Talk:Fall of the Western Roman Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removing Rebenich in Rousseau

At this edit I removed a paragraph:

According to Philip Rousseau's Companion to Late Antiquity, "There has been an ongoing and steadily increasing reshuffling of diverse historiographical models concerning the end of Antiquity since 1949". Taking into account those dimensions linked to the disappearance of a political western Roman empire, the decline of specific regions, and adding views that recognize the creative aspects of the religious, artistic, and cultural dimensions of the period, has redefined Antiquity's periodization, its geographical area, its central themes, its time frame, and even its overall value as a field of study. As a result, "the perception of Late Antiquity has significantly changed: the period is no longer seen as an era of decline and crisis but as an epoch of metamorphosis in the Mediterranean region".

It strikes me as a verbose comment that means rather little and doesn't contribute to an article on the Fall; to the extent that it does mean anything useful, that semantic content is repeated in the following paragraphs which I have left. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you have "alternate paradigms" as the section title, and mention "Late Antiquity" in the last sentence, but now have no explanation of what any of that might actually mean. That's a whole paragraph on Pirenne, who was not a major paradigm changer, with no mention of the modern changes that basically invented Late Antiquity as a period unto itself in the twentieth century. As it is now, it makes it look like there is no change, it's just a continuation from Pirenne, and that isn't true. I'm afraid Pazuzu is leading you astray again. :-( Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a rethink, thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And now you've replaced a relevant and meaningful sentence that actually listed what the section supposedly discussed with this: His other ideas on the Fall have been a foundation for less hostile, but voluminous later discourse, and for modern synthesis with the results of archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, and genetic science, using diverse historiographical models. a sentence crammed full of words that convey virtually no relevant meaning on the topic at all. Is this an apology for Gibbon? Well, it wasn't but it is now. I and Pazuzu are disgusted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't have that. I thought it was a rather neat way of outlining the brief account of the development of historiography that we need here. Evidently listening to the wrong demon. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Monkey business

At these edits I have re-written in particular the introductory sections on the time-span of the Fall, the paradigm of the Fall, the reasons for the Fall, and thus the vexatious business of what Gibbon actually said about Christianity ("the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire"). I can't see any good way of discussing the history of reasons for the Fall without mentioning Gibbon's formulation, but I hope that the revised version is at least, generally agreeable. I have also cut down some of the description of Julian's religious reforms, as not demonstrably relevant to the issue of power loss, the subject of this article. As always I await comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Pazuzu and I are terrifically impressed with these changes, it all reads more clearly, the changes are pertinent and on topic, and even the inclusion of Gibbon fits well. I personally disagree with the removal of the information on Julian because I think what happened with him clearly indicates how much the empire had changed and how much power had been lost by the emperors quite directly, but Pazuzu says I shouldn't pout over niggling little issues. I will even let the inclusion of the monks as a drain on manpower pass without comment. Oh wait. I commented. Still, letting it go. It's good. It's all good. Pazuzu says well done, you made me happy, and you should always endeavor to make me happy.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Fall of Rome 476 was Justinian propaganda

Turns out the main source for claiming Rome fell in 476 was a work of propaganda written by a friend of Justinian to justify the invasion and conquest. People in Rome at the time didn't think it fell and attached no special importance to 476. Our article contains nothing of the post-476 history discussed in this article:

• Edward J. Watts (October 6, 2021). "Rome Didn't Fall When You Think It Did. Here's Why That Fabricated History Still Matters Today". Time. Retrieved October 6, 2021 – via Yahoo! News.

-- GreenC 03:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Sounds like a fringe theory to me, are there other authors supporting this view? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiEd

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChristopherNoell21 (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherNoell21 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Barbarians?

