The World Without the US

[M1A2U2]

An interesting new documentary.
here are two trailers:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gY9Eqd2nx2I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Py4jVOJDwXU

[seraosha]

Looks interesting.

[NeverDown]

this guy is a joke..

[Mu-Meson]

"Be careful for what you wish" for is exactly right.

[spale]

this guy is a joke..

care to elaborate on that?

[ghostt888]

It seems to portray the US as the only country which does does anything good in the world. The US has a role to play, but i don't agree with many of its foreign policies.

[LaoSexMachine]

Let China deal with the world's problem.

[Chulo]

It seems to portray the US as the only country which does does anything good in the world. The US has a role to play, but i don't agree with many of its foreign policies.
Guess who gives the MAJORITY of charitable and emergency funding/support


and why is this about foreign policy and military influence only? how about its economic impact?

[c62]

It seems to portray the US as the only country which does does anything good in the world. The US has a role to play, but i don't agree with many of its foreign policies.
I wouldn't say "only", that's a bit misleading. We're the undisputed leader, large issues don't get implemented without our involvement, that's not to say other countries don't help out, they do. But it won't get done until we say "Get it done", especially if it requires military force.

[I can't think of a name]

I don't think people understand what will happen to the world economy if the US Navy quits patrolling the Persian Gulf, African Coast, SE Asia etc.

What the Royal Navy did previously and what the US Navy does now is vital to all our economies.

Otherwise the ocean would be divided up into fiefdoms and pirating.

[Rictor]

I wouldn't say "only", that's a bit misleading. We're the undisputed leader, large issues don't get implemented without our involvement, that's not to say other countries don't help out, they do. But it won't get done until we say "Get it done", especially if it requires military force.

So 6.2 billion people in 190 nations, most with civilizations that have stood for many orders of magnitude longer than the United States, couldn't find their as*hole with both hands if the benevolent force of the US hegemon were not gently guiding them?

"Without me, the poor, benighted savages wouldn't know how to live" has throughout history been a favourite refrain of the tyrant. No one is indispensable.
...well, except Spiderman. Then we really would be screwed.


What the Royal Navy did previously and what the US Navy does now is vital to all our economies. Otherwise the ocean would be divided up into fiefdoms and pirating.
Right, because the smooth flow of commerce is clearly in no one's interest. Certainly not Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq, not to mention their customers around the world. They would all much rather fight than sit back and count the Benjamins. They're just insane like that, I guess.

[budgie]

I for one am happy with America's role, otherwise I wouldn't be interested enough to jump in on these forums. However the common refrain of "Where would you be without us" smacks of hubris and America's senior status should not be used as a blank cheque by the leaders of the free world. As an example whenever we disagree with Bush's policies some who see themselves on the American right weigh in here and tell us to shut up or mind our own business, as though we had attacked America as a whole. Not so. But suffice to say we have an interest in what the US does and Americans need to respect that.

[Kaplanr]

So who remembers this Candadian from 1973?

http://youtube.com/v/oJ_okAgAUGE

[dimasorokine]

If the USA were to suddenly collapse, and all its influence (Positive and Negative) were to disappear overnight many countries would experience hardships and many would see changes for the better - and the world as a whole would take a decade or so to re adjust as the power and influence is divided among powerful nations...

The notion that the world would be in chaos without the US pulling the strings is just plain offensive - for reasons Rictor already pointed out. Furthermore, one could make a very strong case for the power and influence being more evenly spread throughout this world as being a very positive thing.

-Dima

[BugHunt]

Amerika STRONG!!!! ;)


Your the 13 Trillion economic gorilla in the room you aint going anywhere in a hurry - unless cheeseburgers go poisonous overnight....


But to merely equate "super power" with super good is pretty damn ignorant.

[Herrmannek]

If USA doesn't give a shiit no one does... So you better mind what you wish for. World is far more better with US than without.

[BugHunt]

If USA doesn't give a shiit no one does... So you better mind what you wish for. World is far more better with US than without.


Yeah i hear u bubba - if the USA hadnt been there pushing the Kyoto climate accords 200% they'd have never been created!! :roll:

[Will938]

Yeah i hear u bubba - if the USA hadnt been there pushing the Kyoto climate accords 200% they'd have never been created!! :roll:

Good example, because the signers are following the kyoto treaty so well...

[NuckmasterJ]

I hope I live to see the day when new renewable power sources are invented and beginning to see wide spread use in North America. When this day comes I hope to christ the US withdraws all support from hot spots across the world and puts all its effort towards improving our own part of the world.

