Barbarian invasions and history repeating itself

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cyclotron

Sure, international trade. What do we know about the internal economies of these peoples? Absolutely nothing, because they hardly kept records.

actually we know a fair amount, from coin hordes, from the archaelogy, from the written records that DID exist. I suggest any good economic history of the middle ages. Its not just international trade that declined, its interregional trade as well, and even local markets apparently.

" Besides, the evaporation of far-reaching trade routes probably had more to do with the decentralized nature of post-Roman Europe, without the conveniently located metropolises through which trade could flow between people with the money to purchase foreign goods. By the time the Empire collapsed, trade had already been nose diving for some time, as routes relocated to the Eastern Empire; the phenomenon predates the fall of the Western Empire."

Thats true, but it continued after the fall of the empire, hitting nadir in the 10th c.

Was the Dominate any less ruled by strongmen? Germanic kingship based on valor, generosity, and kinship ties was its own complex form of interaction and governance, though it lacked the written laws and writs that we typically associate with more complex governments. The nature of government changes depending on what is being governed; a leader of a fairly small tribe simply didn't need the kind of bureaucratic structure of the Empire. The shift in the methods of governance has to do with changes in demographics and political boundaries, and is not neccissarily indicative of some "collapse" of "civilization."

Im not talking about Germanic kingship, which was largely dormant in France and Italy and even in Germany at the nadir of the 10th century (though England was another story i'll admit) Im talking about rule by the local baron, who didnt have the traditions of kingship, he was a local tough ruling often without benefit of royal sanction, until the feudal systeme reasserted itself.

So is "collapse of civilization." I've been assuming that we all know and recognize this whole discussion is by definition rather vague.

I have deliberately avoided that term, as there were some areas like technology that continued to develop during the "dark ages" I do however insist that the decline in trade was quite real, and that the political systems, at least at the nadir, were far less complex.

"Sophisticated" religion? Is that a monotheism-only title, or what? Paganism wasn't organized like Christianity would be, but Christianity just copied its organization from the Roman Empire (dioceses and so on). Pagan traditions had their own priests, practitioners, traditions, oral histories, and rich mythologies. Again, what you see as a lack of organization is due to the much smaller polities of the time; the Roman Empire required bureaucratic everything, including religion, and without the Empire there exists no further need. The Papacy had to struggle to maintain its relevance in an increasingly localized world that, unlike the Empire, didn't see the need to look to far-away lands for spiritual or political guidance.

What I meant was that in say, the 9th or 10th century, in the nominally christian parts of western europe, there werent pagan priests or public rituals any longer. OTOH the church hadnt penetrated village life either. So all there was was folk traditions, that were sorta pagan.

[lord of the mark]

look im not trying to judge the early middle ages as "better" or "worse' than Rome or the later middle ages. But i think its going to far in the other direction to deny that society was "simpler" during the period from say 500 CE to 1100 CE, and esp from 800 to 1000, than it was earlier or later. When the crusaders reached Byzantium, the Greeks saw them as simple, naive, etc, and the Franks saw the Greeks as hyper sophisticated. I dont think they were influenced by Ren stereotypes, but were seeing something real.

And I still use civilization in more literal sense, not as a euphemism for "good" or "moral" Civilization means a civus - cities, and the kinds of interactions that take place there, the unique economic and cultural complexity of cities, and the political structures that can be built on them. With all the wonderfulness thats possible in a rural life with no trade, no luxuries, no culture beyond folklife, its not what I mean (or what originally was meant0 by "civilization".

[Az]

I understand that. This is exactly what I mean by "pro-literate bias." You're of course entitled to your own definition of civilization, but I for one think it too narrowly simplistic to define "civilized" solely on who writes and who does not.

Oh, I never meant "solely". It's not binary, but a favorable factor in consideration.

In any case, we certainly are all entitled to our own opinions, but they are not sacred, or not to be attacked. Otherwise, debates are meaningless.

[One_more_turn]

Justinian's invasion of Italy was a pyrrhic victory. It exhausted his own empire, destroyed Italy's infrastructure, and opened it up to invasion from the far more barbaric Lombards.

