runoff of the degree of development, as in the Roman West. In Eastern (and in Greek) slavery, many elements of more primitive and therefore milder forms of dependence, outwardly reminiscent of serfdom, have been preserved. One way or another, the productive forces of the East - handicraft, trade, urban life - turned out to be less undermined by slavery and longer resisted the terrible crisis that ruined the West. But the difference here was not fundamental, not so much qualitative as quantitative. The historical destinies of the ancient East were the same.

In the middle of the VI century. The Eastern (or Byzantine) Empire made a grandiose effort to restore the former Roman power. Emperor Justinian (527 - 565) started big wars in the West. His commanders Belisarius and Narzes managed to take away northern Africa from the Vandals, to conquer Italy and the southeastern part of Spain from the Goths. Byzantium also made a claim to the cultural heritage of the ancient world. Under Justinian, a huge amount of work was carried out to unify and systematize Roman law, the result of which was the famous Corpus iuris civilis ("Code of civil law"). The grandiose church of St. Sophia, built in Constantinople, was supposed to testify to the power of the empire and the piety of the emperor.

However, these successes, achieved at the cost of a colossal effort, were rather doubtful. The Persians had to be paid off with an annual tribute. The northern border barely held out under the pressure of the Slavs, who penetrated the Balkan Peninsula in large numbers. In Constantinople itself, in 532, a terrible popular uprising broke out, which lasted six days and nearly cost Justinian the throne. The rebels were eventually pushed back to the hippodrome, where government troops killed about 40 thousand people.

Already at the end of the reign of Justinian, symptoms of a crisis appeared, caused by the incredible tension of all the forces of the empire, and under his successors a catastrophe occurred: complete depletion of the treasury, hunger strikes, uprisings and the loss of almost all of Justinian's conquests. Moreover, at the beginning of the 7th c. The Persians began a general offensive on the eastern borders of the empire. In a short time, the empire lost Egypt, Syria and Palestine, and the advance detachments of the Persians reached the Bosphorus itself. At the same time, the Slavs and Avars besieged Constantinople.

True, Emperor Heraclius (610-641) managed to defeat the Persians and regain the lost eastern provinces, but only for a very short time. At the same time that Heraclius was victoriously fighting the Persians, in Arabia, the unification of the Arab tribes under the banner of a new religion, Islam, was taking place.

The end of the 5th century, when the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist, was the end of the era of antiquity. Together with the Roman Empire, an entire era with its values, ideals and special worldview has gone into the past. The ancient foundations gave way to medieval, essentially Christian principles.

Roman society and state on the eve of the fall

The decay of Roman society began long before 476. It was extremely difficult for the state to survive the Crisis of the III century, when soldier emperors were constantly replaced on the throne, unable to strengthen the empire. In the III-IV centuries, there were people on the Roman throne who thought on a national scale and were capable of serious reforms. Thanks to the emperors Diocletian and Constantine, Roman greatness was revived for a while. However, the process of destruction could no longer be stopped. The main reasons for the impending disaster, the researchers include:

• The political and ethnic heterogeneity of the empire. Already in the 2nd century, there was a noticeable difference between the eastern aristocracy, whose representatives ascended to noble ancient Greek families, and the western nobility. In the future, cultural, historical and political differences will lead to the division of a single state into the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. There was no unity among the Roman citizens themselves and the ruling elite, as evidenced by a whole series of civil wars that took place during the III-V centuries.
• Decay of the Roman army. By the 4th century, the image of the courageous Roman legionnaire was completely in the past. The Romans lost all interest in military service and only went there for the money. Even under Septimius Severus (193-211), due to the lack of volunteers, barbarians began to be accepted into the army, which later resulted in a fall in military discipline. In addition, the North, in order to raise the prestige of the military craft, allowed legionnaires to buy land and marry before completing their service. The reforms of the North, of course, played a role in strengthening the combat capability of the state, but later the reverse side of its transformations began to appear. Legion camps began to turn into villages where ordinary peaceful life flowed. Roman units were losing their mobility, and the warriors were losing their dexterity. From now on, the chiefs of the camps had to combine military leadership with the solution of civilian tasks, because of which the process of bureaucratization began in the headquarters, in which the entire state apparatus would later become mired.
• The crisis of the pagan worldview. Over time, the Romans also lost their former religious and ideological ideals, which were the basis of Roman statehood. Ideas about former heroes and gods already seemed naive to educated people, the attempt of the authorities to introduce the cult of the “genius” of emperors also failed. From the 1st century A.D. e. the Roman aristocracy was inclined to the teachings of the Stoics, and among the lower class and slaves, the idea of ​​​​the appearance of a savior who would restore justice was increasingly spreading. The image of the savior was combined with the images of pagan dying and resurrecting gods (Osiris, Attis, Mitra), as well as with the idea that a new life begins beyond the line of death, where everyone will be rewarded according to their deeds. Gradually, Christianity began to develop on this basis, the foundations of which radically differed from the ideals of ancient Roman mythology. Emperor Constantine in 313 proclaimed religious tolerance, which actually meant the victory of the Christian Church and the final collapse of the pagan worldview.
• economic situation. In the 4th century, the collapse of the slave system began in the empire, which led to the decay of cities, a return to subsistence farming, the destruction of economic ties between different regions, and the coarsening of crafts. Since the role of centers of crafts and trade passed from cities to large landowners, the latter began to seriously compete with imperial power. The last Roman emperors could no longer compete with the appetites of their subjects. To maintain the state and its treasury, the emperors raised taxes, because of which the peasants and artisans were massively ruined.
• Barbarian raids. Many historians consider this factor to be the main reason for the destruction of the Western Roman Empire. The Romans first encountered the barbarians in the 2nd century, but then they managed to repel the threat quite easily. However, small skirmishes on the borders of the empire have since become permanent for the Roman legionnaires. In the second half of the 3rd century, the Great Migration of Peoples began, when entire hordes of Asian nomads moved from the expanses of Eastern Siberia, Mongolia, China, etc. to the west. At the forefront of this movement were the Huns - formidable and fearless conquerors. Due to the constant military threat, Emperor Constantine was forced to move the capital of his state to Constantinople, which served as an impetus for the development and growth of the wealth of the eastern part of the empire, but at the same time also caused the decline of its western half. Many European tribes, fleeing the Huns, asked the Roman emperors for asylum. In 378, a battle took place between the Roman emperor Valens and the Visigoths, who settled on the outskirts of the empire. In this battle, the barbarians not only defeated the Roman army, but also killed the emperor. All further relations between the Roman emperors and the barbarians can be characterized as maneuvering. Rome either bribed the barbarian leaders, or tried to pit them against each other, or tried to repulse them. In 395, the empire was officially divided into Western and Eastern parts. The forces of the Western Empire were too weak to deal with the barbarian threat on their own. The tribes of the Suebi, Vandals and others began to seize vast areas and establish their own states here. Every year the Roman emperors were forced to make more and more concessions to the barbarians.

The last years of the empire

By the 5th century, the state finally ceased to cope with the functions assigned to it. The emperors could neither stop the chaos within their state, nor put an end to the constant raids of the barbarians. Meanwhile, the barbarians were no longer limited to campaigns on the outskirts of the state, the threat hung over the Eternal City itself. In 410, Rome was taken and sacked by the Visigoth king Alaric, while Emperor Honorius was hiding from the barbarians in Ravenna. For contemporaries, this event was a real collapse of the old world. However, the empire still continued to exist. In 451, in the Catalaunian fields, the Romans, temporarily united with their enemies - the Visigoths, Saxons and other tribal unions, even managed to stop the formidable leader of the Huns - Attila.

However, this victory did not have much significance for the further fate of Rome. Four years later, the city was sacked by the Vandals. After the pogrom that was perpetrated in the city, the name of this tribe began to mean any acts of senseless destruction.

The last truly significant person in ancient Roman history was Emperor Julius Majorian (457-461). He initiated a series of reforms aimed at reviving the former greatness of the empire. However, Majorin's undertakings frustrated the plans of the barbarian kings and the provincial nobility, accustomed to independence. Therefore, the emperor was soon killed. After his death, several completely insignificant figures were replaced on the Roman throne. In 476, the commander Odoacer (a German by birth) overthrew the last Roman emperor, who, ironically, was called Romulus - just like the legendary founder of Rome, and founded his own state. Thus ended the existence of the Western Roman Empire.

The period of history IV-VII centuries. called the Great Migration of Nations. It is reliably known that at that time several dozen tribes changed their territory of settlement, where they lived for a long period. Now they prefer to go to explore new territories. In connection with this grandiose event, the map of Europe changed dramatically.

The fall of the Roman Empire happened.The Western Roman Empire disappeared, but the small kingdoms of the Germans appeared. Rome has fallen, and this means that the era of antiquity has ended. A new history began - the history of the Middle Ages.

Background of the fall of the Roman Empire

In the III century. Germanic tribes encroached on the borders of the empire of Rome. The Romans managed to hold back their attacks, but at the same time they expended a lot of strength. Some territories passed into the hands of the barbarians, but in general the empire continued to exist. The destruction began with the arrival of the Huns tribe on the European territory. For reasons of their own and incomprehensible to us, they left the territory of Asia. Previously, they were located near the borders of Ancient China.

The Huns went to the West and in 375 ended up on the territory of one of the Germanic tribes - the Goths. The Goths then lived in the northern Black Sea region, they were excellent warriors, but the hordes of the Huns were soon able to defeat them. The Ostrogoths immediately submitted to the Huns, and the Visigoths had to flee to the borders of the Roman Empire. They chose to submit to Rome in order to avoid the massacre of them by the Huns.

