[gothic-l] Re: Gothic Advantages

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at y..., "Lada" <smntpk at p...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: faltin2001 <dirk at s...>
> To: <gothic-l at y...>
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:28 PM
> Subject: [gothic-l] Re: Gothic Advantages
>
>
> > Dirk,
>     But in 553 AD there was , de facto, no roman empire, it was
only the
> eastern empire, Byzance, which was economicaly much better
standing. They
> could emply heavy cavalry, and they learned how during the later
Partian
> wars.
>            Il Akkad



Hi Il Akkad,

there is considerable uncertainty as to when the Roman Empire ended
and when it is best to use the term Byzantine Empire instead. I found
that most authors speak of the Byzantine Empire with the beginnig of
the Heraclide dynasty which came to the throne in about 605AD and
amibitions to regaine control over the West started to abate. Before
this terms like Eastern Roman Empire etc. seemed to be more
frequently used and more appropriate. However, even after the
Heraclides the Byzantine rulers were also called Romaneion rules etc.
signifying the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East. In the
west contemporaries would likely not have perceived the end of the
Western Empire in the same way as we do. Thus, when Karl/Charles the
Great was crowned Emperor of the Roman Empire in 800AD this was seen
as 'natural' continuation or resumption of Rome, with the centre now
shifted to Aachen, as it had shifted before to Trier, Arles and other
more northern places. At any rate Justinianus was very much a Roman
emperor and his reconquest of the West Roman territories demonstrates
well that he saw himself as ligitimate ruler of the entire Empire.
Thus, to say that there was 'de facto no Roman Empire in 553AD' as
you said is not justifiable in my view. In fact, in 553AD there was a
Roman Empire that could still effectively push its claim to the
Western territories. But I agree with you, the Eastern Empire had a
much better economic standing than the West. At the time of the death
of Anastasius, the coffers were filled with some 28 million gold
solidi. A vast amount of money against which the sums paid to Goths
and other barbarians look like pocket money.

cheers,
Dirk



>
>
>
> --- In gothic-l at y..., "Bertil Haggman" <mvk575b at t...> wrote:
> > > Ingemar and Tore,
> > >
> > > American Professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was a leading
> > > civilizationist and Professor of History at the Foreign
> > > Service School of Georgetown University, having taught
> > > at Harvard and Princeton.
> > >
> > > He remarked in his outstanding _The Evolution of
> > > Civilizations_ that Rome's weakness put it in a terrible
> > > situation in face of mainly the Goths.
> >
> >
> > Why mainly the Goths? The most exhaustive wars were likely the
once
> > against the Parthian Empire and internal wars with Western
usurpers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Roman Legion could
> > > no longer withstand the charging Gothic horsemen.
> >
> >
> > An increase in the use of cavalry was obvious in the the 4th and
5th
> > century. Many Roman fortresses in modern south Germany were turned
> > into mobile units after the Alamannic wars, which started from
213AD.
> > Most of them were recruited from among the 'barbarians'. Famous
was
> > for example the Dalmatian cavalry. Had they appeared in time at
the
> > battlefied of Hadriannopel the outcome would likely have been
> > different.
> >
> > Rome's policy was to recruite barbarians; first into Roman units
and
> > later as complete ethnic groups. Thus, Theoderic and his Goths had
> > been commissioned by the Roman Emperor to drive out the ursurper
> > Odoacer. This was not a matter of Goths against Rome, but of Goths
> > employed by Rome to drive out other Germanic groups.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > This was new because Rome had not to face this earlier. Adequate
> > > rain on the Northern Grasslands, century after century, reduced
> > > the tendency for barbarians to move. But decreased rainfall
> > > after AD 200 created a pressure of moving pastoral peoples
> > > that became irresistable.
> > >
> > > Rome would have to shift from infantry to cavalry quickly. This
was
> > > of course impossible because the weakened Classical economic
> > > system could not support a large number of horses. Being grain-
> > eating
> > > animals they competed for food directly with man. Agriculture
in the
> > > Mediterranean economy was weak. It was based on
institutionalized
> > > slavery and could not produce such a surplus. Yet without
cavalry
> > society
> > > could not resist the Goths.
> >
> >
> > What about the battles of Taginae, Busta Gallorum and the final
> > annihilation of the Goths at Mons Lactarius in 553AD? What had
> > happened to their great advantage by then? In short, the Goths
could
> > ultimatively not withstand an onslaught by the imperial troops and
> > their allies. They were safe as long as they recognised Roman
> > suzerainty. When this failed the Empire 'dismissed' its former
allies
> > and annihilated them.
> >
> > Dirk
> >
> >
> >
> > You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a
blank email
> to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at e...>.
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
Full setup in 2 minutes! - Free Download
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MxtVhB/2XkDAA/_ZuFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/