Peter Heather and the Late Empire

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

This is question for all of you guys who have read Peter Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire" (if you haven't, you should), do you know of any other author or book supporting Mr. Heathers opinion on the economic situation (regarding agriculture and the supposed decrease in population during the fourth and fifth centuries AD) of the Empire? I'd like the read other historians' works that agree with his position. I'm interested because if he is right, then the way the Late Empire is depicted in our mods would be innacurate. Any recommendations?

[Riothamus]

This is question for all of you guys who have read Peter Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire" (if you haven't, you should), do you know of any other author or book supporting Mr. Heathers opinion on the economic situation (regarding agriculture and the supposed decrease in population during the fourth and fifth centuries AD) of the Empire? I'd like the read other historians' works that agree with his position. I'm interested because if he is right, then the way the Late Empire is depicted in our mods would be innacurate. Any recommendations?

Haven't read his book but have read articles about his book. Do agree with several points he makes one being that The Roman Western Empire was prosperous in the 4th century right up to the 5th century. Also that the Huns created a huge problem by pushing a larger, more organized barbarian peoples into Roman lands, something the Romans never had to deal with before. This resulted in the Romans dealing with the barbarians on their terms, and not their own thus losing valuable taxable markets.

Also Maybe if in 378 if not for losing both army and emperor at Hadrianopolis in 378, history may have had a much different story and ending for the Western Roman Empire.

[konny]

I think his point is valid and supported by archaeological evidences: the economical crises of the 5th Century was the result of the Barbarian invasions, not the premise:

- Gaul became a "single bonfire" by the Vandal invasion of 406
- Spain was lost to the same people thereafter
- Thracia and the Balkans suffered terribly under the Goths and Attilia's invasion two generations later
- Italy was for a long time the battleground for Alarich
- Britain was completely lost and could not be regained during the same time
- For the West, the conquest of Africa by the Vandals brought the economical overkill.

In the same time provinces that did not suffer from Barbarian invasions, like Syria, Asia Minor or Egypt prospered. All those were part of the Eastern Empire what could be seen as the main reason why that one survived and the West not.

[Pompeius Magnus]

In the same time provinces that did not suffer from Barbarian invasions, like Syria, Asia Minor or Egypt prospered. All those were part of the Eastern Empire what could be seen as the main reason why that one survived and the West not.

interesting subsumption.
I also think that this is one of the main reasons.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Yeah, I like his ideas and new analysis he brings to the table, but I'd like to find researches made by other historians supporting Mr. Heathers' position.

[julianus heraclius]

The thing i like about Peter Heather's analysis is that he brings in a socio-political view as to the downfall of the west, which I think explains pretty well why it failed and the eastern half survived. It also makes you realise how a combination of certain events can create a "perfect storm". A very good book is what I say.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Heather's book was a masterpiece. I love that. I support his theory that the fall of the Hunnic regime caused the "outward push" that overwhelmed Rome as a whole.

Plus, it was very easy to understand when compared to previous works, or so I thought.

[Emperor Domitianus]

I don't know this author. There are many people who devote their studies to this matter.
Well in most all books the 2 problems of economic and decrease of population are considered the main reason. Well for sure the economic matter was a fact. The great latifondists were dominant in the inland. Not to mention that the reform of Diocletianus led the empire to a disaster instead of a better situation. The number of provinces were increased as the burocracy. He force the population to the land with the "CAPITATIO-IUGATIO". It means 1 man to 1 piece of land. There was a forced taxiation to the land and the man. People fleed and so the economy was ruined. More over the continuos invasions didn't help the empire, especially the west part. Constantine finished to ruin the empire with christianization (but this a personal interpretation) and the build of a second capital which doubled the costs of mantainance and ruined Rome importance and led to it's fall later.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Yes, that's true. Anyway, any work by any other author who shares the same ideas?

[konny]

Yes:

Bryan Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome (2005)

He makes the exisitince of high quality mass products in the Late Roman periode and the missing of these products (excellent pottery, bricks, coins of low value and the like) in the post-Migration periode the basis of his study.

During the Roman periode we find lots of these artefacts not only in places where the social elites lived but also in places where people of much lower social status lived. After the fall of the Empire in the West, high quality products disappear save for some very rare spots that clearly had been residences of the highest upper class.

But this was only in the West; the East still prospered and did not only kept its economic level but also improved until a massive regional decline can be attested starting with the 7th Century and that also perfectly matched the hostile invasions in the respective regions (Slavs, Awars, Arabs and the like).


I am convinced that we can assume an extremly high standard of economy under the Pax Romana, until the desctruction of the Empire in the West by the Barbarian invasions, that was in most regions not reached again before the late Middleages and often not even before the 19th Century. Despite several economic crises, like that of the 3rd Century, the level in the Roman Empire always remained much above what was before the Pax Romana and far above what was after the Migration (Ward-Perkins had proofed, for example, that the standard of living in Post-Roman Britain was even poorer than in Pre-Roman times).

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Great!! Thank you very much for the info, man!!