The Goths settled on the land of the Roman Empire, but gave little territory. And besides, she was extremely infertile. As a result, food was scarce. There were few food supplies from the Romans. We can say that they openly mocked the Goths, moreover, they interfered in their internal affairs. This led to an uprising. The Goths marched on Constantinople.

In 378, near Adrianople, they were met by the Roman army. There was no way back for the Goths, they rushed into battle. A few hours later the glorious Roman army ceased to exist, the emperor was killed. This battle hit the Roman Empire very hard, the army could not be restored.

In other battles, the empire was already defended by an army of mercenaries. German mercenaries for a fee agreed to protect the Romans from other Germans. Ordinary citizens of the empire did not want to defend its territory, they were of the opinion that life would not get worse after the Germans conquered their territory.

Beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire

The last army that approached the walls of Rome was the army of Hannibal. But even he did not dare to conduct a siege of this city. Rome was the capital of the greatest state. Around it was the territory of the empire. Therefore, the idea to capture the city, to break through the steel legions did not visit any conqueror.

The current emperor of the Roman Empire, Honorius, is still a child - the real power is in the hands of the military leader Stilicho. He was originally a vandal. Many did not trust him, believed that he himself wanted to seize power. Honorius listened to the rumors and Stilicho was killed. The great general has died. The Visigoths approached Rome, the inhabitants were on the verge of death and agreed to surrender. The leader Alaric demanded to bring him all the gold, jewelry and slaves.
The treaty took place, the Visigoths left. But after a couple of years, Alaric again approached the walls of Rome. The gates were opened, how it happened is not known for certain, but in 410 the Roman Empire fell. The city was sacked in three days. Many Romans managed to escape, the rest were sold into slavery. Rome was not useful to Alaric, and he went to the northern territories.
The fall of the "Eternal City" had a terrifying effect on contemporaries. It even got to the point that many believed that the fall of Rome is the collapse of the whole world! Everyone was in despair from the destruction of the previously unshakable, as it seemed, state. The great empire has fallen, what will happen next???
All these feelings were well expressed in his works by Aurelius Augustine. The essay "On the City of God" tried to explain why this happened. Why did the Roman Empire fall? Aurelius expressed the opinion that this is the price for the cruelty that the empire has done for many centuries.

Fall of the Western Roman Empire

The sack of Rome left the empire in complete chaos. The Huns were advancing, who had previously ruined many tribes. The most famous Hun leader was Attila, in order to gain power, he committed fratricide. In 451, Attila crossed the Rhine, he met with the army of the Roman general Aetius. The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields went down in history. It was a meeting of two huge armies, the Huns retreated. A year later, Attila invaded Italy and approached Rome. Pope Leo I gave the leader a gift and he went back. A year later, Attila died at his wedding.

Four years have passed since the Battle of the Catalaunian fields, Rome was again captured by the barbarians - vandals. In 455, the Vandals sailed along the Tiber to Rome, the inhabitants of the city were not ready to defend it. Again the Pope negotiated and the Vandal leader Gaiseric accepted the Roman gifts and sacked Rome for only fourteen days. At the same time, all the inhabitants survived, and churches and temples were not burned.
Few noticed the complete disappearance of the state of the Western Roman Empire. It has long been clear to everyone that this will happen soon, so it did not cause much horror. In 475, Romulus Augustus was emperor in Rome, nicknamed "Augustishka", since he did not play a big political role. In 476 there was a coup d'état. He was arranged by the barbarian Odoacer, but he did not want to be emperor. Obliged the Senate to declare that the emperor of the Western Roman Empire was not needed. Let him be only in the eastern part, they sent a diadem and a purple mantle there. It was the end of a great power. Only its eastern part remained, which later became known as Byzantium.

Fall of the Roman Empire video

1. General situation in the Western Roman Empire.

In the 5th century In 395, the final political division of the previously unified Mediterranean Empire into two state entities took place: the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). Although both of them were headed by the brothers and sons of Theodosius, and in legal theory the idea of ​​a single Empire ruled by only two emperors was preserved, in fact and politically these were two independent states with their capitals (Ravenna and Constantinople), their own imperial courts, with different tasks facing governments, and finally, with different socio-economic bases. The process of historical development in the West and in Byzantium began to take on different forms and took different paths. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the processes of feudalization retained the features of greater continuity of the old social structures, proceeded more slowly, and took place while maintaining the strong central authority of the emperor in Constantinople.

The path of the formation of the feudal formation in the West turned out to be different. Its most important feature is the weakening of the central power of the Roman emperor and its destruction as a political superstructure. Its other feature is the gradual formation on the territory of the Empire of independent political entities - barbarian kingdoms, within which the process of development of feudal relations takes on forms different from Byzantium, in particular, the form of a synthesis of new relations that are formed in the bowels of the decaying ancient structures, and relations that develop among the conquerors. - barbarian tribes and tribal unions.

The gradual weakening of the central power of the Western Roman Empire is explained by serious socio-economic changes in Roman society in the 4th-5th centuries. first of all, the decline of cities, the reduction in commodity production and trade, the ever-increasing naturalization of the economy and the shift of the center of economic life from cities to the countryside - huge latifundia, which turn into centers not only of agriculture, but also of crafts and trade in the district closest to the estate.

The social strata associated with ancient forms of economy and urban life, primarily municipal owners, or, as they were called in the 4th-5th centuries, curials, were ruined and degraded. On the contrary, the social positions of large magnates, owners of huge land masses with the most diverse population, possessing a large supply of food and handicraft products, having their own guards and fortified villas, were increasingly strengthened. Weak Western Roman emperors endowed powerful magnates, who, as a rule, belonged to the highest social stratum of the Empire - senators - and occupied important positions in the army, in the provincial administration, at the imperial court, with a number of privileges (exemption from taxes, from obligations in relation to the nearest city , vesting elements of political power over the population of estates, etc.). Such magnates, in addition to imperial benefactions, arbitrarily (in some cases with the consent of the population) extend their power (patrotsinii) to neighboring independent villages inhabited by free farmers.

Church land ownership is also being strengthened. The church communities of individual cities, ruled by bishops, now had large land holdings on which various categories of workers lived and worked - columns, slaves, dependent and free farmers. In the 5th century monasticism spreads in the West, monasteries are organized, owning vast lands. The strengthening of church, and in particular monastic, land ownership was facilitated by the voluntary gifts of believing Christians, and generous gifts of emperors, and more favorable living conditions, since church lands were exempted from heavy taxes. Rapprochement begins between secular magnates and church hierarchs. Often, members of the same senatorial family become senior officials and occupy episcopal chairs (for example, the family of the noble Gallic aristocrat Sidonius Apollinaris). It is not uncommon for a representative of the nobility to start his career as an imperial official, and then take the priesthood and become a church figure (for example, Ambrose of Milan).

An important factor in the economic situation of the Western Empire in the IV century. and especially in the 5th century. becomes the tax policy of the state. In general, we can talk about a sharp increase in the tax burden, which exceeds the economic capabilities of taxpayers, gradually plunges them into poverty, and undermines their economy. The maintenance of a luxurious imperial court, an extensive bureaucratic central and provincial apparatus, and an army required huge funds. At the same time, the general economic decline and reduction of material resources, the naturalization of the Empire, the withdrawal from the tax pressure of church lands and many magnate latifundia, the devastation of vast areas by barbarian hordes reduced the possibilities of taxpayers. The severity of the tax burden was aggravated by the theft and arbitrariness of the bureaucratic apparatus and tax collectors.

The unbearable fiscal oppression, the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy also affected the social interests of the provincial nobility, who, together with the local church communities led by the bishops, fought for their privileges, and also demanded from the weakening center more energetic measures to maintain and secure the borders and suppress the social movements of the columns, slaves, dependent and disadvantaged people. In the 5th century with each decade, the imperial government performed these most important tasks worse and worse, losing its right to exist. The provincial aristocracy and the local church, having vast land masses and an extensive staff of workers, gradually take over the functions of suppressing social movements in their areas, repulsing barbarian invasions, ignoring the orders of the emperors, and entering into separate contacts with the leaders of the border barbarian tribes. There is a narrowing of the social support of the Roman Empire, its slow but steady agony begins.

An important factor in the socio-political situation in Western Roman society in the 5th century. there is a gradual divergence of interests of the Christian church, uniting around the risky pope, and the imperial government. The church, which has a ramified organization, huge wealth and strong moral influence, also acquires political influence. The Western Roman emperors failed to neutralize this influence and bring it under their own control, as did the Byzantine monarchs. This was facilitated by the formal division of residences: the center of the Western Church was Rome - a symbol of Roman power and culture, the center of the imperial court - Mediolan, and from 402 - Ravenna. The support of the provincial nobility and active charity among the lower classes (the sale of huge stocks of food and material resources of the church) became a means of political influence for the Western church, which contrasted with the ever-increasing tax pressure of the central government. And as the authority of the Empire and its bureaucratic apparatus fell, the social and political influence of the church organization increased.

The general decrepitude of the Western Roman Empire was clearly expressed in the collapse of its military organization. The army reformed by Diocletian and Constantine by the end of the 4th century. began to reveal its weakness and low combat capability. With the reduction of material resources and the population of the Empire, mass evasion from military service, there were more and more difficulties with the recruitment of the army. The border troops turned into poorly disciplined settlements of military colonists, occupied more with their own economy than with military service.

