Especially with the argument on Languish to what extent the Dark Ages marked a break from the Classical period, and the fact that I've been playing Invasio Barbarorum (Imperio Julianum) as Sassanid Persia, a few questions started popping up in my head.
1) The traditional assumption I had was that Roman equipment throughout the Imperial Period became less advanced after the death of Aurelius. From a modern, western perspective the segmentata and the square shield (capable of forming the ultra cool testudo formation) seems like some kind of pinnacle of the ancient world, and how us smart Moderns would do it if we went back in history. The change in Roman infantry equipment, combined with a seeming decline in the sophistication of civil projects, siege works and overall economy seems to hint at a devolution of the Roman Army, rather than an evolution. Now, I always knew this ignored the increasing importance of heavy cavalry and the fantastically advanced and heavy armor of the Cataphract-Clibanarii, but from what I am reading I am no longer sure that the traditional Roman equipment was really such a pinnacle of achievement in changing times. A short sword doesn't work well against a cavalryman, and a square, large shield doesn't work well with a longsword. Rather than being the result of decline or barbarization of the Roman infantry, was the change in equipment as much a result of the overall evolution of warfare towards lighter infantry and super-heavy cavalry?
2) This started connecting in my head with what I remember from my old ancient military history books and what I knew of the relationship between Persia and Rome. The Romans began to adopt Persian-style super heavy cavalry. The Romans adopted the god of Mithras and ultimately Christianity, which from a strictly academic perspective can be seen as a syncretic faith, drawing upon Jewish, Zoroastrian and Classical beliefs The Romans even began adopting Persian equipment directly (for cavalry first, then eventually for everybody). Interestingly, the reverse is true in Persia; the Parthians called themselves "Philhellenes" but lived a largely separate existence from the time of Arasces, but culturally and administratively picked up a lot from the Greeks, and the Sassanids, while outwardly a rejection of Parthian and Greek influence for a return to "Persian-ness", adopted large parts of Greek culture and administrative concepts, adopted Roman-style heavy infantry and adopted a number of Roman inventions into their architecture. The result is that by the beginning of the Islamic period the two Empires would be very similar. So was the change in Rome an evolution of equipment to meet new threats, a result of declining Roman economy and security, or was it a result of Persian influence? I don't think these are mutually exclusive, though the great achievements of Byzantine and Sassanid Architecture, and the fantastic complexity of Byzantine-Late Roman cavalry equipment would seem to hint that any decline in Roman technological ability was either area specific or not true of every region of the economy.
3) Cavalry men, completely covered in armor and wielding a deadly long lance, who own small plots of land (for which they have various specific insignia and color associations), and whose relatively barbaric warrior ethos is tempered by a strict devotion to a more martial variant of one of the credal religions. All of these descriptors apply to the European Knight and the Persian gripanvar, including heraldry. Without heraldry, and we can include the medieval Turkic nobility for the most part. Now, I suppose that the technological level in these two places may have been similar, resulting in some of the same military techniques and social structures meant that support them, but it seems very odd to me that they appear nearly exactly similar, right down to the concept of chivalry and heraldry. Did they just come from a similar place, or (as in the case of the Turkic nobility picking up the remnants of the Armenian and Sassanid heavy cavalry tradition), did the European nobility somehow merge with or adopt some of the older Persian-derived traditions, or is this just one bizzare example of convergent evolution, like dogs and thylacines?
Do not assume that lorica segmentata was ever part of a 'standard' kit for a Roman legionary. Having worn it, as well as more standard hamata, I can tell you that a) while I don't think it's heavier than hamata, it distibutes weight poorly and makes your shoulders sore quickly, b) it needs almost continual repair, c) it was probably very difficult to mass-produce, unlike hamata, and d) it is actually not better protection against a skilled adversary (as it's not difficult to slip a dagger/sword in between the bands or into an armpit).
IMO segmentata was probably only worn by officers and probably then only in triumphs and shit like that. I think the reason you see segmentata in Hollywood, passion plays, etc. is because it looks cool, and probably also because people associate hamata with medieval chainmail and thus would be confused to see actors playing the part of ancient Romans wearing it.
I don't have much to offer with regard to your second and third points, but I think it's strange that you seek to link cultural exchange with the adoption of foreign equipment and tactics. Most Roman equipment originally came from the Gauls and it wasn't like the Romans said "gee, Cern seems like a cool god... this makes us want to invent the Montefortino by ripping off Gaulish helmet design!" I think it was more like "gee, the Gauls keep beating the fuck out of us... I wonder if we copy their equipment, we might do better?"
What is interesting is that in Roman history the two seem to go together. The Gauls beating your ass? Copy their chain mail and swords, take some of their Gods. The Persians? Same thing. I think one of the main reasons they succeeded was that for the vast majority of their history they appear to be almost Borg like in their ability to imitate and often improve foreign tactics and even social models. The same was true of the Ottomans, the Mongols and modern America.
EDIT: I kind of knew that about segmentata, though as I said it appeared to me previously that the movement back towards hamata appeared to be the first real technological backslide in the history of the Roman Army. That said, IIRC Cataphracts tended to have some limited plate armor.
This thread should start like this: I think that 'Night of the Hunter' is a good metaphor for the Roman Empire, and here is why...
Why not Night of the Lepus?
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2009, 07:58:37 AM
This thread should start like this: I think that 'Night of the Hunter' is a good metaphor for the Roman Empire, and here is why...
you know this, but the Romans relied on auxiliary cavalry, and by the time that the Legions became heavy cavalry orientated, the "auxiliaries" had become regulars. this paralleled shifts in the Empire's society, so that the conditions that allowed the mass creation of uniformly equipped, heavy foot legions were no longer possible (I think during the 1C BCE civil wars, there were 50 (!) legions operating at some point.)
A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service. The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.
/indeed.
Quote from: PDH on July 13, 2009, 09:37:16 AM
A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service. The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.
Quote from: PDH on July 13, 2009, 09:37:16 AM
A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service. The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.
Two go hand in hand.
Generally, ill-disciplined heavy cavalry tend to beat ill-disciplined infantry every time. The breakdown in authority = lack of ability to organize the sort of disciplined, professional infantry that the earlier Roman empire relied on = cavalry being more effective on the battlefield.
:huh: Are you sure about that? I assume also that you mean when the forces are evenly-matched in terms of numbers.
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2009, 10:13:37 AM
:huh: Are you sure about that? I assume also that you mean when the forces are evenly-matched in terms of numbers.
I'm not personally sure of it - I have no experience whatsoever of facing a charge of heavy cavalry - but the reason I have been given is that, in general, undisciplined infantry have a much greater tendency to run when confronted by cavalry (assuming of course that they are on terrain suitable for cavalry). Thus, a small number of heavy cavalry can, and very often did, rout much larger masses of undisciplined infantry. Disciplined infantry was much more likely to hold, and heavy cavalry could not easily charge home against an unbroken rank of spears.
Cavalry could defeat disciplined infantry as well, but this was a much more difficult feat - usually by driving off any auxillary cavalry on the other side and then attacking the flanks of the opponent's army, like at Cannae. But that was when working as a part of an all-arms army.
I'd just like to point out the political aspect of Constantine's army reform (where the army was split into Comitatenses and Limitanei). Part of the point was to try and keep any military commander from being able to mount a revolt while keeping enough flexible force around to deal with any barbarian. Limitanei have local freedom to act and are there to delay and disrupt any invaders. The Comitatenses then show up to defeat the Barbarian Invasion. This just meant that the killing part of the army never delegated to any potential usurpers. I'd like to point out that there were no army revolts except for the occasional army mutiny after Contantine's Reform.
The Collapse starts when the Comitatenses stop showing up when the Limitanei call when they are all killed at Adrianopel. Forcing the Empire to use Foederati.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2009, 10:47:51 AM
I'd just like to point out the political aspect of Constantine's army reform (where the army was split into Comitatenses and Limitanei). Part of the point was to try and keep any military commander from being able to mount a revolt while keeping enough flexible force around to deal with any barbarian. Limitanei have local freedom to act and are there to delay and disrupt any invaders. The Comitatenses then show up to defeat the Barbarian Invasion. This just meant that the killing part of the army never delegated to any potential usurpers. I'd like to point out that there were no army revolts except for the occasional army mutiny after Contantine's Reform.
The Collapse starts when the Comitatenses stop showing up when the Limitanei call when they are all killed at Adrianopel. Forcing the Empire to use Foederati.
It isn't true that there were no more revolts after Constantine.
The big problem with the Roman empire it is true was the continual civil wars lead by would-be emperors, backed by a part of the army. Roman emperors were often more concerned about rivals and usurpers than about barbarians. This was just as true after Constantine as before.
For example, the emperor Julian lead just such a successful revolt, in the generations after Constantine.
A big factor which I did not appreciate is that for the later Roman empire it is almost impossible to get any good sense of the actual size and composition of the Roman army. This is because, as things broke down, lists of army units became - highly theoretical. Adam Goldsworthy points out in
The Fall of the West that the actual "army" tended, in the later empire, to be concentrated around the actual person of the emperor and that "army units" allegedly located elsewhere were very often more or less non-existant, or rather existant only on paper. This meant that any serious barbarian-expelling had to be done by the emperor in person. Or on one of the sub-emperors appointed for this purpose, as by Docitilan ...
To what extent this trend was inspired by the fear of having any serious military force not under the emperor's own thumb and to what extent it was simply a systemic problem of corruption and break-down in taxation is hard to say.
QuoteI'd just like to point out the political aspect of Constantine's army reform (where the army was split into Comitatenses and Limitanei).
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that Diocletian's reform?
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 11:00:41 AM
To what extent this trend was inspired by the fear of having any serious military force not under the emperor's own thumb
I am pretty sure it was done to stop generals from trying to make themselves Emperor all the time.
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 11:00:41 AM
To what extent this trend was inspired by the fear of having any serious military force not under the emperor's own thumb
I am pretty sure it was done to stop generals from trying to make themselves Emperor all the time.
Certainly that was a major factor. But one should not discount the effect of basic corruption - in the late empire it is possible that the ability to have in place substantial military forces under the control of the empire in places where the emperor was not physically present may simply have been lacking.
There is from the records a sense that the later empire was sort of like Hitler in his bunker at the end of WW2 - sending out orders to distant provinces was pointless, the units that existed in the imperial records just did not exist in reality, except and to the extent that the emperor (or someone) was able to pay for them, and ensure the collection of taxes and payment were both more or less under his eye - otherwise the money was sure to be diverted.
Hence the desire to multiply the number of emperors, such as the division by Docitlan into two "Augusti" and two "Ceasars". Of course, that set the stage for them to fight among themselves ... the problem of both having military force and controlling it proved in the end unsolvable.
Quote from: PDH on July 13, 2009, 09:37:16 AM
A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service. The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.
Hmm. This makes sense, I suppose; the two developed parallel systems for different reasons. But why did feudalism (at least of the heavy cavalry dependent variety) crop up only centuries after the Barbarian invasions and the Muslim expansion leading to a decline in pan-Medditeranean trade?
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 11:00:41 AM
For example, the emperor Julian lead just such a successful revolt, in the generations after Constantine.
Well, the exception that proves the rule ;)
But his revolt was "involuntary" and ultimately a barracks mutiny when the Gallic Army refused to allow half of it's number to be sent off to Syria as they were perfectly happy fighting against the Germans.
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2009, 11:54:06 AM
QuoteI'd just like to point out the political aspect of Constantine's army reform (where the army was split into Comitatenses and Limitanei).
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that Diocletian's reform?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitanei
QuoteHistory
Historians believe that the final set of military reforms in the Roman Empire prior to its fragmentation, were begun in the late third century by Diocletian. In all respects however, the Limitanei owe their existence to the reforms of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman Emperor, who divided the Roman military into two types of soldiers in 300 AD. Henceforth, the all Roman Cohorts were characterized as either frontier garrisons to police border provinces and keep the peace in fringe settlements or mobile field armies to confront the enemy in mass engagements. The first written reference to limitanei was recorded in 363 AD.
One pet peeve of mine from the period. The Ramp at Masada is NOT THE SIEGE RAMP. It was built for the TV Miniseries. This, however, does not stop pretty much everybody labelling the TV Ramp still at the Site as the Roman Ramp itself.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2009, 02:38:01 PM
One pet peeve of mine from the period. The Ramp at Masada is NOT THE SIEGE RAMP. It was built for the TV Miniseries. This, however, does not stop pretty much everybody labelling the TV Ramp still at the Site as the Roman Ramp itself.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Do you have a cite for this?
For one, the ramp is freaking huge. Seems way too big to be built as part of a movie set. For another, I find it hard to believe that the Israelis, who are mad about Archaeology, would allow movie-makers to permanently change one of their most significant sites.
OTOH, you could still see some stuff from the mini-series on the site, like some faked seige engines.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 13, 2009, 01:46:46 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 13, 2009, 09:37:16 AM
A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service. The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.
Hmm. This makes sense, I suppose; the two developed parallel systems for different reasons. But why did feudalism (at least of the heavy cavalry dependent variety) crop up only centuries after the Barbarian invasions and the Muslim expansion leading to a decline in pan-Medditeranean trade?
while the late Romans did not "need" feudalism per se, as they still had a semblence of an administration and bureaucracy, the successor states did not have such infrastructure and were not as centralised, and so developed feudalism (land grants for military service) in response to the "second" barbarian invasion (arabs, moors, lombards, avars magyrs, vikings).
this goes hand in hand with castle building. Charlemagne tore down all the forts but his successors had to allow them to built them up again.
of course, England did not have feudalism until the Conquest. the modern problem with understanding feudalism was that it wasn't uniform and had numerous exceptions, because it was a localised response to the problems of government and war.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 11:00:41 AM
A big factor which I did not appreciate is that for the later Roman empire it is almost impossible to get any good sense of the actual size and composition of the Roman army. This is because, as things broke down, lists of army units became - highly theoretical. Adam Goldsworthy points out in The Fall of the West that the actual "army" tended, in the later empire, to be concentrated around the actual person of the emperor and that "army units" allegedly located elsewhere were very often more or less non-existant, or rather existant only on paper. This meant that any serious barbarian-expelling had to be done by the emperor in person. Or on one of the sub-emperors appointed for this purpose, as by Docitilan ...
Very generally speaking there was a tendency in the later empire to downgrade the quantity and quality of the border garrisons. At the same time, the Romans relied on formal and informal arrangements with the barbarians on the borderlands to secure the frontier - and relied on the mobile armies to deal with major incursions.
There is a certain natural tendency looking back to focus on the episodes where the treaty arrangements went awry - what is more interesting historically was that the more typical norm for much of this period was they worked rather well. In fact, one might go so far to say was that the problem for the later Empire was not that their arrangements with the border barbarians failed, but that they succeeded to well. Goths and Franks became so well integrated within the Roman system that they became a part of it. Only when barbarian warlords turned Roman generals took part in the contact sport of late Roman intrigue and civil war, it inevitably embroiled the barbarian soldiers on the other side of the border. Until the point was eventually reached where the very distinction of the border became obsolete, and it was hard to distinguished the barbarized areas of the Roman Empire from the romanized areas of Germania.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 02:46:24 PM
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Do you have a cite for this?
For one, the ramp is freaking huge. Seems way too big to be built as part of a movie set. For another, I find it hard to believe that the Israelis, who are mad about Archaeology, would allow movie-makers to permanently change one of their most significant sites.
