Decline of the Roman Empire - Question

Could someone explain to me how the thesis of a Roman Empire failing due to its citizens' becoming decadent came into being? I'm trying to look it up on Google and Wikipedia, and I've found various interesting hypothesis but nothing much related to this particular one.
 
Decadent means "rotten" or "decaying".

It doesn't mean having orgies.

I am actually looking for the origins of the thesis in which such orgies are seen as a sign of moral decay. Interesting, in German one can use "decadent" to describe such.
 
Could someone explain to me how the thesis of a Roman Empire failing due to its citizens' becoming decadent came into being? I'm trying to look it up on Google and Wikipedia, and I've found various interesting hypothesis but nothing much related to this particular one.

mainly because of the treaty "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibson (pubblished somewhen around 1750).
Gibson was well-intentioned, erudite and tried to pubblish a comprehensive treaty on the matter, but was also imbued of prejudices about southern europe.
The thesis caught the attention of german erudites in the first half of 1800, which used it also in order to construct the beautiful legend of the "honest goth barbarian" as opposed to the "corrupt, decadent late roman citizen" (germany was being born as national entity, thus it had to find his founding myths somewhere: Fritigern and Alaric were some examples)
 
mainly because of the treaty "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibson (pubblished somewhen around 1750).
Gibson was well-intentioned, erudite and tried to pubblish a comprehensive treaty on the matter, but was also imbued of prejudices about southern europe.
The thesis caught the attention of german erudites in the first half of 1800, which used it also in order to construct the beautiful legend of the "honest goth barbarian" as opposed to the "corrupt, decadent late roman citizen" (germany was being born as national entity, thus it had to find his founding myths somewhere: Fritigern and Alaric were some examples)

Thanks a lot, I found a sketchy summary of his works on wikipedia. Let's see if I can dig out more. :eek:
 
I think mailinutile meant Edward Gibbon. Also, if I have understood correctly your question, we can track the idea of roman decadence asociated to moral decadence as early as in Tacitus works(!). Of course he didn't talk about the "official" historiographic roman decadence, but he influenced noticeably in Gibbon's thoughts.

Also, note that Gibbon, maybe following Tacitus contempt towards the christians, considers the Christianism one of the reasons of roman decadence.
 
Last edited:
Also, note that Gibbon, maybe following Tacitus contempt towards the christians, considers the Christianism one of the reasons of roman decadence.

Eh, I haven't read Gibbon in a long time, but I seem to recall Christianity being cited as a reason for the decline of the Roman military tradition and martial virtues, not as a reason for moral decadence.
 
Eh, I haven't read Gibbon in a long time, but I seem to recall Christianity being cited as a reason for the decline of the Roman military tradition and martial virtues, not as a reason for moral decadence.

I said roman decadence, not moral decadence.
 
The Romans were already quite depraved before the Empire reached it's climax, or even existed, technically. Julius Caesar (who was around before the Republic turned Imperial), for example, said the Belgae were the bravest of the Gauls partially because they were the least exposed to Roman things that weaken the mind. There are other references made to an inverse connection between martial prowess and 'wine, women and song' (mostly on an individual basis), but there is no actual correlation between a supposed depravity of Roman society and worse performance of Roman legions in the field, as far as I know.
 
I said roman decadence, not moral decadence.

Probably should have explicitly said so, considering this thread is specifically about decadence in the moral sense, as clarified in post 3. For that matter, lack of martial virtues in favor of Christian virtues really can't be described as decadence at all in English. Does even Gibbon describe it as such?
 
Probably should have explicitly said so, considering this thread is specifically about decadence in the moral sense
Probably


I said roman decadence, not moral decadence.

