One aspect of social change is decline. In the Mithraeum, the Father and the Heliodromos are aged:
"Their deaths would surely spell the end of worship here." (p. 30)
The curial class to which Gratillonius belongs is in economic decline. Whitewash peels from walls and Marcus, Gratillonius' father, has had to sell their land to a corrupt Senator. Marcus says that the Republic rotted but Rome endures...
We recognize shrilling wind and a golden-winged hovering hawk as the two men walk around what is left of their estate. The Andersons set the scene. There will be much more change before their Tetralogy ends.
(Look at that cover image but what is wrong with it?)
10 comments:
If those buildings are supposed to be Ys, they are set above the sea while they should be below sea level behind dikes keeping the sea out.
Jim,
Exactly.
Paul.
Though actually the picture of Rome in that period in the Ys series is rather old-fashioned.
Eg., the rural areas of the Western Empire are now thought to have been quite prosperous right up to the political collapse.
It was the demise of the central government that -caused- the massive disruptions to trade and the decline of populations.
Kaor, Paul, Jim, and Mr. Stirling!
Paul and Jim: I must be missing something. I thought, from the bits Paul quoted, that Gratillonius and his father were visiting a Mithraeum in BRITANNIA, not Ys.
Mr. Stirling: Then it's a pity these changes and advances in our knowledge of the Later Roman Empire were not known to the Andersons when they were writing THE KING OF YS.
But, what brought on that political (and military) collapse of the Western Empire? I could argue the Andersons views, as hinted at the text quoted by Paul, were not totally invalid. E.g., clumsily mismanaged taxes could lead to a destruction of that curial class so crucial for Roman society and the Empire. To say nothing of how neglect of the training and discipline all good armies need, after the murder of Emperor Gratian, also had bad results.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Mithraeum is in Britannia. The cover image is of Ys.
Paul.
I had the impression that the 50 years of wars over who would be emperor in the 3rd century badly damaged Roman prosperity and any recovery was partial.
That does leave room for considerable further decline in prosperity after the final collapse a few centuries later.
Jim: it did, and recovery was mostly -uneven-. The urban areas of the Western Empire were in decline in the 4th century, but then they'd never contained more than a smallish minority of the population.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Got it, a cover image for THE KING OF YS that I'm not familiar with.
Jim: The civil wars racking the Empire after the assassination of Alexander Severus in AD 235 was a huge reason for the socio-economic collapse seen in that period down to the accession of Diocletian in 284.
I think much of what Diocletian did in his Herculean efforts to restore order and stability were honestly well meant but only partially successful.
Ad astra! Sean
Eg., prior to 200 CE the Roman empire had a rather sophisticated banking system -- roughly equivalent to what the Netherlands had in the 1750's, and more advanced than what France had then.
You could transfer funds by letter, for example, without physical coin changing hands.
That system pretty much vanished in the mid-to-late 3rd century, probably done in by the hyperinflation of the time.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I read a lot about the debasing of the silver denarius and antoninianus in the catastrophic years after 235. And the gold aureus was pretty much minted only for paying the legions, because that was the only way the transitory Emperors of that period could hope to survive!
One of the most bizarre incidents of this chaotic era was the revolt of the mint workers in Rome, during Aurelian's reign. That Emperor was trying to restore some order to the coinage, which included cracking down on corruption by the mint. These efforts triggered a full scale rebellion by the mint workers, and required military action to be put down.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment