What Internal and External Forces Contributed to the Fall of Rome - Assignment Example

FINAL ESSAY A Explain the fall of the Roman Empire. What internal and what external forces contributed to the fall of Rome? The Roman Empire lasted for more than a millennium, but its end came when it became too large and too difficult to defend against external elements, because of internal weaknesses. Classical history ends in 476 AD, at which time the medieval and then Renaissance period began. At 476 A.D. the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, was deposed by the Germanic Odoacer, and thereafter assumed rule over the western part of what once was the Roman Empire. There are other incidents, however, which may likewise have signalled the demise of the Roman Empire. For some, the empire collapsed when it was divided into two and each half came under the rule of a separate emperor. Rome remained the capital of the western half, while the eastern half became known as the Byzantine Empire the capital of which was in Constantinople. Others would say, however, that the decline of Rome was not marked by a single event, but was an gradual process that lasted for a hundred years, while still others say that Rome merely evolved and adapted, but did not collapse. The decline of Rome is attributed to several causes. First, the growing influence of Christianity took power away from the Roman emperor and concentrated it in the Church leaders. Second, the barbarians and vandals, strengthened by its association with Rome itself (Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, 2006), also took over massive territories in Carthegenia, in Africa, as well as looted the treasury, thereby reducing Rome’s invincibility. The deterioration of the army, poor management of the economy, and the cultural as well as geographical split in the Roman Empire, all contributed to the gradual decay in the empire (Rita J. Markel, The Fall of the Roman Empire, 2007). Finally, the rise of Islam was also deemed to have contributed to Rome’s decay (Jean-Charles-Léonard Simonde Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, 1834). Overall, the Roman Empire just became too massive and complicated for the rule of a single ruler, and in the absence of a strong Emperor, the empire naturally declined of its own accord. B-1. Describe the rise of Islam. What impact did it have on society, politics, art and literature? Islam’s influence over Western Europe had brought about great political, social, scientific, and artistic renewal, at a time when Europe was wallowing in the period known as the Dark Ages. According to several historians, Islam was the impetus that brought Europe out of the medieval period, with its backward standing in the fields of mathematics, astronomy and medicine, into the cultural renewal of the Renaissance (Harun Yahya, The History of Islam in Europe, 2010). Islam first captured Europe’s attention when the caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab overrun and captured Jerusalem in the year 638. This called attention to the spreading conquests of Islam; and four hundred years later, the Crusades of King Richard the Lion-Hearted sought the recovery of Jerusalem, among other things. The process of interaction between these two societies, however, allowed elements of Islam’s advanced civilization to filter into their own (Peter Barrett, Science and Theology Since Copernicus: The Search for Understanding, 2004). For instance, the art of paper making, which originated from the Chinese, was assimilated by the Muslims and spread to the Islamic cities of Samarkand and Baghdad where it was improved upon. This gave rise to the first public lending libraries. Paper-making was then spread to Europe in the 13th century. Other institutions that saw their beginnings in the Islamic world are the public and psychiatric hospitals, academic-degree granting universities, the astronomical observatories and research institutes. One of the earliest degrees given out by the universities was the doctorate in medicine (Francoise Micheau, The Scientific Institutions in the Medieval Near East, 1996). It is through such institutions that knowledge was efficiently spread, and effectively caused Europe to emerge from its medieval period into the Renaissance. C-1. How did the rise of feudalism indicate that life was becoming more settled and organized in Western Europe? The rise of feudalism was an indication of the greater organization taking place in Western European society in the High Middle Ages. Feudalism is a contractual system of political and military relationships that existed among members of the nobility. It was characterized by the granting of fiefs in the form of land and labour, in consideration of the rendering of political and military services, sealed with an oath of fealty and homage (Fred A. Cazel, Feudalism, 2010). The exact origins of feudalism as an institution is not clear, but they are generally given to be either Roman or Germanic. What is certain that feudalism as a system of social units emerged to fill the void left by the decay of social institutions in the former Roman Empire and, thus, the collapse of centralized government (Rushton Coulborn, Feudalism in History, 1956). The feudal division to sovereignties was the precursor to what eventually became the mediaeval town in Western Europe. This is not say that without feudalism, urban communities would not have developed, because there already were rudiments of such before feudalism. The novelty is that the feudal mode of production was the first to accommodate the autonomous development of the community in the context of a natural-agrarian economy (Perry Anderson, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism, 1974). As such, many scholars felt that as an alternative and in reaction to the anarchy of collapsing imperialism and Christendom, feudalism offered the stabilizing force where communities reached inwards and developed their own self-sustaining economy, local defense, and system of government. The interlocking personal relationships provided a matrix that sustained Western Europe at a time when central power was non-existent. D-1. Discuss the impact of the towns and rising middle class on the culture of the Late Middle Ages. The conventional belief that the Industrial Revolution was sparked by the invention of the steam engine has been challenged by recent studies. It now appears that the Industrial Revolution had its beginnings in the early Middle Ages, which predates most estimates (Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization, 1932). Observers who are of this opinion point to the invention of the printing press and the mechanical clock as two of the more important devices that brought about a synchronisation and regimentation of human activity that ushered in the Industrial Revolution. Together with this is the early patent system, the Statute of Monopolies of 1623, that granted limited monopolies to inventors on their inventions (Brad Sherman & Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911, 1999). These developments brought about the rise of affluence that created the middle class, seen to be the motive power in industrializing Europe. The emergence of towns also had a profound effect on the social, cultural and economic life towards the end of the Middle Ages. It should be recalled that the old feudal system was based on land ownership; under the system of townships and cities, economic life was largely independent of agriculture and land ownership. The noveau riche derived their wealth from craft, trade and business, and did not require the protection or subsistence provided by a noble or feudal lord. The middle class which also dominated the towns were often more educated, richer, and self-sustaining than the landed nobility. Thus, the township system provided a more dynamic political-economic model for the post-mediaeval period that enabled faster growth and expansion than the old feudal system (Albrecht Classen, Urban Space in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age, 2009). E-2. Compare and contrast the High Renaissance and Early Mannerist styles in art. What are their differences and similarities? Chronologically, the Mannerist style developed after the High Renaissance of the 16th century, but before the Baroque era in the 17th century (Roy T. Matthews, The Western Humanities: Beginnings through the Renaissance, 1998). One may say that Mannerism presented an antithesis to the classical approach of the Renaissance, or even as a reaction to it. Mannerism, however, is not a rejection of classicism. While both styles emphasize interpretation of the human form, High Renaissance abided by the natural proportions and relaxed postures ascribed to by the Classical tenet. On the other hand, Mannerism, originally a derogatory term, pertained to the “artificial” style (maniera) seen in what were described as the disproportionate limbs and contorted positions of the human figures depicted, but which to others appeared “elongated, hyper-elegant and sensuous forms” (Dana Facaros & Michael Pauls, Bologna and Emilia Romagna, 2007). At first, Mannerist art was thought to be the result of post-classical decline, and that mannerism was seen as a “rigid routine” that purported to imitate the great Renaissance masters. It was only later that the new style was seen as indicative of artistic individuality (as against classicism’s studied exactness), a conditioned mode of expression, and with a thoroughly positive connotation rather than the original negative significance ascribed to it (Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art: Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque, 1999). Despite its early disrepute, Early Mannerism soon appealed to a small group of aristocrats who patronized the arts, such as Cosimo I, the grand duke of Tuscany, and Francis I, the King of France (Horst Woldemar Janson & Anthony F. Janson, History of Art: The Western Tradition, 2003). Read More