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

[The Minsky Moment]

There is no question that there is a collapse in civilization in the literal sense - a huge decline in urban life and urban population accompanied by a decrease in complex economic activity such as large-scale manufacturing and long-distance trade.  Using modern concepts somewhat anachronistically, there is sharp drop in GDP, and also a drop in certain cultural attributes such as literacy, building quality and abundance of personal household goods.  In this sense, one can talk about a "Dark Age" in the former Western Roman territories.

But two cavaets need to be put in place.  One is about timing.  Urban life in nothern Gaul falls off pretty precipitously in the 5th century, in large part because urban civilization was always a rather artificial transplant there in the first place -- the "cities" of nothern Gaul were really glorified garrison forts that over time became local centers of trade and exchange driven by the needs of the garrison troops and their followers.  Once the imperial structure is no longer in place supporting these militarized centers with tax money transfers, they basically vanish, except in those areas where the rising episcopal structure maintains some shadowy semblance of urban life.

In Southern Gaul and Italy, though, the story is rather different.  The structure of urban civilization probably was negatively impacted by the loss of connection to North Africa and by the reduced possibilities for long-distance trade in the 5th century.  But at the end of that century, urban life in the West and Roman civitas is still very much alive and well.  In fact from the standpoint of the year 500, the future prospects of Roman civilization in that part of the world still looked pretty bright compared with the chaos of the prior century.  In many respects, Roman civilization and culture enjoyed a revival under Ostrogothic Italy under Theodoric; similarly, Roman citizens under Visigothic rule in southern Gaul continued to live much as they had in prior centuries, as the Visigothic king Alaric II dedicated himself to such decidely non-barbaric pursuits as assembling what would become an influential compilation of Roman law.

Focusing on this urbanized core of the Western Empire, the "fall" IMO cannot be properly attributed to the barbarians at all -- rather, the beginning of the end can be traced to Justinian's brutal and bloody-minded policy of conquest.  Justianian's long and catastrophic war devastated Italy, destroyed the old Senatorial elite through purges and economic ruin, and permanently disrupted trade.  And ultimately he and his successors could not hold unto these dearly bought conquests, precipitating the Lombard incursion and the political and economic balkanization of the peninsula.

The second caveat is that while overall economic activity declined significantly, that impact might have been felt differently by different classes.  Roman civilization was very nice for the wealthy absentee landowners who enjoyed a leisurely and cultured urban style; it wasn't as nice for the bound laborers who toiled on their estates and were subjected to punishing taxation.  As moderns, we tend to see the decline of Roman civilization in terms of the disappearance of literary output, of handsome, well-built villas, of baths and sophisticated plumbing systems.  But for at least some peasants on the land, what they experienced was a large decline of taxation and the disappearance of legal structures the maintained them in a state of serfdom.  So "darkness" must be understood as a matter of perspective.

[The Minsky Moment]

I tend to see Charlemagne as a last ditch effort to revive an older form of civilization- he is trying to be a new Clovis or Theodoric - resuscitating Late Roman forms of governance, and ultimately even assuming the imperial title to reinforce this ambitious project.  The problem is that by 800, even after all the efforts to encourage greater literacy, the physical, administrative and intellectual infrastructure needed to maintain that kind of governing structure doesn't exist anymore.  There aren't cadres of literate civilians trained in law and administration to draw upon like Clovis or Theodoric could 300 years earlier - just a handful of clerics and prelates with basic literacy skills.  The old roman physical infrastructure had deteriorated, in any case, the old road system didn't connect to many of the new centers of power in the Carolingian world.  Charlemagne managed to hold his renaissance together only by the sheer force off his incredible will and by constantly travelling around.  His successors couldn't hope to keep it together even under ideal conditions - when the Magyars and Vikings arrived on the scene, the collapse became total.

So Charlemagne is really the endgame of Late Antiquity - a last flash of brilliance for an ancient form of civilization just before it dies its final death.  What we understand as medieval society is what arose gradually over the 100 years or so out of the ashes of that failure.

[Razgovory]

Huh.  I tend to see it the opposite way.  The Collapse in the west happening during the reign of Justinian ( the final straw being the depopulation due to plagues) and Charlemagne being a dramatic indicator of a new "Western" civilization.