OTOH, you could still see some stuff from the mini-series on the site, like some faked seige engines.
A quick search shows some scientific research done using data from the ramp to calculate rainfall when it was constructed. Nothing I have seen supports the allegation that it was built in 1981.
This is a nice tidbit from Wiki:
QuoteThe Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), Moshe Dayan, initiated the practice of holding the swearing-in ceremony of soldiers who have completed their Tironut (IDF basic training) on top of Masada. The ceremony ends with the declaration: "Masada shall not fall again." The soldiers climb the Snake Path at night and are sworn in with torches lighting the background.
(Okay, this is atrocious writing, but the concept is cool).
Was just thinking about that today; interesting that after the fall of the Roman Empire, the borders of "Europe" shift dramatically; most of Spain is lost, but Germany and increasingly the Slavic and Norse countries are integrated into the post-Roman political and cultural world.
Minsky, I seem to remember you posting a bunch of reviews of books on Dark Age history, actually I seem to remember I first heard of The Early Slavs in one of them. Any reccomendations? Obviously my interests tend towards the east (anything on the Sarmatians, Huns, Iazyges, or Romano-Persian rivalry would be best).
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 03:23:10 PM
This is a nice tidbit from Wiki:
QuoteThe Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), Moshe Dayan, initiated the practice of holding the swearing-in ceremony of soldiers who have completed their Tironut (IDF basic training) on top of Masada. The ceremony ends with the declaration: "Masada shall not fall again." The soldiers climb the Snake Path at night and are sworn in with torches lighting the background.
(Okay, this is atrocious writing, but the concept is cool).
That's actually kind of scary. Pre-Dark Age Jews could be pretty vicious, especially as they tended to take the defense of Israel and their Messianism pretty seriously. IIRC, they helped the Sassanids purge Jerusalem as late as the 7th Century AD. Weirdly enough, the Palestinians (with their endless self pity, hatred of foreigners, violence and Messianic tendencies) have more in common with Palestinians than modern Israelis. :ph34r:
EDIT: Don't know why I never thought of that before. Seems so obvious and ironic.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
There is from the records a sense that the later empire was sort of like Hitler in his bunker at the end of WW2 - sending out orders to distant provinces was pointless, the units that existed in the imperial records just did not exist in reality, except and to the extent that the emperor (or someone) was able to pay for them, and ensure the collection of taxes and payment were both more or less under his eye - otherwise the money was sure to be diverted.
I don't think that analogy quite works. Take the example of Honorius' rescript - the problem was not that Britain had been entirely denuded of troops by Constantine III. On the contrary, Honorius' instructions presume that Britain still had some means of defense and the little information we have suggests that the Britano-Romans were able to hold off various threats for decaded on their own resources. It is a simple question of triage - the emperor was still coping with the aftershocks of the crisis of 408 and making a short-term decision not to focus limited mobile force resources on a peripheral front.
The Roman empire was never a modern centralized state like the third reich - even after Diocletian's reform. The empire always depended on a sort of horizontal cooperation between local urban elites - all of whom had a powerful interest in maintaining some connection to the "roman" center. But the problem is the one you identified earlier - if the emperor sitting in Rome seemed weak or indecisive - there was always a temptation for the local elite in a far-flung province to turn to the man on the spot to make good on local concerns by seizing power himself. So it is not a matter of troops and formations not existing. It is more of a problem of the practical limitations of central control. Note that this was ALWAYS a problem for Rome - going back to the times of the Late Republic. What changed in the Late Empire was the interaction of this familiar dynamic with the arrival on the scene of more sophisticated, Romanized barbarians on the frontier who were dragged into or willingly joined in playing this traditional power game.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 13, 2009, 03:33:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 03:23:10 PM
This is a nice tidbit from Wiki:
QuoteThe Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), Moshe Dayan, initiated the practice of holding the swearing-in ceremony of soldiers who have completed their Tironut (IDF basic training) on top of Masada. The ceremony ends with the declaration: "Masada shall not fall again." The soldiers climb the Snake Path at night and are sworn in with torches lighting the background.
(Okay, this is atrocious writing, but the concept is cool).
That's actually kind of scary. Pre-Dark Age Jews could be pretty vicious, especially as they tended to take the defense of Israel and their Messianism pretty seriously. IIRC, they helped the Sassanids purge Jerusalem as late as the 7th Century AD. Weirdly enough, the Palestinians (with their endless self pity, hatred of foreigners, violence and Messianic tendencies) have more in common with Palestinians than modern Israelis. :ph34r:
Actually, what impressed me more on visiting Masada was the ruthless energy of the Romans. As a fortress, Masada is pretty well impregnable. It is in the middle of a desert and in order to take it, you must go straight up a huge cliff - all the way around. A troup of boy scouts could hold off an army there in pre-modern days. Masada was supplied with water from giant cysterns: there is no water anywhere near, otherwise.
The Romans surrounded the place with military camps and a wall, and then built that huge ramp - it must have been a truly incredible feat of logistics.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 03:40:54 PM
Actually, what impressed me more on visiting Masada was the ruthless energy of the Romans. As a fortress, Masada is pretty well impregnable. It is in the middle of a desert and in order to take it, you must go straight up a huge cliff - all the way around. A troup of boy scouts could hold off an army there in pre-modern days. Masada was supplied with water from giant cysterns: there is no water anywhere near, otherwise.
The Romans surrounded the place with military camps and a wall, and then built that huge ramp - it must have been a truly incredible feat of logistics.
So we have a fantastically well organized, disciplined army that is the envy of the world and a huge part of their society up against a messianic band of indigenous religious zealots who prefer death to surrendering their land..........the ironies here just keep building up.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 08:31:41 PM
3) Cavalry men, completely covered in armor and wielding a deadly long lance, who own small plots of land (for which they have various specific insignia and color associations), and whose relatively barbaric warrior ethos is tempered by a strict devotion to a more martial variant of one of the credal religions. . . . did the European nobility somehow merge with or adopt some of the older Persian-derived traditions, or is this just one bizzare example of convergent evolution, like dogs and thylacines?
If you are talking about high feudalism, this does not arise until centuries after the traditional dating of the "fall" of Rome, and IMO is driven by responses to localized phenomena - certainly not any conscious or even unconscious adaptation of traditional Persian forms.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 13, 2009, 03:26:00 PM
Minsky, I seem to remember you posting a bunch of reviews of books on Dark Age history, actually I seem to remember I first heard of The Early Slavs in one of them. Any reccomendations? Obviously my interests tend towards the east (anything on the Sarmatians, Huns, Iazyges, or Romano-Persian rivalry would be best).
The focus of my reading was really more on what is going on in the West - you might be most interested in Peter Heather's last book, b/c he focuses heavily on the Huns.
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/0195325419/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247518056&sr=8-1
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2009, 03:39:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
There is from the records a sense that the later empire was sort of like Hitler in his bunker at the end of WW2 - sending out orders to distant provinces was pointless, the units that existed in the imperial records just did not exist in reality, except and to the extent that the emperor (or someone) was able to pay for them, and ensure the collection of taxes and payment were both more or less under his eye - otherwise the money was sure to be diverted.
I don't think that analogy quite works. Take the example of Honorius' rescript - the problem was not that Britain had been entirely denuded of troops by Constantine III. On the contrary, Honorius' instructions presume that Britain still had some means of defense and the little information we have suggests that the Britano-Romans were able to hold off various threats for decaded on their own resources. It is a simple question of triage - the emperor was still coping with the aftershocks of the crisis of 408 and making a short-term decision not to focus limited mobile force resources on a peripheral front.
