The decline of civilization? A discussion

Now as this is the best forum I know in terms of history knowledge, I was wonder about your opinions on the view that civilization was destroyed/delayed for the middle ages.

I've always seen the simplistic view that after the fall of the western empire, civilization was destroyed.
Is this a anglocentric (or western centric view).
Is it correct?

I understand that with the collapse of the western empire, and the migration period the west of Europe lost the organization skills the romans had, but surely in the rest of the world claimed to be civilized?

((And thats not even questioning the idea of civilization, and the assumption that only the romans had it))

Just wondering:yes:

hm.. Well when WRE fell, the Goths in Italy took their goverment structure. Many Romans worked for the gothic kings, since the Goths didn't know how to efficently run such a country, so in a sense, the WRE civilization was present well into the 6th century BC.
I also think that the Persians were regarded quite civilized by that times standards

Well, the far east experienced a little hump in the road at the same time as the west. The emerging cultures of NA as well. They just don't get much press. If one were to connect the dots one may see a global phenom?

Unfortunately, the coming of the Islamic invasions, the destruction of much of the Byzantine Empire, and the fall of the WRE and therefore the markets for many of the Silk Road products caused a massive depression on the entire global economy, which set off a chain reaction as far as the 'Civilized' states were concernd, there was much less free time and much less learning to be had when people were concentrating on wars and thier next meal....

Civilization didn't really collapse during the the "Dark Ages", at least not for 99% of the population. If you were a rural pleb in the Roman Empire, you're life was basically the exact same as a peasant/surf during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages.

The only thing that really changed was who was in charge and how they maintained their power. The Romans controlled their world through military force, the Catholic Church controlled the world through superstition, which gives the image of a digression of civilization.

I think you're talking about WRE. I would argue that much of the Civilization which took place in the roman Empire was reliant on a safe and stable (relatively) political enviornment suitable for trade with everywhere in the world. This trade meant the free flow of ideas from all places. And the extinction of animals people thought were fun to kill in the Arena. (Sorry Pigmy elephant). When this political situation collapsed, and things broke apart, much of the trade collapsed, and THIS is what led to gradual "barbarization".

By decline (of Classical Civilization) I understood the period roughly between 50 BC and AD 550? Not the so-called 'Dark Age' per se, as this period is after the collapse. Of course this predates the Arab homogony. In the west as in the east and NA (north america) the recovery was well underway by AD 700.

Partially due to the increased tax burden, decrease in value of currency, and authoritarian laws restricting occupation changes which were ennacted in the mid late empire. I think this was one of the leading reasons for the slow decline. The gobbling up of half of the Byzantine trading empire in the East by the Islamic Invasions was really just the final nail in the coffin.

This from a previous thread on a similar topic.

Right,

as I said yours was an extremely good question. In fact forced conscription was applied by the various so-called Roman dynasties’ and governments that followed the Republic. In times of perceived emergence these conscriptions were instituted throughout the extent of the Empire. Here is an example;

http://books.google.com/books?id=920...t8Pc#PPA134,M1

Of course the most renowned case was the mass conscription imposed by Augustus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xue...aQwlt3EE4Yv4vQ

By the Late Empire Period, conscription was an everyday fact of live. Yet, throughout the Euro-Mediterranean world, economic, agricultural productivity, and population levels had dropped significantly. This was particularly marked in the more northern latitudes, which by the way included much of the West and conversely much less of the East. Thus, for increasingly fewer material and human resources in the west there were competing interests that progressively wrenched the fabric of the state. This is a very complex subject and I’ll try to abbreviate it as much as I can.

One element of the problem was that the entire demographic profile and social structure of the populations that composed the empire had been dramatically altered. Again, this was particularly marked within the West, and again this was largely because of the acute labor shortage. Overall in the West, the unskilled lower-class had mushroomed and the manufacturing/merchant middle-class had shrunk radically. It appears that Late Roman society had become more rigid and hierarchical with harsh laws that prohibited mobility and fixed everyone as to occupation and specific loci.

Another major problem, and this is the crux of the answer to your question, was the rise of not senatorial authority, rather the Senatorial Aristocracy and decline of the Principate's muscle and ability to direct the resources of the West. These traditional aristocratic families had become essentially independent of the Principate. They didn’t owe their power or prestige to the state and in fact, considered themselves superior by birth, as many late western emperors came from the lower social class associated with the military. Typically, these aristocrats had gained their status through the latifundia system and lived on their large estates paying little attention to contemporary problems, other than those that affected them directly.

This of course brings us back to the massive labor shortages in the west by the late 4th and 5th centuries AD. In the rural settings we have the Latifundia System with agricultural land concentrated in the hands of a few large landowners of the Senatorial Aristocracy, yet actually farmed by coloni, or semi-free persons whom later would be known as serfs. This system was again somewhat of a sick radical change from the slave-based system that had lead to the massive land consolations in the late Republican and early Empire periods.

