The Downfall of Empires

An often pondered question is “What caused the fall of the Roman Empire?” After all, Rome survived the military genius and crushing triumphs of Hannibal, and spanned the world from Arabia to Britain, from Germany to Egypt.

However, the question could also be broadened. What causes the downfall of empires?

An interesting case is the numerous empires that dominated Arabia. The Assyrians fell to the Medes, an internal enemy (I think), who then succumbed to the Persians (also an internal enemy), who were smashed by Alexander the Great. After Alexander there was what could perhaps be described as a bloody enormous Macedonian civil war over his empire, and eventually Seleucus ended up with most of what was Persia. The Seleucid Empire then fell to the Parthians (arguably an internal enemy), who were taken over by a rejuvenated Persia.

Persia ended up falling, permanently, to Islamic armies. However, that means that there were just two clear examples of external armies (Macedonian and Islamic) taking out Arabian empires, compared to a more common pattern of internal enemies (rebels or not quite subjugated peoples) taking over.

Both Roman and Byzantine Empires suffered a tremendously damaging pattern of civil wars in the prolonged preamble to their final destruction. Naturally, both fell to external enemies ultimately (rather bizarrely, Byzantium briefly fell to a Western foe prior to the ultimate end at the hands of the Ottoman Turks) but their strength had been severely sapped (Rome especially) by interminable infighting.

This leads to another question: why was there so much infighting? Rome was acknowledged as the centre of the civilised world, filled with wealth and wonder. The problem was that its leader was the emperor, but Augustus had never actually defined any sort of legal qualification or anything similar regarding who the emperor ought to be. And, as he came to power by the sword, so that system remained. The problem was twofold: firstly, anyone with a bloody big army (and Rome had quite a few of these) might be tempted by the purple. Secondly, and worse, the armies themselves got massive bonuses, effectively, every time there was a new emperor (Danegeld, almost) so they’d often force an unwilling man to assume the imperial title. The poor sod in question could refuse, at which point he’d be murdered, so most did not.

The constant infighting decreased manpower (which was also ravaged by a persistent and virulent plague for much of the 3^rd century) and killed off many fine generals and veteran soldiers, creating easy in-roads for the barbarians. Lack of manpower then caused many of the same barbarians to be enlisted in the armies, but they lacked the discipline and patriotism of Roman soldiers, exacerbating the rebellious tendency of the army.

The secret of Rome’s victory over Hannibal was not Scipio Africanus, great though he was, but the burning fire of patriotism and willingness to fight and die for Rome even after Cannae. That fire was suffocated by insensible luxury, undeserved riches inherited from a bygone era of glory and the gates of Rome ended up being thrown open to barbarians who were not fit to lick Hannibal’s boots or be slain by Africanus’ legions.

Still, the joy of history is that we can read and learn, and avoid making the same mistakes today. After all, it’s not like Europe is gripped with perpetual infighting, lack of discipline and economic incompetence, is it?

Thaddeus

Review: Restorer of the World: The Emperor Aurelian, by John White

After reading the first three volumes of Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Aurelian seemed to be the best Roman emperor to me. So, I bought this book to find out more.

Aurelian is not a name that’s well-known, and I’d guess more people would identify him as the French rugby union player rather than the emperor. He ruled Rome in the 3^rd century, and the book examines not only his achievements as emperor (which are numerous) but also the aftermath of his rule and what occurred beforehand.

The author provides a brief summary of the distant past (the founding of Rome etc) and a more detailed run-up to Aurelian’s life and reign. Similarly, the immediate aftermath is written of in more detail than more distant events.

This is something I liked a lot because the context of the world in which Aurelian grew up and the ailing state of the Roman Empire is critical to understanding how impressive and important his victories were. It was also enjoyable to read about another emperor, the Gothic Claudius, who was Aurelian’s predecessor and began a string of excellent general-emperors.

The writing style is concise and easy to read, and the author makes it plain where information is considered dubious, suspicious or is blatant tosh. As well as looking at the many military victories and defeats of Aurelian and others economics are also included. This might seem a bit dry, but actually it’s of interest and significance because rampant inflation fuelled by the increasingly powerful and regicidal armies helped to weaken the Roman Empire.

In addition, the role of a very long and deadly plague (lasting decades) upon the manpower of the Empire helps to explain why the military prowess of Rome declined.

Books of this kind usually have a number of photographs in, and this one is no exception, with several of various ruins and coinage.

Another area of interest was the array of enemies that Rome faced (namely, rebels and break-away empires, the return of Persia and a host of barbarians). The author paints a vivid picture of the very long front of the Empire (the Rhine, the Danube and the Euphrates mostly) and puts into context the particular threats posed and the reasoning behind the numerous break-away empires/emperors.

However, the greatest enemy Rome faced was her own armies, which had become increasingly ill-disciplined, prone to pronouncing (often unwilling) generals emperor and essentially throwing their weight around.

I hope that John White writes some more emperor biographies, because this book was thoroughly enjoyable.

