Talk:Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire/Archive 1

message: This is a great little article, neatly separating out some basic ideas that would otherwise be buried in other articles. But please don't fall victim to the usual Wikipedia trivia collection mania. Making a complete copy of Demandt's list bloats the article and doesn't really tell the reader anything useful. Better to just refer to Demandt's book. ----Isaac R 04:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the list and replaced with a link to a web source since one exists, if it ever disapears the article history contains a back up. Stbalbach 05:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good and Bad 

message: This article should be called "Fall" and not "Decline" because the majority of incoming links use "fall". "Decline" is the minority usage on Wikipedia, "Fall" is the majority.  Stbalbach 05:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the WP:RM entry. See the "What Links Here" for this article, "Fall" is in more common use than "Decline". Stbalbach 05:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: *Yes thats one theory. Another theory by Gibbon says the Decline and Fall are implicit. You cant seperate these things, at least at this level. If you want to write an article just about the transformist (decline) view, then Late Antiquity is a good start. But this article simply is a collection of all theories regarding decline and fall, for practical linking reasons, since so many people use the terminology in articles, this is a gateway article. Stbalbach 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: re: this:
: "postmodern thought, which regards all cultures as equally worthy"
Im not sure thats an accurate portrayal of postmodern thought? I may be wrong. It implies political correctness, that worthiness is contrived for an idealistic purpose, which is a pejorative concept. Stbalbach 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have been combining culture and cultures too readily. Postmodernism does blend high culture and low culture, i.e. opera and porn, and declare then equally worthy.  It seems similar to the high esteem in which the classical period was previously held in comparison to the barbarous dark ages and how these distinctions are being disregarded.  I'm not sure postmodernism says that cultures meaning societies are equal.MeltBanana 18:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  postmodernism 

message: re: this quote on Byzantine
:"In the revolution of ten centuries, not a single discovery was made to exalt the dignity or promote the happiness of mankind. Not a single idea had been added to the speculative systems of antiquity, and a succession of patient disciples became in their turn the dogmatic teachers of the next servile generation."
Is there any reason we need this? It is polemic and flat wrong. Theres really no reason to illustrate the point with a quote, in particular one that continues to spread misconceptions. If we must keep the quote, then it needs to be explained as being incorrect, which is really beyond the scope of this article. Stbalbach 01:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *The second paragraph is standard historiography. J.B. Bury said it, a class I took the teacher said it, Ive read it elsewhere as well. I'll dig up citations and add footnotes and quotations if there is a need to. Really, the second paragraph should come first because it is THE main argument historians have traditionally used to refute most (all?) theories. The first paragraph is an interesting observation, but it implies the theories are wrong because of historical perspective, which may or may not be a factor, its not an argument of fact, just a somewhat cynical observation about the history profession and IMO bordering on original research. If we keep it, it needs to be qualified that just because there is the problem of historical perspective, it doesnt mean its not possible to come up with a theory that is correct. This is true with anything. Stbalbach 03:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibbon quote 

message: The problem is that the postmodern POV pervades the historiography section where it is given an aura of objective truth.   Historians  who think that something actually happened are in a separate section where the fact they can't agree serves to create an impression that only the postmodernist have seen the light.  I was thinking of adding a bit but this page is so slanted that it seems unsalvageable.Dejvid 21:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Postmodernist bias on the this page

message: *I deleted the last reference to as it cannot be described as a mainstream theory.  It is a Marxist interpretation and was only published two months ago.  Perhaps vanity/plug.--jucifer 00:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it depends what your definitin of "mainstream" is. I wrote that section originally, intending to keep out quackpot theories, not to exclude valid theories. The book in question is not quackpot and if its 1 or 100 years old is irrelevant to that test. But I wont push it and dont want to get into a discussion of the books validity -- although I do find the anti-marxist comment suspect for POV reasons, the book isnt marxist. (btw your tirade below is directed at the wrong person, see the edit history). --Stbalbach 15:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: delete theory

