Queequeg's 'Special' Threads: Roman-Persian edition

[saskganesh]

I read a while ago that animal remains indicate that cattle got smaller after the empire--presumably because the decline in travel restricted animal husbandry. For some reason I think I also saw this was disputed--I'm tossing that out if anyone knows the answer.

hmm. husbandry is a good guess.

other guesses. changes in feed.... more reliance on grass only because of lack of imported surplus grain (grain is often used as a finisher). more hungry peasants eating grasses in direct competition? destruction of aqueducts during the 20 year long byzzie-goth war in Italy, leading to lack of water ? earlier slaughter of beasts because people are hungry and can't feed them over the winter?

among the upper orders in western Europe, a lot of celebrated medieval food was in fact wild game. this might tell us something about the desirability of beef.

[crazy canuck]

Even if Justinian had not invaded, the rise of Islam would have lead to a massive decline in urbanization throughout the heavily urbanized West. 

Possibly, but that involves going deep down a counter-factual rabbit hole.  Absent Justinian's Drang Nach Westen, it is hard to predict what the course of Byzantine history might otherwise have been.

Agreed.  One example.  If we assume the Byzantines had kept paying off the tribes that kept the arabs in check and instead of invading Italy/North Africa and had instead used their resources to strengthen their hold Syria and southern regions then the Muslims would not have had such an easy time of expanding.

It all becomes alt history worthy of Turtledove.

[The Minsky Moment]

I have to dispute this, I'm afraid. First, it buys into the old view of the stagnant Roman Empire versus the medieval revolution, which we know now is a bit inaccurate. First, it's pretty clear the fall of the Empire witnessed a lot of technological regression; the Gallic mechanical reaper seems to have vanished during the 3rd century Crisis, while Dark age Britain lost the pottery wheel! Crop yields also seem to have declined somewhat, although this is less clear.

But we also know nowadays that the Roman Empire did see technological diffusion and development; a lot of the developments which are attributed to the medieval world were first noticed in the late empire, and in places like Spain there was major development, as irrigation networks spread. Criticizing the romans for not adopting the heavy plow is a bit like criticizing the Tudors for not adopting staem engines, IMO; the technology wasn't there yet and hadn't had time to diffuse.

I think you misunderstand my point (due in large part to poor phrasing by me).  The claim is not that the roman empire was technologically unsophisticated compared to the era that followed.  The claim is that the late Roman social system discouraged the application of such labor saving technology to agriculture and thus they were not employed even though the theoretical knowledge was probably there.  What we see in early medieval agriculture is thus not truly technological innovation [my use of the term progress was unfortunate, as malthus caught] per se, but rather adaption of methods and tools whose use was blocked by lack of social incentives in a prior period.  But the bottom line is that the farmers that took advantage of the new methods benefitted.

[The Minsky Moment]

The reverse of the coin is the decrease in physical safety in the late empire and after.

Frankish gaul remains pretty stable after Clovis.  I think that point holds for Italy but it isn't true in every time and place.

[Razgovory]

The reverse of the coin is the decrease in physical safety in the late empire and after.

They actually put that on the back of their coins?  Now that's honesty in government.

[Faeelin]

I think you misunderstand my point (due in large part to poor phrasing by me).  The claim is not that the roman empire was technologically unsophisticated compared to the era that followed.  The claim is that the late Roman social system discouraged the application of such labor saving technology to agriculture and thus they were not employed even though the theoretical knowledge was probably there.  What we see in early medieval agriculture is thus not truly technological innovation [my use of the term progress was unfortunate, as malthus caught] per se, but rather adaption of methods and tools whose use was blocked by lack of social incentives in a prior period.  But the bottom line is that the farmers that took advantage of the new methods benefitted.

No, I got your point. My problem is that I dont' really agree with it. If the roman period discouraged labor saving innovation, why do we see a profusion of water mills springing up? Not just the mill at arles, or signs that the Romans were using water power for things like stonecutting. This doesn't suggest, at least to me, a stagnant civilization.