The Roman empire was never a modern centralized state like the third reich - even after Diocletian's reform. The empire always depended on a sort of horizontal cooperation between local urban elites - all of whom had a powerful interest in maintaining some connection to the "roman" center. But the problem is the one you identified earlier - if the emperor sitting in Rome seemed weak or indecisive - there was always a temptation for the local elite in a far-flung province to turn to the man on the spot to make good on local concerns by seizing power himself. So it is not a matter of troops and formations not existing. It is more of a problem of the practical limitations of central control. Note that this was ALWAYS a problem for Rome - going back to the times of the Late Republic. What changed in the Late Empire was the interaction of this familiar dynamic with the arrival on the scene of more sophisticated, Romanized barbarians on the frontier who were dragged into or willingly joined in playing this traditional power game.
There is no question that the main problem was constant civil war. However, there was the additional problem - the slow and steady erosion of the numbers and quality of troops available in reality as opposed to in theory, on the "official" army rolls; plus the lack of subordinates capable (or trusted) with independent military command.
Towards the end of the empire, the theoretical size of the Roman army was the same (if not larger) than it was at the beginning; yet the records describe Caesars like Julian (pre-emperor) personally repelling minor barbarian incursions with mere handfuls of troops. This was something a provincial governor would have been able to do on his own, a couple of centuries earlier.
Something had gone wrong - the empire could no longer, for whatever reason, muster military force to defend itself from incursions, unless an emperor (or at least a "ceasar" of some variety) was there on the spot. Hence the necessity of inviting barbarians to do the defending.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2009, 03:45:57 PM
If you are talking about high feudalism, this does not arise until centuries after the traditional dating of the "fall" of Rome, and IMO is driven by responses to localized phenomena - certainly not any conscious or even unconscious adaptation of traditional Persian forms.
If this is true, it is still a fascinating example of convergent evolution, though I suppose they would have started from a similar place both materially and even socially (in most Indo-European societies cavalrymen come from nobility for obvious reasons) or religiously (monotheistic, revealed faith with comparable beliefs).
That said, I think you can see why I'd think there might be something more at work. Visual example;
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F30%2FArmed-horseman.JPG&hash=8124f1729a6b4693c7cb8b73a08da74ee9308ce5)
To the untrained eye, the first word to come up to describe that man would be "knight". And he'd be right, apart from the apparent quiver on his leg, perhaps the way his legs are positioned, the way he is holding the lance and the quality, age and composition of the sculpture.
I remember trying to research a planned book I was going to do on Rome in Gaul in the 5th century, and trying to ascertain any sizes of the armies involved was maddening. Especially how much the master militum per Gallias Aegidius, the comes Paulus and Syagrius had available.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 03:50:36 PM
However, there was the additional problem - the slow and steady erosion of the numbers and quality of troops available in reality as opposed to in theory, on the "official" army rolls; plus the lack of subordinates capable (or trusted) with independent military command.
Towards the end of the empire, the theoretical size of the Roman army was the same (if not larger) than it was at the beginning; yet the records describe Caesars like Julian (pre-emperor) personally repelling minor barbarian incursions with mere handfuls of troops. This was something a provincial governor would have been able to do on his own, a couple of centuries earlier.
Something had gone wrong - the empire could no longer, for whatever reason, muster military force to defend itself from incursions, unless an emperor (or at least a "ceasar" of some variety) was there on the spot. Hence the necessity of inviting barbarians to do the defending.
I don't think there is a very sharp reduction in the total armed forces available to the Empire. What does happen is that the rise of the Sassanian Empire in the East forced the Romans to devote the bulk of their military defense effort to face off against that threat. In fact, when Julian undertook his ill-fated campaign against the Persians - the account suggests he took an enormous force (Ammianus does not tell us the size but he does observe that at one point Julian detached 30,000 men just to secure one of his flanks - which suggests a very substantial main force). the need to bulk up permanent defenses in the East did mean thinning out the forces permanently stationed in the West - and encouraged the various defensive arrangements we previously discussed.
As for Julian's earlier campaign against the Alemanni - Ammianus' account indicates that Julian actually wasn't commanding the main Roman force in the region. there had been a previous sub-emperor - Silvanus - who had intrigued against Constantius and was assassinated. Command of Silvanus' old force passed to an infantry general - Barbatio. So in the campaign against the Alemanni, the Romans disposed two forces: Barbatio with 25,000 men, Julian with at least 13,000 men. That is nearly 40,000 available to deal with a single incursion - a quite respectable number of soldiers for a pre-modern force. What happened was that the Alemanni attempted to defeat the two forces in detail - and succeeding in driving Barbatio out of Gaul - after which they turned with their full force to face Julian's smaller army. Thus Julian's "against the odds" victry over the Alemanni does not so much indicate a peculiar lack of available forces, but was the consequence of poor strategic coordination between two newly appointed roman commanders.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 13, 2009, 04:04:10 PM
I remember trying to research a planned book I was going to do on Rome in Gaul in the 5th century, and trying to ascertain any sizes of the armies involved was maddening.
For Julian's era - we happen to be extremely lucky that a roughly contemporaneous history has survived in part. Even there, all the usual caveats about numbers in ancient historical accounts have to be taken.
for the 5th century, forget about it. For example, our principal source of the Battle of Chalons - probably the most significant battle that took place in Gaul in the mid 5th century - is Jordanes: a self-styled ethnic Goth writing propagandistic history in Constantinople for Justinian about 100 years after the battle took place. Any connection this account bears to the real battle is likely to be coincidental. Figuring out what is going on in the period involves a lot of supposition and guesswork.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2009, 04:33:06 PM
for the 5th century, forget about it. For example, our principal source of the Battle of Chalons - probably the most significant battle that took place in Gaul in the mid 5th century - is Jordanes: a self-styled ethnic Goth writing propagandistic history in Constantinople for Justinian about 100 years after the battle took place. Any connection this account bears to the real battle is likely to be coincidental. Figuring out what is going on in the period involves a lot of supposition and guesswork.
I gave up. :blush:
I remember copying down the
notitia dignitatum for the Western Empire by hand (in the pre-internet days) and it being almost totally worthless. :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2009, 04:22:55 PM
I don't think there is a very sharp reduction in the total armed forces available to the Empire.
Let me qualify that a bit. There was almost certainly a manpower impact from Valens having his entire army wiped out in 378. How long that impact continued to be felt is unclear, but the fact that the Eastern Empire was paying off Huns decades later suggests a possible answer.
It is also the case that in the West, the need to keep the peasants tied down and taxed complicated recruitment, and hence explained the tendency towards greater reliance on recruiting ethnic barbarians. But I would point out that it is questionable to assume that such forces don't count in some way because they aren't "really Roman". Roman armies staffed by ethnic barbarians and even separate allied barbarian forces could be as legitimately a part of the "Army" as ethnic Romans in traditional legions. The barbarized forces could prove unreliable, of course, but usually for the same reasons other Roman armies past and present had proved unreliable - ambitious commanders intringuing for power, influence or the purple itself, and problems with prompt payments.
maths.
there was the Roman expedition to Carthage circa 469-71, which was a joint Eastern/Western venture. of course it met with disaster. sources say it was 1000 ships, and which each ship holding/carrying an average of 100 men, the expedition's size was impressive. Even if you consider the flotilla's size to be something of a paper fiction or hyperbole, the strike force would still have been rather large, which is impressive as the Western Empire was financially rather distraught at the time.
when you look a half century later, armies could often get very small. Hastings was two sides @ 10K. Jerusalem in the first crusade was taken by assault with a similiar number.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 02:46:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2009, 02:38:01 PM
One pet peeve of mine from the period. The Ramp at Masada is NOT THE SIEGE RAMP. It was built for the TV Miniseries. This, however, does not stop pretty much everybody labelling the TV Ramp still at the Site as the Roman Ramp itself.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Do you have a cite for this?
For one, the ramp is freaking huge. Seems way too big to be built as part of a movie set. For another, I find it hard to believe that the Israelis, who are mad about Archaeology, would allow movie-makers to permanently change one of their most significant sites.