Composed of forcibly recruited recruits, often the same oppressed columns, recruited criminals and other dubious elements, the Roman field army was losing fighting qualities. Warriors often became the instrument of the ambitious plans of their commanders or the robbers of their own population, and not an effective means of protecting the state from an external enemy.

A huge army, numbering about 140,000 frontier and about 125,000 field troops, requiring colossal funds for its maintenance, was performing its direct functions worse and worse with every decade. The weakening of the army was no secret to the imperial government, and in order to strengthen the military organization, the Western Roman emperors embarked on a path known as far back as the 4th century: the conclusion of agreements with the leaders of the barbarian tribes, according to which the latter were declared allies (federates) of the Empire, received from the emperors places to settle , food and equipment, regular pay and turned into mercenary units of the Roman army. However, it was a dangerous path. Such barbarian squads, led by their konungs (kings), by no means always obeyed imperial orders, they pursued an independent policy, often turned their weapons not so much against an external enemy, but against the civilian population for the purpose of robbery. In addition, the possibility of separate contacts with the barbarian squads on the part of the local aristocracy, along with other reasons, nourished strong provincial separatism and created the conditions for an alliance between the local nobility and barbarian leaders contrary to the interests of the imperial court.

The changed socio-economic and political conditions, and above all the establishment of imperial absolutism in the form of dominance, the strengthening of fiscal oppression and the system of general enslavement, required a revision of the classical Roman law that had previously been in force in the early Empire. By the beginning of the IV century. a huge number of various legal documents have accumulated, far from always

corresponding to each other: part of the republican laws up to the laws of the 12 Tables, some praetor edicts, decisions of the senate, interpretations and "answers" of famous lawyers, and finally, numerous constitutions of emperors from the time of the Severs, equated with laws. In order to make the legal system operational in the new changed conditions, adapt it to the needs of a despotic state and ensure at least a minimum public order, it was necessary to systematize the existing legal norms, adapt them to new conditions and combine them in the form of a common and unified state code, a systematized code of the Roman rights.

At the end of the III century. the Gregorianus code was created, which included imperial constitutions from Hadrian to the end of the 3rd century; at the beginning of the 4th century. Codex Hermogenianus was drawn up, including imperial constitutions up to Constantine the Great. At the beginning of the 5th century The Code of Emperor Theodosius II included constitutions from Constantine to Theodosius II, as well as fragments and writings of major Roman jurists. A limited range of works of classical legal literature was defined: the works of Papinian, Ulpian, Paul, Modestin, Gaius, which were considered iura. The final codification of Roman law was carried out at the beginning of the 6th century. Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire Justinian, who collected all the imperial constitutions.

To draw up the Code, Justinian created a Commission headed by the well-known lawyer and statesman Tribonian. Taking into account previous experience, the Commission was tasked not only to collect imperial constitutions and quotations from the works of jurists, but also to try to explain and eliminate contradictions in the texts of classical jurists.

The Code of Justinian included four parts: Institutions - a textbook based on the Institutions of Guy, Digests (Pandects) - extracts from the texts of classical lawyers in 50 books on public, private, criminal law, etc. Each book was divided into titles and paragraphs and included quotations on civil law with commentaries by Sabin, fragments of essays on the Praetor Edict, a presentation of gesrops based on Papinian. In the texts of classical lawyers, obsolete concepts were replaced with the corresponding modern ones, inserts and explanations were made. The Code of Justinian included 12 books on private, criminal law, regulations on public administration, and the law of magistrates. The new laws of Justinian were included in the fourth part - Novels. The codification of Roman law was completed.

Serious changes took place in property law, all types of property, except for Roman, ceased to exist (after the edict of Caracalla, which turned all the inhabitants of the Empire into citizens, the concept of Perefinian property disappeared; after the deprivation of Italy's tax privileges under Diocletian, the allocation of special provincial property also lost its meaning). There was a fundamental revision of the ancient ideas about property, the division of things into res mancipi and res nec mancipi was abolished, movable and immovable property were equalized.

The transfer of ownership no longer needs formalism or praetoral support and remains in the form of a simple transfer - a tradition. Acts of property transfer are made in the form of a record (for example, in land books). Another way is the acquisition - property by prescription. It is adopted by the state to stimulate the cultivation of land, especially uncultivated areas. A bona fide owner, by acquisitive prescription, receives protection in rem, i.e. after ten years of ownership becomes full owner.

The state in every way encourages the long-term lease of uncultivated plots in the form of emphyteusis - the actual hiring for an annual tax. Now it turns into a legally registered lease, the tenant receives the same protection as the owner, the right to alienate and inherit. The idea of ​​perpetual lease for private owners is based and developed on it. Claims become general. Under Justinian, emphyteusis merges with ius in agro vectigali.

State control over the development of property law manifests itself in cities, where it develops in the direction of the prohibition of decurions to alienate property without the permission of the magistrate.

Mortgage has become the main type of mortgage on all types of property. Through a mortgage, the state could provide some protection to the lower strata of the population, since the debtor, while retaining possession rights, has freedom of action up to alienation.

The change in the fundamental concepts of law has affected the change in the process. A previously rarely used extraordinary process began to develop. It was based on the right of the magistrate to exercise defense and was an administrative proceeding. The formulary process is dying out, as the difference in citizenship and types of property has disappeared. The extraordinary process becomes the norm. If the entire ordinary process (legislation and formulary) was based on the agreement of the parties, then the new process is based on the authority of the magistrate. The magistrate acts in it not as a judge, but as an administrator, defending new relations in law.

One of the decisive factors in the historical development of society and the state in the 5th century. was a revolutionary movement of the oppressed and disadvantaged sections of the population. The painful formation of new classes of producers was complicated by the presence of a despotic state, which hampered the introduction of milder forms of dependence than slavery. General enslavement, established under the dominance in the 4th century, was a system that bizarrely combined a new form of dependence and proper slaveholding relations, a system from which not only the lowest, but also the middle strata of the Roman population suffered severely. All this aggravated the social situation in the Empire, created great tension in class relations, which resulted in various forms of social and class protest. The situation was aggravated by unbearable fiscal oppression, the arbitrariness of officials and the army, including hired barbarian squads, general impoverishment, lack of internal security and stability. A feature of the mass movements of the 5th century. was their heterogeneous social composition, the participation of representatives of different classes and social groups, slaves, columns, ruined free farmers, artisans, merchants, lower urban and even some middle strata, curials. Social protest was often intertwined with separatist sentiments and religious clashes, and in this case the composition of the participants in popular movements became even more motley. Lacking clear political programs, the mass movements of the 5th century. objectively, they were directed against the despotic state, the remnants of obsolete slaveholding relations that entangled Roman society and hindered progress.

An example of a powerful, diverse in its social composition popular movement is the movement of the Bagauds in Gaul, which arose as early as the 3rd century, and in the 5th century.

flared up with renewed vigor. “What else gave rise to the Bagauds,” exclaims Salvian, “if not our exorbitant penalties, dishonesty of rulers, proscriptions and robberies perpetrated by people who turned the collection of public duties into a source of their own income, and taxes into their prey? ..” Movement of the Bagauds covered the central regions of Gaul, but it was especially strong and organized in the district of Armorica (modern Brittany). Led by their leader Tibatton, the Bagauds in 435-437. liberated Armorica from the Roman authorities and established their rule. After the defeat in 437, received from the imperial troops (including the Hunnic detachments) led by Aetius, the Bagaud movement broke out in the 440s and lasted for almost a whole decade.

In Africa, the social protest of the population took the form of religious movements. Already from the III century. African Christian communities showed separatist sentiments, which were institutionalized in the teachings of Bishop Donat. The extreme left wing of Donatism became the so-called circucellions, or agonists (fighters for the true faith), in whose movement the phenomena of social protest prevailed. “Which master,” said their opponent Augustine, “was not forced to fear his slave if he resorted to their (agonists. - V.K.) patronage? Who dared even threaten the destroyer or the culprit? Who could recover from the destroyer of wine warehouses, from the debtor demanding their help and protection? Under fear of clubs, fires, immediate death, documents for the worst slaves were destroyed so that they would leave as free ones. The withdrawn promissory notes were returned to the debtors. Everyone who neglected their harsh words was forced to follow orders with even harsher scourges ... Some fathers of families, people of high birth and noble upbringing, were brought barely alive after their beatings or, tied to a millstone, rotated it, driven by scourges, like despicable cattle " . Until the end of the 420s, agonists were a serious danger to the local aristocracy and Roman power.

Heresies - religious movements that do not recognize the approved dogmas of the orthodox church - become a peculiar form of social protest. Especially widespread in the 5th century. in Gaul, there was a heresy of a native of Britain, Pelagius, who rejected the main dogma of the church about the sinful nature of people, allegedly burdened by the original sin of Adam, and on this basis, denying slavery, oppression and social injustice. Pelagianism in a peculiar religious form, by emphasizing the perfect essence of man, justified various forms of social protest of the lower classes of Roman society against increasing exploitation, fiscal oppression and the norms of slave-owning law.

Mass popular movements, various in their forms of manifestation, undermined obsolete social relations and the despotic state behind them - the Western Roman Empire.