Why use a pejorative to describe the invading forces? Kleuske (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's used by pretty much all the surviving sources, and in the context of Helleno-Roman historiography, simply refers to anyone who wasn't a part of Greek or Roman culture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are quite lopsided (they're Roman, exclusively) and no matter *how* you twist it, in the 4th century it's well and truly a pejorative. The fact that 18th century sources refer to "savages" in Africa and elsewhere is no reason to copy that either. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Both the primary sources and the modern secondary sources use the word barbarian, in this time period and context, as a matter of routine. I have just turned my eyes to one of my book-shelves, and I see three examples of the word used in the titles of scholarly books; looking at the index of the Cambridge Ancient History vol XII, 193-337, there are multiple pages references for the term. Yes, there was a pejorative sense to it, stronger in current colloquial use, but it also has clear semantic content. I suppose we could find some circumlocution, a neologism such as "ethnic groups outside Helleno-Roman culture" would do, but I can't see why we would want to. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Try calling them by their names if at all possible? The word "barbarians" does not distinguish between Goths, Vandals, Huns, Saxons, Franks, etc. The current text makes no distinction and jumbles them all together under a, frankly, offensive word which is used with disturbing consistency. Working out who played what role and naming names may remedy said lopsidedness. And i'm willing to do the work and very much open for suggestions and/or collaboration. Kleuske (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother myself, but feel free. We do of course use individual tribal names where appropriate already. The word remains useful either when several different groups are being described, or when non-Romans are described as a collective. Who exactly is being offended by it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Me, for one. Kleuske (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are offended by the description of people who lived 1700 years before our time and lacked systems of writing, which is a hallmark of the western conception of civilization, as barbarians? Why does being offended over a word used to describe people who died millennia ago give you any authority? Are you a historian? Have you studied ancient history? Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for any offence. Your comments do raise an interesting question about our use of words with both a) semantically-meaningful and b) pejorative content. I don't find any relevant policies or guidelines on this particular point. I've just been involved in a discussion at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine where I argued that the word "pseudoscience" was being used in a purely pejorative way, in conflict with its useful meaning, and should be removed as not helping the article. Here I feel that the word "barbarian" is or at least can be used, in accordance with the sources, to mean "people not part of Graeco-Roman culture". Additionally I feel that in this specific sense in the period covered by this article, the word is useful and no longer relevant to any current ethnic group; classic Graeco-Roman culture no longer exists as an ethnic identity. Anyway, I agree, there may be instances in this article where "barbarian" could be replaced by specific ethnonyms. In any case I look forward to your suggestions and to collaborating with you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly, I have to vote with Kleuske on this one. (Maybe its my German backround:-) Whenever I read how the "barbarian hordes swept through..." wherever they were sweeping, it makes me roll my eyes. As if the Romans weren't "barbaric", and their "hordes" didn't sweep through the lands they gathered into their empire. The word could be changed by: specifying individual groups; or perhaps by the general area? Or better yet, is there no scholar who addresses this already and proposes an alternative? I'm a sociologist, but I'll try to look. Peacedance (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have managed to change one instance to the name of a specific group. I will welcome any suitable alternative. I've yet to find one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Richard Keatinge on this one. Literary cleansing is a close cousin of ethnic cleansing; I disapprove of both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure that using neutral language (or better yet, endonyms) to describe groups of people, rather than the pejorative term coined for them by their enemies, is a "close cousin" of wiping out entire groups of people? I am very curious about this analogy. Roseofjuly (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's really worth mentioning that the word Barbarian comes from the Greek word Βάρβαρος which came about because it seemed to them many foreigners sounded like they were saying "Bar bar bar, interestingly enough one may find this reminiscent of the Syriac/Aramaic definitive article, nevertheless, if you view it like this it's more of a descriptive adjective. What's more, while it is applause worthy to try and switch names to tribal, it also brings up the interesting concept that, the Romans named these people, and generally weren't too concerned about accuracy or anything like that, kind of like Barbaros revisited, they gave names to groups of people, and these names have stuck, but as previously mentioned since almost no written record survives of the, forgive me for lack of a better term, barbarians, it's quite hard to say with any real confidence what they actually called themselves. As an aside, interesting theory that Rome hastened her downfall by giving names to certain peoples and thus instilling a greater sense of unity. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:29, 04 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of the motivations of people who want to PC-Sanitize history. When people read that the barbarians helped bring down the Roman Empire, they can easily draw a parallel with mass immigration bringing down the modern day Western world. Is it? Isn't it? is irrelevant and not our job to answer. History is history, and should be recorded accurately, and not "tweaked" to make it politically convenient today. Finalreminder

It's not "PC sanitizing history" to acknowledge that "barbarians" is a pejorative term. It was pejorative even in the Romans' time: the Greeks themselves wrote that the word was devised because all of the non-Greek languages sounded like gibberish to them; the root word means "to stammer" or to babble confusingly. The Romans explicitly used it for people they considered uncivilized. This information is not hidden - it can be easily found on this very wiki. Using the term "barbarians" here is like using the term "savages" to refer to Native Americans in an article about American colonial history. If we'd like to leave it this way, that's fine, but it's silly to pretend that the term is merely descriptive when it was intended to be derogatory by the very people who devised the term. It's not really that hard to find suitable replacements: For example, the first sentence with the word included ("Increasing pressure from invading barbarians outside Roman culture") could easily be rewritten "Increasing pressure from invading tribes outside Roman culture..." or "Increasing pressure from invading peoples..." There are several places where it can simply be omitted, such as the second usage ("Further barbarian groups crossed..." could just be "Further groups crossed...") and the third "In 476, the Germanic barbarian king..." could just be "In 476, the Germanic king...") Roseofjuly (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"they can easily draw a parallel with mass immigration bringing down the modern day Western world" That would be entirely misleading. The Migration Period is characterized by armed invasions of Roman areas, warfare between competing tribes, and several "barbarians" gaining the status of Foederati. No such thing is occurring in recent times. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)