To make the things clear. I mentioned Gibbons' considerations about christianity because someone made a reference to the orgies etc. In that sense, there is also a common sterotype about roman society and mores as deviant wich has part of its inspiration in the ideas of some early christian apologetics regarding the paganism. And that connects with the next post:

The Romans were already quite depraved before the Empire reached it's climax, or even existed, technically. Julius Caesar (who was around before the Republic turned Imperial), for example, said the Belgae were the bravest of the Gauls partially because they were the least exposed to Roman things that weaken the mind. There are other references made to an inverse connection between martial prowess and 'wine, women and song' (mostly on an individual basis), but there is no actual correlation between a supposed depravity of Roman society and worse performance of Roman legions in the field, as far as I know.

Of course, the supposed depravation of romans has nothing to do with their perfomance in the battlefield, nor with their performance in other fields. But, on one hand, depravation is a subjetive term. On the other hand, sometimes the moral laxity of the romans is exagerated, not only by the influnce of aforementioned apologetics (some of them) but also by "campaings" an critics from certain sectors and figures in the roman pagan society. Actually, the roman traditional moral was rather harsh, inspired in an agrarian ideal (Ciccinatus as ideal) and certain sectors in the roman society, specially with the arrival of particular cultural influences, criticized, and even prosecuted, the "immorality" of those mores (for example, as an early example the famous senatusconsultum "de bacanalibus" and figures like Cato the Elder, and later Pline (also the elder) or Tacitus himself). So, there two separate sources and traditions of criticism toward what was considered depravation, with different origin, agendas and even opposed each other (obviously, that opposition once the chrstianity appears).

Cheers.
 
What you mustn't forget is the role Roman writers themselves played in creating that story. Criticising the moral failings of the present and holding up an idealised past as a foil was an established genre of literature, and almost everyone whose writings survive did it. It probably wasn't that the Romans were particularly decadent, but they themselves *thought* they were (much as modern Western society for some reason is convinced it's particularly shallow, heartless, violent and crime-ridden). Martialis, Juvenal, Apuleius and Petronius painted a broad canvas of mad diffusion and pointless monery-grubbing, Livy and Tacitus firmly established the idea that the ancestors were infinitely superior to the present, and of course the major Christian writers that shaped Medieval and Renaissance reception such as Orosius happily picked up that narrative. Roman literature was deeply convinced that the moral bearings of its society were lost, all the while suppoerting one of the most fascinating and influential discourses on morality the world has ever seen.
 
What you mustn't forget is the role Roman writers themselves played in creating that story. Criticising the moral failings of the present and holding up an idealised past as a foil was an established genre of literature, and almost everyone whose writings survive did it. It probably wasn't that the Romans were particularly decadent, but they themselves *thought* they were (much as modern Western society for some reason is convinced it's particularly shallow, heartless, violent and crime-ridden). Martialis, Juvenal, Apuleius and Petronius painted a broad canvas of mad diffusion and pointless monery-grubbing, Livy and Tacitus firmly established the idea that the ancestors were infinitely superior to the present, and of course the major Christian writers that shaped Medieval and Renaissance reception such as Orosius happily picked up that narrative. Roman literature was deeply convinced that the moral bearings of its society were lost, all the while suppoerting one of the most fascinating and influential discourses on morality the world has ever seen.


Great post, couldn't agree more.
 
What you mustn't forget is the role Roman writers themselves played in creating that story. Criticising the moral failings of the present and holding up an idealised past as a foil was an established genre of literature, and almost everyone whose writings survive did it. It probably wasn't that the Romans were particularly decadent, but they themselves *thought* they were (much as modern Western society for some reason is convinced it's particularly shallow, heartless, violent and crime-ridden). Martialis, Juvenal, Apuleius and Petronius painted a broad canvas of mad diffusion and pointless monery-grubbing, Livy and Tacitus firmly established the idea that the ancestors were infinitely superior to the present, and of course the major Christian writers that shaped Medieval and Renaissance reception such as Orosius happily picked up that narrative. Roman literature was deeply convinced that the moral bearings of its society were lost, all the while suppoerting one of the most fascinating and influential discourses on morality the world has ever seen.


I also strongly suggest reading Zosimo's New History:
you will find how much of a middle-age superstition could be find in a "thinking-himself-rightous" member of the roman elite
 
Top