A Rash of Deaths and a Missing Reporter – With Ties to Wall Street Investigations

[happyslug]

39. The Principate or the Dominate Roman Empire?

The Principate Roman Empire is the name given to the Roman Empire from the Accession of Augustus Caesar as Sole Emperor to the near collapse of the Roman Empire during the crisis of the Third Century (27 BC to about 235 AD). The end date of the Principate is often given as the start of the Dominiate, but in reality the Principate was long dead when Diocletian basically reform the Empire out of its near collapse in 284 AD. Thus the better date for the end of the Principate is 235 AD when the Emperor's troops murdered the Emperor and the start of the Dominate is 284 when Diocletian made himself sole emperor (and then divided it with a co-emperor).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

Debasement of Currency and switch to a barter economy:

The Crisis of Third Century were caused by several fundamental changes within the Roman World. First was the water out of the Silver Mines of Spain. Spain had been a source of Silver since before Julius Caesar and Silver the main item of coinage within the Late Republic and the Principate. Nero had started the practice of debasing Silver but his and the subsequent debasement over the next 150 years was relatively minor. You had silver inflation during this whole time period. As more and more silver was mined, what that silver could buy dropped. under the Principate the Troops were paid in Silver, but between the time of Augustus and Nero what they could buy with that silver had dropped almost 40% (and that was before Nero debase the coinage). This rate of silver inflation went down over the 150 years after Nero but it still existed. Any modern economists will tell you a low inflation rate of 1-3% is good for the economy and that is what the silver inflation produced including the occasional debasement when a new Emperor was made.

The problem with the watering out of the Spanish mines meant that the amount of Silver in the Roman World became more or less fixed and thus Silver Inflation could no longer occur. This lead to deflation that forced the Emperors to debased the currency to a degree unheard of before, just to have enough coins to pay the troops. The debasement became so bad that most Roman Citizens could tell how much silver was in the coin by the sound it made when dropped on a wooden table. Thus also had the effect that the money the troops were getting became almost worthless (in fact one of the differences between the Armies of the Principate and the Dominate is that the Army of the Dominate were NOT paid in coin, but promise of land, food, and a little bit of money to buy equipment and arms etc). Coinage became so worthless that barter became the normal way for most people to exchange goods. With no coinage worth anything the value of most items fell for no one had any good coins to buy the items with.

Thus deflation was the big problem after 235 AD not inflation AND at the same time the value of Coinage dropped to nothing.

Raise of the Sassanian Empire

The second problem was do to the actions of Septimius Severus in 197 AD. Septimus Severus sacked the Capital of the Parthian Empire, Ctesiphon. The Partian Empire had been a weakly held together empire centered on Modern day Iran (Persia). Unlike the two previous Roman Taking of the Capital (Trajan's in 117 AD and 164 AD by a non Emperor Roman General), which Rome returned intact to the Parthians, Septimus Severus sacked the Capital and used the loot to stabilized Roman Coinage. This had a ripple effect, for the sacking destroyed what hold the Partians had over the Persian people so that by 224 AD the Parthian Empire had been overthrown and The Sassanian Persian Empire had replaced it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesiphon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Empire

Unlike the Parthian Empire, the Sassanian Empire was able to go toe to toe with the Roman Army. The Parthian and Sasanian Empire's army had always been Cavalry mad, while Rome depended in its Infantry. The big change with the Sassanian was they could maintain large forces in the field for long periods of time (Something the Parthians could not do but Rome could). Sassanian also were willing to use Infantry to a much greater degree then had the Parthians.

The need to go to a Universal Service Army and Rome's refusal to do so for it meant cutting the wealth of the 1%

In short, for the first time since Rome had defeated Carthage and Macedonia around 200 BC, Rome had an enemy that could match it in military power. At the same time, Rome was NOT willing to give any power to its peasants so that the peasants had reasons to fight for Rome. Thus Rome could NOT go to the Universal Service Army it had had at the time of the wars with Carthage and Macedonia, for such an army needs to know why the war they are fighting is in their best interests. The Rights of Roman Peasants (its 99%) had been going down hill since Marius had formed the first Mercenary Legions in 109 BC. For example even as late as the Time of Christ, it was illegal to whip a Roman Citizen (thus Whipping of Christ was legal for he was NOT a Roman Citizen, but St Paul had to be beheaded for as a Roman Citizen he could NOT be put on a Cross, which was reserved for non-Roman Citizen). By 200 AD, Roman Citizens could be whipped and put on a Cross.

Thus Rome could NOT go back to a Universal Service Army for such a peasant based Army would first overthrow the 1% and do the land reform that Roman Peasants had been demanding since the time of the Gracchi around 150 BC. In my opinion such a move would have saved the Roman Empire, but the 1% did NOT want to share the wealth. Thus when you do have Barbarians invading the Empire in the Fifth Century you notice that the armies INCREASE in strength as Roman Peasants joined them. You had similar situation when an invading army invaded a country with a high percentage of its population did NOT support the goals of the Government of that Country. Sherman's Army through Georgia is an example of this. As Sherman marched through Georgia the size of his Army INCREASED as run away slaves joined his column. American Slaves joined with British Forces during the Revolution for the same reason, they opposed the American Government policy of supporting slavery.