[Queequeg]

In Southern Gaul and Italy, though, the story is rather different.  The structure of urban civilization probably was negatively impacted by the loss of connection to North Africa and by the reduced possibilities for long-distance trade in the 5th century.  But at the end of that century, urban life in the West and Roman civitas is still very much alive and well.  In fact from the standpoint of the year 500, the future prospects of Roman civilization in that part of the world still looked pretty bright compared with the chaos of the prior century.  In many respects, Roman civilization and culture enjoyed a revival under Ostrogothic Italy under Theodoric; similarly, Roman citizens under Visigothic rule in southern Gaul continued to live much as they had in prior centuries, as the Visigothic king Alaric II dedicated himself to such decidely non-barbaric pursuits as assembling what would become an influential compilation of Roman law.

Even if Justinian had not invaded, the rise of Islam would have lead to a massive decline in urbanization throughout the heavily urbanized West.  The grain supply from Spain, Sicily, Egypt and North Africa was bound to give out, and with it rates of urbanization, and with it a decline in specialization and therefore technology.

Besides that, I'm not totally convinced that the various Germanic tribes repeatedly going into Italy and beyond had the long term administrative capacity to run complex, urbanized society that demanded Mediterranean wide trade routes to support itself.  If the Byzantines had not done the damage, than the Lombards might have, and in the long term the decline of trade would have.  I don't see Justinian as anything other than the Classical World's undertaker. 

In Southern Gaul and Italy, though, the story is rather different.  The structure of urban civilization probably was negatively impacted by the loss of connection to North Africa and by the reduced possibilities for long-distance trade in the 5th century.  But at the end of that century, urban life in the West and Roman civitas is still very much alive and well.  In fact from the standpoint of the year 500, the future prospects of Roman civilization in that part of the world still looked pretty bright compared with the chaos of the prior century.  In many respects, Roman civilization and culture enjoyed a revival under Ostrogothic Italy under Theodoric; similarly, Roman citizens under Visigothic rule in southern Gaul continued to live much as they had in prior centuries, as the Visigothic king Alaric II dedicated himself to such decidely non-barbaric pursuits as assembling what would become an influential compilation of Roman law.

The key advantages that the Romans had (a professional force) was gone, meaning that the Ostrogoths, Vandals and Visigoths only advantage was their relative mobility and fierceness, something they very quickly lost when they became a settled ruling class, paving the way for another successful Barbarian invasion, and with each invasion the literacy rate would decline and trade links would be frayed.  If the Arabs or Byzantines had not come, it would have been non-Islamic Berbers or more Germans, perhaps even Magyars. 

I'm begging to see the primary difference in our views on the "Dark Ages", and to fully explain I'll probably need to go back in history a bit.

In 0 AD, the Han and Roman Empire would have had a great deal in common.  The great Chinese rivers fulfilled the same function as the Medditeranean in the Roman world, linking great cities together in trade networks that allowed an unprecedented rate of urbanization.  The Romans and Han managed to beat back more mobile 'barbaric' peoples through a combination of organization and superior technology.  Both Empires claimed a kind of universality built around a ruling clique, with loyalty to this clique and certain core ideals mattering more than individual creed, religion and perhaps even personal morality.  Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, the traditional religions and ancestor worship and Legalism would have coexisted just like Mithrism, Epicureanism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism and the traditional Roman religion. 