These coloni of the 5th century were in fact poor subsistence farmers who managed their own small plots of land, as sharecroppers, which also contributed to the drop in agricultural productivity. In effect the Senatorial Aristocracy, by way of the latifundia would frequently defy the authority of the state, hired their own private armies, and tax collectors could rarely collect from or the military conscript among the farmers on the latifundia. Thus, large segments of the so-called Roman West passed outside the effective control of the state.

Turning to the urban setting we have the dismal Collegia System (sound familiar as it is only fitting that the modern institution suffers from more than just the same title). Because of the damans of the Roman state and urban based Senatorial Aristocracy the Collegia system did for innovation and what remained of the manufacturing/merchant middle-class, that the latifundia system did for the lower-class and agriculture.

So, to answer your question, when the army or tax man came’a callen in the West, he got not butt'a up turned middle finger, from the Senatorial Aristocracy. There is much more to this like the institutional mutilation of their coloni to disqualify them for military service, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Not to be too harsh, but for a more modern example of the above, please read any book on Mexican history (recent or otherwise).

Part 2

The answer to your first question is yes and no. Yes, there was a corresponding drop in economic activity, agricultural productivity, and population levels, but not to the extend as in the West. Actually these processes are the most marked in what is modern Britain, France, and the other more northern latitudes than anywhere else in the West or East. We also have another no, in that the East reacted to these processes differently and thus the societal changes were far different.

This is where it gets very unclear. The so-called Roman Empire represents the best documented example of a long term Systems Collapse ever. However, all we know for sure is what did happened, not what the causality of the systems collapse was. I believe most historians view this as a managerial problem; as per your question's listing of 'corruption, overtaxing, and competition by big business.' I simply do not think this was the case, rather these were managerial responses to more systemic factors.

To me it appears that everything stems from the drop in the economy, agricultural productivity, and population levels, and not the reverse. Although we don't actually see clear indicators of these three processes until the end of the 2nd century AD. they become very pronounced by the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Regardless, there also is evidence not of a decline, but a gradual yet significant slow-down or decreased economic, agricultural productivity, and population growth as early as the reign of Augustus. Given that the Julio-Claudian Empire should have provided greater economy stability and promoted both agricultural productivity and population growth, this makes little sense.

I have my own very simple answer concerning the cause, but the collection of direct evidence that would prove this, remains unfinished. As to your middle class query; right, this was one reason why the military used the barbarian levy. These were made available through foedus agreements directly with the state, thus bypassing the problems associated with the Latifundia System. Here by the state I'm actually referring to the Magister utriusquae militiae and not the Principate, which was yet another diversion of imperial authority. Sorry, this answer is very incomplete as there is much to say about the Collegia System. But I must get some sleep, I can't think clearly right now.

But, here is a hint; check out the history of China and see if similar managerial responses and societal changes as those witnessed in the West, occurred at the same time. Depending how far north within China one goes, the answer can be a resounding yes.

Part 3

Right, the urban based Collegia System, started as groups or clubs often associated with some such religious affiliation. However, by the Empire Period they had become roughly analogous to the guilds of the Euro-Medieval world. They included groups of business men and those employed within a given trade and/or industry. Technically, this system should have resulted in greater standardization, increased industrial productivity, and massive innovation. But, in fact the complete opposite occurred.

Again, the underlaying problem was the overall drop in population levels, particulary in the northern segments of the West, and the resulting labor shortages. The various arms of the government exacerbated this. First, the state (the Principate/ Dominate, Magister Utriusquae Militiae, Praetorian Prefect, Promagistrates Provincia, or other imperial officials and affiliates) came to use the Collegia System to assure that promised services and/or goods were produced and delivered. In good times, this may have occurred at or above cost, but in bad times it increasingly happened below cost. Of course, this practice adversely effected the profit motive while promoting the decline of the benefits the Collegia System may have provided. The local urban based Senatorial Aristocracy and Curia governments made similar damans, as well.

Of course the Curia governments/class/upper-middle class, or curiales referred to the wealthy merchants, businessmen, and medium-sized landowners who served their city as local magistrates and Decurions (municipia senators). They were responsible for public building projects, temples, festivities, games, and local welfare. They often paid for these themselves as a way to increase their personal prestige. Early in the imperial period the Decurions postings were actively sought as they would get a front row seat at the local theatre and be accepted into the Honestiores societies. However, by the middle 3rd century AD, with declining state revenue and increased costs the Decurions became little more than imperial tax collectors. In this period any shortfall in the local tax collection was of course taken out of their own pockets.

Now, related to this is another area were things get extremely weird as events and practice impacted the Collegia System. Right, despite the overall economic decline in the West, the budget of the state actually more than doubled; say from the middle 2nd to the early 4th century. Because, the opportunities for the state to acquire wealth, in the traditional method, as was done in the Late Republican Period (which actually was the reason the Empire came into being) were either limited or no longer available, this makes no sense whats so ever? How could this have happened? Also much of the expansion in the budget concerned the acquiring of goods produced by the Collegia System, to be consumed directly by the state.