Fundamental changes in the socio-economic structure, state organization took place in the conditions of an increasing influx of barbarian tribes to the Roman borders, their constant breakthroughs and robberies of border and deep territories. The tribal federations of the Franks, Sueves, Alemans, Burgundians, Vandals, Goths and other tribes living along the Roman frontier limes experienced a process of disintegration of the tribal system and the formation of early class relations, which was accelerated by the powerful influence of Roman civilization. There is a separation of a layer of tribal nobility, uniting around themselves the militant squads of their fellow tribesmen, who prefer the military craft to any other; the militancy of the border barbarian tribes is growing. Their aggressiveness is fueled by the weakening of the military power of the Empire and the wealth of the Roman provinces.

At the end of the IV century. the so-called great migration of peoples begins, caused by the movement of a large coalition of tribes led by the Huns from the Caspian steppes in a westerly direction.

During the great migration of peoples at the end of the 4th-5th centuries. occurred on an unprecedented scale of movement of numerous peoples, tribal unions and tribes of Eastern and Central Europe. They had a huge impact on socio-economic relations, and on the political situation both in Europe and throughout the Mediterranean, on the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and brought the end of the entire ancient world closer.

These were the fundamental features and specific forms of manifestation of the social revolution, during which the ancient slave-owning Roman society and its statehood in the western part of the former Mediterranean Empire collapsed.

2. The fall of the Roman Empire.

The paths of the historical development of the Eastern and Western empires, after they finally separated in 395, differed significantly from each other. The Eastern Empire, which later became known as the Byzantine Empire, turned into a feudal state as a result of complex processes, which could last for another thousand years, until the middle of the 15th century (1453). The historical fate of the Western Roman Empire developed differently. The collapse of the slave system within its borders proceeded especially rapidly, it was accompanied by bloody wars, coups, popular uprisings, which finally undermined the former power of one of the largest states of the ancient world.

After the young Honorius (395-423) became emperor, at the beginning of the 5th century, a vandal by origin, Stilicho, was at the head of the imperial government. He had to solve two most important tasks: firstly, the repulse of barbarian invasions of Italy itself and, secondly, the suppression of the separatist movement in Gaul.

Only with great difficulty was it possible to repel the invasion of the Visigothic squads led by Alaric in 401-402 and resume contractual relations with him. In 404-405, Italy was invaded from the Eastern Alps by the troops of the Goth Radagaisus, who reached Florence itself, but was nevertheless defeated not far from this city. All these invasions showed that the most serious danger threatens the center of the state - Italy and directly the capitals - the historical capital city of Rome and the residence of the emperor, which from now on was heavily fortified, surrounded by impenetrable swamps, Ravenna.

In order to protect the imperial capital, Stilicho transferred to Italy part of the maneuverable field troops from Britain and Gaul. By this he weakened the defense of the Rhine borders and all of Gaul. After parts of the troops were withdrawn, this actually meant that the empire was leaving the western provinces to their fate. This did not fail to take advantage of the tribal coalitions of the Alans, the Vandals of the Suebi, who in 407 broke through the Rhine border and, crossing the river, broke into Gaul, devastating everything in their path. The provincial aristocracy, which consisted of the Gallo-Roman nobility, had to lead the defense of their provinces, not relying on the help of the imperial government. All this led to the fact that the troops stationed in Britain and Gaul proclaimed Emperor Constantine (407-411). With great difficulty, he managed to restore the situation on the Rhine border: he pushed the Vandals and Suebi back to Spain and was able to stabilize the internal situation in Gaul, suppressed the uprising of the Bagauds.

The inaction of the central government, which was busy repelling a new raid by Alaric's troops that invaded Illyria, contributed to strengthening the position of the usurper Constantine in Gaul. It was also restless in the imperial capital itself. In 408, the seemingly omnipotent Stilicho was removed from power and killed. A group came to power, which immediately severed allied relations with Alaric, his troops again moved to Italy. This time, Alaric chose the eternal city of Rome as the goal of his campaign, which he besieged in the autumn of 408. Having paid a huge ransom, the inhabitants of Rome achieved the lifting of the siege and the withdrawal of the Visigoth troops. Alaric tried to negotiate with the imperial government. Ravenna about an acceptable peace, but the negotiations were again disrupted by the court group, and in order to put pressure on the imperial court and speed up the adoption of decisions that were beneficial for themselves, Alaric led his troops on. weakening Rome again. On the way, runaway slaves began to join the Goths. The city of Rome was abandoned to the mercy of fate by the emperor, who took refuge in the well-fortified Ravenna. Having received no support, Rome could not resist the troops of the Visigoths and on August 24, 410, the city gates of Rome were opened by slaves. The Visigoths broke into the city and brutally plundered it.

The fall of Rome made a huge impression on his contemporaries. Rome continued to exist after the invasion of the Visigoths, but its global significance was lost. The “Eternal City” was empty, in the Roman forum, where the fate of the peoples of almost the entire civilized world used to be decided, now thick grass grew and pigs grazed: The fall and brutal sack of Rome in all cultured people of the Mediterranean caused an understanding of the doom of the Roman state in general. Now no one doubted the closeness of the decline of the Western Roman Empire, its culture, and social structure. Influenced by a premonition of a catastrophe, one of the largest figures in the Christian church of the early 5th century, Regia Augustine, Bishop of the city of Hippo, began work on his famous work “On the City of God” (412-425), in which he reflected on the reasons for the rise and fall of earthly kingdoms, in including the Roman Empire. Augustine developed his theory of the divine city, which should replace the earthly kingdoms.

In the autumn of 410, the imperial government in Ravenna found itself in a very difficult situation. The Visigoths, who sacked Rome, and whose leader, after the unexpected death of the thirty-four-year-old Alaric in 410, was his nephew King Ataulf, actually blocked Italy. In Gaul, the usurper Constantine ruled, and in Spain, the tribal unions of the Alans, Vandals and Sueves who had broken through there were in charge. A gradual process of the collapse of the empire began, which was no longer possible to stop. In such conditions, the government in Ravenna was forced to change its policy towards the barbarians: the Romans made new concessions. From now on, detachments of barbarians were not only hired into the service of the empire, as had been practiced since the 4th century, the emperors were forced to agree to the creation of semi-independent barbarian states on the territory of the empire, which retained only the appearance of power over them. So, in 418, in order to remove the Visigoths from Italy and remove the usurper from power, the Visigoths, led by King Theodoric, received Aquitaine, the southwestern part of Gaul, for settlement.

The Visigoths settled here permanently with their entire tribe, they came with their wives and children. Their warriors, as well as the nobility, received land plots at the expense of confiscations from the local population. The Visigoths immediately set about establishing their own economy, using the legal norms and customs in force in their environment. With local residents, Roman citizens and landowners, who continued to have the norms of Roman law, certain relations were established here. The Visigoths were regarded as conquerors, masters of the entire territory, although they were considered allies (federates) of the imperial court. Thus, in 418, the first barbarian kingdom arose on the territory of the Western Roman Empire.

But as early as 411, the imperial government recognized as federates of the empire the tribal unions of the Suebi, who are now firmly settled in the northwestern part of Spain. The tribal union of the Vandals was also recognized, who, unable to gain a foothold in Spain and took advantage of the invitation of the African governor Boniface, crossed over to Africa in 429 and formed their own Vandal kingdom there, headed by King Genzirich. Unlike the Visigoths, who maintained peaceful relations with the locals, the Vandals in their kingdom established a cruel regime in relation to the local Roman population, including landowners and Christian hierarchs. They destroyed cities, subjected them to robbery and confiscation, turned the inhabitants into slaves. The local Roman administration made feeble attempts to force the Vandals into submission, but this did not lead to any results. In 435, the empire was forced to officially recognize the Vandal kingdom as an ally of the empire, formally this kingdom undertook the obligation to pay an annual tax to Ravenna and protect the interests of the emperor, but in fact “a significant part of the African provinces for the emperor was lost.

Other barbarian state formations on the territory of the empire include the kingdom of the Burgundians, which arose in Sabaudia (southeastern Gaul) in 443, and the kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons in southeastern Britain (451).

The new semi-independent kingdoms obeyed the orders of the imperial court only if it was also in their interests. In fact, they pursued their own domestic and foreign policy, the emperors were powerless to bring them into obedience. In such a difficult political situation, the imperial court, with all sorts of maneuvers, maintained the appearance of the existence of the Western Roman Empire in the 420-450s. Barbarian kingdoms and regions were only considered to be its constituent parts. The last relative unification of the Western Roman Empire took place during the years of terrible danger that threatened it from the side of the Hunnic tribes.

In 377, the Huns captured Pannonia and at the end of the 4th - and the beginning of the 5th centuries did not pose a serious danger to Rome. As we know, on the contrary, the Romans willingly recruited Hun troops to achieve their military and political goals. So Flavius ​​Azcius, one of the most famous Roman politicians who enjoyed great influence at the court of Emperor Valentinian III (425-455), often used mercenary Hun troops against other tribes - Burgundians, Visigoths, Franks, Bagauds, etc. However, at the beginning In the 440s, there was a sharp strengthening of the Huns, led by their leader Attila (433-453).

The Huns joined a number of tribes to their union and, taking advantage of the weakness of both the Western Roman Empire and Byzantium, which at that time was waging heavy wars with the Vandals in Africa and the Persians on the Euphrates, began devastating raids on the regions of the Balkan Peninsula. With the help of a ransom, as well as successful hostilities, the Byzantines managed to repel the attack of the Huns, and then in the early 450s they invaded the territory of Gaul, plundering and burning everything in their path. The hordes of the Huns were a mortal danger not only for the Gallo-Romans, Roman citizens and landowners, but also for the numerous barbarian tribes who lived in Gaul on the territory of the empire and had already tasted the benefits of Roman civilization. A strong coalition was created against the Huns, which consisted of Franks, Alans, Armoricans, Burgundians, Visigoths, Saxons, as well as military settlers. The anti-Hunnic coalition was led by Flavius ​​Azcius, who had previously willingly used their mercenary units in the interests of the empire.

