In your opinion, which phenomenon had a more profound impact on Rome: the over extension of imperial power or the mass migration of peoples from Romes frontier? Why?
I'd say the mass of people moving into Rome was a more profound impact, mainly because of what that does to the population. With so many people entering the empire, goods such as money and food had to be distributed differently, the mood of the people would change, resulting in a very different culture. All of this would impact Rome in a manner that is unable to be fixed, unless a dictator could see this happening and make the corrections in a short enough time.
How or even should a historian evaluate the "authenticity" of the conversion of Constantine?
ReplyDeleteHow helpful is the term "transformation", when considering the cultural and political shifts that took place in the Roman Empire during the fifth century? Is it more or less helpful than Gibbon's terms, "decline" and "fall"? Why?