A theory about empires and frontiers

[chequita guevara]

BTW, I would point out that you are positing a very dialectial materialist theory (albeit one not supported by the facts). I think that this theory explains many empires, but certainly not all.

[Odin]

I read Toynbee's A Study of History a few months back and he suggssted that when civilizations are still in growth there is a very deep transition zone between the civilization and the surrounding assilimating barbarians, with people becoming less and less civilized the farther one goes from the civilization's core (ignoring the borders between civilizations).

When a civilization goes into social breakdown that civilization erupts in an outward burst of imperialistic conquest that slowly militarizes and antagonizes the barbarians on the frontier, ending peaceful assimilation and creating a very narrow transition zone between the civilization and the barbarians.

When the civilization disintergrates the millitarized barbarians overrun the carcass of the dying civilization's universal state (such as Rome), creating a "heroic age" among the invading barbarians.

[Odin]

BTW, I disagree with the theory posted by AS. The northward shift of ecomic power to the Rhine when the Dark Ages cleared is a result of the introduction of a new form of plow that caused the population of the North European Plain to increase rapidly.

[BeBMan]

I'd say it all depends how the book presents it's theory. If the author sees it as ultimate and exclusive explanation to everything then you can always dig out examples to counter that. If he is rather wise, and presents it as one possible path supported by certain examples, then pointing to single examples that did go the other way is rather pointless.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Albert Speer


if a frontier can be defined as the area between two different ethnic groups (by this I mean more dramatically ethnic groups than Saxon/Bavarian... more like Turkish and Slavic), then these aren't wrong. For example, the biggest European powers from 1500 on were Spain (clearly a frontier state with the Muslims), Austria (also clearly a frontier state with the Turks), Russia (also clearly a frontier state with the Tatars), and Sweden and Prussia who weren't as dramatically frontier polities but perhaps one could argue they were with the Orthodox Slavic cultures on their borders.

your 'exceptions' seem to give the idea more credence.

And where does France fit into that ?

[Heresson]

chegitz is right in this thread. He is defending the case well, so I'll rest.

[Al B. Sure!]

That means little. It was the crossroads of Western and Middle (Eastern) civilization, and easily accessible.

EXACTLY my point! it was on an ethnic border. Why did Rome part II so to speak begin there? Turchin notes that it may have been Constantine's whim to select the city for his capital or maybe his strategic brilliance but nevertheless, the reason for Byzantium's success in forming a new empire was, according to Turchin, that the Greeks of the area had become so solidified by exposure to other ethnicities such as the Celts, Huns, Goths, Avars, and Arabs.

I don't see how you could argue Byzantium wasn't a frontier empire! It is actually Turchin's strongest arguement. Why there, instead of all the rest of the decaying Roman Empire, did a new empire start in Thrace? Why did Italy, the core of the Empire, not resolidify itself but instead remained broken into petty city-states and duchies? Why didn't Greece proper (perhaps even the city of Athens) form an empire with Rome's fall? Why instead did it form just to the north in Thrace, a region on the balkan frontier?

In any event, Constaniople's proximity to its frontiers had the opposite effect that you posit, and the Ottomans pushed their frontiers far beyond it (to anything they could reach within a season's march from the city).

blah? That an empire pushes its frontiers ever further is what Turchin contends... or rather, at some point, due to everything from logistical problems to (his main arguement) the core regions being too far away from the frontier to remain solidified, the empire collapses and frontier zones, NOT the core area, replace this empire.

[BeBMan]

Well, frontier zones are a bit more complex, they aren't simply defined by purely ethnic borders. Otherwise you would have a Roman empire full of internal frontier zones, which does not make much sense.

[Al B. Sure!]

Molly:

And where does France fit into that ?

I said powers...

France is a puzzle because its decentralized state, especially from 1300-1500 points to it being a core area, not unified because the cultural pressure wasn't there to solidify the elites. Perhaps the reason for France's unification from the mid-1500's til the revolution (though they still had a civil war) was because of religious pressure. Nothing can cause you to have more of an 'us vs. them' mentality than having Protestants in England, the Netherlands, and Germany. Though this is just my guess.

[Al B. Sure!]