Thus the Goths after sacking Rome in 410 AD saw they army INCREASE as Roman Peasants joined. This was true of other invading "Barbarians" during the Fifth Century. Somehow Aetius managed to get the peasants to support him against Attila the Hun in the battle of Chalons (This can be seen in that the Armoricans, from present day Brittany, held the center of the Roman line in that Battle. Armorica had been in open revolt against Roman elites for almost 20 years by that time, turning most Roman Estates in Armorica into small farms run by the peasants.

I suspect Aetius had promised them legal recognition of their claim to these farms in exchange for service at Chalon, a promise the Roman Emperor refused to agree to, so Aetius stayed in Gaul when Attila invaded Italy the following year. I suspect Aetius was acting as if the Emperor had legalized the claim of the Armorican peasants when the Emperor had him killed after Attila died. That Emperor was subsequently killed himself within a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Aetius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ch%C3%A2lons

I bring this up for it is clear the Roman Peasants would fight for the Roman Empire, if it meant improvement in their lives. The problem is the people who would have to give the most to give these peasants reasons to fight for Rome, did not want to give up their control of the land. Thus the Roman Empire slowly declined in size till it was restricted to Southern Italy, Modern Greece and 2/3rds of modern Turkey. This is also the only area within the Roman Empire where peasants had retained ownership of their land (The Roman elites preferred the more fertile and thus profitable lands of Gaul, Spain, Italy, modern Tunisia and Egypt). When the Roman Empire was reduced to the above, the Empire made a switch in its army, it gave up the Mercenary Army it had used since 109 BC and turned to a more Feudal Army that tied in military service with land ownership. If you did not do your military duty, you lost your land, but that change did not occur till the Rule of Heraclius 610-641 AD) and that was the main Miltiary change that saved the Eastern Roman Empire for the next 400 years and the battle of Mazakurt in 1071 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

The Dark Age Cold Period

Overlooking the above is the onset of the Dark Age Cold Period.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

As you can see, around 250 AD you had a significant drop in temperatures this lasts to about 300. The 300s the temperatures were steady, but lower then it had been pre 200. In the 400s the Tempertures were again steady by lower then it had been in the 300s. You had another drop about 550 AD. 620 and 810 you have additional drop in temperatures (with higher temperatures in between in fact higher then it had been in the 300s but not as warm as in pre 200, through some data indicates other wise).

Recent retreat of Glaciers in the Alps has revealed Roman Settlements beneath those Glaciers, but nothing after about 200 AD (Some say 180 AD and the death of the next to the last Antoine Emperor Marcus Aurelius).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius's son the last Antoine Dynasty Emperor and the only one the natural son of his predecessor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus

Marcus Aurelius died in 180 AD, it is during the reign of his Son Commadus that you first read of palgue and population drops within the Empire. A steady drop in Tempertures would have cause a drop in crop yield and force people living in the North to move south in search of food. The increase movement of the Barbarians throughout the 200s seem to reflect this. This further weakened the Empire as it meant increase spending to control these "Barbarians" on the move and reduce revenue as crop yield fell. The already weak condition of the Empire would do to its almost total control by its 1% and little input from the other 99% of the Roman Population would be magnified by these changes. The Troops would see their pay cut but then asked to do more with less. Peasants had to produce as much as they father had done, but their fathers had worked in an era where the higher temperatures permitted higher yields (and less crop failures do to earlier and later frosts).

A population already weakened by reduction in the amount of food they could keep for themselves, would open up the peasants to higher death rates if and whenever a Plague would hit (and such Plagues would hit till about 750 AD. These plague seems to be severe but became smaller after trade died after the fall of Carthage to the Vandals in 430 AD and the sacking of Rome by the Vandals in 455 AD. It increase with the Plague Justinian in 541-542 but then fell till you hear no more plagues after 750 AD till the Black Death of 1348-1350 AD).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#Kingdom_in_North_Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_plagues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

Extreme Weather Event of 535-536 AD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

Yes the above is a lot, but the worse case of decadence of the Roman Empire was at the time of Christ, and Rome survived Nero. The Coinage problem was containable till Rome had no more access to more silver then it already had. Even then it was workable (Constantine solved the problem by raiding all the Pagan Temples of their Gold and using that Gold to mint the Gold Coins. Called Soldius, that became the Currency of the World from the Time of Constantine till the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204. It was not till the 1400s that the German Taler truly replaced the Soldius. The German Taler became the Spanish Dollar from which we derived our Dollar from).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidus_(coin)

Thus, while the problem of Coinage and its debasement is known, that problem had to deal with the crisis of the Third Century (200-285) and that was solved by Constantine's decision to embrace Christianity and thus use Christianity as an excuse to take all of the gold from the Pagan Temples for his coinage reform (Diocletian had done the first attempt as such reform but had tried to stay with Silver but never had enough silver to replace all the bad coinage in use. Constantine embrace of Gold from the temples gave him enough coins to replace all the bad coins.