Well, the imperial government increasingly made up the short fall of monetary intake by the practice of Bona Damatorum. The target of this was typically prominent citizens, or the Decurions mentioned above that had illegally fled their posting in an attempt to seek relief from the often ruinous burden of the office. Here is the kicker, its these Decurions that provided the capital that supported and/or fostered the manufacturing/merchant middle-class. The aristocracy and Curia likewise followed ensuite in the persecutions of the Decurion membership. The result was a massive decline in available capital and the size of the middle-class. Can anyone say exodus to the East? Next we have laws that fixed occupations and locations.

Again, this is a very complex subject and my offering only an outline. I think this may answer russia almighty's question about 'forced conscription of any of the Italian city dwellers into the legions.'

I also hope these posts may aid in your understand the decline.

c, do you think if a WRE emperor who acted like an effective dictator could have fixed those problems via purges, assassinations and ERE style, "Its for the greater good, so were taking your biz and capital?"

If I remember correctly, this was your question, was it not?

No, they were fixable only if one could fix the sun. I think in the west the Senatorial Aristocracy said, 'lets declare bankruptcy' and started anew with the barbars as 'paid protection.' Then they pulled their scaley heads back into their shells and lived out the remainder of their short, miserable, cold-dark-little lives; until some time in the 600s. I think we should always remember that the fix to many things remain out of the reach of human hands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

I've always seen the simplistic view that after the fall of the western empire, civilization was destroyed.
Is this a anglocentric (or western centric view).
Is it correct?

I understand that with the collapse of the western empire, and the migration period the west of Europe lost the organization skills the romans had, but surely in the rest of the world claimed to be civilized?

((And thats not even questioning the idea of civilization, and the assumption that only the romans had it))

Just wondering:yes:

---

I would have to say that yes, that is in fact anglocentric.

you would have to realize, that after the fall of the west, there was still the Eastern Roman Empire, which later became the Byzantine Empire we all know and love. It goes with saying that the splitting of the empire into 2, actually was a big factor in the decline of the Western half, as most of the empires wealth was concentrated in the east.

After the collapse of the west, the east viewed themselves as the true sole heir of the Roman Empire, and it can be argued rightfully so. Many customs, traditions, military styles, lifestyles were identical to the West. The only notable difference is that Greek and Greek based language was the dominate language. the East carried on these traditions while at the same time the fallen West was scalping roads and aqueducts that fell out of repair for building materials.

The East had ambitions to reconquer the west once it fell into "barbaric darkness" after the collapse of the west. The East did have great success with this, having regained Italy, parts of North Africa and several other critical areas, before a great plague engulfed the East, at which point the army in the west was recalled. IIRC this was during the reign of Justinian.

And, not Italophilic? The East Empire experienced the same problems as the West, but responded differently. Apparently, parts of China likewise did as well, as it is indeed a very big place, just to understate. What happened in North America is that the various emerging regional cultures simply appear to stagnate (this another word for disintegrate not dissolve) for 600 years. Central America's a bit of a mixed bag; the big problem here is of course accurate dating. For example; Teotihuacan, as well as the Lowland Maya city states, seem to have been founded and reached their apogee in the period when the Euros, East Asia, and North America remained in decline. Here, after AD 650, the old polities disintegrate and by the middle 700s new ones formed. Important to note that there are exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

Civilization didn't really collapse during the the "Dark Ages", at least not for 99% of the population. If you were a rural pleb in the Roman Empire, you're life was basically the exact same as a peasant/surf during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages.

The only thing that really changed was who was in charge and how they maintained their power. The Romans controlled their world through military force, the Catholic Church controlled the world through superstition, which gives the image of a digression of civilization.

---

Well put.

cmacq, I have no idea what that other thread was about:dizzy2:

MAA say's it well

As is normally the case it stated out as one thing and end up as another...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...hlight=decline

Still, with a good variety of well stated stances, its an interesting enough tread I think?

Its a contentious issue to be honest as "civilization" is a tricky term. As far as Western Europe goes, yes, the fall of the Roman Empire was the fall of civillisation if civillisation is defined as an economically sophisticated or complex society. Id reccomend "The Fall of Rome" by Bryan Ward-Perkins.

His view is that in all aspects of *widespread* economic activity, most of Western Europe regressed to a dark age at the end of the Roman Empire. Sophisticated economic links, writing, high quality domestic goods [ some of the utensils fit for a Dark Age king would have been thrown out by a Roman pleb as defective...] & housing/urban living regressed from widespread availability to the domain of tiny elites. The greatest buildings and engineering feats of the post WRE were strictly small time compared to what the WRE had built. In some areas, the former WRE regressed to economic development and compexity that existed even prior to the arrival of the WRE - practically moving backwards 700 years in time.

The people of the time definitly saw it as the fall of civillisation, and Ward-Perkins book is full of stories of how people coped with their empire collapsing around them and how towns on the Danube still expected to receive their shipments of trade goods from Africa and Spain.

Quote:

---

hm.. Well when WRE fell, the Goths in Italy took their goverment structure. Many Romans worked for the gothic kings, since the Goths didn't know how to efficently run such a country, so in a sense, the WRE civilization was present well into the 6th century BC.