Hell I will take even one year. Ignore the ME, Africa the hole lot. Let everyone deal with their own crap then rethink and redeploy when the world suddenly has a new look upon life, freedom and liberty that their own leaders squander and abuse.

[LaoSexMachine]

i hope we go back to isolation.

[Calanen]

"Be careful for what you wish" for is exactly right.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the lights go out on America, they go out on the whole world. Once the Roman Empire was gone we had the Dark Ages, and we will move into a similar period if the US takes a dive.

[Alfacentori]

Considering the United States contributes 22% of all UN funding, including International aid thru the UN it would be an interesting senario if they withdrew into a more isolationist foreign policy.

http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833

Combine that with a defence and trade treaty to replace Nato with close allies like Australia, UK, Japan and Canada (and others that would no doubt follow) and that would drop UN funding down by about 51%, I would like to know who would pick up the slack in places like Africa and who would be willing to deploy rapid reaction forces to replace Marine MEU's in world flash points.

Not to mention the cost savings to the US from closing overseas bases and bringing home assets that would be deemed unnecessary under such a policy.

This is all hypothetical of course but make no mistake as much as people might not like US influence and foreign policy a world without US money and US boots on the ground would be far worse.

Alfa

[Rictor]

Who ever said anything about the lights going out? The alternative to (attempted) hegemony is not collapse and ruin. In fact, it is imperial over-reach that will bring about the collapse, not the opposite.

Britain and France gave up their foreign meddling, and somehow made it out alright.



Combine that with a defence and trade treaty to replace Nato with close allies like Australia, UK, Japan and Canada (and others that would no doubt follow) and that would drop UN funding down by about 51%, I would like to know who would pick up the slack in places like Africa and who would be willing to deploy rapid reaction forces to replace Marine MEU's in world flash points.
The world's "flashpoints" have a tendency to sort themselves out, usually sooner rather than later. And so will Africa - after all, have we reason to believe that they will fail where South-East Asia, South America and the Middle East have succeeded (to varying degrees)?

The UN in not intended to be a mafia. You don't donate money expecting to get power and influence in return. Either you do it in the spirit of charity, with no political strings attached, or not at all. Even if the UN budget were slashed dramatically, other national, international and private sources would step in to fill the gap.

[Indiana Jones]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the lights go out on America, they go out on the whole world. Once the Roman Empire was gone we had the Dark Ages, and we will move into a similar period if the US takes a dive.
This is, quite frankly, an ahistorical and deeply flawed analogy.
EDIT:
What kind of scenario precisely do you envisage? A mere fall from "hyperpuissance" and/or a shift in the global balance of power to a multipolar structure would by no means necessitate the marginalisation of the US under either military or economical auspices.

[KillerBD]

i hope we go back to isolation.

It seems that it works/ed pretty well for North Korea......:petting:

[LaoSexMachine]

It seems that it works/ed pretty well for North Korea......:petting:

i mean dont stick our nose in other's problem

[Calanen]

This is, quite frankly, an ahistorical and deeply flawed analogy.
EDIT:
What kind of scenario precisely do you envisage? A mere fall from "hyperpuissance" and/or a shift in the global balance of power to a multipolar structure would by no means necessitate the marginalisation of the US under either military or economical auspices.

You either write memos for the civil service or are a management consultant.

I'm content with deeply flawed anologies. I'm a deeply flawed person.

[Indiana Jones]

You either write memos for the civil service or are a management consultant.


The Blasphemy !
Being nothing short of a professional smart-arse, I am deeply offended by your assessment.

I'm content with deeply flawed anologies. I'm a deeply flawed person.
Let`s make out then, but only if you promise not to cut yourself.:hug:
However, I still would like to know just how "the lights would have to go out" in the US of A to entail another global "Dark Age", for whatever that means. Since, with me being an academic, I cannot possibly refrain from pointing out that in contemporary historiography, speaking of "Dark Ages" is considered very much passé.

[Alfacentori]

The world's "flashpoints" have a tendency to sort themselves out, usually sooner rather than later. And so will Africa - after all, have we reason to believe that they will fail where South-East Asia, South America and the Middle East have succeeded (to varying degrees)?

The UN in not intended to be a mafia. You don't donate money expecting to get power and influence in return. Either you do it in the spirit of charity, with no political strings attached, or not at all. Even if the UN budget were slashed dramatically, other national, international and private sources would step in to fill the gap.