At some point in Roman history this started to shift.  Perhaps with the rise of a more belligerent Zoroastrianism in Sassanid Iran, or perhaps due to Constantine himself, religion became far more important.  While in previous epochs every non-Jewish faith tended to be given a deal of respect, suddenly Orthodoxy was the greatest proof of loyalty, and seemingly unimportant theological distinctions became tied to cultural, economic, political and military standing.  While to Caesar or Marc Antony Parthia was just another Empire to be conquered, by the time of Heraclitus and the later Byzantine-Sassanid wars we are dealing with Holy War in the modern sense of the word, with both sides attempting to recruit or convert new Christians or Zoroastrians to the cause, and Christian-Zoroastrian the larger fault line than Roman-Barbarian.  The intangible qualifier "Roman" or "Civilized" had become secondary to "Christian", with the Byzantines actively recruiting all able bodied Christians (including missions to Arabia, most signifigantly) for war with the infidel Persian.  The Byzantine-Persian conflict has far more in common with, say, the Ottoman-Safavid conflict or the western Wars of Religion than it does anything previous outside of Israel.  The Islamic concepts of Jihad, Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Kufr came later, but made what was Byzantine reality Islamic theology, and represented a far more substantial break with the Classical past than any barbarian invasion before or afterwards.  The entire world outlook seems to change in the west, as the sciences and critical inquiry appear to be the stuff of infidel Hellenes until the high Middle Ages, and commerce the practice of unclean, un-Christian minorities, and literacy becoming primary important for religious purposes

Thus while Charlemagne claimed to be Caesar, his Caesar was a defender of good Catholic, Rome-facing Christians from Moors and Pagans, as much a proto-Crusader as a late Imperator.  The same is true of the Byzantine Basillus, not to mention the Caliph. 

[Queequeg]

The second caveat is that while overall economic activity declined significantly, that impact might have been felt differently by different classes.  Roman civilization was very nice for the wealthy absentee landowners who enjoyed a leisurely and cultured urban style; it wasn't as nice for the bound laborers who toiled on their estates and were subjected to punishing taxation.  As moderns, we tend to see the decline of Roman civilization in terms of the disappearance of literary output, of handsome, well-built villas, of baths and sophisticated plumbing systems.  But for at least some peasants on the land, what they experienced was a large decline of taxation and the disappearance of legal structures the maintained them in a state of serfdom.  So "darkness" must be understood as a matter of perspective.

This is entirely correct and well said.  Interestingly, the expansion of several peoples (the Turks, the Slavs, the Germans) seems linked to a relative decline in material complexity and a return to relative egalitarianism.  It is worth remembering that the average Bushmen nomad lived longer and healthier, and probably lived a better life than the vast majority of agricultural workers for most of civilized history. No surprise that some found a simpler lifestyle more attractive. 

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Besides that, I'm not totally convinced that the various Germanic tribes repeatedly going into Italy and beyond had the long term administrative capacity to run complex, urbanized society that demanded Mediterranean wide trade routes to support itself.   

I am pretty convinced because it happened.  The Ostrogoths didnt need to supply the administrative capacity because that capacity already existed on the ground and the Goths were smart enough to keep it intact.  It made no difference to the Roman elite whether they arranged for taxes to be paid to some indolent "emperor" lounging around in Ravenna like Valentinian III or to a shadow emperor propped up by a barbarian general like ricimer or odoacer, or to a Gothic king like Theodoric.   the underlying bureaucracy remained intact even as the names at the top revolved.  Indeed from a "Roman" perspective having an Ostrogothic king keep the peace might be seen as preferable to the old imperial system which was always riven by crises of usurpation.  Unfortunately, Theodoric's succession planning proved to be less than optimal. 

The key advantages that the Romans had (a professional force) was gone, meaning that the Ostrogoths, Vandals and Visigoths only advantage was their relative mobility and fierceness, something they very quickly lost when they became a settled ruling class, paving the way for another successful Barbarian invasion, and with each invasion the literacy rate would decline and trade links would be frayed. 

The Goths were as much a professional force as the late Roman army.  By the time of Theodoric, the Goths had been in direct contact with Rome for well over 100 years.  They had adapted Roman tactics, methods, and equipment, just as Rome had adapted from them.  For decades, Gothic leaders had led Roman armies and grew up in Roman households.  The Ostrogothic kingdom didn't collapse because it lacked a professional army - it collapsed because of a dynastic succession crisis in combination with a brutal assault by very well-led troops sent by a foreign power.

[Queequeg]

I am pretty convinced because it happened.  The Ostrogoths didnt need to supply the administrative capacity because that capacity already existed on the ground and the Goths were smart enough to keep it intact. 