Thaddeus

Skyrim: First Impressions

This is a preliminary review based upon a few days’ play. I will give a proper, full review later, but there are certain elements of a game that can easily be reviewed very quickly, and it’ll be a while before I can do a proper review due to the size of the game. The version I’ve got is the PS3 (mine is an old, fat 40GB one). Install size is, contrary to reports, 4.3GB.

My initial character was a lady Nord (my favourite race in Oblivion, so it’s nice to be in their home province) named Asgerd Njalsdottir. I focused upon a primarily warrior approach with a sword and shield. When I write the proper review (which will also cover factions, wider ranging exploration, how the game feels at higher levels and so on) I will also have some experience with a stealthy character and a mage.

Character Creation

Mostly an improvement, although given Oblivion’s character creator was amongst its weakest points this doesn’t mean much. They’ve shifted to a more Dragon Age type system where you get to choose various eye, nose, mouth etc presets and then fiddle with them.

Pleasingly, the spray-on beards have gone. Particularly nice are the options for scars and war paint. However, it’s not all for the better as gone are the RGB options for hair (you get a number of preset colours now), hair length changes (must admit this doesn’t bother me much) and skin colour, where you also have just a few preset options. I’ve not fiddled extensively with all the races, but I’ve got to say that the Argonians and Khajiit have very nice ‘skin’ tones, with the cats able to look like Siberian or Bengal tigers or very dark, almost like black panthers. It’s also great to be able to choose weight/muscle.

Because stats have been thrown overboard, and encumbrance and speed are equal across the races, the racial option is largely cosmetic.

User Interface (menus, conversations, first/third person)

The menu’s pretty user-friendly, although the removal of the ability to see your own character in-menu as you equip or remove items is a step backwards. This can be gotten around by going to the third person and then fiddling (the menu is transparent, so you can see what stuff looks like on your character).

I would’ve preferred a menu that wasn’t quite so generic, however. It’s functional and pretty intuitive, but Oblivion’s was instantly recognisable as a fantasy/historical game menu.

Conversations work in a similar way to Fallout 3, with options to try and intimidate or persuade people, or just beat the crap out of them until your fists make them see reason.

I did play with the third person briefly, and it’s clearly a lot better than Oblivion. Personally, I prefer first person, because I think it fits the game better, but the alternative is now a reasonable option.

Levelling system

The worst thing about Oblivion was the damned levelling system. From what I’ve gathered in a day or two of playing, Skyrim’s is much, much better. Levelling depends upon skill increases, which occur when you use a particular skill or get it trained by an expert, or when you read a skill book. Higher skill increases lead to faster levelling, I think, so a narrow character (like Asgerd) levels more rapidly (she’s level 10 right now).

It’s quite hard to choose between different perks even with an archetype warrior (my only non-Combat skill is lockpicking, which is identical, basically, to Fallout 3). Some have multiple levels (usually 3 or 5) and most require a certain skill level to be acquired. There also appear to be very few ‘dud’ perks. The first time I levelled I didn’t take a perk, because I pressed the ‘back’ button and it closed the menu rather than returning to the constellation list. The use of constellations, incidentally, is simple but excellent and dovetails nicely with the destiny theme of the Dovahkiin.

Combat and crafting

I was surprised by how different melee combat felt compared to Oblivion. As I wrote in an earlier piece on Skyrim, it’s essentially unchanged (except that you can dual-wield now, if you want to). However, you can only really tell the difference when you play the game. Everything’s a little slower, and at first it feels clumsy, but later it becomes more enjoyable because it’s rougher round the edges and more realistic because of it.

There’s been much talk of the finishing moves (which come in first and third person regardless of which you use for playing). Occasionally they can be irksome (like when you’ve got six more people to kill) but sometimes they’re a very satisfying end to the fight, particularly when it’s been close and difficult. There’s nothing better than a miniature scene of you ramming your sword through someone’s torso and reminding them who the Dovahkiin is. On the whole, I think they’re a decent addition.

Being a good Nord, Asgerd’s very into ye olde smithing. It’s the Combat crafting skill and can be used to both improve weapons and armour and create your own, as well as making bits and pieces that can be useful (leather and leather strips, for example). The system’s easy to learn and enjoyable, and really can improve your gear. At level 7 or 8 I improved the damage of my weapon from 11 to 15 using the grindstone, and used some components I had to make a shield that was 5 points of defence better than the one I had equipped.

I haven’t fiddled with alchemy or enchanting yet, but imagine that they’re also not too hard to learn and of great use (my second character will be a Khajiit rogue, so I’ll learn about alchemy then).

Graphics

Better than Oblivion, basically. The biggest difference isn’t with the landscape and plants, better though they are, but with faces and water. Faces are now more varied, especially between races (admittedly, Imperial and Bretons are bloody hard to tell apart) and realistic. The water was a pleasant surprise, and looks great (with the slight exception of rapids, which look not quite so good).