OTOH, you could still see some stuff from the mini-series on the site, like some faked seige engines.
There are two ramps, the real one which was used and the new one which was built for the miniseries. When I was there in 1990 the guide was bitching about precisely that. The real ramp is just too small (today) to look like it could have carried siege towers up to the top.
Quote from: Viking on July 13, 2009, 05:51:56 PM
There are two ramps, the real one which was used and the new one which was built for the miniseries. When I was there in 1990 the guide was bitching about precisely that. The real ramp is just too small (today) to look like it could have carried siege towers up to the top.
I am confused. Is the picture of that huge-ass ramp that everyone puts on the internet the Roman ramp or the TV series ramp?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.masada2000.org%2FMasada-View.jpg&hash=7c57625ad925ddbf56b382ffc01bad3113b1f425)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3272%2F2613020766_e3d23ae2da.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=99cfa8775b7a05dfcab7b29ec8fc44ef62ad8194)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmecadserv1.technion.ac.il%2Fpublic_html%2FESDA08%2Fimages%2Fmasada_ramp.jpg&hash=29508eb8acef52c28d455db94a13e7aa6a09e9a7)
I'm gonna echo Grumbler here. The huge ramp pictured was, I always assumed, the remains of the real Roman-era ramp. It seems incredible to me that it was made by guys making a mini-series (or that the authorities would allow such construction work).
If such is in fact the case, it would indeed be an interesting thing to know - but I'll need some sort of evidence. All the books I've seen on Masada appear to assume that is in fact the Roman ramp.
Edit: the pics also show just how strong the natural fortifications are. I can't imagine how difficult assaulting such a fortress would be, if the enemy knew of your presence.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2009, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2009, 04:22:55 PM
I don't think there is a very sharp reduction in the total armed forces available to the Empire.
Let me qualify that a bit. There was almost certainly a manpower impact from Valens having his entire army wiped out in 378. How long that impact continued to be felt is unclear, but the fact that the Eastern Empire was paying off Huns decades later suggests a possible answer.
It is also the case that in the West, the need to keep the peasants tied down and taxed complicated recruitment, and hence explained the tendency towards greater reliance on recruiting ethnic barbarians. But I would point out that it is questionable to assume that such forces don't count in some way because they aren't "really Roman". Roman armies staffed by ethnic barbarians and even separate allied barbarian forces could be as legitimately a part of the "Army" as ethnic Romans in traditional legions. The barbarized forces could prove unreliable, of course, but usually for the same reasons other Roman armies past and present had proved unreliable - ambitious commanders intringuing for power, influence or the purple itself, and problems with prompt payments.
The problems were I understand two-fold: erosion of the ability to pay, and erosion of trust (totally understandable, really) in subordinate military commanders.
The effect was to decrease the real numbers of troops available for battle under normal conditions. Certainly, an exceptional emperor could cobble together an impressively large force, but increasingly this force did not resemble the professional armies of the early republic.
The later career of Belisarius illustrates these trends. He is a rare example of a successful subordinate commander. The tricks played on him by Justinian (even if exaggerated by Procopius) demonstrate the problem - an emperor can never trust a successful general. This may have been equally true in the early empire, but what was different was the apparent lack of subordination by the troops under his command - on several occasions the troops essentially force their general to attack when he would rather not. Moreover, only the troops of his own household and of certain barbarian contingents were of good quality; many troops he was forced to use were basically untrained levies.
These internal conditions, more than the oft-hearlded "barbarization" of the Roman army, decreased its real effectiveness.
The main issue of course is whether the West fell because the barbarians were more numerous and a greater threat towards the end of the empire of the West, or whether because of internal erosion of effectiveness. Probably a bit of both, as increased barbarian activity and raiding distrupted the ability to raise taxes, increased reluctance to empower subordinate commanders allowed for more frequent, unpunished barbarian raids, and a decreased tax base meant less pay and so less soldiers.
This is a good thread.
Quotebut increasingly this force did not resemble the professional armies of the early republic
I presume you mean the early empire since the armies of the early republic were almost the platonic ideal of an amateur army.
I also want to note that even the Byzantine successor state never did really solve this problem (even after they reverted back to a fuedal type amateur army), and their eventual decision to rely on centrally controlled mercenary armies was the final nail in the Roman coffin.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
Quotebut increasingly this force did not resemble the professional armies of the early republic
I presume you mean the early empire since the armies of the early republic were almost the platonic ideal of an amateur army.
I also want to note that even the Byzantine successor state never did really solve this problem (even after they reverted back to a fuedal type amateur army), and their eventual decision to rely on centrally controlled mercenary armies was the final nail in the Roman coffin.
Yup, my mistake.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2009, 09:06:04 AM
Yup, my mistake.
I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...
I think the real final nail in the fall of the Byzzies was their decision to contract out their navy.
With the wooden walls, you can hold the stone walls, long enough to hire an army or arrange for allies to come in relief. without a navy, Constantinople can be attacked on 3
(4?) sides, not one.
The Byzantines real problem was in knowing that if they lasted any longer, even more fanbois would love them and make modern-day scenarios for them...
Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 09:29:34 AM
The Byzantines real problem was in knowing that if they lasted any longer, even more fanbois would love them and make modern-day scenarios for them...
Meh the Nazis only lasted 12 years and have far more fanbois.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 09:31:21 AM
Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 09:29:34 AM
The Byzantines real problem was in knowing that if they lasted any longer, even more fanbois would love them and make modern-day scenarios for them...
Meh the Nazis only lasted 12 years and have far more fanbois.
The notion of "Byzanteens" is indeed one of the stranger side effects of the Internet. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 09:31:21 AM
Meh the Nazis only lasted 12 years and have far more fanbois.
And that's why Hitler killed himself.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 14, 2009, 09:27:03 AM
I think the real final nail in the fall of the Byzzies was their decision to contract out their navy.
By the time they needed their navy to protect their stone walls they were already done.
One of the often over looked by significant things that ruined Justinian's chances of reforming the Empire was plague that decimated the Byzanteen population.
A good book on the subject is Justinian's Flea. Here is a good review I found. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/may/05/featuresreviews.guardianreview9
QuoteOne of the often over looked by significant things that ruined Justinian's chances of reforming the Empire was plague that decimated the Byzanteen population.
No! Not the Byzanteens! :cry:
The Black Death also played a big role in the final collapse in the 14th century.
Also IIRC there was a major plague that hit around the time of Marcus Aurelius that decimated the Roman Empire as well. Totally coincidentally the Empire entered its decline immediately afterwards.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2009, 10:35:46 AM
One of the often over looked by significant things that ruined Justinian's chances of reforming the Empire was plague that decimated the Byzanteen population.
A good book on the subject is Justinian's Flea. Here is a good review I found. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/may/05/featuresreviews.guardianreview9
I thoroughly enjoyed Justinian's Flea (finished it a couple of weeks ago).
I like how most of what we get about Byzanteens, here, is people going on about them...
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 11:25:54 AM
I like how most of what we get about Byzanteens, here, is people going on about them...
Their time on the EU2 paradox forums scarred them for life it seems.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 11:25:54 AM
I like how most of what we get about Byzanteens, here, is people going on about them...
Yeah. And I was almost always as much a Sassadolescent as a Byzanteen.
Hymen-mania, actually.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 10:44:35 AM
No! Not the Byzanteens! :cry:
Unfortunately they recovered in numbers sufficient to register a presence on the internet.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 11:31:21 AM
Hymen-mania, actually.
:blush:
At least "Sassadolescent" makes sense. If you know who the Sassanids were.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2009, 10:35:46 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 14, 2009, 09:27:03 AM
I think the real final nail in the fall of the Byzzies was their decision to contract out their navy.
By the time they needed their navy to protect their stone walls they were already done.