Literate administration and massive pan-Medditeranean trade are two different things.  At its height, Rome had to import fantastic amounts of imported grain every day and spent a huge amount of energy distributing it.  Constantinople had something similar, but it is probably fair to say that by this time Rome, and generally speaking Italy, didn't have this type of trading system, and had probably reversed to pre-Punic Wars levels of grain importation.  This may be blamed on Vandal ineptitude or Byzantine hostility, but it still marks a crucial step on the road to near complete collapse of civilization.  While there certainly was a period of transition with a mixed Gothic-Roman culture, and perhaps a fully civilized Gothic Italian kingdom may have found its place in the restructured Meditteranean economy, but this is the 'counter factual rabbit hole'.  The Arabs were able to accomplish something like this, but they conquered an Empire larger than Rome ever was and thus didn't have the problem of a limited market or lack of lands to import grain from.

The Goths were as much a professional force as the late Roman army.  By the time of Theodoric, the Goths had been in direct contact with Rome for well over 100 years.  They had adapted Roman tactics, methods, and equipment, just as Rome had adapted from them.  For decades, Gothic leaders had led Roman armies and grew up in Roman households. 

This points towards synthesis rather than civilizing.  The Romans became more barbaric, the Goths more civilized, and they met somewhere near the middle.  There is still a visible trend towards decline, and no guarantee that the next Germanic people (probably less civilized) wouldn't have moved in during a crisis and made the situation worse.

[Malthus]

The second caveat is that while overall economic activity declined significantly, that impact might have been felt differently by different classes.  Roman civilization was very nice for the wealthy absentee landowners who enjoyed a leisurely and cultured urban style; it wasn't as nice for the bound laborers who toiled on their estates and were subjected to punishing taxation.  As moderns, we tend to see the decline of Roman civilization in terms of the disappearance of literary output, of handsome, well-built villas, of baths and sophisticated plumbing systems.  But for at least some peasants on the land, what they experienced was a large decline of taxation and the disappearance of legal structures the maintained them in a state of serfdom.  So "darkness" must be understood as a matter of perspective.

This is entirely correct and well said.  Interestingly, the expansion of several peoples (the Turks, the Slavs, the Germans) seems linked to a relative decline in material complexity and a return to relative egalitarianism.  It is worth remembering that the average Bushmen nomad lived longer and healthier, and probably lived a better life than the vast majority of agricultural workers for most of civilized history. No surprise that some found a simpler lifestyle more attractive.

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. 

[alfred russel]

I tend to see Charlemagne as a last ditch effort to revive an older form of civilization- he is trying to be a new Clovis or Theodoric - resuscitating Late Roman forms of governance, and ultimately even assuming the imperial title to reinforce this ambitious project. 

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

I am pretty convinced because it happened.  The Ostrogoths didnt need to supply the administrative capacity because that capacity already existed on the ground and the Goths were smart enough to keep it intact. 

Literate administration and massive pan-Medditeranean trade are two different things.  At its height, Rome had to import fantastic amounts of imported grain every day and spent a huge amount of energy distributing it.  Constantinople had something similar, but it is probably fair to say that by this time Rome, and generally speaking Italy, didn't have this type of trading system, and had probably reversed to pre-Punic Wars levels of grain importation. 

True - but the Ostrogothic kingdom also didn;t have to shoulder the massive burden of maintaining far-flung frontier garrisons, forts and roads all over Western Europe.  Their resources were less but so were their commitments.  And while trade was reduced, the level of economic activity was still more than sufficient to support a respectable level of urban civilization.

This points towards synthesis rather than civilizing.  The Romans became more barbaric, the Goths more civilized, and they met somewhere near the middle.  There is still a visible trend towards decline, and no guarantee that the next Germanic people (probably less civilized) wouldn't have moved in during a crisis and made the situation worse.

I agree that there is some synthesis, but would hesitate to sign on to the negative characterization.  Note that even into the 7th century, the distinction between Roman citizen and Frank can be found in Gaul.  And in the late 5th and early 6th century, Romans might have adapted Gothic sartorial fashions and other affectations, but they maintained their core cultural attributes.  As for the goths, much is made about attempts to maintain a degree of separateness such as adopting Arianism and wearing long hair.  The need to resort to such artifical means suggests to me that the Gothic elite did in fact succomb to signifciant acculturation and Theodoric's own life is Exhibit 1 for that tendency.  I do think that Theodoric's reign up to about 520 or so represents revival, not decline of Roman culture.  because we know what eventually happens there is a tendency to allow that hindsight to create a questionable narrative of gradual, inevitable decline.  I don't think that is how it seemed at the time to those living through it.

