Amarna Forum

I've been reading Gibbon lately and thought the alternative history question of how could the decline of antiquity have been prevented and what would have emerged from it in such a timeline would be interesting. Although obviously discussing the causes of the decline of Rome is necessary to answering this question, I don't intend that played-out debate to be the main focus of this post. What does a Rome look like in which the secularization of society continued? What does a Rome look like in which the tradition of classical scholarship didn't decline, but managed to reinvigorate itself? What does a Rome look like in which the Platonists won, if that's to your taste?

All I've ever heard of Gibbon is that he ascribes the decline of the empire to Christianity, and that this doesn't hold up to Serious Modern scholarship, but this seems to me to be a complete misreading. He's an enlightenment historian and certainly doesn't have a positive view of Christianity, but there's a reason why he begins his history at the very beginning of the empire- Gibbon follows Machiavelli in seeing the decline of classical virtue at the very outset of the transition away from the republic and in his preference for the republic as a form of stable and effective government. The first cause of decline he points at is the investing of authority in the military and praetorian guard. He gestures at a general "loss of vigor" throughout (this seems to have a racial connotation), and later on the increasing "oriental decadence" of the emperors. Most interesting to me was his description of how Epicurean/sophistic atheist ideas had disseminated through all parts of Roman society by the time of the spread of Christianity, and that this in effect, by weakening the belief in pagan traditions, cleared the ground for the widespread adoption of Christianity. One is reminded of the Greek reaction to the Jews, that they saw them as a "philosophical race." Gibbon doesn't touch on this (not yet anyway, I'm two volumes in) but it's generally accepted that classical scholarship entered into a precipitous decline around the 3rd century, less books were copied, less original work was produced (most of it being commentary), and there seems to have been a general decline in interest in scholarship. There's a theory that around this time a curriculum or canon of classical works was established and that this curriculum has to a large extent determined what works come down to us because they were the only ones copied. 

Gibbon is right that the general trend of emperors, when it wasn't a crapshoot (itself a problem), was toward "decadence" and incompetence. It's also true that the Senate was clearly a spent force. The only scenario I can imagine in which some measure of long term institutional stability is restored is if an emperor forcefully established a self-sustaining republic or bureaucracy that was designed to gradually divest power from the emperor and military. The example of Diocletian perhaps shows that this is not completely impractical, although it would take someone smarter and more motivated than Diocletian was to pull it off and some luck to prevent the arrangement from immediately collapsing after the founder's death/resignation, like it did in the case of Diocletian. The selection mechanism of this new republic is important, I think the only option would be by military merit. Ascendancy through the ranks of the military into high level government positions or the role of the emperor himself were a common story in the empire's middle period, and in most of these cases these figures were distinguished for their competence. Ideally, as this new ruling caste came to accumulate prestige and confidence in their position over the course of generations, interest in scholarship would recover, as the historical pattern with regime changes of this sort bears out. 

It's difficult to imagine a solution to the problem of religion. The secularization of society couldn't be directly prevented, and it seems likely that even if Christianity had been suppressed another religion along similar lines would have taken its place, probably another Jewish sect. Arguably, Platonism anticipated this exact problem and was designed to mitigate it. However it's up for debate whether the "esoteric doctrine" of Platonism was even adequately transmitted by the time of the empire, Cicero seems to have been aware of it but by the middle period I'm not so sure. For the sake of convenience and to wrap this post up, I'll assume that it was and that Emperor Julian was aware of it (having spent his youth and early adulthood among what still existed of the Greek philosophical scene and being inducted into the Eleusinian mysteries if he wasn't aware of it nobody was). Julian is also the best prospect for someone who could have turned the course of the empire around for other reasons- highly competent in both war and government, he broke with the "oriental decadence" trend and espoused and lived a life close to republican classical virtue, he was ambitious, and he was scholarly and well-educated. Let us imagine a scenario in which he doesn't die in battle, completes the Persian campaign, continues his subtle game of persecution against the Christians, lays plans for a future Platonic state religion, and takes certain actions to ensure a more effective and stable form of government. Even if everything went right it would still be a longshot but I think a scenario like this makes a second morning for Rome at least plausible.

This is a good topic. Personally, I am of the opinion that those who place complete or majority blame on Christianity are almost always not worth taking seriously. I suppose some may do this by way of vague reference to Gibbon as support, but it seems to me to be an unfair characterisation of the man's work to reduce it to such simplicity. It's well and good that his intellectual view of the world and history springs from the fount that called itself the Enlightenment. However, we—having the benefit of hindsight—are better positioned to evaluate that period not by how its proponents and opponents characterised it, but rather by the fruits that it has given us. By this, I mean to say that the decline became irreversible long before the attested to divine vision al Ponte Milvio; for whatever ill-will he harboured toward Christianity, Gibbon certainly seems to have known how weak the Contra Christianity argument would have been, having laid out all the calamities that bestowed the Roman state over such an extensive history. I know that you note in your post that you don't wish for this thread to simply become a list of reasons for why the decline in the ancient spirit happened, and you're framing actually seems to make for more entertaining discussion. However there is one thing specifically that I've found rather lacking in the amount of attention that Gibbon devotes to its impact. This would surprise me, given how extensive Gibbon's research is and how monumental this something was to the empire at the time, though there seems to have been more discoveries after Gibbon's time that shed more light on it, which he wouldn't have been equipped with. Still, because it reflects on the clear decay of the original spirit (read: race) and tradition of Rome, I think it is relevant to mention, at least to start, for the purposes of this thread. 



