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.

[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]

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.

[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...

[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.

[the_handsome_viking]

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

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.

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

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

[lobf]

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.

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

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

[cmacq]

This is where this tread is headed...

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