The decisive battle between the coalition and the Hun tribes took place on the Catalaunian fields in June 451. This was one of the largest and bloodiest battles in human history. The Gothic historian Jordan claims that the losses on both sides amounted to a huge figure of 165 thousand people, there is evidence that the number of those killed reached 300 thousand people. As a result of the battle on the Catalaunian fields, the Huns were defeated. Their extensive and fragile state formation began to disintegrate, and soon after the death of the leader Attila (453), it finally collapsed.

For some time, the Hunnic danger rallied heterogeneous forces around the empire, but immediately after the Catalaunian victory and after the Hunnic invasion was repelled, the processes of internal division of the empire intensified. The barbarian kingdoms, one after another, ceased to reckon with the emperors in Ravenna and began to pursue an independent policy.

The Visigoths undertook the conquest of most of Spain. They expanded their possessions at the expense of the imperial regions of Southern Gaul. At the same time, the Vandals captured a significant part of the African provinces and built their own fleet, after which they began to make devastating raids on Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Taking advantage of the impotence of the Ravenna court, the vandals attacked the historical capital of the empire - the city of Rome (455), which remained the residence of the head of the Western Roman Church - the pope. The vandals took and subjected the "eternal city" to an unprecedented 14-day defeat in history. They senselessly destroyed everything they could not take with them. At this time, the word "vandalism" has become a household word.

In Gaul, the kingdom of the Burgundians strengthened its position more and more. The influx of Franks, who firmly settled in its northern regions, increased here. The local nobility of Spain and Gaul believed that it was more profitable for her to establish cooperation relations with the barbarian kings, who were the real masters of the areas they had captured, than to maintain relations with the distant and powerless Ravenna emperor.

The result of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was a squabble over the illusory imperial power, which began among various factions of courtiers and commanders of individual armies. Groupings, one after another, began to erect their proteges on the Ravenna throne, with whom no one had any regard and who were quickly thrown off the throne.

The only exception was the emperor Julius Majorian (457-461). He tried to find among all the chaos and devastation means for the internal and external consolidation of the empire. Majorian proposed several important reforms that were supposed to streamline the taxation itself, as well as strengthen the urban curia and middle-town landownership. All this was supposed to revitalize urban life and restore cities, to free the inhabitants of the remaining Roman provinces from debts. In addition, Majorian managed to stabilize the difficult internal situation in Gaul and Spain, where he for some time strengthened Roman domination.

One could get the impression that the power of the empire was being revived. However, the recovery is strong. The Western Roman Empire was no longer profitable either for the representatives of the provincial nobility, or, especially, for the barbarian kings. Emperor Majorian was killed, and the last attempt to restore the empire was buried in the place with him. From now on, the throne of the Western Roman Empire became a toy in the hands of the leaders of the barbarian squads. Puppet Ravenna emperors quickly succeeded each other, depending on the influence of one or another court group.

In 476, the commander of the imperial guard, which consisted of Germanic mercenaries, 0doacre, himself by origin from the Germanic tribe of the Skirs, deposed the 16-year-old emperor, who, ironically, bore the name of the mythical founder of the city of Rome and the Roman state, Romulus. For his infancy, Romulus was nicknamed not August, but Augustulus. Thus, Odoacer destroyed the very institution of the Western Roman Empire, and sent the signs of imperial dignity to Constantinople. He formed in Italy his own kingdom - the state of Odoacer. The Western Roman Empire ceased to exist, on its ruins new states began to emerge, new political formations, within which feudal socio-economic relations were formed. And although the fall of the power of the Western Roman emperor, who had long lost prestige and influence, was not perceived as a major event, in world history the year 476 became the milestone when the ancient world ceased to exist - the slave-owning socio-economic formation. A new period has begun in history - the Middle Ages.

Thus, the world-historical significance of the fall of the Western Roman Empire lies not in the very fact of its death, but in the fact that the collapse of the Western Roman Empire marked the death of the slave-owning system and the slave-owning mode of production in general. Following the disintegration of slaveholding relations in the East, which collapsed first of all in China, the main citadel of slaveholding in the West fell. A new, historically more progressive method of production has been developed.

Speaking about the death of the slave-owning society of the Western Roman Empire, one should first of all keep in mind the deep internal causes that led to this. The slave-owning mode of production has long outlived itself, it has exhausted the possibilities of its development, which has led slave-owning relations and slave-owning society to a dead end. Slavery became an obstacle to the further development of production.

In Roman; In the society of the late empire, complex contradictory combinations of old slave-owning relations with elements of new relations - feudal ones - were observed. These relations and forms were sometimes intricately intertwined with the old ones: they coexisted, because the old foundations were still quite stable and tenacious, and the emerging new forms were shrouded in a dense network of the same old relations and survivals;

In those years, the expansion of the slave-owning form of ownership began. As has been said more than once above, small and medium landownership, associated with cities and retaining to the greatest extent the features of the slave-owning economy of former times, experienced a deep decline during the period of the late empire. At the same time, there was an increase in large estates (saltus), which were no longer associated with cities. As they developed, these estates turned into a closed whole both economically and politically. They became virtually independent of the central government. Such estates already significantly differed from the classical slave-owning latifundia and anticipated in their structure some features of the feudal estate. However, under the conditions of the late Roman Empire, this new form of property could not receive unimpeded and complete development, and the estates of the Roman magnates of the 4th-5th centuries should have become only the embryo of a new form of property.

In addition, the share of small and medium-sized landownership in the economy of the late empire should not be underestimated. The farms of small landowners and curials were not completely absorbed by large estates. A number of legal (primarily the code of Theodosius) and literary (Sidonius Apollinaris, Salvian) sources unequivocally confirm the existence of curiae and associated forms of landed property until the destruction of the Western Roman Empire. This circumstance becomes all the more important because the decline of cities cannot be imagined as a simultaneous and universal phenomenon, not to mention the important role of the cities of the eastern part of the empire or Africa. It should be noted that the cities of the western provinces in some cases continued to retain the importance of local economic and political centers, especially in the Rhine and Internauan regions.

A serious obstacle to the development of a new form of property was the fact that in the late Roman saltus this new form was entangled in a dense network of slaveholding relations that had not yet been outlived. The use of the labor of columns and slaves planted on the land has not yet acquired the character of feudal exploitation - this is the fundamental difference between the late Roman saltus and the feudal estate.

Despite the preservation of large masses of slaves and the use of their labor both in large and medium-sized landholdings, the leading figure in the agricultural production of the late empire, undoubtedly, became the columns. This is especially true for the last two centuries of the existence of the Western Roman Empire, when there was a certain leveling of the positions of all categories of the dependent population. The peculiar nature of this leveling consisted in the fact that it, as it were, united two processes that were moving towards each other: along with the general restriction of freedom, the enslavement of various categories of the dependent population, there was an extension to all these categories, including colonies, of a legal status that carried fundamentally the economic relations of a slave-owning society.

The considerable proximity of the colon to the entire system of slave-owning relations, the intermediate nature of his position between the classical slave and the medieval serf is determined, in particular, by the fact that he, like other categories of the dependent population, did not receive ownership of the instruments of production. It is well known from ancient sources that in the period of the early empire, the owner of the land gave the colonies all the tools for use. In the last centuries of the existence of the empire, the rights of landowners to the inventory used by the columns, and in general to all the property of the columns, were enshrined in law. So, for example, in the legislation of the times of Arcadius and Honorius (end of the 4th century) it is indicated that all the property of the colon belongs to his master, the code of Theodosius states that the colon does not have the right to alienate the land and in general anything from his property without the consent of the master. At the beginning of the VI century, the code of Justinian legally confirmed that all the property of the column belongs to his master. Thus, the colon, although he led an independent economy, did not enjoy any property legal capacity and did not have ownership of the instruments of production. This was the essential feature that distinguished the column from the feudal peasant. Relations with the instruments of production and those forms of distribution of products of production (dues and duties of the columns), which dominated in the late Roman Empire, to a large extent brought the column and the slave closer in the sense of their little interest in the results of their own labor. One of the most characteristic contradictions of the slave-owning mode of production was thus preserved under this new form of exploitation and in the labor of the new category of direct producers.

The lack of property rights of the colon to the tools of production was at the same time the feature that distinguished the late Roman saltus from the feudal estate. The most characteristic and defining feature of the latter should be considered that in it, along with feudal ownership of land, there is the individual ownership of the peasant in the instruments of production and in his private economy based on personal labor. The property incapacity of the column, which in this sense brought him closer to a slave, excluded such a possibility. Thus, over all these new forms of a more progressive social system (a new form of landed property, new forms of dependence), the old relations of slave-owning society weighed heavily, which hindered and limited the development of elements of the feudal mode of production.

The ruling aristocracy of the late Roman Empire was also in a state of decay. The top of the land magnates, who were associated with large land ownership, stood out - the owners of saltus. A certain value was retained by a rather narrow stratum of monetary and commercial nobility. The position of the slave-owning curials in the last centuries of the existence of the Roman Empire deteriorated catastrophically, but nevertheless, the curia, as it is said, persisted, and, consequently, the curials still represented a certain social and political force.