message: OK apology acepted, I was just annoyed that someone changed the header.
jucifer 20:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK 

message: I've removed this from the list of theories:
:Byzantine involvement: After the German chief Odoacer sacked Rome, he sent the regalia to the Byzantine Emperor, and declared himself the Byzantine Emperor's viceroy.  The Byzantines would continue to control Rome until defeated by the invading Lombards in the 570s.
My understanding is this is a conspiracy theory without much evidence or taken seriously (now). Byzantine did everything they could to stop the encroachment of the Germans, inlcuding breaking the bank to launch a failed navel invasion to free North Africa of the Vandals in 468, after which it simply had run out of recources and had no choice but let the Western empire go and resort to a political relationship with Odoacer, there was no other option. Not to mention some of the worst fighting against the barbarians between 376 and 475 occured in eastern territories, the idea that they conspired with the barbarians against the Western Roman empire is in the realm of conspiracy theory. --Stbalbach 02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine conspiracy 

message: Regarding this external link:
:*Economic Reasons for the Fall of Rome
This article is basically a summary of the Cato Institute paper. Cato is a think-tank in DC that has an agenda for American politics and publishes ideas and theories that promote that political agenda. I'm not sure this is a good Wikipedia:External links based on rule 5, What should be included: 5) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material..  -- this is not neutral material, Cato is using history to promote a specific American policy. It's not academic history. -- Stbalbach 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article  lists its sources in great detail. This is a valid view. If you disagree with this view, it would be best to include an opposing view with sources. Ultramarine 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the new about.com article you added is fine it's a balanced article like this one, a list of various theories, not just a single theory. -- Stbalbach 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cato institute external link 

message: This article devotes more space to historiography than to history.  Granted that there are different definitions on the subject, certain facts and dates should be included to provide a framework: 
* The end of the Roman Empire's expansion
* The empire's official adoption of Christianity as the state religion
* Barbarians cross the Rhine (winter of 406-407)
* The sack of Rome (410)
* Barbarian conquests (Visigoths, Huns, etc.)  Outline specific conquests by date, tribe, and region.
* The spread of Islam (from Muhmmad to the fall of Constantinople?)
* The Holy Roman Empire (probably just a paragraph plus a link to the main article)
This artcle needs maps:
*The Roman Empire at its greatest extent
*Fifth century barbarian invasions
*others?
Regards, Durova 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the page was actually about the fall then these maps etc would hav their place.  For the article as it stands it really needs merely pictures of the historians who advocate the various theories.Dejvid 08:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inaccurate, there is nothing stopping you or anyone from expanding any one of the theories and making it into a sub-article with maps and historical narratives. This is a top-level article listing all the theories. Or would you just want to present a single theory as the only account on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 15:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique and suggestions 

message: An anon user mentioned a while back:
:"The last legally recognized Emperor was actually Julius Nepos, who resided in exiled in Salona on the Dalmatian Coast. He was murdered May 9, 480."
This is interesting trivia, but irrelevant to the article; but to be technically correct I've removed mention of a "last" emperor, since the important thing is Romulus was the last functional emperor (but even that is debatable). Anyway, everyone recognizes the end of the Empire with Romulus, the focus of the article. -- Stbalbach 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "last" emperor 

message: While contributing to this article, please also consider contributing to the parallel section of Roman Empire/reorganization: Roman Empire/reorganization#Late Empire (395 - 476). Cheers, --Hippalus 12:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Roman Empire/reorganization]]

message: I have removed the following text (between horizontal rules):
----
Another interesting theory that is found about the Roman Empire is in the Holy Quran. The Surah 30 (Al-Room, The Romans/The Byzantines) shows evidence that the prophecy of the fall of Roman Empire was being foretold in this holy book.
The verse in context is: "The Roman Empire has been defeated"
(More research is to be done regarding what the Roman Empire had suffered in the 7th Century)
----
This does not count as a theory, being merely an incident showing conflict between the Byzantine and Islamic civilizations in or around the 7th century.  If the contributor (Rummank) would like to expand this into a theory that Islamic incursion in the 7th century directly lead to the fall of the Eastern Empire, I'd be happy to include it again.  As it stands, I don't think it has a place in this article. —Ryan McDaniel 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran reference 