One of the often over looked by significant things that ruined Justinian's chances of reforming the Empire was plague that decimated the Byzanteen population.
A good book on the subject is Justinian's Flea. Here is a good review I found. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/may/05/featuresreviews.guardianreview9
disagree. maybe the real fall of the West but not the rest of it. the Empire was extraordinarily resilient, which is anti-Gibbon, but fits the facts better. They survived sieges of Avars, Varags, Persians and Arabs (because of the navy and the greek fire trick) and always came back, reoccupying lost territories and even going on the offense. They even had a revival after Manzikert.
now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?
Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 09:24:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2009, 09:06:04 AM
Yup, my mistake.
I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...
sneaky :)
---------------
the reasons for the fall of the empire that have been given over the ages are as abundant as they are different. As we all know.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 14, 2009, 11:40:01 AM
now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?
Accounts of the Black Death never go into it that much, but surely at least 1/3rd of the population died in an era where they were already desperate for manpower.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 14, 2009, 11:33:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 11:31:21 AM
Hymen-mania, actually.
:blush:
At least "Sassadolescent" makes sense. If you know who the Sassanids were.
I like "Sassadolescent." It's clever. You will never live down Hymen-mania though.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 14, 2009, 12:04:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 09:24:45 AM
I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...
sneaky :)
Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 14, 2009, 11:40:01 AM
now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?
Wrong century. My reference was the the Justinian plague that wiped out his manpower and reversed all the gains he had made.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2009, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 14, 2009, 12:04:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 09:24:45 AM
I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...
sneaky :)
Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.
aye, but wht he did was and 'endpoint' (at least for a while) of a series of changes brought on by the acquisition of the empire. An evolution that starts as early as the Gracchi (if not earlier). So the question is less unfair as it would seem. But much of that depends on the level of the students (i.e. how many courses they already got before the question was asked).
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2009, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 14, 2009, 12:04:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 09:24:45 AM
I once aske a "trick" question about the changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic, and almost all the students talked about Augustus and not the growth of Rome...I had several angry students...
sneaky :)
Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.
Not so much unfair as tricky. Once Rome acquired other provinces it did "gain" an empire and presumably PDH was looking for an answer that discussed the way in which the Republic had to adapt to that, eg creating govenors, an exanding army to protect and expand the empire etc.
Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.
[/quote]
And the Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be King of the Romans -- but presumably PDH would dock a student if he focused on Napoleon to answer a question on the final collapse of the western roman empire.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2009, 01:54:20 PM
And the Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be King of the Romans -- but presumably PDH would dock a student if he focused on Napoleon to answer a question on the final collapse of the western roman empire.
:huh: Uh, yeah. Sure. Whatever. Not sure why any student would think Napoleon was a Holy Roman Emperor, but that would surely be a mistake of a different flavor than talking about the powers assumed by Augustus being part of the "changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic."
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2009, 02:00:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2009, 01:54:20 PM
And the Holy Roman Emperors claimed to be King of the Romans -- but presumably PDH would dock a student if he focused on Napoleon to answer a question on the final collapse of the western roman empire.
:huh: Uh, yeah. Sure. Whatever. Not sure why any student would think Napoleon was a Holy Roman Emperor, but that would surely be a mistake of a different flavor than talking about the powers assumed by Augustus being part of the "changes gaining an empire forced on the Roman Republic."
:lol: I never said he was a Holy Roman Emperor--clearly he was not. But he certainly played a role in the abolition of the title.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2009, 01:15:19 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 14, 2009, 11:40:01 AM
now, what were the effects of the 14th C. plagues?
Wrong century. My reference was the the Justinian plague that wiped out his manpower and reversed all the gains he had made.
would have lost those bits anyway because of overreach. quite a bit remained anyway
look at the campaign areas:
Italy...well they held onto some good chunks. one emperor considered moving the capital to rich Syracuse in the 7th--8th centuries.
Spain: too removed from centers of power.
Africa: they kept it until the Muzlims. Heraclius "saved" the empire from this little powerbase.
Syria/Armenia: Back and forth borders until 11th-12th C.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 14, 2009, 01:22:50 PM
aye, but wht he did was and 'endpoint' (at least for a while) of a series of changes brought on by the acquisition of the empire. An evolution that starts as early as the Gracchi (if not earlier). So the question is less unfair as it would seem. But much of that depends on the level of the students (i.e. how many courses they already got before the question was asked).
Agreed. The powers assumed by Augustus were the endpoint of the changes, and therefor a legitimate part of the discussion of the changes, unless otherwise specified.
I think the more Roman history one studies, the further off one puts the true "end of the republic." A fairly strong argument could be made that it didn't truly end until Tiberius inherited Augustus's "republican" powers. Octavian gaining the title "Augustus" just started the final process of emasculation of the Senate - that process wasn't complete until the Senate was forced to grant such titles whether it will or nay.
IIRC Tiberius desperately wanted the Senate to rule the Empire so he didn't have to. The Senate was simply too afraid of doing something wrong and being executed (which was probably wise of them) to have any initiative of its own. Claudius also had that frustration I think, the Senate simply could not or would not use the authority some of the earlier Emperors wanted them to exercise.
I am not sure when the Senate lost its will to rule but I assume it was with the defeat of the Liberators.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 14, 2009, 11:33:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 11:31:21 AM
Hymen-mania, actually.
:blush:
At least "Sassadolescent" makes sense. If you know who the Sassanids were.
Parth men, parth monkeys?
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2009, 08:16:59 AM
The problems were I understand two-fold: erosion of the ability to pay, and erosion of trust (totally understandable, really) in subordinate military commanders.
That was always a problem for Rome - it was a huge problem for the Late Republic, which ultimately was undone because the political structure could not control amibitious and unruly generals. Despite the prestige the Caesarian lineage gave to the Julio-Claudians, it was a problem for them as well after Augustus himself - two emperors were assassinated by disgruntled subordinates, and a third faced off a praetorian coup.
the outlier is not the dynamic of the later empire - which can be found very much in evidence in earlier periods. The outlier is the unusually stable period of the "good emperors" from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius. And that outlier was due to the presence of two unusual conditions: (1) a series of very competent emperors, and (2) a series of very successful and lucrative military campaigns and diplomatic efforts that provided sufficient booty and tribute to satiate the rank-and-file who might otherwise be tempted by the extravagant promises of their generals to back their bid for the purple. Absent both those conditions operating simultaneously, the traditional pattern reasserted itself.
I would also note that whatever the instability of the 4th and early 5th centuries, in many ways the empire was more internally stable then in the period between Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian. Even some of the weaker emperors of the Late Empire look pretty good put against the long line of imperial emphemera and flashin-the pan usurpers in the 3rd centuries. Yet the empire got through that unruly 3rd century intact, only to founder in one century later even under more stable internal conditions. The problem was that the external conditions had changed - the Persians posed a more serious and permanent threat, the Huns began exerting pressure on the frontier barbarians, and the frontier barbarians themselves had absorbed Roman mores and culture (including military culture) to the degree that they had become more organized and disciplined.
QuoteThe main issue of course is whether the West fell because the barbarians were more numerous and a greater threat towards the end of the empire of the West, or whether because of internal erosion of effectiveness. Probably a bit of both, as increased barbarian activity and raiding distrupted the ability to raise taxes, increased reluctance to empower subordinate commanders allowed for more frequent, unpunished barbarian raids, and a decreased tax base meant less pay and so less soldiers.