The ruling class of Roman society, both in the period of the early empire, and even in the period of the republic, never represented a single whole, but what was new was that the late Roman landed magnates owned their huge estates on a different basis than the large landowners of the era of the republic or early empire - not as members of the collective of free slave owners and landowners. At one time, belonging to such a collective, as is known, was a necessary condition for owning landed property. The late Roman land magnates, on the contrary, separated themselves from these collectives, separated from the cities, and in some cases from the central government, and therefore often felt themselves in their huge estates as independent rulers and independent kings. But the degeneration of this ruling elite into the class of feudal lords did not and could not happen, since the basis of their economic and political power was not yet a feudal form of ownership.

We should also emphasize the conservative nature of the superstructure of late Roman society and, above all, its political superstructure. The transformation of the Roman state into a gigantic machine for pumping out taxes and extortions clearly enough testifies to its inhibitory role, that it was a serious obstacle to the development of more progressive relations. Thus, for example, by legally securing the colony's lack of ownership of the instruments of production, the state, to the best of its ability, prevented their transformation into producers of the type of medieval peasants.

The imperial power in Rome in the 4th-5th centuries tried to maneuver between the new land magnates and the old curial slave-owners. If, as can be easily seen from the foregoing, the government of Emperor Constantine openly supported the large land magnates, then at a later time, namely under the emperor Julian, there is a desire to revive the city curia. In this maneuvering, the well-known conservatism of the Roman state was also manifested, it was losing its social support. Perhaps it continued to be necessary for the curials, but they, gradually weakening more and more, could not themselves serve as a sufficiently strong support for it. For the land magnates, who were increasingly moving away from the central government, the state from a certain moment, namely from the middle of the 4th century, became a hindrance. True, in those cases where it was a question of suppressing uprisings, the big land magnates turned out to be interested in the existence of the state and its assistance. The Roman state, even in the last centuries of its existence, remained basically slave-owning, because it was a product of the development of precisely slave-owning relations, protected and supported by purely slave-owning law (legal confirmation of the lack of property rights for the columns on tools of labor) and a purely slave-owning ideology - the education of contempt among free citizens to the slaves.

However, significant changes took place in the field of ideology, the largest of which was the victory of Christianity. The Christian doctrine, which arose in the form of social protest of the urban plebeians, then turned into the state religion of the slave-owning empire, but this happened already during the period of the expansion of slave-owning relations, during the crisis of the polis ideology - ancient philosophy, morality, law. Precisely because Christianity was the most striking expression of this crisis, it later became possible to adapt it to the needs of the social order that had come to replace the slave system. In general, the elements of the new, those feudal institutions that arose in embryo in Roman society, did not have prospects for free development and were hampered by persistent, still not outlived slave-owning relations. This situation is quite natural and understandable, since all these institutions were formed in the Roman Empire. In the setting of a dying civilization, in the setting of a slave-owning society that was in a state of deep crisis.

The only means that could ensure the free development of the new forces was a "radical revolution" capable of completely burying the slave-owning society with its still sufficiently powerful political structure. However, this coup could not be carried out only by the internal forces of Roman society. Broad popular movements of the III-V centuries, such as the uprisings of the Bagauds, the movements of the agnostics, undoubtedly shook the Roman Empire, but were not able to completely destroy it.

This required a combination of struggle within society with such an external factor as the invasion of barbarians into the territory of the empire. As a result of the combined influence of these historical factors, the death of the Western Roman Empire, the death of the slave-owning system, came.

3. Conclusion.

Ancient Rome became the final stage in the history of the ancient world as a whole, and therefore in the evolution of its society and state. They found a vivid manifestation of both the specific features of Roman statehood and culture, and the general features of many jealous societies.

A socially dissected society and statehood began to form on Italian soil later than in the countries of the East and in the Greek world. The earliest sprouts of civilization in Italy appeared in the second half of the 8th century. BC e. in the Etruscan cities and the first Greek colonies, while tribal relations were still preserved among the Italic tribes. In the 5th century BC e. the primary statehood is formed in Rome, apparently the most developed center of the Italic tribes. The formation of the actual Roman statehood and social structure from early times took place in an environment of powerful influence on Rome from the Etruscan cities and colonies of Great Greece, which determined the complex multi-ethnic and cultural basis of the emerging Roman civilization. By the middle of the III century. BC e. there was a certain smoothing of the heterogeneity of different regions of the Apennine Peninsula, overcoming the polycentrism of the cultural process and some socio-political unification, which intensified during the gradual conquest of Italy by Rome and the creation of the Roman-Italian Union as a new type of political association. The process of Romanization of Italy that began meant the creation of a new economic system, significant changes in the social class structure, a new type of government, and the foundations of a new culture. The most important feature of the process of Romanization was, on the one hand, the formation and flourishing of polis-communal institutions, on the other hand, a path was outlined to overcome them.

Romanization of Italy, on the one hand, led to the leveling of polis-communal structures under the Roman model, on the other hand, the Roman civitas itself was enriched by borrowing a number of institutions from Greek policies, Etruscan cities, and Italian tribal formations. At the same time, within the framework of the state unification of Italy, the transformation of the union of policies and communities into a new political and socio-economic whole was a completely new socio-political entity than the traditional civitas. The consolidation and Romanization of Italy intensified due to the fact that from the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. Rome embarked on the path of conquering non-Italian territories. After the Punic Wars in the 3rd c. BC e. the first non-Italic administrative units-provinces were formed. In the 1st century BC e. such provinces covered the entire Mediterranean. The creation of a provincial system with a special status of administration as conquered and occupied territories sharply distinguished Italy in its political and legal position as a country where Roman citizens or their allies live, often belonging to the same ethnic group. The robbery of the provinces and the influx of slave power and wealth into Italy contributed to the creation and introduction of classical slavery, a new type of commodity economy. The establishment of economic ties between different areas led to the unification of isolated polis-communal formations around Rome, the creation of new supra-polis institutions and relations.

The maturation of new suprapolis structures, the withering away or transformation of community institutions into institutions of a new type took place in an acute socio-political struggle, long and bloody civil wars, in the fire of which the fall of the republican system took place.

The crisis of the republic was a natural result of the centuries-old evolution of the polis and civitas as the main cells of the ancient world. In the Roman Empire, other economic, social and political structures are already taking shape. A unique world power appeared, covering the entire Mediterranean, its well-known economic and cultural unity was maintained, the Romanization of the provinces and their gradual transformation into equal parts of the state, the unification of social relations, the spread of classical slavery and Roman citizenship in the provinces took place. The organization of imperial administration, which assumed a fairly advanced civilization, and the effective control of the central government created a new situation, so different from the world of warring sovereign policies or the mechanical coexistence of autonomous policies and eastern communal structures in the Hellenistic monarchies. It was already a new imperial society, a new type of state. However, this new order grew out of the traditional polis-communal foundations. Polis institutions were significantly restructured during the transition to imperial relations, but one cannot speak of their complete destruction. The transformed polis-communal institutions were organically integrated into the imperial system, forming the basis of the Roman municipalities. Former policies turned into municipalities, newly founded cities received a municipal-type device. The municipalities had a rural territory assigned to the city, enjoyed a fairly wide autonomy, resolved their affairs at a meeting of citizens, elected local government bodies, that is, they largely reproduced the polis order. But they were no longer either sovereign policies or autonomous entities within the Hellenistic states. Roman municipalities were local administrative units, subordinate either to the provincial governor or directly to the emperor.

The well-known stability of the imperial system, the effective management by the central government and the provincial apparatus, were supplemented by the reform of the military organization, giving it a comprehensive character due to the recruitment of the army from all free sections of the population and the relatively high position of ordinary legionnaires, and provided the Empire as a whole with a certain social order and tranquility. A well-functioning economy uniting the entire Mediterranean, a well-known orderliness in social relations, stable state administration, and broad local autonomy created favorable conditions for the development of Roman culture. In the process of Romanization of the provinces, the spread of classical slavery and the socio-political relations associated with it, the mutual enrichment of the culture of the Roman-Italic, Greek culture took place, due to interaction with the Celtic, Iberian, Thracian, etc. On the basis of the Roman-Greek culture, a more complex and multi-component Mediterranean civilization, which includes the cultural achievements of other peoples. The culture of the Roman Empire of the 1st-2nd centuries, formed on the basis of the synthesis and processing of the cultural achievements of the then Mediterranean ecumene, became a kind of prototype of European culture of a later time.

In the I-II centuries. the ancient slave-owning formation reached its highest limit, slave-owning relations were revealed with maximum completeness, and the opposite of slavery and its antipode - freedom reached the greatest depth and certainty. If in the works of the Greek authors Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon the concepts of slavery and freedom were understood as abstract philosophical categories, then in the conditions of the flourishing of slavery, the Romans deepened the understanding of slavery and freedom through careful legal

1st-3rd centuries the concepts of slavery and freedom have reached such a crystallization and internal completeness that they have been preserved without any special changes in the law of the Middle Ages and modern times.

As part of the Mediterranean civilization I-II centuries. a new religious system began to form, which developed into the world religion of Christianity. Christian dogma arose through the denial of the system of values ​​and spiritual priorities that formed the basis of ancient civilization, and at the same time it represented their latest development. The consumer attitude to life, leading to lack of spirituality and moral dead end, the cult of wealth and power, the division of the human race into free people and slaves, equated to cattle, the new dogma opposed the unity of the human race, mercy and kindness to the small and orphans, indifference to material wealth, wealth and power, the cultivation of moral life, the inherent value of each, even the smallest, human personality.