BeBro:

Well, frontier zones are a bit more complex, they aren't simply defined by purely ethnic borders. Otherwise you would have a Roman empire full of internal frontier zones, which does not make much sense.

Not really... ethnic differences can exist but if the disparate people of a region are faced with an even more different culture, then they surely can unify. That is Turchin's point. Latins, Samnites, South Italian Greeks, and Etruscans were very much different peoples (the little known Etruscans didn't even speak an Indo-European language and had a very different pantheon than the Graeco-Roman) yet in the face of the Celts who invaded in 500 BC or so, they realized their differences were insignificant compared to the differences between the peoples of Italy and the Celts.

Basically culture shock can cause disparate peoples to unite.

Take Greece's history as a further example. For centuries, Ionians and Dorians saw each other as different peoples and wars were fought alone these lines (Sparta Dorian, while Athens was Ionian). Exposure to the Persian empire occured in the mid 6th century BC with Cyrus' conquest of Lydia. The Persian threat did cause Pan-Hellenic unity to rise contributing greatly to the Greek defence of their lands.

Once the threat had passed after the end of the Persian Wars, unity faltered. I suppose Greece was not on a frontier long enough to build up enough solidarity to forge a unified Greece for any length of time.

Note that it was Macedon to the north which consolidated and formed an empire... Macedon which was pseudo-Hellenic, clearly on the frontier of the Hellenic culture, long having had conflict with Scythians and other peoples, and also having been occupied by the Persians... Macedon was where solidarity built up and was sustained with exposure to other cultures on this Hellenic frontier and Macedon was where an empire formed.

[BeBMan]

Well, my point is that frontier zones aren't just defined exclusively as zones along ethnical borders, but rather as areas where a whole complex of differences exists (such as religious, economic, social, technological etc.), ethnical differences often being amongst them, but as said a frontier zone cannot be reduced to just an ethnical borderline, and I hope Turchin doesn't do that.

[Al B. Sure!]

but just to stress this... I am using the common term 'frontier' which Turchin doesn't use that much. Instead he says 'meta-ethnic fault line,' meaning a border between two ethncities... well, actually meta-ethnicities so its a bit more than Saxon/Bavarian/Swabian, like i said earlier. It may be somewhat arbritary but it's not unreasonable... Germans and Arabs have more acute differences between them then any differences between different tribes of Arabs and Germans.

These fault lines do not necessarily have to correspond with an empire... in fact, in the case of empires pristine to their region, there was no prior empire. These fault lines do tend to correspond with an empire for pretty clear reasons such as an empire expands until it reaches a natural border (such as a mountain-range or a large river like the Rhine or Danube) which hampers movement and usually happens to mark the border of two different ethnicities for the same reason.

so again, we're not talking imperial borders per se, although we can be in many cases. We're concerned with these meta-ethnic fault lines.

[BeBMan]

Ahh, ok, I thought he modified the frontier thesis for his stuff.

[Al B. Sure!]

such as religious, economic, social, technological etc.

but ethnic differences include these differences!

Racially, northern Mandarin Chinese and Mongols aren't really different and probably were the same people before agriculture, worshiping the same gods, and all that. Those in the regions where rainfall was significant enough for agriculture (ie- not in the Gobi or the Steppe) settled and farmed and, as a result, cultural differentiation occured.

While the Mongols remained nomadic pastoralists, the Chinese were settled farmers and urban dwellers who required new gods and new customs. A few differences and then more differences followed until downright antagonisms broke between the Chinese and Mongols and the cultures grew different out of, in a way, spite. For example, ancient Chinese abhorred milk (i suppose this is why so many are lactose intolerant) because the pastoral Mongols survived on it.

As a result, solidarity rose on both sides of this border and the Chinese united into an Empire and Mongols did their thing (Turchin makes it a point that he is discussing land-based agrarian polities... he doesn't touch pastoralists, sea-based polities [such as England], nor industrial states).

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
but ethnic differences include these differences!

No. There can be such diffs between different ethnicities, but saying ethnical diffs include automatically all other diffs is not correct. Just look into catholic Europe in the 12th century, English, Danes, French, Spanish, Germans had more or less all the same feudal system, same economy, same religion and so on.