Cultural stagnancy in the Roman Empire - Historum

**Labienus** · June 21st, 2011, 05:23 PM

In the Late Roman Republic and in the Early Roman Empire, Graeco-Roman culture was flourishing, with the emergence of Latin poetry and Latin historiography and the prosperity of Greek science. However, it seems to me that from the second century CE onwards, the Empire was culturally and scientifically stagnant, the people relying on older works and not innovating anymore.

Was there such a cultural stagnancy and why was it so? Was it because of the decay of Roman culture, due to the decline of the Empire and the decadence of it's ruling class?

**Qymaen** · June 21st, 2011, 05:41 PM

I believe that someone, I think Richeliu, said that "money runs wars". This can be transferred over to science, the building of architecture, etc. If you don't have the money to move forward then you can't move forward.

I know next to nothing about Rome beyond my limited knowledge of it's military history, though. I do believe that Richeliu is correct, though.

The Alani Dragon Rising · June 21st, 2011, 05:43 PM

This couldn't have helped:

Quote:

Internal strife

Gallienus is depicted as a serious young man, unaware of the problems to come
Under pressure on two frontiers, the Romans started to squabble among themselves. Civilians distrusted their own armies and the soldiers distrusted some of their commanders - even the emperor to whom they had sworn allegiance. So they proclaimed new emperors.

The army had always been able to make or break emperors, but never in such quick succession as they did now. After the assassination of Severus Alexander in 235 AD, the soldiers in various parts of the empire proclaimed fifty emperors in about the same number of years.

Some of these emperors survived for only a few months, despatched by rival armies or even by the troops who had recently proclaimed them. To be declared emperor once marked the apogee of a man's career. In the third century it was a death sentence.

The year 253 AD seemed to herald an end to the anarchy. Valerian and his son Gallienus were declared joint emperors, sharing power as some emperors had done in the past.

Here, an older Gallienus is frowning, concerned, determined - staring at an uncertain future ©
It seemed possible to stem the raids from the north and also deal with the eastern question. Valerian departed for the Persian war, while Gallienus turned to the western provinces. But within seven years of their accession it had all gone wrong.

In the fateful year 260 AD, Valerian was captured by Shapur, leaving the eastern provinces unprotected. A Palmyrene nobleman called Odenathus gathered an army and fought off the Persians, temporarily stabilising the east. Gallienus acknowledged him because he was in no position to rescue his father or fight the Persians himself.

At around the same time, the western provinces of Gaul (modern France) and Germany set up their own Gallic Empire (Imperium Galliarum) under their chosen emperor, Postumus.

The empire was in danger of splitting up. Gallienus was deprived of control of two large areas and of the bulk of the armies, but he adapted the resources at his disposal, actively fighting off usurpers and tribesmen, dashing back and forth to meet each new threat.

He received no thanks for his efforts. Time was the one thing that he needed to reunite the empire, but he didn't get it. In 268 AD, Gallienus was assassinated.

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire

sylla1 · June 21st, 2011, 07:31 PM

Even if the military crisis didn't help, the stagnancy of the period is often exaggerated.

It was a great time for Neoplatonism and other philosophy, particularly including Cassius Longinus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus & Deixippus.

Also for rhetorics and the study of the law, like the jurists Paulus & Herennius.

Other notable scholars included the mathematician Heliodorus of Larissa, the poet Nemesianus and the historian Herodian.

Among the Christians, the theologians Origen & Cyprian, and also the poet Lactantius.

Monumental art certainly tended to decline, but other arts like mosaics and numismatics overtly flourished.

**Labienus** · June 21st, 2011, 07:38 PM

Thank you sylla1, I was not aware of the extent of the scientific and artistic activities of the late empire.

**gaius valerius** · June 22nd, 2011, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Even if the military crisis didn't help, the stagnancy of the period is often exaggerated.

It was a great time for Neoplatonism and other philosophy, particularly including Cassius Longinus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus & Deixippus.

Also for rhetorics and the study of the law, like the jurists Paulus & Herennius.

Other notable scholars included the mathematician Heliodorus of Larissa, the poet Nemesianus and the historian Herodian.

Among the Christians, the theologians Origen & Cyprian, and also the poet Lactantius.

Monumental art certainly tended to decline, but other arts like mosaics and numismatics overtly flourished.

Agree, the image that culture somehow stagnated has more to do with a lack of knowledge on the later centuries and an over-information on the Principate and Classical Greece then with an actual reality.

