Fall Of The Roman Empire

Fall Of The Roman Empire

Contents

TOC o “1-3” h z u HYPERLINK l “_Toc377277079” Introduction PAGEREF _Toc377277079 h 1

HYPERLINK l “_Toc377277080” Reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire. PAGEREF _Toc377277080 h 1

HYPERLINK l “_Toc377277081” Impact on Art and Artists PAGEREF _Toc377277081 h 3

HYPERLINK l “_Toc377277082” Art and artists PAGEREF _Toc377277082 h 4

HYPERLINK l “_Toc377277083” The Critique PAGEREF _Toc377277083 h 6

IntroductionThe study below is an examination of the fall of the Roman Empire and its implications thereafter on art and artists in Rome. Due to various proposed reasons, Roman Empire did fall and the consequences were not only felt in the change of power but also in arts and artists. Contained in the discussion herein are the reasons leading to the fall of one of the greatest empire of human history. According to various authors, the reasons include fall due general malaise, mono-causal decay, catastrophic collapse, and transformation. However, the study focuses on the first two causes only that is mono-causal decay and fall due to general malaise. The impact of these changes on art and architecture is also in discussion herein. Different emperors also affected the art in Rome to large extents. While Hadrian brought the Greek culture Constantine allowed Christianity leading to change in culture of the community. The study in this paper is majorly on the above named aspects that is, fall of the Roman Empire and the way it did change art in Rome.

Reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire.Fall due to general malaise

Edward Gibson wrote a book titled “The History of the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire” and squarely blamed the decay on the civic virtue of Roman citizens (Gibbon & Milman, 2007). He focuses on the period when the emperor failed to protect the nation and gave the mandate of protection to another tribe. Consequently, after the tribe realized that the empire was too weak to hold together they attacked the empire. Hence, according to him authorities failed in their mandate when they gave the role of defending the nation to a barbarian community that would later turn against them. The assertion in this theory is that Rome was a catalyst to its failure and according to Gibson, anytime the nation registered prosperity, it did add a catalyst of decay on itself and whenever they conquered a new territory there was pressure addition to its fabric. Gradually, the fabric holding together the great empire gave in to pressure and it sealed the end of the empire.

Gibson was not alone in the theory; expounding more on this theory is historian Arther Ferrill who maintained that the decline of the empire was largely as a by result of the existence of German tribes within the defenders of the country. When Romans agreed to Germans existence in the army, leaders of the empire had made a mistake. Consequently due to the mistake the culture of barbarization entered the nation and royalty shifted from the government to the army commanders (Brown, 2007). Furthermore, historians such as James Burke and Arnold Toynbee see the empire as a failed system since its inception. According to them, the commencement of the imperial era was the start of collapse of all institutions founded based on Republican times. The only remedy to salvage the oncoming failure was changes that the current leaders could not possibility enact.

Mono-causal decay

Resting the case of general malaise, attention shifts to mono-causal decay. Here too various authors gave their reasons for the support of the theory and a Czech Republic historian Radovan Richta believed that technology was the driver of history. Hence, inventing the horseshoe in Germany did alter the equation military in Rome. On the other hand, William H. McNeill who was a historian added the factor of disease into the reasons of Roman Decay. McNeill is the author of the book named “Plague and Plaques” and contained therein is the Antoine Plague contracted by the larger population during the 165AD era. Roman population suffered the severe plague as a result weakening the whole nation and gearing it towards the inevitable failure. For twenty years, one or two diseases swept over the country and killed half of the population and according to the author; this was the cause of the fall.

In the third century, the Plague of Cyprian also paid a visit to the country and McNeil maintains that the severe attack by diseases did leave the economy of the country too large for the handling by lessening population (Gibbon & Milman, 2007). This totally destroyed the western empire and left the eastern empire vulnerable although not enough for its immediate destruction. According to studies conducted by archeologists, from the era of the 2nd century continuing forward, many of the Roman towns began to shrink in size and the Romans tax base could not support any governmental institutions like the military. The cause of most of the diseases sweeping the country was largely associated with the Asia contact. Previously, Romans had protection from epidemics by their hygienic behaviors. However once the government did establish contact Asia for trade purposes, region became infected.