Perhaps they will but not before many more lives are lost and international problems like drugs and ilegal immigration become much worse especially in the EU.

No one ever said the UN was a Mafia, its not about influence and never should be but it is about the international community being able to act together to protect the collective rights of those nations and peoples, promote democracy and peace.
The UN is becoming like the League of Nations before it, a toothless tiger that is in danger of becoming irrelevent because it has lost its capacity and will to act.

And who may I ask do you think will step in and provide the extra Billions of dollars of funding?

Private enterprise I doubt it no profit in it

France and Germany? I doubt it, they might be wealthy but they are not going to commit that kind of money to the UN.

What about China? It is possible they will be able to afford it at some stage in the future but do you really think China would without some kind of pay off in influence etc, I think not.


Alfa

[khalifah]

i hope we go back to isolation.

Have you looked back in history? the last 2 times that the USA was staying out of the rest of the world, there were World Wars

WW1: the US obviously couldnt have prevented it, but it certianly could have ended it a lot quicker instead of waiting for the war to come to the US.

WW2: Sure secretly the US was sending supplies and other support to the British, but how would have sending troops when the threat was small. Who knows, maybe there would not have been a Holocoust.Furthermore The Japanese conquering Mainland China and more, you can't forget what happend to the Chinese there as well.

I don't know, maybe if the US were to become Isolationist it could be good for polotics domestic and abroad, but I dont think history would agree.

[Lokos]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the lights go out on America, they go out on the whole world. Once the Roman Empire was gone we had the Dark Ages, and we will move into a similar period if the US takes a dive.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Once the Roman Empire was gone, one had the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. The former of which lasted well into the Later Middle Ages. The latter was fought over by hitherto 'barbarian' tribes (barbarian only in the sense that they were not Roman; most had well developed codes of laws, metallurgy, masonry etc) and the remnants of WR civilization in Western Europe. The lights over Europe never went out. The decayed state known as the Roman Empire finally elapsed.

The successor states, in the meantime, flourished.

I think your post is certainly indicative of one issue; if the 'lights go out on America', it will be the end of the world for particular Americans. The rest of the international community, and most likely the majority of the highly developed societies in North America itself, will, as they say, go on.

Lokos

[ThatHistoryDude]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Once the Roman Empire was gone, one had the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. The former of which lasted well into the Later Middle Ages. The latter was fought over by hitherto 'barbarian' tribes (barbarian only in the sense that they were not Roman; most had well developed codes of laws, metallurgy, masonry etc) and the remnants of WR civilization in Western Europe. The lights over Europe never went out. The decayed state known as the Roman Empire finally elapsed.

The successor states, in the meantime, flourished.

Lokos

This is so full of bad and wrong its hard to know where to start. The west saw a major decline in almost every area. Certain parts of the west fared worse than others. England saw the worst decline followed by gaul then north africa and spain. Italy remained remarkably intact until it was fought over for decades by the Goths, Byzantines, and then the Lombards. If you doubt this stop reading revisionist historians like Micheal Wood and read archaeologists like Ward-Perkins. Or better yet take a look at primary sources like Eugippius. If your lazy you could read Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire as he manages to make a readable and relativly short book that includes primary source and scientific evidence.

Thats not to say the East went into as great a decline as the West as it certainly did not. It did still fall into a period of decay after the plagues during the 6th century. After the onset of Islam it became one of only many states occupying parts and claiming to be a sucessor of the old Roman empire.

Not all was bleak after the fall of Rome but it wasnt all sunshine and lollipops either. It was a period of massive strife between many major powers in the East it was Byzantium vs. Persia and then Byzantium vs. Islam, The Slavs, and Bulgars. In the West the number of warring factions was numerous and I wont list them all here.

But not to totally derail the thread its hard to say what the modern world would look like without american involvment. Probably there would be a new imperial world power taking up where we left off much as the US did as the old European empires fell apart or were relinquished. If the transition was smooth not much would change. But if we saw several major powers fight for power and influence (like the period after the fall of Rome) many people's lives would be changed. And in any countries that depend of foreign trade for their necessities quality of life would probably decline markedly.

[joka]

Guess who gives the MAJORITY of charitable and emergency funding/support

The European Union.

[daily666]

The European Union.

Sorry, but that's not true.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the lights go out on America, they go out on the whole world. Once the Roman Empire was gone we had the Dark Ages, and we will move into a similar period if the US takes a dive.