---

That was an extremely one side "partnership". Romans were second class citizens by Gothic law, and when the ERE reconquered Italy, the Goths took to slaughtering the familes of Roman noblemen who they suspected [probably rightly] of supporting the ERE advance.

The Romans desperately tried to make the best of it though, and did their best to use flattery to encourage the Germanic kings to act and behave like Roman Emperors - I.E. in an attempt to manipulate them. Those Kings werent immune to flattery from well educated Romans hailing them as Caesar, but they werent fools either. They knew a lot of it was rubbish, and we shouldnt be too eager to assume that praise of the new order Romans found themselves in was genuine or heartfelt as opposed to simply politically expedient.

@ Sand
True, but that is a localised event, I mean the Byzantines continued "civilization " even after they lost land to the Arab conquests. And then the Arab world grew to be arguably as"civilized" as Rome.

So what I am saying is maybe large organized government declined in the former territories of the Roman empire, but continued elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

The only thing that really changed was who was in charge and how they maintained their power. The Romans controlled their world through military force, the Catholic Church controlled the world through superstition, which gives the image of a digression of civilization.

---

Prospective...

In those days many moved to the Catholic Church because it was seen as science is today and the old ways looked upon as shadowy dimwittedness more suited to the rubes. Thus, in the days to come, our high-powered science will be seen as nothing more than, a silly erstwhile shibboleth while some other new exotic schizophrenic pet, will reign supra numero. And, they will no doubt laugh and say how primitive and superstitious, we all once were, to have 'believed in that science thingy,' so to cite Cicero; ut sementem feceris, ita metes?

The fact that for many the church was the only form of advancement, plus the power of God almighty, does make for a long term power.

As George Orwell says the best powers at controlling the populace did so believing they were right.

it is anglocentric. almost everything ever written are biased in one way or another. so are most views. china consider all outsiders barbarians till they come bursting through their doors with guns + cannons. the easiest example would be the world series? they call it world series when in fact it is only in one country, the USA :()

What does this term, 'Anglo-centric' actually mean? To me it sounds very much like something an overpaid, overfeed, pedantically challenged pedagoguish-poug might say in a vain attempt to become the defiant all-knowing, all-seeing arbitrator of whats, what, for their annual crop of newfound book-bound devotes? I'm just saying? Did I leave out cultural self-loathing; as does its use have to do with all things English, or just Euro/Western-civ in general? Because now, I'm just asking? I know theres a Pavlovian response out there, somewhere, as the name Churchill comes quick to mind? Come now, thrill me with your acumen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

What does this term, 'Anglo-centric' actually mean? To me it sounds very much like something an overpaid, overfeed, pedantically challenged pedagoguish-poug might say in a vain attempt to become the defiant all-knowing, all-seeing arbitrator of whats, what, for their annual crop of newfound book-bound devotes? I'm just saying? Did I leave out cultural self-loathing; as does its use have to do with all things English, or just Euro/Western-civ in general? Because now, I'm just asking? I know theres a Pavlovian response out there, somewhere, as the name Churchill comes quick to mind? Come now, thrill me with your acumen.

---

Some one's angry, and quite confused, in fact I don't know what you are trying to say in the last part.

And by anglocentric I mean just focusing on England.

And as for cultural hating, I do not hate my culture, but I want to know if the idea of civilization stopping was just based around england.

And just wanting to learn about stuff outside one's home island does not mean that I hate my country or culture.

Last time I checked Rome was in Italy, not the British Isles? And yes, when one imitates their preceptors' masquerade, one apes their ill-intent as well. Finally no, not angry at all, nor confused enough to mimic the rhetoric of charlatans that pose as educators. Besides, Alatar this was not directed towards you; as you never used the term. It was meant for those so far gone down 'The Shining Path' they salivate when the name, Ward Churchill rings a bell?

I have enjoyed this thread very much, especially thanks to your extraordinary posts cmacq. I just think that there is no reason to start blaming anybody for expressing (quite innocently I think) his opinion, even if there might be grounds for deeming it rather rhetoric charlatanism (which I think there are not). Just keep it civil and let´s continue in this very educating discussion. :yes:

To keep it going, I do have question. I remember a commentary to the Ten Books of Gregory of Tours (a chronicle of early Frankish kingdom) that stated that actually the early Frankish kingdom was doing rather well, even preserving a professional state bureaucracy and keeping a rather large volume of long-distance trade across almost all Mediterranean basin. This account somewhat relativized the usual image of the Dark age, coming with the beginnings of the "barbaric kingdoms" and stressed that much more continuity in fact existed for some time. According to that account the crisis came rather late (late 6th century), just before the Karlid(?) dynasty took over... I do know next to nothing on this issue, so I would appreciate if I could learn more on this fascinating forum.

Could you please comment on this, admittedly not well represented - sorry for my English :shame:, opinion?