I would say that the question of why the West fell is the wrong question to begin with. The West didn't really fall at all - it transformed into something else, and that transformation was a long and involved process with the input of a number of variables. Take for example the point of view of a Roman Senator living in Italy c. 500-520. From his point of view, the Roman Empire probably seemed alive and in ruder health than ever. The basic way of life for the Roman landowning elite was the same as it had been for centuries; Roman culture was alive and well (Boethius is active during the period), and the prestige and power of the Senate was probably greater than at any point since the empire began. His property and position were protected by the Roman Emperor's magister militum in Italy, Theodoric. Of course, he also would be aware that Theodoric happened to hold a dual position as King of the Gothic people. But that had little meaningful impact to him - if Walter Goffart is correct, it just meant that taxes that once went to a "Roman" army (which for centuries prior had been staffed primarily by soldiers recruited outside Italy) now went to a "Gothic" army (which included ethnically non-Gothic elements) performing the exact same function.
All of this takes place several decades after the so-called fall of Rome. The historical reality is far more complex than a simple morality tale of rise and fall.
I've gotten drunk with Goffart. He made me read Eusebius, whose Chronicon was a blast. ...cheers...
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2009, 01:09:49 PM
Also unfair, unless he had specified that he would use the term "republic" only for pre-Augustus periods, because, of course, Augustus claimed to be merely primus inter pares in an ongoing Roman Republic. Certainly a justification Augustus used for assuming tribunican powers was because of the changes forced on the Republic by the acquisition of an empire.
Of course I did. I clearly said for purposes of the class that the Republic was the period up to Augustus, after Augustus it was the Empire. I explained the nuances of course, but I also was explicit in terms...that is why I thought it wasn't sneaky as the breakdown of the Republic from city-state to imperial power was the theme of the Early Rome section.
(edit - western civ to 1500 tends to compress sections a bit...)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 14, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
I would say that the question of why the West fell is the wrong question to begin with. The West didn't really fall at all - it transformed into something else, and that transformation was a long and involved process with the input of a number of variables. Take for example the point of view of a Roman Senator living in Italy c. 500-520. From his point of view, the Roman Empire probably seemed alive and in ruder health than ever. The basic way of life for the Roman landowning elite was the same as it had been for centuries; Roman culture was alive and well (Boethius is active during the period), and the prestige and power of the Senate was probably greater than at any point since the empire began. His property and position were protected by the Roman Emperor's magister militum in Italy, Theodoric. Of course, he also would be aware that Theodoric happened to hold a dual position as King of the Gothic people. But that had little meaningful impact to him - if Walter Goffart is correct, it just meant that taxes that once went to a "Roman" army (which for centuries prior had been staffed primarily by soldiers recruited outside Italy) now went to a "Gothic" army (which included ethnically non-Gothic elements) performing the exact same function.
All of this takes place several decades after the so-called fall of Rome. The historical reality is far more complex than a simple morality tale of rise and fall.
You are quite correct. Our view of late antiquity/the early medieval period has been excessively colored by historians that came much later, which is usually the way things work, but still...
Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages". :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2009, 06:48:23 AM
Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages". :)
Yeah I have always disliked that term. They were actually a very dynamic period.
Any period of time in which Germans are kicking ass could not possibly be "Dark". :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2009, 08:12:05 AM
Any period of time in which Germans are kicking ass could not possibly be "Dark". :mad:
If by "Germans" you mean "Franks" then yes very true!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyofjihad.org%2Ffrance6.jpg&hash=3aa96a57562dd722879476bf9c00b7009d830901)
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2009, 08:05:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2009, 06:48:23 AM
Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages". :)
Yeah I have always disliked that term. They were actually a very dynamic period.
They still saw a massive drop off in trade, literacy, urbanization and eventually population and infrastructure. If that doesn't qualify it as a Dark Age, what is?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 08:44:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2009, 08:05:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2009, 06:48:23 AM
Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages". :)
Yeah I have always disliked that term. They were actually a very dynamic period.
They still saw a massive drop off in trade, literacy, urbanization and eventually population and infrastructure. If that doesn't qualify it as a Dark Age, what is?
I agree: the notion that there was no "fall" of the Roman empire and that the period is better though of as "transformative" strikes me as an over-correction for past historical errors.
While it is true that the overall trend of human history is towards ever greater complexity and sophistication, this is only true on the macro scale - it is subject to some pretty big local fluctuations! The decline of urbanism, literacy, trade, manufacturing etc. in the Med. was pretty spectacular and noteworthy.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 08:44:33 AM
They still saw a massive drop off in trade, literacy, urbanization and eventually population and infrastructure. If that doesn't qualify it as a Dark Age, what is?
Times were different. The focus had shifted inland and the ideal transitioned to the self sufficient estate from the urban center. Things like infrastructure and cities declined because there was no longer a compelling reason to keep them maintained.
The rest of those factors were a big result of the huge population migrations that had similar effects all over Eurasia during that era. The Roman Empire merely shifted to deal with the new reality on the ground.
Heh, sounds like the modern historian's take on the dystopian future depicted in McCarthy's The Road: 'Times were different. The focus had shifted from working at a 9 to 5 job to scrounging for cans of tuna in the ruins. There was no longer a compelling reason to refrain from eating other people. People merely shifted to deal with the new reality on the ground". :D
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 09:42:15 AM
Heh, sounds like the modern historian's take on the dystopian future depicted in McCarthy's The Road: 'Times were different. The focus had shifted from working at a 9 to 5 job to scrounging for cans of tuna in the ruins. There was no longer a compelling reason to refrain from eating other people. People merely shifted to deal with the new reality on the ground". :D
:P
It was a slow gradual shift that lasted several centuries. People didn't really seem to notice until later on that they had just been in the Dark Ages ;)
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2009, 08:05:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2009, 06:48:23 AM
Note how I conspicuously avoided the term "Dark Ages". :)
Yeah I have always disliked that term. They were actually a very dynamic period.
it's still a useful term though, if applied correctly. All in all the Dark Ages isn't that long a period anymore, a couple centuries at most. Iirc, for the region where I live (Low Countries) it's more or less used for the last century of Roman 'rule' and the first few centuries afterwards (basically from about 400 to 600-800). The whole thing is over when Charlemagne shows up (Carolingian Renaissance, if you can call it that).
Imho, the term can certainly not be used to blanket the whole of Western Europe with as the differences between the frontier-regions and the southern provinces is significant.
it's similar to what happened with the Greek Dark Ages. They've been shortened considerably too.
I generally consider Charlemagne (or rather the break up of his Empire after the death of Louis I) the beginning of the Medieval period. The split of Western Europe into France, Germany, Italy, and the border area (The Low Countries, Swizterland, Lorraine, Burgundy, and Savoy) were all established and remain pretty much the same to this day.
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.
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 10:28:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 03:19:05 PM
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.
QuoteBesides 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 03:23:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 10:28:23 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 10:45:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 03:50:48 PM
QuoteI 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.
QuoteThis 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.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 03:23:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 10:28:23 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2009, 04:10:32 PM
[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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 03:55:08 PM
[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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 03:55:08 PM
[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.
QuoteIn 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?
QuoteThus, 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 04:48:09 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2009, 04:33:20 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 03:36:20 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 03:19:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 15, 2009, 05:08:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 05:05:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 05:05:39 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 05:58:12 PM
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 03:55:08 PMApocalyptic 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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 15, 2009, 03:55:08 PM
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. :bleeding:
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2009, 07:05:51 PM
Quote
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2009, 04:36:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2009, 04:10:32 PM
[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?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2009, 08:58:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2009, 09:06:15 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2009, 08:58:40 AM
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. :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2009, 09:11:40 AM
I think it would be a major deterrent to an interest in books. :huh:
:huh: Why would you think that? Illiterate people have been getting people to read stuff to them since the invention of writing itself.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2009, 08:58:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 15, 2009, 06:28:37 PM
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.
In fact, we don't see a "profusion" of water mills showing up, even though water mills were a well-established technology from the Hellenistic period and perhaps even earlier. The Arles watermill was a state project , not something built and used by a private landowner. And this is typical - the Roman water mills that have been excavated were large scale enterprises fed by aqueduct. Of course, it is possible that private, smaller mills were ubiquitous and we just haven't found them due to deterioration. But that wouldn't explain why written sources from the period don't mention them. Later in the period we do see monastaries building them, but that is a very different story.
