Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
History and Evolution:
By William E. Steinman:
Part 37, Causes:
December 8, 2003:
Concerning the decline and final fall of Rome there are theories on top of theories as to the reasons. One of these is that Rome was unable to maintain its political and military integrity. Well, for sure that's true, but why? The theories point to a failure in government, meaning the Roman bureaucracy. I think we get closer to part of the truth with that. We can go back to Claudius I and then Diocletian who began to concentrate all power within their own household bureaucracies. Under Constantine I the bureaucracy really mushroomed with the creation of his New Rome at Constantinople.
Massive bureaucracies must be inefficient by their very nature. We need only look at Washington DC to see that. Anyone who has had to deal with a government agency will attest to it. This kind of top heavy organization will always attract the indolent who can find many places to hide within. Also, this kind of person will act to obscure the truth from the people above them causing a serious loss of communication. A leader can hardly act wisely if he does not know what is really going on. So, near the end a stonewalling bureaucracy was probably part of the problem, but that was not the biggest or only problem.
Another huge problem in Rome was the lack of coherence in leadership. Just look at the chaotic successions, usurpations, and coming to power of really bad and often stupid people. We see that America is not the first or the only state where idiots or certifiable madmen can rise to the position of chief executive. Rome managed to survive that very disaster several times. I doubt if we will continue to be that fortunate.
What is incredible after all is that Rome lasted as long as she did. Political and legal activity were almost completely dependent on the whim of the current emperor and quite arbitrary. It could be great, but it could as well be awful. Although there was law and some structure to the law, there was no underlying political or ethical philosophy. The only true goal was expansion of the state, a goal with very hard limits.
Still another weakness of Rome, from beginning to end was the involvement of the military in the political process. Of course, it made sense from the standpoint that Rome was a militaristic state. The fact that it was such a state in a way foretold the eventual demise. From beginning to end Rome was in a constant state of war. War was the natural state. Peace was never an option for this kind of organization. Warfare even when victorious is debilitating.
The question might better be, how could Rome have survived as long as it did with its too many bad emperors and usurpers, its impudent Praetorians, intransigent armies, and petty senate. As I said previously, this was nothing but an ongoing formula for disaster. I think what kept Rome viable for so many years was the occasional appearance of outstanding leaders who cared about the empire. These were few, but very effective. We can name Octavian, Claudius I, the Antonine emperors, Diocletian, and Constantine I. I think it was they who occasionally restored the integrity of leadership and supplied the glue that keep the parts of the empire together.
Perhaps the real genius of Rome which was necessary to her unprecedented growth was the extension of eventual citizenship to all of the peoples she conquered and often to her slaves as well. This was totally unlike the Athenians who were racist in the extreme. The Romans, deriving from the blend of three different ethnic groups had no basis for racism. Rome was, from the beginning, a melting pot of cultures. Hence, it was a simple matter for them to expand through the offer of citizenship.
Now to another and secret cause of the demise of Rome. No one wants to speak of the obvious, that the rise of the Church of Rome coincides exactly with the decline of the Roman Empire. In that, the ensuing dark or middle ages are a partial result of the activities of the Christians. The truth is, Rome finally lost homogeny with the rise of Christianity. This is not a coincidence. Historically, religious fanaticism and rational politics do not mix well. That is why we have the first amendment to our American constitution.
When the Roman leadership began giving more attention to the affairs of the church than they did to the affairs of state, the end was predictable. To paraphrase a truism, emperor is a full time job. The time and energy given to mucking around in religious nitpicking, heresies, and schisms of one sort or another, was not the business of the Roman leadership. That began in the second Flavian dynasty and that is when the borders of the empire began to crumble.
Was there intent within the church in this? I am convinced of it. We can stipulate that the intent of the early Christians was most probably peaceful. To some extent persecutions changed that. The intent of the church that came out of those trials was clearly imperial. The church intended to establish an empire and rule the world. To a large extend they did that. They built their empire on the carcase of imperial Rome and the church ruled the western world during the dark ages.
To be sure it was not much of a world they ruled that had reverted
to barbaric savagery. There were many, many outrageously evil
barbarisms in which the church eagerly participated. Since it
is impossible to discuss Western civilization without discussing
Christianity, I will take up these issues when I finish with Rome.
Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
|
|
|
|