Impact on Art and ArtistsDuring the period of Hadrian, the introduction of many Greek arts saw the light in Rome. Hadrian was famous to take a back seat in the field of conquering more territory and instead invested more resources into the Greek studies, philosophies, and cultures. According to sources, he was more of a Greek hero rather than a leader of the empire and his troops. Consequently, he brought many borrowed ideas into the palace at Tivoli. One example of such is the caryatids flanking the pool, which were adaptations from Erechtheum in the city Athens. In addition to this, the emperor built a temple in the country named “The Temple of Venus and Rome”, which was the sole temple in the city of Rome. It was only during his regime that copied Greek statues spread throughout the empire. His era brought about a breed of artists who were ardent followers of the Greek structures. The two most famous Greek art followers were Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus. One of the sculptures of his time that are around for some time is the equestrian statue, which was the work of Marcus Aurelius and sends a larger than life feeling across the land moreover, it marks the end of his era.

It was during the period of third century that the tides turned on Romans and it was their turn to experience aggression under barbaric rule. However, when Constantine came to power the story changed and again the country again received revival from the wealthy fierce barbaric rulers (Rudeng, 2000). Constantine was not a wise ruler and he made a fatal mistake of transferring the capital away from the west to Constantine polis making the west vulnerable. Afterwards, art did what it does best, changing the image of the society. Art in Rome changed in the simplest of ways like hairstyles, dressing, and in complicated ways when places of worship, housing, and monuments changed tremendously. Latins were largely plain and unsophisticated in their culture and during their time in Rome, the architectural change experienced was mostly in roads, amphitheatres, and roads. Hence, it was only after their departure that sculptures such as the soldiers building a fortress (Brown, 2007). However, change was inevitable it was at this moment that in mosaic and paintings Romans would include subjects like donkeys, which was previously unseen.

Art and artists

In the 16th century, Michelangelo Buonarroti did dominate art not only in the Roman Empire but also in the whole of Europe (Rudeng, 2000). He developed his style the division between the Renaissance and Baroque. He supported neither supported any nor did he oppose either of the two, and used both in his works a style that earned him lots of fame. He employed both Greek and roman types of art as is evident by the use of subjects derived from both forms of art. Most of his work resembled his early pieta and comprised of a balanced and an orderly form like the triangle. However, the latest work that he engaged in would embrace the new world by inclusion of exiting, rough, twisting, and falling forms surfaces.

Making a comparison of the two images that Buonarroti sculptured, it is worth noting that the two are the same but have different styles. On the left, the sculpture portrays high renaissance while on the right, it depict Baroque. The sculptor did arrange Sistine ceiling into frames containing squares and triangles accentuated by classical and prophetical figures. As a result, Rome became the birthplace of all the sculptures of the world and artist from all over the world would visit the city to study its sculptures.

Baroque did use did exaggerate motion and used easy to interpret clear detail for the production of tension, drama, grandeur and exuberance in paintings, sculpture, dance and music. Unlike the art of renaissance, Baroque did not comprise of lines and edges but incorporated light, color and shadow. It does not use characters that are parallel to the plane nor in the centre foreground but tacked away in a corner like the example below.

Baroque is more of sensuous and sensual kind of art. Moreover, it is aristocratic and the art that the ordinary man is accustomed. On the other hand, renaissance uses various techniques in the art. Firstly, use of perspective is common in the art, applied by Giotto Bondone in his work. Painters that were using the style discovered an orderly world and they reflected this in their art. That is, they used backgrounds that would express the feeling of geometric order and clarity.

The CritiqueIn many of the Baroque works there is lack of content, an advantage given to balance and compensate (Gibbon, 2010). An example is the Marino’s work, which is purely a mere form. A style of art should be captivating and has to evoke certain feelings within an audience. Imagination of the spectator needs stretching beyond any imaginable levels. However, all this characteristics are lacking in the style. Designers of the style made a mistake of concentrating too much on an individual as the means of connecting the audience to the artist. Consequently, art becomes less distant from the user, which closes the gap between the user and the art. This has many of times been cited as the reason as to why classically it was rejected in the Latin world. Renaissance criticism developed in the period of 1948 lead by major historians like Giorgio Valla. Renaissance developed ideas of unity and neoclassicism maintaining that literature is the centre of culture. This is not right given that it gives mandate to the author and poet the mandate of preserving literary tradition. Lodovico Casteivetro was among one of the most influential critics of the style.

References

Brown, H. R. L. (2007). Religious dissent in the later Roman Empire. HistoryHYPERLINK “http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hist.1961.46.issue-157/issuetoc” 46,157, 83–101.DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-229x.1961.tb02436.Gibbon, E. &, Milman, H. H. (2007). The decline and fall of the roman empire. New York:Collier & Sons Publishers.Gibbon, E. (2010). The History of the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire. London: Strahan and Cadell Publishers. Rudeng, E. (2000). On the decline and Fall of Empires. Jstor, 4, 1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/40240860