The monster eruption of the proto-Krakatoa (not completely verified) in 534AD created famine and pestilence around the globe. The Plague of Justinian probably killed 50% of the Byzantine population, Teotihuacan fell during this time, British resistance to Anglo-Saxons (less affected by the plague) collapsed during this time, massive dynastic changes ravaged China during this time.

500-600AD was truly a lousy time for anyone to live in.

[Ned]

Trade declined steadily in Europe long before the collapse for several reasons. A major reason is that economic decline left little or no money for road maintaince and police. Travel in Europe became riskier and riskier as banditry on the highways became the norm.

After the fall, it was all banditry.

Moreover, since there was no government, there was no coin. That alone would frustrate commerce.

As for the feudal system, it was really a by-product of the economic collapse on the one hand and the fact that senators were not taxed in the late empire. Farmers would sell their land to the local senator but continue to live on it and give the lord a portion of the crop in exchange for protection. This system obviously continued after the Germans arrived.

After the reconquest of Africa, the Mediteranean remained open for trade for a number of years and things got a little better in Europe as they again had access to goods from Africa and parts East. But that ended with the Muslim conquests. That is why the slight resurgence Europe saw under Karl de Grosse vanished.

Then it really got bad.

The Muslims assaulted Sicily and southern Italy. The Maygars invaded and terrorized Germany. The Vikings did their thing to Gaul and England.

Trade? Civilization?

Why don't we define what was going on in Europe as a freaking nightmare compared to anyone's acceptable definition of civilization.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Any people who would tie their queen to four horses to tear her assunder, pour molten lead down peoples throats for sport, drag them behind horses to be quartered while still alive, loot rape and pillage generations after they conquered the Romans, are not civilized.

Any people who would willingly spend large amounts of money to procure wild animals from Asia, Europe and Africa simply to watch them die for their own pleasure are not civilized.

Any people who would compel dwarves to fight women to the death in the arena, or crucify thousand upon thousand of rebel slaves are not civilized.

Alternate views of the 'civility' of the Roman Empire, an empire built on slave labour, popular entertainments such as gladiatorial combat to the death, mass crucifixion and war a l'outrance, in pursuit of gold (see Gaul and Dacia).

"They make a desert and call it peace."

Tacitus

[Odin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Except trade DID decline dramatically. while the exact pattern of decline over time is a matter of debate among economic historians, by the mid-10th century or so most of the West had been reduced to manorial autarchy, more or less, and trade had been reduced to the sporadic supply of luxuries by the occasional Jewish trader.

Complex forms of govt? The absense of money and literacy forced the Carolingians to attempt a centralized govt based on fiefs, which they were unable to maintain. Again, the 10th c west, govt was hardly complex, it was rule by the local strongman - only gradually did a more complex feudal system reemerge.

Societal interaction is vague - given the levels of localism, im not sure what it means.


Even religion - sophisticated religion in the West was largely happening only in monasteries - apparently the countryside was hardly Christian, and of course there was no organized paganism.

Unfortunately there has been a trend of historical revisionism in the last several decades that tries to minimize how bad the fall of the Western Empire was. The Term "Dark Ages" has become a "bad word" in many circles.

Here's a good book on the subject:

The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization

Why did Rome fall? Vicious barbarian invasions during the fifth century resulted in the cataclysmic end of the world's most powerful civilization, and a 'dark age' for its conquered peoples. Or did it? The dominant view of this period today is that the 'fall of Rome' was a largely peaceful transition to Germanic rule, and the start of a positive cultural transformation. Bryan Ward-Perkins encourages every reader to think again by reclaiming the drama and violence of the last days of the Roman world, and reminding us of the very real horrors of barbarian occupation. Attacking new sources with relish and making use of a range of contemporary archaeological evidence, he looks at both the wider explanations for the disintegration of the Roman world and also the consequences for the lives of everyday Romans, in a world of economic collapse, marauding barbarians, and the rise of a new religious orthodoxy. He also looks at how and why successive generations have understood this period differently, and why the story is still so significant today.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


I understand that. This is exactly what I mean by "pro-literate bias." You're of course entitled to your own definition of civilization, but I for one think it too narrowly simplistic to define "civilized" solely on who writes and who does not.



Sure, international trade. What do we know about the internal economies of these peoples? Absolutely nothing, because they hardly kept records. Besides, the evaporation of far-reaching trade routes probably had more to do with the decentralized nature of post-Roman Europe, without the conveniently located metropolises through which trade could flow between people with the money to purchase foreign goods. By the time the Empire collapsed, trade had already been nose diving for some time, as routes relocated to the Eastern Empire; the phenomenon predates the fall of the Western Empire.



Was the Dominate any less ruled by strongmen? Germanic kingship based on valor, generosity, and kinship ties was its own complex form of interaction and governance, though it lacked the written laws and writs that we typically associate with more complex governments. The nature of government changes depending on what is being governed; a leader of a fairly small tribe simply didn't need the kind of bureaucratic structure of the Empire. The shift in the methods of governance has to do with changes in demographics and political boundaries, and is not neccissarily indicative of some "collapse" of "civilization."



So is "collapse of civilization." I've been assuming that we all know and recognize this whole discussion is by definition rather vague.



"Sophisticated" religion? Is that a monotheism-only title, or what? Paganism wasn't organized like Christianity would be, but Christianity just copied its organization from the Roman Empire (dioceses and so on). Pagan traditions had their own priests, practitioners, traditions, oral histories, and rich mythologies. Again, what you see as a lack of organization is due to the much smaller polities of the time; the Roman Empire required bureaucratic everything, including religion, and without the Empire there exists no further need. The Papacy had to struggle to maintain its relevance in an increasingly localized world that, unlike the Empire, didn't see the need to look to far-away lands for spiritual or political guidance.



The Romans were some of the nastiest, most brutal civilizations on this earth. They certainly did things just as bad as drawing and quartering people or dragging them behind horses - crucifixion, anyone? Feeding the Christians to the lions? The Parthians perfected the art of pouring molten metal down people's throats long before the "dark ages," and they are generally considered far more "civilized" than the Vandals or Goths at that point. The people you point to as civilized were just as brutal as those you claim to be uncivilized; your anecdotes are meaningless.



I'm going to answer this with a quote of mine from the last time we debated that seems to still be applicable here.



I'll admit, your notion of some era of history as "a time without pity or hope" is quite romantic, if totally false.

Typical revisionist crap the book I mentioned tears to shreds.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
The Muslims assaulted Sicily and southern Italy. The Maygars invaded and terrorized Germany. The Vikings did their thing to Gaul and England.

Trade? Civilization?

Err... conveniently ignoring that the Muslims and Vikings also brought trade and, yes, even civilization. Muslims Sicily was incredibly advanced. After Robert Guiscard took over Sicily from the Muslims, the meld of cultures formed a great society. The Vikings were not all bloodthirsty ravagers but also traded all over the seas of Europe.

It's silly to get caught in these romantic visions of what Rome and its fall really was. Was there is a decline in some areas? Undoubtably. Was there a "collapse of civilization"? Not in the slightest. And thankfully, more and more information is coming out about the Middle Ages to show that it wasn't a time of total backwardsness, which has been unfortunately drilled into students' heads.

Oh, and as for literacy as akin to civilization, I think I'd take the Inca over more than a few literate civilizations (though there is speculation that the intricate knots they had were their language).

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Any people who would willingly spend large amounts of money to procure wild animals from Asia, Europe and Africa simply to watch them die for their own pleasure are not civilized.

Any people who would compel dwarves to fight women to the death in the arena, or crucify thousand upon thousand of rebel slaves are not civilized.

Alternate views of the 'civility' of the Roman Empire, an empire built on slave labour, popular entertainments such as gladiatorial combat to the death, mass crucifixion and war a l'outrance, in pursuit of gold (see Gaul and Dacia).

"They make a desert and call it peace."

Tacitus

The Romans had long ended these barbaric practices by the time of the last emperors. Most people were citizens and rights were respected. There was the rule of law and a court system.

There was much that was lost when the barbarians occuppied Roman Europe and destroyed the Roman government.

BTW, I understand that Briton remained peaceful largely Roman for a very long time after the last legions were withdrawn. The real aggressive German invasions didn't begin until the 500's.

[GePap]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Any people who would willingly spend large amounts of money to procure wild animals from Asia, Europe and Africa simply to watch them die for their own pleasure are not civilized.

Any people who would compel dwarves to fight women to the death in the arena, or crucify thousand upon thousand of rebel slaves are not civilized.

Alternate views of the 'civility' of the Roman Empire, an empire built on slave labour, popular entertainments such as gladiatorial combat to the death, mass crucifixion and war a l'outrance, in pursuit of gold (see Gaul and Dacia).

"They make a desert and call it peace."

Tacitus

Whether a society met modern moral codes is irrelevant to their level of civilization.

the ability to mobilize greta numbers of slaves, the ability to build the arena's to stage the shows, or to coordinate large military campaigns, these are all signs of civilization.

Don't mistake civilization with morality.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Odin


Unfortunately there has been a trend of historical revisionism in the last several decades that tries to minimize how bad the fall of the Western Empire was. The Term "Dark Ages" has become a "bad word" in many circles.

Well there ARE some good reasons for that. One, some folks use Dark Age as equiv to Middle Ages, which really doesnt work for the late Middle Ages. Second, it IS true that there was decline of all kinds going on in Rome, economically especiallly, from before 200 CE on. Effectively there is no bright shining line between Roman Civ and barbarism at some magic date. Roman rule in 390 isnt so great, and Germanic rule in the mid 400s isnt so bad. Probably a lot of folks then didnt notice things getting worse (though some did) And we HAVE underestimated SOME of the Germanic kingdoms. And economic history has shown THERE was signigicant economic activity in the 6th c. I dont disagree with ANY of those aspect of the revisionist view. All Im saying is that at the nadir of decline, in the late 9th and 10th centuries, things were clearly less complex or "civilized" across a range of measures.

[Ned]

LotM, from circa 200 AD on? Agreed.

Plague after plague, repeated barbarian invasions that ripped the empire like Sherman did the south, and multiple civil wars. Blow after blow. There is no wonder the empire collapsed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Well there ARE some good reasons for that. One, some folks use Dark Age as equiv to Middle Ages, which really doesnt work for the late Middle Ages. Second, it IS true that there was decline of all kinds going on in Rome, economically especiallly, from before 200 CE on. Effectively there is no bright shining line between Roman Civ and barbarism at some magic date. Roman rule in 390 isnt so great, and Germanic rule in the mid 400s isnt so bad. Probably a lot of folks then didnt notice things getting worse (though some did) And we HAVE underestimated SOME of the Germanic kingdoms. And economic history has shown THERE was signigicant economic activity in the 6th c. I dont disagree with ANY of those aspect of the revisionist view. All Im saying is that at the nadir of decline, in the late 9th and 10th centuries, things were clearly less complex or "civilized" across a range of measures.

100% agreed.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that there was no decline at all. Only that the "collapse" is dramatically overstated and the decline was beginning in the Roman Empire before the Western part ended.

[q=Ned]Plague after plague, repeated barbarian invasions that ripped the empire like Sherman did the south, and multiple civil wars. Blow after blow. There is no wonder the empire collapsed.[/q]

Hopefully you do accept that plenty of that was Rome's fault. There was a reason that outsiders didn't constantly invade Roman territory prior to say 200 AD. There was a breakdown in the government and power of Rome. That's why plagues spread easier and Germans were able to win against Romans. A decline in Rome combined with the Germans learning from the Roman legions.

[Ned]

Imran, I don't disagree at all. The internal decay in the empire was remarkable. So, in point of fact, the drop from being under Roman rule to German rule was not all that great for some Romans, particularly the peasants.

But the image that the barbarians largely came in peacefully and did no harm is hardly true at all. It is mostly true of the Franks who did, for a time, behave as good foederati in what we now know a Holland. But that changed under Clovis who rose up against the empire circa 500, just as the Goths, thought to be peacefully settled, had earlier risen up under Alaric circa 400. The foederati were peaceful only for a time and were largely not absorbed to become good Roman citizens. Even the Ostrogoths, thought to be good rulers in Italy, ended up destoying it during the time of Justinian.

The barbarian invasions and rampages formed a very large part of the reason for the decline and eventual destruction of the empire.