Europe did not become a backwater despite the term "Dark Ages"

Charlemagne established his empire which for arguments sake lead to the creation of France, The Holy Roman Empire was founded. Eastern Roman Empire was still going strong and in the 6th Century had nearly restored the Roman Empire to it's previous size. The Dark Ages also saw the creation of many of the states that we see in Europe today.

The economy started to grow for the first time since the collapse of the Roman economy.

And the first universities were created in this period.

In reality the provinces caught up with Rome culturally, economically and militarily and the local nobility become powerful enough to cement themselves as rulers.

[BugHunt]

Hey but crucifixtions were down after Rome fell!


ROME STRONG!!!!11!


Always bugged me how the Roman Empire is given such a green light for the policy of massacring and pillaging there neighbours on such a methodical scale.... IE just because they "perfected" aqueducts and corrupt politic's.......they were amazing...(i know i know Greece were there before but Rome had the scale..).



But lets not digress without Bush and America to keep us safe we are all in DIRE PERIL. Many of us should weep now that election time is near.....

[Lokos]

The west saw a major decline in almost every area. Certain parts of the west fared worse than others. England saw the worst decline followed by gaul then north africa and spain. Italy remained remarkably intact until it was fought over for decades by the Goths, Byzantines, and then the Lombards. If you doubt this stop reading revisionist historians like Micheal Wood and read archaeologists like Ward-Perkins. Or better yet take a look at primary sources like Eugippius. If your lazy you could read Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire as he manages to make a readable and relativly short book that includes primary source and scientific evidence

What, exactly, do you mean when you say 'decline'? What decline? The decline of Roman civilization? Naturally. What other decline are you suggesting? All your pompous and pontificating post manages is to draw upon vested interest and a contextually biased approach ('The Fall of the Roman Empire') to prove that change occurred when the Western Roman Empire fell.

When Petrarch came up with the concept of the Dark Ages in the 1330s, he did so as a scholar of the Latin language, a humanist and an exponent of the restoration of Latin/Greek culture as the primary vehicle of European development. Clearly this conception of the period of 476-1000AD cannot be nurtured as such by any modern historian. It was a time of change, certainly. The stability of the European system, such as it was, went with the WRE. But to say that Europe declined in the aftermath of the downfall of the Roman Empire is fallacy.

Declined by what standard? Literature? Which literature? We have barely any reliable records of the time-period in question, and you presume to call it a decline and be done with it. We've lost more records and material from the 'Dark Ages' than we've kept from the Roman Empire in all its history and guises.


It did still fall into a period of decay after the plagues during the 6th century. After the onset of Islam it became one of only many states occupying parts and claiming to be a sucessor of the old Roman empire.


Byzantium was the centre of European culture and commerce for a period of many hundreds of years - it was also the greatest beneficiary of the decline of Rome (the city). Your dismissal of the Eastern Roman Empire is a matter of conceit so ingrained that, surely, one would have trouble quantifying it and rooting it out. You yourself say 'it did still fall into a period of decay after the plagues of the 6th century'. What does that have to do with the fall of the WRE?


It was a period of massive strife between many major powers in the East it was Byzantium vs. Persia and then Byzantium vs. Islam, The Slavs, and Bulgars. In the West the number of warring factions was numerous and I wont list them all here.


And when the Roman Empire warred with the Parthians it was all 'sunshine and lollipops' in the Roman Middle East, then? You state the above conflicts as if the Roman Empire was some peaceful hegemon that kept conflict at bay, on accord of its position, power and influence. Which is nonsense. Every single conflict you describe above was, in one form or another, already raging when the Roman Empire was at its zenith! The Roman Empire absorbed a great number of migrating tribes, many of which settled on Roman territory. These tribes formed the basis of the states that would take the reigns of power during the vacuum imposed by the collapse of the Roman state. Many were already heavily Romanized.

We are speaking of change, not decline. It was only decline for the powerbrokers of Rome and its core provinces.

Charlemagne built the greatest empire in Europe in the middle of this period you call 'the Dark Ages'. It was a sophisticated state that completed many architectural marvels and had a bureaucracy that, in many ways, would have rivalled its Roman equivalent. Islam's advance in the East ushered in the renaissance of Muslim culture and science. By the time of the Crusades, it was a far more developed and progressive region than most of Europe.

Lokos

[naymeria]

Hey but crucifixtions were down after Rome fell!


ROME STRONG!!!!11!


