 19:37
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Justinian probably would have been able to restore the Empire were it not for the plague. Even Celtic Britain was hit by the plague, because it was still in contact with the Empire. It still traded with them and lived in cities. Where ever this was the case, the plague struck. |
Che, Perhaps. But the Plague hit Constantinople in 542. The Romans were successful in beating the Goths and Franks in 556 and retaking the whole of Italy. The country was devastated by the 20 year war of reconquest. Particularly, Rome was destroyed and depopulated. The Goths had destroyed its aqueducts.
But Justinian died in 565. His former allies, the Lombards invaded Italy. This brought on 200 more years of war between the Romans and Germans. In the late 700's, the Pope formed an alliance with the Franks, and got the upper hand over the Lombards. But in the mid 800's the Arabs invaded and sacked Rome!
War, not pestilence, was the primary cause of the Dark Ages.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:21
|
|
I agree with Chegitz... there's a reason why the Western Roman capital was moved to Ravenna... Rome was in ruins and the central location that had allowed to grow to such heights made it far too easy of a city to plunder with no real natural defences. And didn't the Pope briefly reside in Ravenna during the 5th and early 6th century?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:21
|
|
Albert, Honorius moved the capital to Ravenna from Milan in 402 because Alaric had invaded Italy and threatened Milan. Below is a quote from a Roman empire site,
"After the Visigothic invasion of Italy in 402, Honorius and the imperial court retired from Milan to the inaccessible and heavily defended city of Ravenna. Only rarely did later emperors reside for any length of time elsewhere. Meanwhile, palace intrigues resulted in Stilicho's assassination in 408, and Honorius was left to deal with Alaric and the Visigoths. The indecisive emperor, influenced first by one adviser and then by another, vacillated between resistance and conciliation. The end result was the sack of Rome in 410."
By the time the Romans had retaken Italy from the Goths in the mid-500's, Rome was totally destroyed and uninhabitable. The Goths had destroyed its infrastructure, including its aqueducts. Until reconstruction began sometime centuries later, the population of Rome probably never exceeded 30,000, IIRC. Just prior to Justinian's reconquest, Rome was still a thriving city of a million or so, and the Coliseum was still in operation. Ostia was still inhabited, and the port near Ostia was still functioning IIRC. But after the war, parts of Rome and the whole of Ostia largely silted over. They were buried for 1500 years 'til modern times.
Last edited by Ned on 09-08-2002 at 08:34
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:21
|
|
Interesting reading on the relationship between natural disasters and the fall of civilizations. Just wanted to kick the tires on this theory with a couple of questions.
1. Are there other cases where natural disasters are suspected of causing the fall of civilizations, or is it just this one case? Other possible examples include Mazama (Crater Lake, OR) c 5000 bc; c 1420 bc (Minoan civilization?); Tambora 1815; Krakatoa 1883. All presumably had an effect on climate. Did they have an effect on civilization? Why or why not?
2. Consider the converse of this theory. Are there cases where major disasters had little or no effect on civilizations? Vesuvius (79 ad) practically in the center of the Roman Empire does not seem to have fazed the Romans in the least.
3. If the 535 eruption of Krakatoa had such a disasterous effect on civilization, why did some civilizations recover much faster than others? For example, in 535 China was nearing the end of the Second Period of Disunity. By 581 China had consolidated into the Sui Dynasty,which in 617 gave way to the Tang Dynasty, probably the greatest period in China's history. Could other factors have had more important roles in some cases than climate?
edit: typos, and a brain cramp
Last edited by Adam Smith on 09-08-2002 at 18:37
|
|
|  |
 |
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:21
|
|
I think that would be 1500BC.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|