Collections: Rome: Decline and Fall? Part II: Institutions

Bret Devereaux · 28 Jan 2022 · acoup.blog ↗

4 korrents from this piece

Bret Devereaux did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was a real loss of state capacity, not merely a change of management, and the evidence for that loss is ample.

Their wordsOf course that assumes a loss of state capacity, but as we’re going to see, the evidence for that loss is actually quite ample.

Interesting
Our reading
A heavily centralised state is the most fragile kind: when Rome’s centre failed, its successors were left without the resources or administration to do what it had done.

Their wordsPrecisely because the late Roman system was so top-heavy and centralized, the collapse of central Roman rule mortally wounded it and left the successor states of Rome with much more limited resources and administration to try to achieve their aims.

Interesting
Our reading
Urban life in the West did not merely change after Rome, it practically vanished, and had to be built again from scratch centuries later.

Their wordsthe system of social organization that characterized the ancient world practically vanished and would have to be redeveloped centuries later.

Interesting
Our reading
An institution can outlive the state that built it: the Church survived the collapse of Roman political authority when Rome’s other institutions did not.

Their wordsBut whereas other Roman institutions didn’t survive the collapse of Roman political authority, the Church as an institution very much did.

Interesting