Moreover, what about the Roman economy discouraged innovation? The Empire was far larger than the kingdoms that replaced it; if there was truly an improvement in the quality of life for peasants (and this is at best unclear, and at worst not born out by looks at surviving skeletons, human and animal), then it's not clear that leads to better technology. In the medieval era, the earliest adopters of new technology were the monasteries and lords; the same would have been true in the Roman Empire.

[Queequeg]

JR mentioned that in modern terms there would have been a GNP collapse. It is theoretically possible to think that because of a more egalitarian social structure, lower classes of society are better off even in that case, but in ancient times falling populations were due to things such as the spread of disease and starvation. That populations rose in the heyday of Rome and fell afterwards is good evidence that life got worse, not better.

Pre-modern populations are by necessity Malthusian, meaning that technology does not improve average quality of life as ensure population growth, with war, disease and immigration necessary to help turn that down.  Massive population declines often make way for rapid technological improvement; Renaissance Europe had yet to recover fully from the Plague, for example, meaning that there would be fewer, better fed people who were being more innovative. 

Also, worth remembering why societies often crop up in new places while the old place gets poor.  Long-term civilization can wreck ecological havoc like deforestation and salinization that result in massive hardship.

I am not saying that for most people the Hunter-Gatherer state or a lower Agricultural or Nomadic state would have been better.  I think this is difficult to qualify, as these earlier societies are a lot more violent.  But for some people, like the big, physically fit farmer forced into slavery or serfdom, becoming a barbarian berserker would be a hugely positive turn. Depending on the situation, there may be enough converted but 'more advanced" people to make a real difference.   

What we see in early medieval agriculture is thus not truly technological innovation [my use of the term progress was unfortunate, as malthus caught] per se, but rather adaption of methods and tools whose use was blocked by lack of social incentives in a prior period.  But the bottom line is that the farmers that took advantage of the new methods benefited.

The adoption of said practices seems very random to me.  In Russia, the peasants didn't want any kind of technological change because of they were all batshit crazy.  In Europe, a lot of the Lords were afraid of massive agricultural changes because it might upset the balance of society.  I think the willingness to adopt technology happens for very, very complex reasons that are best left for another topic.

[Queequeg]

Apocalyptic and survivalist fiction is based on similar notions. It often seems that many people actively want civilization would fall, so they could live as they wish.

Fact is though that for all the revisionism of late 20th century anthropologists, life as a hunter-gatherer is pretty violent and nasty - it is true that they have no war, but they have a very high murder rate; and starvation is pretty common. Whether it is more or less nasty that that of your average serf depends on time and place. One thing is for sure - at least in civilized society, there is at least the possibility of living a more cultured life.

This is not exactly what I was saying, and I am of two minds on the subject.

What I meant here specifically is that there can be enough people who find this simpler lifestyle attractive for it to make a difference.  Take my German Beserker.  He'd have to have a certain skill set first of all (propensity for violence, size, lack of fear, swiftness) that could determine his success or failure in a given period, and depending on the period he can be crucial or marginalized.  In 500 BC Germany he'd be a huge asset in battle.  In 500 AD he'd be less of one due to the movement towards Christianity.  In 1600 AD he'd make a great mercenary in the Thirty Year's War.  In 1880 he'd be thrown in Prison and given a psychoanalyst.  In 1942, he'd be commanding troops on the Ostfront and killing civilians for fun.  In 2009, he'd be making porn. 

Depending on the situation there can be more of these people and/or they can make more of an impact.  Not that *everyone* wants to society to fail, just that some people have the capacity to become a "beserker" and some don't, and in some situations the potential beserkers can triumph. 

Another thing: I understand that in a lot of ways hunter gatherer societies are more violent, and that generally speaking the most advanced pre-Westernizing agricultural societies (say Qing Dynasty China) would be a better place for most people.  You'd be more likely to survive birth, more likely to not be eaten or killed young, more likely to grow up and have kids.  You'd also live on rice for the vast majority of your life and have serious health issues relating to your diet, and have limited mobility within society.  It is a trade off that some people would switch for. 