I'm going to attempt to move this thread in a slightly different direction-

What will warfare look like in the coming dark age? I went through a phase where I read every post-apocalypse novel i could get my hands on, and I'm pretty convinced that some day, at some point, some disaster will befall us and end civilization. At that point, how will people fight?

I imagine Spanish Terico or Swiss Pike Square making a return. All guns won't be gone, but they'll be rare and there will be little ammunition. Dense formations of pikemen I imagine with riflemen that can slip in and out.

Any other ideas? I love talking about the end of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Last time I checked Rome was in Italy, not the British Isles? And yes, when one imitates their preceptors' masquerade, one apes their ill-intent as well. Finally no, not angry at all, nor confused enough to mimic the rhetoric of charlatans that pose as educators. Besides, Alatar this was not directed towards you; as you never used the term. It was meant for those so far gone down 'The Shining Path' they salivate when the name, Ward Churchill rings a bell?

---

Quote:

---

I've always seen the simplistic view that after the fall of the western empire, civilization was destroyed.
Is this a anglocentric (or western centric view).
Is it correct?

---

So I did use the term. So you can understand why I reply on an attack on a word which I used.
This makes me feel that you have no read the opening post, which makes me feel you think I claimed that civilization declined, which would make you a idiot.

So as it is clear that you did not read all this thread, perhaps do so before to aggressively attack people?

And I still do no understand what you are talking about. Could you perhaps explain it to me (in a less aggressive manner please). Because to be honest I have no idea what your problem is, try calming down or putting paragraphs in?

Maybe you thought I asked why the empire fell.
Pehapps you thought people were claiming that the fall in civilization afected the entire world.
Either way the thread link you posted, with it's copy and paste answers has no relevance I feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

The only thing that really changed was who was in charge and how they maintained their power. The Romans controlled their world through military force, the Catholic Church controlled the world through superstition, which gives the image of a digression of civilization.

---

Eh, the Church generally had major problems controlling anything. Its own clergy included, if the number of successive Papal bulls against priests getting married is anything to judge by.

Didn't do all that well with the temporal rulers either, as that lot often enough flatly ignored the Pope, wiped their butts with his promulgations, responded to excommunications by brazenly setting up their own counter-Pope or two, readily enough openly warred with him (particularly the Italian city-states were constantly settling some quite temporal disputes with Vatican the old-fashioned way), and/or for all intents held him hostage at their beck and call. The more powerful monarchs, chiefly the French and HRE ones, were particularly prone to such intractability.

Or the common folk, who as often as not were quite clueless as to proper Catholic rites, merrily mixed their whole bag of old folk beliefs and a better part of pagan divinities with what they could grasp of the orthodox doctrine (the local priests usually didn't even bother trying, being able to recognise a Sisyphean job when they saw it, and just looked the other way), and in at least one instance tried to get a greyhound made Saint... (the animal had saved a few children from a well; although the thing unsurprisingly never got through Vatican's filter, that didn't keep the grateful locals from setting up a shrine for the animal...)

Heck, even the crusading Orders sometimes talked back something severe. The Knights Teutonic and Papal "peacekeeping" troops at least once almost came to blows over the treatment of the Baltic pagans - the Vatican, after pleads from the latter, having agreed that to indeed have been rapacious, opportunistic and in no way befitting the spread of the Good Faith...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

So I did use the term. So you can understand why I reply on an attack on a word which I used.
This makes me feel that you have no read the opening post, which makes me feel you think I claimed that civilization declined, which would make you a idiot.

So as it is clear that you did not read all this thread, perhaps do so before to aggressively attack people?

And I still do no understand what you are talking about. Could you perhaps explain it to me (in a less aggressive manner please). Because to be honest I have no idea what your problem is, try calming down or putting paragraphs in?

Maybe you thought I asked why the empire fell.
Pehapps you thought people were claiming that the fall in civilization afected the entire world.
Either way the thread link you posted, with it's copy and paste answers has no relevance I feel.

---

You really have no idea who Ward Churchill is, or what the reference to 'the shining path,' means? Humm, I acquiesce, as yes indeed, I'm the idiot. In fact what I wrote is called a mad rant; its a cultural thing I suppose. Initially, in no way was it directed at you nor anyone else on these boards. I simply bemoan the dismal state, in some quarters, of higher learning, that by extension lend itself to parroting the sophomoric catch phrase. If you or anyone else took offense, I beg your pardon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path

First, the Italian based polity, some call Roman, at some point ceased to be. This was the effective end, or as some would say, 'the fall,' of a particular State in antiquity. Yet, civilization, by definition, is not the State, and thus survives as a bit more fluid and resilient concept designed only for the ease of the modern mind's grasp. Civilizations, as abstract collections of cultures and traditions, either are, or they are not. Objectively, they do not rise; they do not fall; they do not set, and most certainly they do not shine at all. To this point, with all things considered, as one may express in terms of 'the fall,' another may assume that the polity was intended, rather than what was actually stated. One may also note that another has no clue if the former is a native English speaker, and if so, their ability to comprehend both the language and the construct. Above all else, no insult or offense was intended; enough said.


