General Historical Background

The assassination of Emperor Alexander Severus in ad 235 marks the beginning of a long period of crisis during which the Roman Empire came close to disintegration.

But in the later part of the third century a succession of capable emperors^{^[42]} began the work of restoring the crumbling empire. The work of these so called ‘soldier emperors’ paved the way for the systematic changes of structure that took place during the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine the Great in the late third and early fourth centuries ad. Diocletian (ad 285-305) succeeded in re-establishing peace and regular government within the realm, and in strengthening the imperial frontiers against foreign foes. Constantine completed the work of Diocletian, infusing the empire’s organization with the basic characteristics it retained until the fall of the Empire in the West and its transition to the Byzantine Empire in the East. Constantine’s reign is marked by two dramatic new developments: the rise of Christianity as the dominant religion of the empire and the establishment of a new imperial capital, Constantinople, in the East (ad 330).^{^[43]} The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine marked a significant stage in the abandonment of the outward forms and guiding spirit of the Augustan system of government. As the autocratic tendencies that had strengthened over the previous years prevailed, the republican facade of the Principate was replaced by an unconcealed and unlimited monarchy supported by a complex and ever-growing bureaucratic apparatus. During the same period, the predominance of Rome and Italy in the empire faded and the eastern, Greek-speaking provinces came to be seen as a separate, and possibly as the predominant part of the empire. The transformation of the Roman state and society that transpired under Diocletian and Constantine inaugurated the last phase of Roman history, known as the ‘Dominate’ (dominatus), and in many respects it ushered in the medieval world as well.

The development of the imperial society during the Dominate age was a direct continuation of the process of change that had began as early as the late second century ad.

Clear indications of the altered structure and direction of the late Roman society embrace: the polarization between the impoverished masses and the concentrated wealth and power of privileged dignitaries; the power consolidation of the senatorial land barons and the growing inability of the central government to control them; the institutionalization of rigidly defined and closely regulated hereditary castes, each with a definite rank in society; and the rapid decay of the citieslang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:110%'>’ governing classes (decuriones, curiales) owing to the incessant and excessive demands imposed upon them by the government. The transformation of the Roman state into a machinery of power supported by relatively small groups and the consequent absolutization of state demands provoked the refusal of large sections of the population to identify themselves with the state. Thus, the rule of the emperor and his machinery of power, exalted to unprecedented heights by an artificial enhancement of the system’s brilliant facade of display, finally became an end in itself: a pure burden that only oppressed society with its coercive measures and impositions. With mounting indifference to the state’s fate and few individuals prepared to sustain the regime, the forces of dissolution acquired momentum and the demise of the empire appeared unavoidable.

After a breathing spell in the first half of the fourth century, the difficulties of the empire began to mount. In particular, the external pressures on the imperial frontiers increased. Finally, after several years of intense fighting against the Germanic tribes in the North, the Rhine-Danube frontier gave way: in ad 378, the Visigoths and Ostrogoths crossed the Danube River, and simultaneously the Franks, Vandals and Burgundians poured across the Rhine River into Gaul and the western provinces. These invasions exacerbated problems within the empire itself, in particular those deriving from the continued failure to establish a firm system of succession to the imperial throne; the shortage of manpower as citizens and officials fled from the tasks imposed upon them; the heavy burden of taxation imposed to set up and maintain new armies for the conduct of war; and the overall demoralisation of the Roman society.

In the face of these problems, the division of the empire into western and eastern halves was seen as a necessary remedy. Although imperial unity was in theory preserved, in reality the empire was split into two independent states and from the late fourth century this division became permanent.

The fifth century witnessed the complete disintegration of the Roman Empire in the West, in the face of continuous barbarian invasions and the permanent, largescale settlement of Germanic tribes in its territories. During the same period, the political power of the central government faded as the western emperors depended entirely on the support of Germanic war bands and warlords who, as ‘king-makers’, actually ruled the state. Western Roman emperors continued to rule in name until ad 476, when Emperor Romulus Augustulus was overthrown by the Germanic troops which had placed him on the throne.^{^[44]} By the close of the fifth century, the western provinces of the empire were in the hands of various Germanic tribes: the Ostrogoths controlled Italy; the Visigoths ruled Spain and south-western Gaul; the Burgundians were settled in the Rhine River area; the Franks established themselves in northern Gaul; the Angles and Saxons were settled in England; and the Vandals had established their own kingdom in northern Africa. The effect of this was that the civilization and forms of social and economic life characteristic to the ancient Greco-Roman world gradually faded away. The public institutions of the Roman Empire in the West gave way to the more primitive personal loyalty of the barbarians to their tribal chiefs and political conditions shifted towards the decentralized localism associated with the feudal system; once flourishing urban centres were destroyed or abandoned, giving way to forms of habitation constructed around fortified manors and small village communities; and trade and industry declined as economic life reverted to an agricultural and pastoral type geared to maintaining local self-sufficiency.

While the Empire in the West succumbed to the control of Germanic warlords, the Eastern Empire survived the crisis with its institutions and frontiers largely intact.

The emperors at Constantinople successfully guarded their territory in Asia Minor against the restored power of Persia and resisted the infiltration of the Germanic tribes and the decentralizing influence of the great landlords and generalissimos. The Empire in the East survived as its socio-economic circumstances were more favourable. In fact, the Eastern Empire underwent a considerable economic revival; a certain amount of flexibility returned to its society; urban life remained strong; and, particularly during the reign of Emperor Theodosius II (ad 408-450), it experienced a remarkable cultural rebirth. From this base, the gifted ruler Justinian worked for the restoration of the empire to its former greatness.

1.5.2

<< | >>

↑

Source: Mousourakis G.. Roman Law and the Origins of the Civil Law Tradition. Springer,2015. — 339 p.. 2015

General Historical Background

More on the topic General Historical Background: