Barbarian invasions and history repeating itself

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
I wonder just how large a city you must have to discover the benefits of sewers, aqueducts, paved road, harbors, concrete buildings, central heating, plumbing and other do-dads that the Romans had long become used to and which vanished when the "noble" German arrived to take care of things.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people living in the Roman Empire were rural farmers and herders who never enjoyed nor had any need for the luxuries you describe. Most of the Empire's citizens would not have noticed the disappearance of such things.

The Empire was able to create astounding innovations in its time, but it was never really able or willing to propegate them in a way that would ensure their longevity. Cookie-cutter Roman cities and fortresses were given baths, plumbing, Roman construction methods, and so on, but they were always a rather artificial veneer upon the backdrop of a society that didn't depend on these cities. Their construction was part of a "civilizing mission" that never really civilized; the increasing fiscal and political troubles of the Empire, long before the invasions of the Germanic tribes, served to cripple whatever urban culture had developed. Europe, whether under the Roman Empire or under its Germanic inheritors, simply never had the kind of society that could support such cities. The Empire imposed them by fiat upon the landscape, and when the Empire began to age and crumble, they withered away.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


There was the rule of law and a court system.

As there was under the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons and Moors- 'barbarians' and invaders all.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Tis true. Britain was a darned sight more democratic under the Saxons than under the Romans.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


As there was under the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons and Moors- 'barbarians' and invaders all.

I will have to admit that the "jury" system came out of German law.

But, generally, didn't they just settle things through trial by combat or ordeal?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Tis true. Britain was a darned sight more democratic under the Saxons than under the Romans.

Yeah, I have to agree here as well. The Romans had become far too despotic. In many ways, the German overthrow provide for a fresh beginning for Europe that might never have happened had the Empire continued.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
I will have to admit that the "jury" system came out of German law.

But, generally, didn't they just settle things through trial by combat or ordeal?

While those systems existed in Anglo-Saxon Britain, there were also measures to try people based on witnesses and whether others could vouch for your innocence. It's not entirely clear which was used more, but from the (admittably moderate) amount of reading I've done on the subject, these "peaceful" modes of trial were certainly better documented in law codes and probably more common.

[notyoueither]

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.

Actually, what has been revised is the idea that an entire period is unworthy of study because there are so few written records, or IOW are 'Dark' ages.

Newer techniques of historical study that do not rely solely on contemporary authors have enabled historians to learn a great deal about the period from the fall of Rome to the Middle Ages and thus the time is not so 'Dark' anymore.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Then the Plains Indians were not any sort of civilization?

[One_more_turn]

As I said before, Romans ran themselves into the ground through endless civil wars.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


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

Don't mistake civilization with morality.

You mean the way the Romans and Greeks and Spanish and British did ?

It's pretty much a given that one civilization will think another 'immoral' or 'amoral' and uncivilized because of a differing set of standards, ethical or otherwise.


The Romans believed they were superior to 'barbarians' in part because the process of learning correct Latin inculcated superior moral values- superior even to the by now 'decadent' Greeks.

The British felt they were superior in their muscular Christianity to the idol worshipping Hindus with their sexually explicit temple facades and public lingams and yonis.

The Spanish felt morally superior to the Aztecs because of the human sacrifice aspect of Aztec religion and possible cannibalistic practices.

The Romans felt morally superior to the Celts because unlike the Celts they did not sacrifice human beings or keep their heads as sacred talismen.



In any case, Ned's example of supposedly 'barbaric'; uncivilized behaviour needed the examples of 'superior' Roman civilization I gave as a counterweight.

What had started out as an Etruscan funeral rite to honour the dead became a Roman mass public spectacle and entertainment.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


The problem is that this simply doesn't work. To illustrate why your definition doesn't work, consider the Persian Empire under the Achaemenids. Persia of the day never produced the city life Greece did; in fact, only one major city existed, Babylon (Ecbatana and Persepolis are believed to be more "royal residences," palace complexes and such, than actual places of urban life). The huge majority of Persian cultural and economic interactions took place outside Babylon, in the rest of Darius' enormous empire in which cities simply were not terribly important or common.

And yet, we regard them as civilized - in fact, the Greeks of Alexander's day regarded them as over-civilized, effeminate and too comfortable for their own good. Clearly the way in which we use "civilized" has gone beyond any strict deictionary definition involving urban life, because clearly we have assigned states as quite civilized without that corresponding urban character.

Civilized requires citys, but its not a linear correlation between % of population urbanized and degree of civilization. As I said its the kind of complex interactions that take place. Economics involving extensive divisions of labor, typically involving mercantile cities (though palace complexes can do in a pinch) and political centralization and coordination. All the stuff that Persia had, leveraging off both Mesopotamian trade cities and the Persian Palace-cities. Oh, and the cities of Asia minor and Egypt and Syria that they captured and integrated into their empire as well. A far cry from simply rural life. Of course most PEOPLE were rural - but that was true in Greece as well, IIUC, and of course in Rome. Majority urban populations had to wait for the industrial revolution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Keep in mind that the vast majority of people living in the Roman Empire were rural farmers and herders who never enjoyed nor had any need for the luxuries you describe. Most of the Empire's citizens would not have noticed the disappearance of such things.

Civilization was indeed light upon the land generally before the industrial revolution. If we really want to discuss the level of economic well being of a typical Gallic-French village thats one thing. As Ive said, there was progress in the "dark ages" in certain aspects of agriculture and rural development. Thats really a different question than that of the degree of economic and political complexity.

I realize youre not taking issue with that so much as with Neds assertions about how great Rome was cause of the typical list of Roman urban amenities. Which (on Neds part) missed the point of our discussion. But thats just Ned.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The British felt they were superior in their muscular Christianity to the idol worshipping Hindus with their sexually explicit temple facades and public lingams and yonis.
.

Now that muscular christianity and sexual prudery are out of fashion, they can STILL feel superior to the Hindoos, based on Hindu parochialism and the caste system, and can STILL justify the Raj.

La plus ca change ...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Now that muscular christianity and sexual prudery are out of fashion, they can STILL feel superior to the Hindoos, based on Hindu parochialism and the caste system, and can STILL justify the Raj.

La plus ca change ...

Who is justifying the Raj ?

I'd say anyone could feel justified in feeling superior to any form of parochialism if they were to take a broader viewpoint. Too narrow a focus enables one only to see the tree, and miss the woods.

feel superior to the Hindoos, based on Hindu... caste system,

Yes, I feel morally superior to anyone who discriminates against someone not because of any act they have committed, but because of who their parents were. That's why I opposed neo-fascism and racism.