Thread by @byzantineprof

In the month of July, I will be reading "The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome" by Edward Watts (2021). I will provide a free mini-review by tweeting out observations on the book as I go, adding to this thread over the course of the month. #AHAReads

In the introduction, Watts makes clear that he will be showing us both "good" and "bad" * uses of the language of Roman decline and renewal (page 6). This is a bold choice, as it probably will invite lots of disagreement over which examples get placed in which category.

* He does not literally use the words "good" and "bad" but rather "enhancing the bonds that held imperial subjects together" and "with the intention of dividing their society." Good and bad seemed like reasonable shorthand for a tweet, but I want to clarify.

In Chapter 1, Watts brings up the use of the language of Roman decline in a time we might not expect: the Roman Republic, during the age of great conquests (2nd century BC) in which the Romans' empire was expanding dramatically.

In this chapter, the primary bogeyman is Marcus Portius Cato (Cato the Elder), who was, to be concise, both a curmudgeon and a xenophobe whose xenophobic ideas were proved wrong almost immediately.

Cato loudly proclaimed the decline of Rome and blamed the influx of wealth from Roman conquests as well as the influence of Greeks, which he felt corrupted Roman culture (pages 9-12).

Contrary to Cato's opinions, Romans embraced Greeks, the Greek language, and Greek culture in the coming decades. This was a recipe that led to Rome's greatest expansion and success. Watts might have been a little firmer in emphasizing that (page 11).

In Chapter 2, Watts covers the Late Republic and reign of Augustus. The argument is that in the Late Republic, politicians of all stripes believed Rome was in decline, and Watts essentially says they were right (pages 20-21). So I guess there are no "bad" uses of decline here.

Just kidding. By the end of the chapter, he says most of those claiming decline in this period were "cynical and ambitious politicians selling themselves as Rome's great redeemers" (page 28). So Rome really was in decline, but saying so was cynical.

Augustus interwove language of Roman decline in the Late Republic with his own claims to have restored Rome. Watts is willing to give this one to him (he "did bring about peace, stability, and a return to social order") but argues that this came "at a tremendous cost" (page 28).

Chapter 3 covers, in broad strokes, the early imperial period from the death of Augustus through the reign of Trajan. Watts is keen to emphasize that rhetoric of decline changed: the present could not be declared a period of decline without offending the current emperor (p. 39).

So instead, when a new emperor took over, his predecessor's reign might be declared a period of decline that the current emperor needed to right. This happened most conspicuously during the reigns of Nerva (96-98) and Trajan (98-117).

Nerva, Trajan, and their supporters recast the reign of Domitian (81-96), which Watts argues was actually quite good, as a terrible period of decline that only they could right (pp. 31-38). Watts savages the authors Tacitus and Pliny for their hypocrisy in this regard.

In Chapter 4, Watts moves through the age of the five good emperors (96-180) and the Severan dynasty (193-235). Watts trots out the hot takes, arguing that the age of the five good emperors was actually not a golden age for Romans but was terrible (pp. 43-44),

that the beginning of the reign of Commodus was smooth and not an obvious and bad break with the reign of Marcus Aurelius (pp. 44-45), and that Septimius Severus was a more successful emperor than Marcus Aurelius (p. 48).

Watts makes an interesting argument that Severus, by proclaiming continuity with Aurelius, was forced to avoid proclaiming an age of restoration, even though in Watts mind he really did preside over one (p. 49). He could not claim Aurelius had presided over an age of decline.

Chapter 5 reviews the Third Century Crisis. Watts points out that part of our perception of this crisis is due to the lack of dynasties in this ~50 year period, which saw 26 different emperors. Each new emperor had a vested interest in proclaiming his predecessor was terrible.

So each new emperor could announce the time of the previous emperor was one of crisis and decline, and boast that only he could reverse the trend and bring about renewal (p. 53). Decius and Valerian come in for the highest criticism for this (pp. 54-60).

The hot take for this chapter is that having regional powers in the 260s (Gallic & Palmyrene Empires) was actually a positive development, and that something special and important was lost when Aurelian, Restorer of the World, reunited the Roman Empire (pp. 65-66).

On to Chapter 6, in which Watts discusses the tetrarchy and the reign of Constantine. Diocletian and Maximian made maximal use (har har) of the language of imperial restoration and credited the army and gods for their successes.

Watts sees the Great Persecution of Christians under these emperors as a sign that the tetrarchs were concerned to preserve their restoration of Rome's fortunes by targeting those they thought undermined it (p. 71).

Christians fought back, utilizing the language of Roman decline to argue that by imposing the persecution, Diocletian and his fellow rulers had precipitated... you guessed it... a new round of decline!

Watts feels that Constantine broke the decline/renewal model by focusing not on "making Rome great again," but on returning "the nations of the world to the ancestral piety all humans once shared" (p. 78). There have been many sweeping claims about Constantine, but this is wild.

In Chapter 7, Watts covers the very different reigns of Constantius II and Julian. He argues that Constantius "pushed Rome in revolutionary new directions" (p. 81) both religiously and by raising the stature of Constantinople.

Julian ordered the resumption of non-Christian worship and attempted to establish a priestly hierarchy for Rome's paganism. While Constantius used the language of revolution and progress, Julian used traditional language of decline (Constantine+Constantius) and renewal (himself).

I think Nicola Ernst has written more convincingly on Constantius II and Julian in our Routledge volume (link below), and I am interested to read Jeremy Swist's (@MetalClassicist) take on Watts' approach to Julian's reign.
routledge.com/The-Routledge-…

Watts concludes this chapter by noting "the steady territorial decline of Rome had begun" with the death of Julian (p. 88). This is a strange, almost Gibbon-esque, way of looking at the history of the later Roman Empire. I thought we had moved past it.

Tagging @nicolaholm on this, since I forgot her Twitter handle when I wrote the original tweet. Sorry Nicola!