This is the logo for an organisation that supposedly has many members who are "intellectuals" and Very Important People. I don't care much at all for cQnspiracy claims about it. As far as I'm concerned, the only conspiracy is that they are pretending to be something that they aren't (i.e., leaders). I must credit them for choosing a great name though. The wikipedia page says that the founders went with "Club of Rome" simply because they first met in Rome, however the concept of a Club of Rome was one of the most important traditions for the majority of the Roman state's history; obviously, to be a Roman citizen was a bare minimum prerequisite for membership among the aristocracy. Hence, all things considered, the Senate had somewhat of a legitimate beef against Caesar when he extended citizenship to some provincials. To his credit, Cicero knew exactly what it meant long-term, and Caracalla proved him right in 212. 

The Edict of Caracalla, granting universal citizenship (apparently for taxation purposes) to the entirety of the empire, is what I think really did the West in and is what keeps me from entertaining in more depth the speculations about religion. Gibbon writes of the Edict's consequences:

Quote:But when the last enclosure of the Roman constitution was trampled down by Caracalla, the separation of professions gradually succeeded to the distinction of ranks. The more polished citizens of the internal provinces were alone qualified to act as lawyers and magistrates. The rougher trade of arms was abandoned to the peasants and barbarians of the frontiers, who knew no country but their camp, no science but that of war, no civil laws, and scarcely those of military discipline. With bloody hands, savage manners, and desperate resolutions, they sometimes guarded, but much oftener subverted, the throne of the emperors. [V. I, Ch. 6]

The aspect of it concerning the loss of tradition isn't insignificant, but most important to me seems to be the fact that the floodgates of racial decay were opened within the military, as Gibbon points out. It's somewhat akin to how some assert that the French Revolution was actually a racial uprising against the remaining traces of pure Aryan nobility in France. If we accept that as true, I see no reason why the racial decay of the Italic peoples over the course of the empire's life is much different. It's undeniable that it was by the spilling of their blood and the adherence to their traditions that the Italics were able to make the city become what it did. But perhaps this decay was inevitable: 

Quote:The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture, the pure blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune, and hastened the ruin, of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring genius of Rome sacrificed vanity to ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as honourable, to adopt virtue and merit for her own wheresoever they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians. [V.I, Ch. 2].

At any rate, the citizens of Italy always enjoyed distinguished status until Caracalla's Edict. In reality, we may be inclined to say that the Italic race died (or at least began dying) from wounds self-inflicted when the empire was born, as Gibbon mentions that "by the liberal hand of Augustus ... many of the most noble families were extinct. The republicans of spirit and ability had perished in the field of battle, or in the proscription." [V.I., Ch. 3]. It is known that Vespasian allowed the Italian population to be exempt from military service. Some say this was to preserve the race, but it's more likely that requiring them to serve would've been extremely unpopular with the Italian aristocracy for whom the trade-offs certainly rendered military service idiotic. Thus, the race must have been already somewhat decadent at the start of the imperial period and the decades that immediately followed thereafter. [[IIRC there is an esoteric reading of Dante's Divine Comedy that explains the real reason as to why he chose Virgil as his guide, which is based on the latter's 4th Eclogue and the occurrence of the birth of Christ (the God that would unify all peoples) during the reign of Augustus (the Caesar that would unify the empire). It's for another time, but Dante may have known something...]]

So, by the time of the Severan dynasty and Caracalla, neither race nor tradition was required to wear the purple. To prove this, we need only consider (1) the Severan dynasty was racially African; and (2) the circumstances of Caracalla's elevation: 

Quote:The fond hopes of the father, and of the Roman world, were soon disappointed by these vain youths, who displayed the indolent security of hereditary princes; and a presumption that fortune would supply the place of merit and application ... With an impartial hand he maintained between them an exact balance of favour, conferred on both the rank of Augustus, with the revered name of Antoninus; and for the first time the Roman world beheld three emperors. [V.I, Ch. 6].

This is important because it shows that the Trads were already defeated at this point, and the drift toward that defeat seems largely exacerbated by the initial straying from tradition by the alleged Great Philosopher King, Marcus Aurelius. We can say that the tradition of adopting successors had already been broken by Vespasian, but we can't forget that Titus was actually a soldier, whose legions actually respected him, because he actually led them in conquest.



To me, Marcus Aurelius gave further precedence to something that should have only been seen as a very justified exception. And that seems to be a crucial domino that eventually gets you to Caracalla's proto-globo homo Edict. From that, I don't necessarily know if there was a way in which antiquity could have been saved after the establishment of the empire. However, the question seems to imply a linear reading of time as opposed to the antique cyclical. If we entertain a cyclical conception, we do see several instances of the spirit of antiquity reborn, or at the very least attempts to induce such a rebirth long after Julian the Apostate. I don't know if that's the direction you want to go so I will hold the thought for now.