message: Regarding this:
:Lead Pipe Theory
:The Romans use of Lead in their water and plumbing systems has led some to belive that because the rich could afford private pipeing with unlimited water supply, that the Roman Aristocracy drove themselves insane through lead poisining. Because the Roman leaders were Aristocracy, the Empire became without able leadership and deteriorated from the inside out. In a sense Roman invention and brillance killed the Romans. Some argue if this did happen why didn't it happen sooner then the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., and still others question the power of so little lead on the mind. Also there is, in old forts in the U.K. water pipes made of wood covered in pitch that did work, proveing that mabye only a small percentage of pipes were lead. Truth be told we will proably never know.
If we are going to have this theory in the article, it needs to be properly sourced with who is the leading proponent, the primary work it originates from (with date), and current mainstream thinking about it. I suspect the theory is as much urban myth as anything else. I'm sorry I know this requires research, but this "theory" is so commonly heard that, for an encyclopedia article, all the more reason to find the truth of it. -- Stbalbach 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Pipe Theory 

message: Vitruvius is the first writer to write (ca 25BC) about lead poisoning, and mentions it in book 8 (water) of the 10 book series on architecture (which includes civil and military engineering) , chapter 6 (water supply), paragraph 10.  "Ceramic pipes have this advantage.  First of all, if there is some flaw in the system, whatever it is, anyone may repair it.  Furthermore, the water from clay pipes is much more healthful than that from lead, because it seems that lead is toxic; white lead is derived from it, and that is said to be harmful to the human body.  If that which is produced from lead is harmful, than threre can be no doubt that lead itself is not healthful either. 11. We can take an example from the lead workers, whose coloring has been overcome by pallor.  When lead exhales as it is poured, its vapor comes to rest in the limbs of their bodies; day by day it snatches away the strength of their blood by burning it away.  It seems, then that water should be conducted as little as possible through lead pipes if we want it to be healthful.  That the flavor of water from terracotta pipes is better is clear from everyday cooking, because everyone, although they may have tables piled high with silver vessels, nonetheless uses terracotta for cooking, in order to preserve good flavor." From the 1999 translation edited by Rowland and Howe.
The book also mentioned that Vitruvius was apparently the one who set up a uniform system of lead pipe sizes in Rome, based on the circumpherance (sp) of the lead sheet (about 1/4" thick) allowing about a quarter inch or so for lap.  There is some talk that the main pipes, when used to form inverted syphons to cross a valley, kept water flowing and there wasn't much time for the lead to pass to a given amount of water.  Presumably pipes in houses, and lead goblets etc were more the problem.  Ancient lead pipe and bronze valves have been found, and my copy of the book shows drawings of them.  Vitruvius also mentions the use of what we now know as "thrust blocks" for those are deep into plumbing, although they were called something else, and the editors didn't pick up on it.
BTW, most all Romans were creamated.  Although some bones were found in Pompei and Hercaleneum (sp).
My only and meager contribution was the addition of the Krakatoa volcano.  12.72.205.93 aka   [[WonderWheeler 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Pipe and Vitruvius