To better illustrate, 'The Mad Rant.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo

I never called you a idiot, just is you thought I thought their was a decline in civilization you would be one (as you didn't read my first post).

Quote:

---

You really have no idea who Ward Churchill is, or what the reference to 'the shining path,' means? Humm, I acquiesce, as yes indeed, I'm the idiot.

---

Ignorance is not idiocy.
(I have my area's of knowledge you have yours, if I had known I would have provoked outright hostility I would not have asked)

That sentence and your ridiculous rant means that I am sorry I started this thread, maybe I should not ask questions on things I know little about (foolishly thinking I would get reasonable answers not hostile rants) and instead not enter on to EB without reading up on the works of all historians relating to this period.

I am not a historian but silly me I thought anyone could play and enjoy EB. And perhaps venture onto EB's site and try to learn more.

I will uninstall it right now, and proceed with my life (I used to try to improve my knowledge of history as a hobby, but I see now that doing so is clearly angering you).

Come on, friends... This is really useless. It seemed as an extraordinarily interesting thread and for a reason I cannot grasp it turned into a blame game. Either be resonable and let us continue in a civil discussion where the more knowledgable could share their knowledge with others (without being too touchy about it) or let the moderators close the whole thread, thus showing us once more how un-mature we really are (regardless of age) and dooming inadverently quite a bit of information into cyber-oblivion...:wall:

:book: or :dancinglock: what will prevail? :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin

To keep it going, I do have question. I remember a commentary to the Ten Books of Gregory of Tours (a chronicle of early Frankish kingdom) that stated that actually the early Frankish kingdom was doing rather well, even preserving a professional state bureaucracy and keeping a rather large volume of long-distance trade across almost all Mediterranean basin. This account somewhat relativized the usual image of the Dark age, coming with the beginnings of the "barbaric kingdoms" and stressed that much more continuity in fact existed for some time. According to that account the crisis came rather late (late 6th century), just before the Karlid(?) dynasty took over... I do know next to nothing on this issue, so I would appreciate if I could learn more on this fascinating forum.

Could you please comment on this, admittedly not well represented - sorry for my English :shame:, opinion?

---

By the way that 'dooming inadvertently' things a nice touch.

Very good post, and your English seems better than mine. Indeed, the Frankish, Saxon, Irish, Pictish, Germanic, Spanish, and Greek polities were all recovering. Given a few set backs here and there, this trend continued and spiked up significantly in the 12th and 13th centuries. However around AD 1300 this trend was notably reversed. This was one of the things that has lead me away from the traditional view of the subject. I noticed the same thing in the area I actually work in; the American Southwest. Here, by the the 1st century BC the local Early Formative cultures (particulary in the Tucson Basin) appear posed to rapidly develop into far more complex expressions.

Of course, this didn't happen. In fact, it wasn't until some time in the 7th century AD until it actually occurred. So, the question might be, why did it happen later and not earlier? The only factor, that I could identify that may have impacted increased complexity in a positive fashion, in the 7th century, was the initial phase of the Medieval Warm Period. Simply stated; slightly warmer global temps, ice melts, increased gaseous water in the atmosphere, more rainfall, more surface water, irrigation, more corn, more beans,more squash, more people, and finally greater cultural complexity. Now, if this was the case it begs the following question. If growing complexity was associated with a global temp increase, was the proceeding period associated with cooler global temps?

At this point one may note how this ties into my earlier posts, as they apply to managerial responses or adaptation documented within a particularly large Italian-based polity in the period roughly between the 1st century BC and AD 550/650. I propose that there is evidence for this phenom in Europe, although mitigated, to some extent, by the organization and technology of the Imperial State. One may also notice that the terminus of this proposed episode closely corresponds to the opening stage of dramatic Arab expansion in the Near East. Finally, I also suggest that this is but the 'Tip' of the proverbial 'Iceberg.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craziii

it is anglocentric. almost everything ever written are biased in one way or another. so are most views. china consider all outsiders barbarians till they come bursting through their doors with guns + cannons. the easiest example would be the world series? they call it world series when in fact it is only in one country, the USA :()

---

:smash: I believe it's called the world series because it was initially sponspored by "The World" newspaper.

It also includes Canada!

Well, Toronto...

/wrongtimeperiod

The decline of civilisation is the fault of George Bush. Ya.

Whether the US possessed any civilisation to speak of even before is up to debate... ~;p

That, mein good Watchman, is a VERY good point.

George Bush hates white people!

Do we have any experts out there on the Han of China? And what of Iran and India between the 1st century BC and AD 550/650?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

Now as this is the best forum I know in terms of history knowledge, I was wonder about your opinions on the view that civilization was destroyed/delayed for the middle ages.

I've always seen the simplistic view that after the fall of the western empire, civilization was destroyed.
Is this a anglocentric (or western centric view).
Is it correct?

I understand that with the collapse of the western empire, and the migration period the west of Europe lost the organization skills the romans had, but surely in the rest of the world claimed to be civilized?