At the same time, Christian doctrine was formed on the basis of many categories of ethics and morality developed in ancient philosophy: the doctrine of a higher mind as the creator of the cosmos, the concept of a person’s moral duty, the position of the unity of the human race, including both free and slaves. Christianity as a world religion, recruiting its adherents among all peoples, devoid of narrow nationalistic frameworks, could originate, grow stronger and spread only in the expanses of the world state and only within the framework of the Mediterranean civilization, using its rich experience of the Romans in the synthesis and assimilation of the cultural achievements of many peoples of the Mediterranean.

By the 3rd century n. e. ancient civilization, based on the maximum development of slave-owning relations, enriching the treasury of world civilization with outstanding achievements, has exhausted its internal potential, entered a period of decay. Political instability, the threat of the collapse of the Mediterranean Empire became a manifestation of the general crisis of ancient civilization, its economic structure, which implies commodity production, a social structure based on a sharp contrast between the world of freedom and the world of slavery, a political system based on the dualism of a strong central authority and broad autonomy of the municipality, cultural values ​​that no longer satisfied the needs of the bulk of the population.

At the end of the III century. The empire and its ruling class managed to overcome the general crisis and neutralize destructive tendencies. However, the socio-economic and political stabilization of the late Empire was achieved at the cost of a deep transformation of the former relations based on slavery, the ancient form of property, the ancient city, the ancient system of values. The period of the late Roman Empire became the time of the disintegration of ancient civil structures and the formation of new proto-feudal relations, i.e., in essence, the era of social revolution, in which one historical formation replaced another. In the process of social revolution IV-V centuries. feudal dependence took the place of ancient civil relations as dominant, which in the era of the late Roman Empire took the form of attaching different groups of the population to their place of residence and their occupations. The main social classes were no longer the classes of slave owners, free small producers and slaves, but the class of proto-feudal landlords and the class of the main producers, including slaves, who were in varying degrees of dependence.

In place of the ancient form of property as a unity of private and collective property in a strictly defined group of citizens, a split form of property of a new type gradually began to take root, which in the future will develop into various forms of feudal property. During the period of the late Roman Empire, the ancient political institutions underwent a significant transformation, which were replaced by the power of an absolute monarch, the Roman dominus, ruling through a huge and carefully organized bureaucratic apparatus, turning a full-fledged ancient citizen into a disenfranchised subject, whose main function was the payment of taxes that go to support omnipotent bureaucracy. The state in the period of the late Empire seeks to absorb and subjugate society, and irreconcilable contradictions gradually developed between them. A feature of the socio-political situation of the late Roman Empire was the general dissatisfaction of the population, including many sections of the ruling class, with the imperial state. The history of the late Empire is the history of an ever-increasing gap between society and the state, during which the imperial statehood, deprived of life-giving ties with society, became more and more sickly and decayed. In this process of disintegration of society and the state, the Christian church consistently consolidated its organization, which became a state within a state and was connected with society, with the most diverse strata of the population, by thousands of threads. The weakening of imperial statehood led to the fragmentation of the Empire, the separation of its eastern half into a separate state - the Eastern Empire - Byzantium, in which the formation of new feudal relations took place within the framework of a large territorial state that maintained continuity with ancient traditions. On the contrary, in the Western Roman Empire, there is an increasing degradation of imperial statehood, the alienation of society and the state, and the strengthening of the independence of a powerful church organization. The Western empire could no longer resist internal disintegration, the pressure of the barbarians on the borders. Barbarian detachments of Goths, Vandals, Suebi, Saxons, Franks break through the Roman borders and form their own kingdoms on the territory of the Western Roman Empire. The Western empire breaks up into several barbarian kingdoms, within which a complex synthesis of obsolete ancient orders and institutions of barbarian societies begins, the formation of fundamentally new relations that later developed into European feudalism.

Based on the site http://www.history.ru

Fall of the Western Roman Empire

The embassy made its way to Sardika (now Sofia), where there was rest, then to Nish, which was then in ruins from the Hun raids. The Istres-Danube were crossed on one-trees, the carriers were barbarians. Beyond the Danube was already an enemy land where Attila reigned. Further, the ambassadors continued their journey through Pannonia and Ugria. Attila, who was then on his way to the Danube, sent two Scythians to meet them, who were the guides of the Byzantine embassy. But when they were already near the tents of Attila, an unexpected difficulty occurred. First of all, they began to be asked about the purpose of the embassy, ​​to which they replied that they were ordered to personally convey this to Attila, and not through other persons. But it turned out that Attila already knew about the purpose of the embassy and did not want to personally receive the ambassadors. Thanks to personal acquaintances, Priscus managed, however, to achieve the introduction of Attila. He sat in a tent, guarded by numerous warriors, on a wooden bench. Maximinus approached him, handed him a royal charter and expressed good wishes on behalf of the king to him and his family, to which Attila ambiguously replied: "Let the Romans have what they want for me." Then he turned in anger to the interpreter of the embassy Vigil and expressed his strong indignation. The embassy generally had to endure a lot of unpleasant things, because Attila was prejudiced against him, did not believe in the sincerity of Maximin and Priscus and in their non-involvement in the plot on his life.

Attila moved on without making any order regarding the letter of the emperor received through the embassy, ​​and the Byzantine ambassadors followed him through Pannonia and Ugria. They crossed many rivers in single-tree boats and rafts, which the barbarians carry with them on carts. In the villages they were supplied with millet and a drink called honey by the natives, while the servants received a drink extracted from barley called koumiss or, perhaps, kvass, since koumiss is made from mare's milk. After a long journey, the ambassadors finally arrived at the capital of Attila, which is described in great detail by Priscus. The palace was built of logs and boards, skillfully hewn, and surrounded by a wooden fence, which served more for decoration than for protection. After the royal house, the house of Onigisiev was the most excellent, there was a large bath nearby ...

“At the entrance to the village, Attila was met by girls who walked in rows under thin white veils. Under each of these long veils, supported by the hands of women standing on either side, there were up to seven or more virgins, and there were a lot of such rows. These virgins, preceding Attila, sang Scythian dogs. Near the house, Onigisia went out to meet Attila, the wife of the first, with servants carrying food and wine. She greeted the king and asked him to taste bread and wine. Attila, sitting on a horse, to please the wife of his beloved, ate food from a silver dish and drank wine from a bowl and went to the royal palace.

Attilla hosted the Byzantine embassy several times and treated him to dinner. “When the ambassadors arrived at the appointed time, the cupbearer gave them a cup. After drinking from the cup, they sat down on the benches that stood against the walls of the room on both sides. Attila was sitting on a couch in the middle of the room; behind was a bed, covered with colorful curtains. Onigisius sat on a bench on the right side of Attila, the ambassadors on the left. Opposite Onigisius sat two sons of Attila, and his eldest son sat next to him, on the edge of the bed with downcast eyes. When everyone was seated, the butler went up to Attila and brought him a cup of wine. Attila, taking the bowl, greeted the one who was sitting first in the row. The one who was honored by the greeting did not get up and sit down until Attila handed over the cup to the butler. After everyone was honored, the butlers left. Then the food was served. Near Attila, tables were placed for several people with food, so that the guests closest to him could take food directly from their seats. For each guest, a special attendant brought in a dish and placed it in front of him. In general, it was noticed that luxurious dishes were served to guests, while Attila himself was content with very simple ones. As evening fell, torches were lit and entertainment began. The barbarians sang songs that praised Attila's prowess and his victory over his enemies. Others reveled in poems and memories of battles. Finally, a jester or holy fool came forward, who said absurd things and made everyone laugh. A few days later the embassy received permission to return.

In Priscus's description, some traits deserve special attention. First of all, it should be remembered that the land occupied by the Huns, along which the Byzantine embassy made its way, soon then becomes the Slavic property. But it is quite possible that the Huns already found the Slavs here and subjugated them to their power. From this point of view, Priscus' reports on the way of life of the population of the country occupied by the Huns acquire exceptional interest. Such is the arrangement of houses, the preparation of a drink from barley, in which it is impossible not to see kvass, especially the dance and songs of girls at the meeting of Attila. In addition, one cannot but pay attention to one place near Priscus, where the general cultural state of the Hunnic state in relation to Byzantium is characterized. By chance, in the camp of Attila, Priscus met one, judging by the dress and haircut on his head, a Scythian, who said to him the usual Greek greeting in Greek. Priscus became interested in this barbarian, and he entered into a conversation with him. It turned out that he was a pure Greek, who came to the city of Viminaki (maybe Kostolac) on trading business and was taken prisoner by the Huns there; that he was enlisted in the military, fought the Romans, distinguished himself in the war, and received his freedom. But when then, beyond any expectation for Priscus, this interlocutor began to praise the Hunnic order in comparison with the Roman ones and found his present state under the rule of Attila better and calmer than the former in the Roman Empire, then by this recognition Priscus was extremely astonished and to a certain extent offended. in his patriotism and tried to find out from his interlocutor: what exactly does the Hun order bribe him with? From the conversation it became clear that foreigners enjoy complete freedom and inviolability in the Hunnic kingdom, while Roman citizens, on the one hand, are subjected to constant raids by external enemies and therefore are completely defenseless, and on the other hand, if there is no war, then their situation is extremely difficult from excessive taxes collected unjustly and in violation of the law, as well as from a bribe and partial court, in which the victim will never find justice unless he bribes the judge and his assistants. Priscus tried from his point of view to justify the cultural order of the Roman state and pointed to the Roman law, which ensures the rights, freedom and property status of a citizen. But his defense turned out to be weak, because. he defended an ideal cultural state and the principle of legality, while his interlocutor stood on the practical grounds of applying the law and defended the vital interests of the layman. He replied to Priscus' impassioned speech: "Yes, the laws are good, and the Roman state is well organized, but the rulers harm it, because they are not like the ancients."