Conclusion

Thus the collapse of the Principate can be put on the debasement of Coinage, but all that lead was to the Dominate. On the other hand, the refusal of the ruling elite to accept that they needed the support of the peasants meant that the Empire could NOT face any serious challenge and the raising Sassanian Empire was such challenge along with the need to increase defenses against the "Barbaric" tribes from the north, pushed south do to the onset of the Dark Ages Cold Period.

Christianity seems to have been an attempt to get everyone, peasants and the 1% to support the needs of each other, but while the peasants seems to be willing to accept the 1%, the 1% did not want to have to give up to much of their wealth. The Successful invaders of Rome in the Fifth Century were either heretical Christians (mostly Arrians), Catholics (Such as the Franks) or converted to Christianity as soon as they started to rule a part of the former Roman Empire (the Vandals is the classic example of this). Thus when you had barbarians and Romans living together in the 400s and 500s, they were all Christians (You had some pagans left after 400, but none of them were of much political value except for those barbarians that allied with Attila the Hun and his empire collapsed at his death).

Most writers ignore the fact that the Roman Empire did survive till 1453, in the form of what historians, but not the empire itself, calls the Byzantine Empire. That name was invented in the early 1700s by a historian who did not want to associate his great admiration of ancient Greece and Rome, with what he considered a decadent state, thus he renames what up till then was called the Roman Republic to the Byzantine Empire (The Rulers of Constantinople never gave up their claim to be successors of Augustus Caesar, and like the citizens under Augustus and all of his successors, they called their Empire the "Roman Republic" till it fell to the Turks in 1453).

Why did the Stump of the Roman Empire, the most Greek Speaking part, which we call the Byzantine Empire Survive but Egypt and Western Europe was lost to the Roman Empire? First, the Greek speaking part of the Empire had the most free peasants and the least slaves. Diocletian's reforms as to taxing peasants appear to have been only fully implemented within the Greek Speak part of the Empire (and parts of those reforms would last till after WWI, including how much land and other items a soldier released from duty was entitled to). Do to the pressure of the Sassanian Empire, the Roman Empire had to slowly enlarge its army and finally it had to accept the fact it could no longer afford that army to be mercenary, thus reverted to a Militia based army, an army raised based on land ownership implemented by Heraclius (Through it appears to have been started earlier, as the final Roman-Persian war came to a head). Heraclius also seems to made a decision that if the 1% wanted to control lands, they had to do it themselves, he was NOT going to send troops in to return land to the Roman 1% unless they paid for it (and most refused and this seems to be the main reason when after defeating and crushing the Sassanian Empire, he left the Arabs take and hold Syria to Egypt, that population had turned against rule by Rome and he was NOT going to waste Roman Soldiers blood to keep those areas within the empire unless they wanted to be in the empire). Heraclius's decision saved Greece and Constantinople from the Arab onslaught, preserved his then new Feudal/Militia to protect Greece and Constantinople.

Byzantine "Themes" the key to its success. Military and Civilian were combined in a form of what can be called Feudalism. The ruler of the Theme had to the right to rule the Theme, but only if he could raise the money and the troops the Emperor needed from that Theme. That also went down to the village, they right to farm was only protected if they could produce the number of horse soldiers the Emperor wanted (or in some districts the number of foot solders and Archers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)

Thus the reason the Roman Empire Fell had nothing to do with its Currency, that problem was solved before the Roman Empire Fell. The Empire fell for its citizens no longer had faith in the Empire or its ruling class. That faith seems to have been lost by 100 AD (if it lasted much beyond the 109 BC adoption of a Mercenary Army). Christianity did return some of that faith to the Empire in its last Century but the failure to address much of the problems of the peasants was a killer.

The raise of the Sassanian Empire and the reduction in productivity do to reduction in Temperatures (and increase barbarian activity on the Frontiers) were just icing on the cake that was killing the Empire. The problem was to much money in to few hands and the only part of the Empire that addressed that problem (through more by accident then design) was the part that survived.

This same idea can be seen in the following books about American Homicide and that the American Homicide rates goes up and down depending on how much faith the people as a whole have in the Government and Society:

http://books.google.com/books/p/harvard?id=DNTu6vYe9wgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The author points out four observation on US Murder rates (and those rates in other countries). It is how the people of US (or any other society) feels about these four things. The more people say these are true, the lower the murder rate, the more people say they are NOT true the higher the murder rate:

1. The belief that the government is stable and that it’s Judicial and legal institutions are unbiased and will redress wrongs and protect lives and property.
2. A feeling of trust in government and the officials who run it, and a belief it their legitimacy
3. Patriotism, empathy, and fellow feelings rising from racial, religious or political solidarity.
4. The belief that the social hierarchy is legitimate, that one’s position in society is or can be satisfactory, and one can command the respect of other without resorting to violence.

Notice the Roman peasants do not think any of the above applied to the Roman Empire at the time of its fall and it is for this reason, the Empire collapsed.