((And thats not even questioning the idea of civilization, and the assumption that only the romans had it))

Just wondering:yes:

---

Due to the nature of the subject this topic is likely to become not only rather heated but also convoluted, I don't think this is a bad thing but I think you are objectivly seeking an answer so I will try to answer your question as quickly as possible. I will be happy to elaborate though if you want me to expand on the ponts I make.

1)No it's not Anglo-centric as the culture we see now as Anglo was in its budding form or simply non-existant, and would probably be seen as part of the problem in the eyes of the "Rome fell to the barbarians" crowd and thus not really a good advertisment for the Anglos.

2)It is a bit West centric as Eastern Rome continued into the middle ages, playing a major part in the crusades and the politics etc surrounding them.

3)We need to keep in mind that the fall of an empire is not the same as the fall of a civilization, civilization existed in Western Europe before and after the Romans created an empire.

4)The Western empire undoubtably went under some majorly fast administrative shifts as new people came in and took charge, some even being considered legit Roman emperors in the eyes of the Romans such as Theodoric the Goth.

5)Several of these new administrative bodies very much considered themselves to be inheriting Roman civilization or at least incorporating the bits they liked about it into their own traditional systems, this can be evidenced in groups like the Franks who not only felt they had inherited Roman culture, but also created something somewhat reminiscent of the Western Roman empire, in some cases pushing farther into territories the "true Romans" didn't or couldn't such as much of Germania.

6)This "inheritors of Roman civilization or empire" mentality may seem a little odd, but it really isn't as odd and distant as you can think, throughout much of European history post 5th century bc this mentality has been extremely prominent, to really try and get you to understand this, it hasn't even been 100 years since a very large war was fought against a man who was incharge of the "Third Reich" (the First Reich being the Holy Roman Empire) and his Italian ally who openly stated he wanted to create a "New Roman Empire".

7)This "inheritors" mentality was not exclusive to the West, the Seljuk turkish invaders of the Eastern Roman empire considered themselves the inheritors of Eastern Roman if not just Roman civilization and consequently because of this The Russians, considered themselves the "Third Rome" after the fall of Constantinople, hence the origins of "Tsar" in Russia.

8) Many of the organizational techniques of the Roman empire, political as well as military, were not only understood and adopted by the "Inheritors" but they were also using them well before the Western Roman empire fell as many of these people themselves were part of the Western Roman empire anyway and were well used to living Roman way of life so this is why historically speaking you see the successor cultures not only implimenting many Roman administrative techniques but building upon them and sometimes replacing them when they came up with something better.

9) Keep in mind that the Roman military and its society was constantly undergoing revampment and would rise or lower in terms of quality from time to time, and the Romans were never the kind to shy away from incorporating other peoples ideas and implimenting them to their own benefit so this successor period was in many ways much more of the same.

and finally 10) You need to remember that political fragmentation, rebellion, breakaway attemps both successful and unsuccessful as well as civil war, were not things unknowen and infrequent in the centuries before the fragmentation of the Western Roman Empire. The war in Gaul, which was very much opposed by many Romans was followed by a civil war in Rome which culminated in the seperation of Roman conquered land into three administrative regions which then had wars between themselves and then resulted in a political overhaul that seemed to get rid of the consuls all together in favor of something which looked very much like a perma dictator arguably ending a way of life in itself. This along with things such as the break away Gallic Empire attempt, the Crisis of the Third Century, the creation of Western and Eastern Roman Empires etc would act as a few more examples of the turbulance of Roman Empire and Roman civilization which in retrospect could the "Fall of Western Rome" actually not the Fall of Rome at all and in many ways more of the same.

Regardless of what name you want to give it, Civilization existed in Western Europe both before and after the Roman Empire. I hope these brief paragraphs can be at least slightly helpful to you in your attempt to get the jist of an extremely complex subject.

Well to that guy talking about the fall of MODERN civilization, I think he refers to losing Europe, NA, AND Asia at the same time. If neither one of these falls at the same time, I think the only problem will be a significant decline in trade with whatever continent or nation fell, ie. being:

U.S. Falls, LOTS of economic problems for the world

and about the same with the rest of "civilization" for our usual days are governed by cheap goods we aquire from other states.

Guess how many things are made in china >.>



Now the third world countries, they all have their own style of "civilization", just that they might not have it to the extent of britain or germany or any other large and rich country.

For the most part, so long as any of the major powers in the world dont fall, civilization will still be around. If they all fall at the same time...well....you can just think of the rise of gangs and regional "governors"...

warfare would probably include foraging for guns and crap, aside from the usual "shankings" that will happen lol

You'd also see a huge decline in population with the loss of international trade. So many of the large cities of the world depend on food imported from elsewhere daily, and when government fails, food growth and management fail.

It's a frightening thought being in LA especially. Too many people, not enough food. I'm fucked in the apocalypse.

Edit- I forgot to mention that it would be a quick and violent decline of population as survivors fight over available food until an equilibrium is established.

For actual tactics in fights like this I would imagine it would be much guerilla warfare and gang activity.