It is clear that in the middle of the 5th c. in the Balkan Peninsula there was a lively exchange between the barbarians and the cultural empire. In this exchange, both sides persistently made demands that for a long time could not be mutually understood and applied to life. Along with manifestations of complete decline, disintegration and disintegration, signs of the creation and construction of the foundation are occasionally found, on which a new building of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, empire should arise. In the epoch that occupies us, elements of destruction still predominate, which we will follow for a while.

There can be no doubt that against the destructive elements introduced by the barbarians there was less opposition in the Western Empire than in the Eastern. Attila received the name "scourge of God" among the Germanic peoples. His attempts to spread the conquests in the East met with stubborn resistance, which he could not ignore. Other barbarians and conquerors had to deal with similar resistance, as a result of which the Eastern Empire continued to exist in the Middle Ages, when new peoples appeared in the place of the Western and formed new states.

The last emperor from the house of Theodosius in the West was Valentinian III, born of his daughter Galla Placidia and Constantius. He received the imperial throne as a result of the strong support given to him from Constantinople, and during his reign (425-455) the influence of the Eastern emperor did not weaken in the West. With the name of the Empress Galla Placidia, who ruled the empire after the infancy of her son Valentinian III and generally had a great influence on modern affairs, the memory of the beautiful artistic buildings and art monuments in Ravenna is connected. The mausoleum, or tomb, of Galla Placidia, with its mosaic painting, performed on a vow for salvation from a storm at sea, is one of the finest monuments in Ravenna. Her son Valentinian turned out to be far below the state tasks assigned to him. He did not direct the affairs of the empire, but the military persons who led the troops. The unfortunate rivalry between the two most capable generals, Aetius and Boniface, was the cause of incredible disasters and was accompanied by the final loss of the province of Africa, conquered by the Vandals (431-432).

But the strongest blow was prepared by Attila's empire. In 450, he undertook a campaign to the West with an army that was equal to half a million. The Huns moved across Central Europe towards the Rhine, devastating everything on their way and instilling fear and horror everywhere. Near Boris they defeated the Burgundians and destroyed the Burgundian kingdom, then devastated Gaul to the Loire. Near Chalons on the Marne, on the Catalaunian fields, the Huns met with the Roman troops led by Aetius (451). The famous battle of the peoples took place here, which ended in the defeat of Attila. Weakened by the loss of numerous warriors, Attila, however, did not consider his cause lost. The following year, he began a campaign in northern Italy. First of all, Aquileia was besieged, which was taken by attack, ruthlessly plundered and destroyed; the same fate befell numerous cities along the river. By. Attila's further goal was the city of Rome, and this goal was apparently easily achievable, because in Italy there was no rival for Attila: Aetius did not have sufficient forces to resist Attila, while the eastern emperor did not send help. In the camp of Attila, located near Lake Garda, a Roman embassy appeared with Pope Leo and Senator Avien at the head. This embassy succeeded in persuading Attila to be content with a huge, albeit, ransom, and abandon his intention to march on Rome. The Huns really did not feel very comfortable in Italy: in an unusual climate, they often fell ill, dangerous symptoms began in the camp, which prompted Attila to agree to the proposals made. The retreat of the Huns was a blessing for Italy, which the people attributed to the miraculous mediation of the Apostle Peter. Shortly after returning to his camp on the Tisza, Attila died in 453, and the kingdom he had founded disintegrated. The peoples conquered by him and those under his rule were given freedom and began to organize themselves into independent tribal groups.

But this did not change the course of historical events that brought the Western Empire closer to a fatal end. The imperial throne became the plaything of military parties and passed from one person to another according to the play of chance and the whim of the leaders of foreign detachments. If the barbarian leaders did not appropriate the title of emperor to themselves, then this was not because there were obstacles to this, but solely out of superstitious fear of the imperial name. Of these barbarian leaders who ruled the empire by means of emperors appointed by themselves, we note after Aetius the Suebus Ricimer, Orestes, who came from Pannonia, and, finally, Odoacer, the Skyr, or Rutian. Ricimer, relying on the German detachments, disposed of the empire completely independently, installed and overthrew emperors; under him there were five such: Avit, Majorian, Severus, Anthemius and Olybrius. By marrying the daughter of Anthemius, Ricimer apparently planned to clear the way to the throne for his offspring, but this did not succeed. It should be noted that before the death of Ricimer in 472, the Emperor of Constantinople approved by his consent every election to the throne of the Western Empire, and as for Anthemius. then he was directly appointed by the Eastern Emperor Leo I. In the last years of the miserable existence of the Western Empire, Orestes rises, who was formerly Attila's secretary. He knew military affairs very well and studied the character of the barbarians well, therefore he was very useful in the council of emperors and enjoyed their great confidence. Having the rank of head of the domestic detachment, he was in charge of the recruitment of military people into the imperial army and achieved unlimited influence. More than once he could put on the crown and, after all, the last Roman emperor was Romulus, son of Orestes. During the last 20 years from the death of Valentinian III (455-475), nine emperors have occupied the throne.

Meanwhile, barbarian detachments from various tribes, stationed in fortified camps in Liguria, declared a demand for a third of the Italian lands for settlement. Orestes refused to comply with this demand, which caused the last act of a long-prepared drama. Then, on August 23, 476, Odoacer from the Scir tribe comes out, taking command of the disgruntled barbarians. Orestes was captured and killed. The allied militia of the barbarians proclaimed Odoacer their king and then captured the last emperor in Ravenna, the infant Romulus-Augustulus, who was assigned a pension and decided to live in a private position in one of the castles in Campania. Thus, a coup took place, usually called "the fall of the Western Roman Empire", - at one time in Italy itself it did not surprise anyone, but due to its immediate consequences it acquired world-historical significance.

One can, however, see that the coup of 476 differed significantly from the usual change of faces on the throne of the Western emperor. Previously, it was more about personal influence, now the social and political principle on which the Roman state was based was significantly affected. The German military squads cease to be mercenary troops in the service of the empire, become the owners of a part of the Italian territory and acquire a dominant position in the country from a subordinate, striving, at the same time, to organize themselves according to their own laws and customs on the lands taken away from the Roman citizens. The police and social order that came here from the end of the 5th century ceases to be ancient Roman, and we will deal with it in one of the following chapters. Now, however, we should at least slightly touch on the question of why the upheaval that took place in the West was not also found in the East, although the social crisis and the invasion of barbarians are equally noted in the Eastern and Western empires - in a word, why not the entire ancient world suffered the same fate?

It is necessary here to give an account of the reasons that prevented the fall of the Eastern Empire for another thousand years; it is necessary to find out what obstacles the Eastern Empire could oppose to the destructive elements that caused the fall of the Western Empire. This is all the more important because in this way the historian could outline the foundations on which the Byzantine Empire was established, and which he must carefully clarify in the further presentation of his subject. Those economic conditions, which have lately been given paramount importance in the process of the rise and fall of peoples, can hardly solve the misunderstandings that arise here, because the same economic conditions were in the Eastern Empire, and despite the fact that it withstood the crisis that led to to the fall of the Western Empire. Hence the natural conclusion that the explanation of the problem before us lies not in economic conditions alone, although economic evolution, without any doubt, plays an important role in history. And what is most curious of all - the new peoples who settled on the lands occupied and cultivated by Roman subjects were not able to change the system of cultivating the land and continued it in the same form as they found it.

The reasons for the fall of the empire lay in its exhaustion, and it was caused by external and political reasons. The dividing of the empire into two halves was accompanied by very harmful consequences, for the East often used evil intrigues, rendered little help, and its arrogant intervention only increased confusion. And already through the fault of the West, the economic and social disease has reached a fatal outcome. It was easier for the East to cope with it, because it is geographically more favorable, much richer and more populated, and mainly because more capable emperors supported the state system. The insignificance of Honorius and Valentinian, completely devoid of the military talents of their predecessors, was the immediate cause of the fall. They allowed the excessive influence of the leaders of the German squads, who, caring only for their own interests, were not able to replace the real emperors, and their violence only multiplied disasters. There were very important tasks to be solved; already by the beginning of the 5th century. Italy's condition was critical. The peninsula gave less and less soldiers and it was made necessary, in view of the fact that the provinces deprived of protection were devastated by barbarians and occupied by self-proclaimed emperors, to spend their forces on these same provinces instead of receiving funds from them. The most severe blow was the loss of Africa, as a consequence of the fact that the empire neglected its naval forces. Now the Vandal pirates took advantage of maritime communications. Trade ceased, and at the same time incomes began to suffer. In the West and in other respects conditions were worse than in the East.

New errors have strengthened the effect of the old ones to an extreme degree. Terribly had to pay for the fact that the former emperors opened the Germans such free access to the army and the empire. Of two evils, one had to choose the lesser: either to deprive the land of workers through strong recruiting, or to allow strong immigration of foreigners, the latter was chosen. The weakness of the government made the mercenaries haughty until they got bored with the service. The native population, having lost the habit of independence, did not have the strength to rise; only in rare cases did the urban population get up