[alfred russel]

The second caveat is that while overall economic activity declined significantly, that impact might have been felt differently by different classes.  Roman civilization was very nice for the wealthy absentee landowners who enjoyed a leisurely and cultured urban style; it wasn't as nice for the bound laborers who toiled on their estates and were subjected to punishing taxation.  As moderns, we tend to see the decline of Roman civilization in terms of the disappearance of literary output, of handsome, well-built villas, of baths and sophisticated plumbing systems.  But for at least some peasants on the land, what they experienced was a large decline of taxation and the disappearance of legal structures the maintained them in a state of serfdom.  So "darkness" must be understood as a matter of perspective.

This is entirely correct and well said.  Interestingly, the expansion of several peoples (the Turks, the Slavs, the Germans) seems linked to a relative decline in material complexity and a return to relative egalitarianism.  It is worth remembering that the average Bushmen nomad lived longer and healthier, and probably lived a better life than the vast majority of agricultural workers for most of civilized history. No surprise that some found a simpler lifestyle more attractive.

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.

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

[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.

[The Minsky Moment]

[Fact is though that for all the revisionism of late 20th century anthropologists, life as a hunter-gatherer is pretty violent and nasty

Even the most aggressive proponent of the "darkness" aspect of the dark Ages would not posit that European socety regressed to the hunter-gatherer stage.

In fact, agricultural technology actually progressed during this period -- due to the introduction of the heavy plow throughout most of Europe and later the introduction of the horse collar.  Such innovation did not interest the Romans because having access to huge supplies of bonded labor, they had little incentive to invest in that kind of labor-saving capital.

Thus, from the POV of the large mass of subsistence farmers, there may have been real improvements to life with the passing of the Roman agrarian system.  True, the better off would no longer have access to good quality mass produced pottery and household goods.  But for many, that would be an acceptable tradeoff for far lower tax burdens, freedom of movement, and greater control over their agricultural product.

[Malthus]

[Fact is though that for all the revisionism of late 20th century anthropologists, life as a hunter-gatherer is pretty violent and nasty

Even the most aggressive proponent of the "darkness" aspect of the dark Ages would not posit that European socety regressed to the hunter-gatherer stage.

I'm not saying it did.

In fact, agricultural technology actually progressed during this period -- due to the introduction of the heavy plow throughout most of Europe and later the introduction of the horse collar.  Such innovation did not interest the Romans because having access to huge supplies of bonded labor, they had little incentive to invest in that kind of labor-saving capital.

Certainly. Wasn't I arguing the thesis of progress last go-around?

Thus, from the POV of the large mass of subsistence farmers, there may have been real improvements to life with the passing of the Roman agrarian system.  True, the better off would no longer have access to good quality mass produced pottery and household goods.  But for many, that would be an acceptable tradeoff for far lower tax burdens, freedom of movement, and greater control over their agricultural product.

This would be true only to an extent. The reverse of the coin is the decrease in physical safety in the late empire and after. Evidenced, for example, by the increase in fortifications within the empire itself. It is true that the Pax Romana was often broken by civil wars, but these rarely disrupted the life of the average person.

[Faeelin]

In fact, agricultural technology actually progressed during this period -- due to the introduction of the heavy plow throughout most of Europe and later the introduction of the horse collar.  Such innovation did not interest the Romans because having access to huge supplies of bonded labor, they had little incentive to invest in that kind of labor-saving capital.

Thus, from the POV of the large mass of subsistence farmers, there may have been real improvements to life with the passing of the Roman agrarian system.  True, the better off would no longer have access to good quality mass produced pottery and household goods.  But for many, that would be an acceptable tradeoff for far lower tax burdens, freedom of movement, and greater control over their agricultural product.

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.