**Guaporense** · June 26th, 2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

Agree, the image that culture somehow stagnated has more to do with a lack of knowledge on the later centuries and an over-information on the Principate and Classical Greece then with an actual reality.

Actually since we have many more texts from the classical period 500 BCE - 100 AD, than later periods it is not because of over-information, as 99,9% of the texts of these times also have been lost. We have more texts on these periods because there was more culture in these periods. There were more people writing, more people reading and studying in this period than in later periods, therefore we have more surviving texts from this period.

I think that the classical perception of history as:

i) Classical Greece 500-300 BCE, Hellenistic east 300-100 BCE and Classical Rome 100 BCE - 200 CE were glorious.
ii) Earlier and later centuries = crap.

Is entirely correct.

Of course there were some people thinking about philosophy and science during the later Roman Empire, such as there are people today working on science in Colombia. But Colombia's scientific achievements aren't great compared to the USA's or Germany's and the cultural achievements of the later Roman Empire aren't great compared to the earlier periods.

**Kirialax** · June 26th, 2011, 03:02 PM

I wonder to what degree Ammianus 14.6 has influenced the view that the later Roman Empire was culturally stagnant? (Anyone have a copy of Gibbon to see what he said regarding that passage?)

**Guaporense** · June 26th, 2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labienus

In the Late Roman Republic and in the Early Roman Empire, Graeco-Roman culture was flourishing, with the emergence of Latin poetry and Latin historiography and the prosperity of Greek science. However, it seems to me that from the second century CE onwards, the Empire was culturally and scientifically stagnant, the people relying on older works and not innovating anymore.

Was there such a cultural stagnancy and why was it so? Was it because of the decay of Roman culture, due to the decline of the Empire and the decadence of it's ruling class?

The Roman Empire started to decline after it's height, in the 1st and early 2nd centuries. As can be verified in the archeological record of number of archeological finds ditributed over time. All were signs of the economic decline of the ancient world.

A cultural environment trives when the economic base to pay for the living of the producers of culture exists. In other words if the economy srhinks market for cultural producs shrinks and therefore the production of culture shrinks. A historian or an scientist needs to have people making food for him, making the products that he uses at home, etc, this requires an advanced economic system. Cultural complexity and economic complexity goes hand to hand. That's why we have more literary sources from more advanced cultures and less from less advanced cultures.

It is no coincidence that today the world's largest producer of culture, the USA, is also the world's largest economy. The economic decline of the classics started to affect their cultural output.

The culture of the classical world started to lose it's supporting environment and therefore started to decline in quantity and quality around the 2nd century CE.

When that happened? I guess that around 120 CE there wasn't any more tendency for development in all areas of the empire. Even in the young province of Britannia the population of Londinium peaked in 120 CE. In the older areas of the empire the situation was even worse. In mainland Greece the economic, social and cultural decline started around 300 BCE. However this decline wasn't the result of overall decline of the civilization but only of decline caused by population migration to the hellenistic kingdoms.

But other indicadors also show an overall decline of the eastern mediterranean even under the early roman empire. Scheidel counted 57 shipwrecks on the eastern mediterranean dated from 300 BCE to 1 CE and only 32 shipwrecks dated from 1 CE to 300 CE. This data os suggesting that the eastern mediterranean was poorer in average during the Roman period than during the Hellenistic Period. That helps to explain why we do know many more Greek historians and scientists from 300 BCE to 1 CE than from 1 CE to 300 CE.

In terms of volume of archeological stuff found in field surveys, we have the peak in quantity of archeological stuff in Italy from 50 BCE to 100 CE, the peak in archeological stuff in Mainland Greece from 480 BCE to 330 BCE. So the periods of greatest cultural efflorencences of these lands correspond to the peaks in volume of trash that these peoples produced.

Some archelogical indicators:

This data shows an impressive peak around 100 CE and collapse to 400 CE.

An indicator of overall levels of meat consumption (most archeological work is done in europe, therefore that data shows the levels of meat consumption of the european provinces, not the eastern mediterranean provinces). Still it is also consistent with the graph above on the German archeological finds, peaking around 100-150 CE.

The femur lenght graph of femurs found in italy also show a decline from the 1st century ownwards:

And the levels of lead pollution and shipwrecks found in the mediterranean both peak from 1 CE to 150 CE:

So basically what I am saying is that the material foundations for Classical civilization started to erode and therefore the cultural achievements of the classicals ended.

**Salah** · June 26th, 2011, 03:27 PM

I was under the impression that something of a cultural renaissance took place in the second half of the 3rd Century.