There is no question that when it came to state funded construction projects, the Romans were very innovative, and used technology to save on labor where appropriate. But the particular subject I mentioned was the conduct of private landlords in the Late Empire. Because they could control large quantities of bound labor, they simply didn't have the incentive to adopt certain kinds of innovations that would permit greater labor efficiency in production. And the evidence is that they didn't.
I read Einhart's biography--but a long time ago.
In the modern day, how many people could tell you about world war I with any degree of accuracy despite universal literacy, education, and free libraries (supplemented by the internet)? Or about the British form of government at the time of the revolution (roughly the time from the end of Charlemagne's life to the end of the Ostrogoths)?
I'm not arguing with you, you are much better informed than me anyway, I'm just skeptical that people of the time were especially historically aware. And to the exent they were, it was through Church institutions that had badly warped any memory of historic rome.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2009, 09:58:13 AM
In the modern day, how many people could tell you about world war I with any degree of accuracy despite universal literacy, education, and free libraries (supplemented by the internet)? Or about the British form of government at the time of the revolution (roughly the time from the end of Charlemagne's life to the end of the Ostrogoths)?
I'm not arguing with you, you are much better informed than me anyway, I'm just skeptical that people of the time were especially historically aware. And to the exent they were, it was through Church institutions that had badly warped any memory of historic rome.
Of course I am not claiming that Charlemagne understood the true historical nature of his model. His view of antiquity was framed by the nature of the few works he had access to as filtered through the prejudices and ideological views of his teachers.
I would have to say that Karl did indeed have an historical awareness, framed by the learning he had. He is one of those amazing people that appear, and his intellect was quite powerful. Einhard did not have to do much (mostly personal life details) to show how remarkable Charles really was.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2009, 09:58:13 AM
In the modern day, how many people could tell you about world war I with any degree of accuracy despite universal literacy, education, and free libraries (supplemented by the internet)? Or about the British form of government at the time of the revolution (roughly the time from the end of Charlemagne's life to the end of the Ostrogoths)?
How many people really spend time (and want to spend time) wanting to study those things?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 1970, 04:58:46 AM
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.
Most people in pre-modern agricultural societies live a marginal existence, living on very low calorie, protein deficient diets. Look at modern Pakistan, Africa or Mao's China. In comparison, the pre-agricultural people tend to have a far more varied, healthy diet composed of things besides bread, beans and (worst of all) bread or corn. The average European grew taller during the Dark Ages, same after the Plague.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 16, 2009, 11:47:30 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 1970, 04:58:46 AM
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.
Most people in pre-modern agricultural societies live a marginal existence, living on very low calorie, protein deficient diets. Look at modern Pakistan, Africa or Mao's China. In comparison, the pre-agricultural people tend to have a far more varied, healthy diet composed of things besides bread, beans and (worst of all) bread or corn. The average European grew taller during the Dark Ages, same after the Plague.
I don't understand what the connection is to pre-agricultural people is--neither the roman empire nor dark age europeans existed in such a state.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 16, 2009, 11:47:30 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 25, 1970, 04:58:46 AM
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.
Most people in pre-modern agricultural societies live a marginal existence, living on very low calorie, protein deficient diets. Look at modern Pakistan, Africa or Mao's China. In comparison, the pre-agricultural people tend to have a far more varied, healthy diet composed of things besides bread, beans and (worst of all) bread or corn. The average European grew taller during the Dark Ages, same after the Plague.
Maybe, but more preagricultural people were also eaten by wolves.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 16, 2009, 11:47:30 AM
Most people in pre-modern agricultural societies live a marginal existence, living on very low calorie, protein deficient diets. Look at modern Pakistan, Africa or Mao's China. In comparison, the pre-agricultural people tend to have a far more varied, healthy diet composed of things besides bread, beans and (worst of all) bread or corn. The average European grew taller during the Dark Ages, same after the Plague.
Spellus--I found this paper, which you may be interested in:
http://eh.net/XIIICongress/cd/papers/70Koepke348.pdf
It seems like a fairly crappy paper, but it examines archeological evidence of changes in roman height from the first through the fourth century. It finds that they do decline, but that the average height actually exceeds the average height in the 19th century in Bavaria.
That makes me question the validity of a study showing that height increased during the Dark Ages.
only speaking for north-western gaul here but archaeological finds show that even the common farmer seemed to have access to a certain amount of luxury goods and imports during the roman period. Not abundantly so but enough to show up on our radar.
All of that cuts off at the end of the 4th century (at least, in sofar as anything was left) as most small settlements in the region seem to come to an end during the late 4th and early 5th centuries (often violently so) after which they're replaced by germanic settlers or not at all (with the new people preferring to create new settlements instead).
But it appears that for a decent amount of the roman period the farmers lived in a slightly better situation than subsistence.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2009, 09:45:12 AM
In fact, we don't see a "profusion" of water mills showing up, even though water mills were a well-established technology from the Hellenistic period and perhaps even earlier. The Arles watermill was a state project , not something built and used by a private landowner. And this is typical - the Roman water mills that have been excavated were large scale enterprises fed by aqueduct. Of course, it is possible that private, smaller mills were ubiquitous and we just haven't found them due to deterioration. But that wouldn't explain why written sources from the period don't mention them. Later in the period we do see monastaries building them, but that is a very different story.
Allow me to dissent here. First, they pop up in the oddest places. Vitriuvius writes about them, for instance; we have paeans from the first century BC about them; and apparently they were common enough that the Edict of Diocletian lists them along with other types of mills (hand, oxen, etc.) Moreover, they're found across the breadth of the Empire Empire, from Hadrian's Wall to Athens.
Were they as common as they were in 1066 England? Maybe not, but I'll note that we have no census of, say, Gaul to use as a comparison. And we know that the Romans were using them for a range of engineering tasks.
I dunno if I'd go so far as Oleson deoes in his book on the topic, but the evidence certainly no longer bears out stagnant Romans.
QuoteThere is no question that when it came to state funded construction projects, the Romans were very innovative, and used technology to save on labor where appropriate. But the particular subject I mentioned was the conduct of private landlords in the Late Empire. Because they could control large quantities of bound labor, they simply didn't have the incentive to adopt certain kinds of innovations that would permit greater labor efficiency in production. And the evidence is that they didn't.
Could they control arge quantitites of bound labor? That's not the first impression from a series of edciicts saying, "Hey, you must adopt your father's job."
one thing the medieval society had which the romans did not was monasteries. in a lot of ways, these functioned as agricultural colleges. despite severe limits in communications, ideas did disseminate. by 1300, estimates are that population tripled in western europe from roman times. not all of this was technology, but improved husbandry, crop selection and rotation.
the romans were not very good farmers.
We know that as a legal matter, the coloni were bound to the land they worked. In the Late Empire, there are laws and edicts enforcing this obligations, and records of complaints of coloni evading and becoming bandits. I understand some argue that this demonstrates that the landowners could not control the coloni. To my mind, that is like arguing that because after every financial scandal new anti-fraud laws are passed, and that despite that there are always new frauds popping up, that one can conclude that every banker is committing fraud. All that the laws concerning evasion demonstrate is that many coloni found their lives sufficiently unbearable that they wanted to leave and that some would even dare severe legal sanction to do so. It doesn't show that this was a ubiquitous problem. It certainly doesn't show the landowners couldn't control them; on the contrary it shows that they had powerful coercive means at their disposal to enforce such control.
It is true that in large groups of coloni in fringe areas ran off during the more chaotic period of the barbarian incursion; but this just reinforces that basic point that the fall of Roman civilization, while devastating to the civites who many moderns naturally identify with, may have been viewed in a more ambiguous light by other social class.