message: Some interesting notes on the relationships between Lead Poisoning and Roman Baths.  In "Hot Springs of Bath", results of a symposium, edited by  Kellaway, 1991, Pub. by Bath City Council.  re Ch 5, Lead, gout and Bath Spa therapy, by Audrey Hayward.  That immersion in a minimum of 3.5' of hot water helps the body flush lead from the system (through urine).  This, combined with drinking the fresh Bath mineral water helps replenish the helpful calcium and iron also lost, and staying away from alcohol (such as port that was adulterated with lead acetate as preservative and to increase sweetness).  A pretty effective cure (over several months, average 24 weeks) in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's in England, when the well-to-do suffered from the related gout (gouty arthritis by impared urate excretion), and the poor tradesmen working with lead from the related paralysis of the limbs (and eating less protein, which would have helped provide protection in some way).  It looks like the cure rate for lead poisoning (colica pictonum)was well over 90% using the above treatment.  It was also helpful from lead caused infertility in women. 
We expect that the all important "Roman Baths" were also acting in Rome as a cure for lead poisoning, as "a large proportion of the population would have been affected to some degree" ...   WonderWheeler 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Considering the global epidemic of lead poisoning caused by leaded gasoline (the lead stays in the food supply for 1000s of years due to soil uptake) we should all be taking more hot bathes. -- Stbalbach 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Pipe and Hot Bath Water

message: AnonMoos If you disagree with wording, as in whether or not Bury, who alone of the historians attempted a complex mutifactored analysis of the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, then post that disagreement on the talk page of the article, rather than editorializing on the article history page.   If you read more history, and did less arrogant editorializing, you would know that other historians referred to Bury's theories as "fascinating" and "complex" - try reading Grant, for instance.  That means the wording is not POV.  Unfortunately, your talk page shows you are legendary for your rudeness - please try to refrain from it.  Discuss your changes, and cease your pompous editorializing on the article history page.   I allowed your rude POV edit to stand simply because it was not worth arguing over, not because you were right, as you would have known had you studied the subject.  However, your repeated pompous editorializing and contempt for newbies, and your general arrogance in not discussing changes - in the future I will simply revert you where you are factually incorrect - needing commenting on. old windy bear 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please attempt to follow basic wikipedia rules on courtesy

message: Why does it say, "So-and-so thinks that it declined because... , but so-and-so thinks it declined because....?"  Isn't that against Wikipedia style?  I think this entire article needs to be written to tell the history of what happened, and let the reader decide why it declined.  Juppiter 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called historiography which is how professional historians document the history of history. There is no single right point of view that we can neutrally document, there are lots of them. For an outline of the actual events see the history of Rome articles. Any reader who comes up with their own original theory on why Rome fell I have a lot of respect for. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think this is a good article 

message: Why isnt Ferdinand Lot's theory here? In fact, there is no mention of Lot anywhere on wikipedia..... -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.174.135.50 (talk • contribs) .
:Who is Ferdinand Lot? -- Stbalbach 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lot basically said the Roman Empire died from an "internal disease" (as its fall was not caused, mainly, by Germanic invasions). I'm not sure if he hold to "continuity theory" so maybe it wouldn't be wise to be added to Pirenne's section. Daizus 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lot? 

message: This is the most interesting and credible theory: the delcine of the Roman civilization began by the separation of the empire into West and East, which created a model for later transfer of central power to regional authorities. Furthermore, because people of the Roman Empire did not share a common language or identity, there was no need for them to fight and reunite under one banner (unlike Three Kingdoms China after unification in the Qin dynasty). Like the famous Chinese saying goes (from Romance of the Three Kingdoms): "An empire long united, must divide. An empire long divided, must unite. This has been so since antiquity." But in the case of the Romans, their empire never united once it started to divide, until now (if you consider the European Union to be a state). All-in-all, the Roman empire never "collapsed" or "fell," but simply divided by power transfers. However, this never justified a bloody reunification as the languages and cultures were so different among the people, thus avoiding a violent "Three Kingdoms" period as experienced in China.--141.213.196.222 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the source for this, who said it? Every theory needs a proponent and associated work(s) in which the theory is laid out - to avoid problems with original research and notability, so editors don't make up their own theories. I'll add a citation tag and wait to hear back, but if nothing is added, I'll have no choice to remove it (even though I think it is a very reasonable idea). -- Stbalbach 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-Collapse Theory