The decline of civilization? A discussion

[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

[anubis88]

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

[cmacq]

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?

[brymht]

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....

[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.

[brymht]

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".

[cmacq]

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.

[brymht]

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.

[cmacq]

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).

[cmacq]

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.

[cmacq]

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.

[russia almighty]

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?"

[cmacq]

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?

[EdwardL]

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

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.

[cmacq]

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.

[lobf]

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.

[alatar]

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

MAA say's it well

[cmacq]

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?

[Sand]

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.

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.

[alatar]

@ 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.

[cmacq]

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?

[alatar]

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.

[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 :()

[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.

[alatar]

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.

[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?

[V.T. Marvin]

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.

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 , opinion?

[lobf]

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.

[alatar]

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'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.

[Watchman]

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...