Level/landscape design is greatly improved. Even within the first hour or so it’s clear that the game has more varied regions, with lots of mountainous areas, flat tundra and so on. It’s also worth pausing occasionally and just looking around at the jagged mountains piercing the clouds. Regarding dungeons, they’re distinctive and (on average) larger than those of the predecessor game.

The world is much more alive and active than Oblivion. There are wild goats, deer, rabbits, foxes, fish, chickens and probably more. Wolves are back, as are rather vicious sabre-toothed cats.

Sound

The music is very good, as might be expected and sound effects have been improved upon. Voice-acting’s harder to assess without many hours of gameplay, but I’d say it’s a bit better than Oblivion. What jars is that, initially, there’s a nice effort to go for a Nordic accent by many characters, and then someone appears with a blatant American accent. It’s like The Hunt For Red October where everybody has a Russian accent except for Comrade Connery. However, generally, voice-acting is better than Oblivion. A special mention is deserved by the wizard in Whiterun whose voice actor sounded like he really couldn’t be bothered. I’d like to think the character’s meant to be disinterested (it would fit, as he’s haughty and a pratt) but even the very nice Asgerd wanted to murder the bugger.

Bugs, quibbles and other things that fit nowhere else

After six hours, I had a freeze. Obviously, this was not to my liking, but, at the time of writing, I haven’t had another (touch wood). Occasionally the frame rate could be a little better and there’s sometimes a little tearing, but these two points aren’t major negatives (for me, anyway). I’ve briefly read about others’ experiences and it seems that the freezing has been more common for others, so it might be that the fat 40GB model is luckier (I’ve also turned off auto-saving, as this irritated me and I’m a compulsive saver anyway, and it seemed to work for Dragon Age 2). Incidentally, the first auto-save lasts longer than most and may make you think it’s frozen. It hasn’t (unless it has, obviously. Ahem).

Encumbrance is much much much better. All characters have 300 to start with which is plenty for quite a long time, and increases by 5 every time you improve your stamina at levelling up. Furthermore, weapons and armour seem to weigh a bit less and the absence of degradation means you don’t need spare shields or sword, or repair hammers.

Early conclusion

The freeze pissed me off, but if it’s a rare occurrence or a one-off I can live with it. The game’s enormous, combat feels more dangerous and exciting, there’s a huge range of possibilities and I like it a lot. On the downside is the freeze, some lacklustre voice-acting and, er, I think that’s it.

If the freeze is rare or a one-off I think the game will end up being 9/10.

Thaddeus

The shadow of the Roman Empire

One of the things I like most about classical history is that the principal states (Sparta, Athens, Rome) still dominate, in many ways, the modern world.

Over two thousand years have passed since Athens and Sparta faded, and even the mighty (Western) Roman Empire fell about 15 centuries ago. But, despite that, the shadow, especially of Rome, continues to loom large.

For a start, when you visit my blog you’re reading the Latin alphabet, essentially. A number of names that are either Roman or Greek, or modern derivatives, remain popular (Marcus, Alexander, Lucy etc) and many terms (particularly of a scientific nature) are Latin or Greek.

Architecture is a more concrete, if you’ll pardon the pun, example. Indeed, concrete was used by the Romans in the construction of the Colosseum. A great many modern buildings make use of pediments, Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns (the White House being a prime example).

Today, democracy is seen as essential for a modern constitution. Indeed, the Lycurgan idea of a mixed constitution where genuinely powerful monarchs (or diarchs) and the elite also held sway would be rather frowned upon. Indeed, it’s a supreme historical irony that it was the Spartans who helped safeguard the cradle of democracy (Athens) at Thermopylae. Concepts about law and justice are also heavily influenced by Rome, which, although a harsh mistress, did have a series of properly codified laws.

The national borders of modern countries occurred after the Western Empire fell. Despite that, the idea of Britannia was a Roman one (even if the stupidly designed new coins have axed the splendid icon for what seems to be an idea cooked up by an educationally sub-normal second former, but there we are). It was also the Eastern Empire that effectively acted as a shield for most of Europe to grow out of the Dark Ages without being overrun by the Persians and then the Ottoman Turks (although they did finally, tragically, crack open Byzantium and make their way west, without the Eastern Empire they would have gotten far further far faster).

Culturally, the Roman/Greek world also made a permanent impression upon the collective psyche of Europe. I’m not just speaking of the excellent works of art that the Renaissance harked back to, but the idea of imperial glory and civilisation which was aped and admired by the Czars of Russia, amongst others.

The further back in time you go the more significant every event becomes. It’s like a line, and a different decision marks a deviation. The nearer to the end, the smaller the final change of course. If Scipio had lost at Zama, or Pompey had won at Pharsalus the world might very well be unrecognisable. And if the Gothic Claudius or Aurelian had been rubbish… well, I’ll get onto that more in the next piece.

It’s worth recalling that both Western and Eastern Empires (the former especially) were defeated as much by infighting and bickering sapping the strength of the military as by external foes. When patriotism and loyalty to the state is eclipsed by ambition and loyalty to individuals empires wane and fall.

Thaddeus