After gangs get big enough they would probably become a sort of kingdom...with the head gangster leading the pack. And then well, you would probably see things like what happened in Water world...that nasty old movie... and that movie of L.A. being in a post-apocalyptic world with Kurt Russel.

After all the guns are done for, I would imagine that

A. Either there would still be SOME people who knew how to create guns and would create a rather Warhammer 40k ish organization, reverring the old technology, or improve upon it and have a repeat of the middle ages.

B. There would probably be a rise in the usage of knives and all sorts of sharp objects, For I dont think large land battles would occur, mostly due to the fact that the logistics for that would require much preparation, and that would take far too long for the gang-like savages that would roam the place at the time.

But then again, who knows? Until something like that happens, we will see...the best examples are somalia and that other city in africa ATM

This is where this tread is headed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54

lol global warming will create cannibals

I love apocalyptic guessing.


More likely than not, the Midwest and Southern states will stay the most united. Huge ass military and farming presence(also, nuclear presence. Your not going anywhere if they say they will nuke you if you secede) which will remove the problems of the East Coast and West Coast of starving to death.

Well, in an Absolut World?

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/.../absolutad.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Well, in an Absolut World?

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/.../absolutad.jpg

---

We had a war that settled that. It turned out that although all the lines were on a map, there were no Mexican people north of Chihuahua, but there were Americanish people, so it all worked out in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Whether the US possessed any civilisation to speak of even before is up to debate... ~;p

---

Dude. Fast food is totally high-culture. Totally. So what if we have no art or music. We do have literature though, but it's generally poorly written and of the thriller variety. Sometimes our government works...but it usually just gets by without destroying the universe. I'm not helping the case for the US having civilization.:shame:

I'm not totally sure where this map came from, as far as it being derived from some historical document? I think its the same as a Kleptocracy's dream team. I've read it dates to before 1848, but I do remember something about the end of the first Mexican Republic and a little rebellion in Táysha, in 1835-36? Hell, the vast majority of Mexicans are completely unaware of the true nature of their own history, except the part about how all their woes are due to the 'Great Satan.' Where have I bloody heard that before?

Right, not to draw too fine a point, there was the Province of New Mexico, as if that changes any thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I'm not totally sure where this map came from, as far as it being derived from some historical document? I think its the same as a Kleptocracy's dream team. I've read it dates to before 1848, but I do remember something about the end of the first Mexican Republic a little rebellion in Táysha, in 1835-36? Hell, the vast majority of Mexicans are completely unaware of the true nature of their own history, except the part about how all their woes are due to the 'Great Satan.' Where have I bloody heard that before?

---

That's about what Mexico claimed as its lands at the start of the Mexican War. However in reality Texas was independent (after 1836) and then a state (after 1845) (Mexico had to recognize it and its borders as terms of the end of the war) and California was also independent, having rebelled from Mexico some years earlier. The disputed Texas border was a casus belli.

Contrary to popular belief in Mexico, the war was justified. It was not just an imperialist land-grab, although it was partly one.

Absolut pulled that ad and apologized at the behest of the Mexican government.

I don't care, take their Absolut heads and pike'm in the town square so they can stare at the crows.

I'm telling you all this now:
1-fast food is NOT high culture-it's the fatman's house (i.e heart attacks)
2-I live here-outside of the eastern half of the midwest (OH, Penn., ML, V, WV to an extent), and the new England states+NY and NJ, there is NO trace of civilization whatsoever (not counting the Indians, in which case there is)
3-Bush hates anyone who isn't a fundamentalistic, neoconservative a@#hole, like him.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

f*%) bush .jr, f#@^! to hell, f #%@ him to damnation, he's rated F!&$b!($s by me

sorry can't help it-he finished off civilization in the US

Honestly, I'm not entirely certain how much civilization we really have here in the US of A. In some degrees, this is a perk. Comparatively to amny places in the world, we don't tend to kill each other en masse over religous differences, ethnic differences, or political differences; as much as the media tried to rile people up. I think this is our blessing and our curse.

No united culture means everyone has to live with everyone else.

When the US DOES fragment (few hundred years, whever) I'm betting on Texas or California as getting thier own countries first, and starting the whole issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

I'm telling you all this now:
1-fast food is NOT high culture-it's the fatman's house (i.e heart attacks)
2-I live here-outside of the eastern half of the midwest (OH, Penn., ML, V, WV to an extent), and the new England states+NY and NJ, there is NO trace of civilization whatsoever (not counting the Indians, in which case there is)
3-Bush hates anyone who isn't a fundamentalistic, neoconservative a@#hole, like him.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

f*%) bush .jr, f#@^! to hell, f #%@ him to damnation, he's rated F!&$b!($s by me

sorry can't help it-he finished off civilization in the US

---

The irrationality radiates off of you like the heat effect thingy coming off a hot road.

Good god, I'm not sure I'm getting all this? Are we already cannibals, or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Good god, I'm not sure I'm getting all this? Are we already cannibals, or what?

---

They say that if you eat human flesh, you consume the soul of the one you devour and become powerful. There was a movie about that...Ravenous.