[ulmont]

Apocalyptic and survivalist fiction is based on similar notions. It often seems that many people actively want civilization would fall, so they could live as they wish.

Like the SCA wank-fest series of novels by S. M. Stirling. 

[alfred russel]

Pre-modern populations are by necessity Malthusian, meaning that technology does not improve average quality of life as ensure population growth, with war, disease and immigration necessary to help turn that down.  Massive population declines often make way for rapid technological improvement; Renaissance Europe had yet to recover fully from the Plague, for example, meaning that there would be fewer, better fed people who were being more innovative. 

I was making a point from a Malthusian perspective. Malthus was looking at things in terms of a long term steady state: the relationship between population and wealth would adjust so that the wealth per person limited net population growth to zero. His point being that the technological advancement of his times with the higher population density didn't improve people's lives: the general living standards in which people lived were, as in the past, bad enough so that net population growth stayed at zero.

Taking Malthus's notions and equating population growth to general living standards, Rome did not have a steady population through its history. It had a period of significant increase, and a period of significant decrease. In a premodern society where subsistence level existence was common and other data is lacking, I tend to think that population growth is one of the better indicators we have of general living conditions.

[alfred russel]

[Do you think he was that historically aware? My assumption would be that his conception of rome would be something of a legend, and probably significantly influenced by the church. Picking up the title wasn't about resuscitating a form of government but trying to infuse his rule with legitimacy, prestige, and purpose.

We know that Charlemagne took a great interest in books, had talented tutors, and that his library was full of classical works, so yes - he was probably quite historically aware for the period.

If he was really illiterate, how talented could his tutors be and how interested could he really be in books?

[Valmy]

If he was really illiterate, how talented could his tutors be and how interested could he really be in books?

What does illiteracy have to do with being interested in things?

Anyway we have no idea how good he was at reading only that he struggled late in life to learn how to write.

[alfred russel]

If he was really illiterate, how talented could his tutors be and how interested could he really be in books?

What does illiteracy have to do with being interested in things?

Anyway we have no idea how good he was at reading only that he struggled late in life to learn how to write.

I think it would be a major deterrent to an interest in books. 

[Valmy]

I think it would be a major deterrent to an interest in books. 

Why would you think that?  Illiterate people have been getting people to read stuff to them since the invention of writing itself.

[The Minsky Moment]

If he was really illiterate, how talented could his tutors be and how interested could he really be in books?

A principal source of information about Charlemagne's academic achievements is Einhard's biography, which explained as follows: "Charles had the gift of ready and fluent speech, and could express whatever he had to say with the utmost clearness. He was not satisfied with command of his native language merely, but gave attention to the study of foreign ones, and in particular was such a master of Latin that he could speak it as well as his native tongue; but he could understand Greek better than he could speak it. He was so eloquent, indeed, that he might have passed for a teacher of eloquence. He most zealously cultivated the liberal arts, held those who taught them in great esteem, and conferred great honors upon them. He took lessons in grammar of the deacon Peter of Pisa, at that time an aged man. Another deacon, Albin of Britain, surnamed Alcuin, a man of Saxon extraction, who was the greatest scholar of the day, was his teacher in other branches of learning. The King spent much time and labour with him studying rhetoric, dialectics, and especially astronomy; he learned to reckon, and used to investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies most curiously, with an intelligent scrutiny. He also tried to write, and used to keep tablets and blanks in bed under his pillow, that at leisure hours he might accustom his hand to form the letters; however, as he did not begin his efforts in due season, but late in life, they met with ill success."

Einhard's text does not specifically mention either way whether Charlemagne could read.  Some historians have argued that this lack of explicit mention means that Charlemagne was illiterate, because Einhard was trying to idealize Charles, and therefore would have mentioned such a skill if it existed.  This isn't a very convincing argument IMO - to me, this passage indicates that Charles could read because it presumes that he knew his letters but had difficulty forming them in his hand. 

In any case, it is clear enough that Charlemagne studied the classics with Alcuin, and even if this involved Alcuin reading them aloud, it still would have given his student an understanding of their contents.