Always bugged me how the Roman Empire is given such a green light for the policy of massacring and pillaging there neighbours on such a methodical scale.... IE just because they "perfected" aqueducts and corrupt politic's.......they were amazing...(i know i know Greece were there before but Rome had the scale..).
And for an economy heavily based on mass slavery. :) But evidently certain minor aspects of its society tend to slip from people's minds... Of course, noone ever mentions also that it was plagued with civil wars, insurgencies and legions fighting amongst themselves.

Nay

[joka]

Sorry, but that's not true.

There's aid that the EU pays for directly, and there's aid that EU member states coordinate together. Cumulatively this amounts to the largest amount of money donated in aid.

We can argue about specifics but for all intents and purposes the EU gives the most aid.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Hey Lokos we agree on something.

[Aussie Sapper]

If I may put this in the abseloutely simplest of terms, if it were not for the USA, the axis powers would have won WW2.

Can anybody even begin to contemplate how "bad" a world we would now be living in if it were not for the USA ?

[BugHunt]

If I may put this in the abseloutely simplest of terms, if it were not for the USA, the axis powers would have won WW2.

Can anybody even begin to contemplate how "bad" a world we would now be living in if it were not for the USA ?


FAIL! :D

Cause without the US, WW1 wouldve stalemated and grinded on much longer! And probably lead to a more equitable negotiated settlement then the Treaty of Versailles.. Hence no rise of extremist nutters into a harsh german post WW1 economic landscape ;)

Infact maybe if the war dragged on longer Hitler wouldve been snuffed :)

[BugHunt]

Hey Lokos we agree on something.

Im waiting for to explain how it was in actual fact a Russian General, skilfully leading well equipped bear ridding battalions, who brought down the Roman Empire :)

But i cant fault him so far ;)

[naymeria]

Im waiting for to explain how it was in actual fact a Russian General, skilfully leading well equipped bear ridding battalions, who brought down the Roman Empire :)

But i cant fault him so far ;)

Well...where did attila's huns originate from? :) Although russians proper didn't exist at the time.

Nay

[non]

FAIL! :D

Cause without the US, WW1 wouldve stalemated and grinded on much longer! And probably lead to a more equitable negotiated settlement then the Treaty of Versailles.. Hence no rise of extremist nutters into a harsh german post WW1 economic landscape ;)

Infact maybe if the war dragged on longer Hitler wouldve been snuffed :)
Both of you are being simplistic, silly persons.

[BugHunt]

Both of you are being simplistic, silly persons.

Read the title and subject matter of the thread m8 p-)


More US "love us cause were strong!!!11" bull...


The brit empire managed to do the same thing at its height simultaneously portraying itself as a victim, whining about being hated/disliked whilst running about controlling half the world....

[non]

Read the title and subject matter of the thread m8 p-)


More US "love us cause were strong!!!11" bull...


The brit empire managed to do the same thing at its height simultaneously portraying itself as a victim, whining about being hated/disliked whilst running about controlling half the world....
Hmmm.
Well, I typed, "Both".
The title of this thread should be 'everyone flatter themselves and, occasionally, each other, with amateur historiography'.

Oh, yeesh. The "Dark Ages" are a misnomer or based on lack of Latin Lit.?
But, how was China doing? How was Kiev in the 13th century? How was the Duchy of Moscow?

Relative?
How will the world be without US?
Depends. Relative where you're at when it goes poof, and where you're at while it's going poof.

The only things ever learned from history are generalities. Otherwise, we'd be present day Utopians, eh?

Edit: Your point isn't lost on me, BugHunt, and I've been rude in making statements about other posts within my reply to your post. Hope you'll accept my apology for that. Won't happen again.

[sp2c]

I don't suppose the world would be all that much different without the US ... maybe we'd still be in charge of (parts of) Indonesia :D

not that I mind the US the way it is but geez let's not exaggerate things here.
I mean someone mentioned Africa and how nobody would be willing to deploy rapid reaction forces or Marine expeditionary forces if things go to hell without the US
look at the continent ... nobody is doing that now either!

piracy will run out of control without the allpowerfull US navy to stop it ... again, it's out of control allready and nobody is doing anything about it besides firing warning shots at hijacked vessels

I'm not buying the dvd

[non]

I don't suppose the world would be all that much different without the US ... maybe we'd still be in charge of (parts of) Indonesia :D

not that I mind the US the way it is but geez let's not exaggerate things here.
I mean someone mentioned Africa and how nobody would be willing to deploy rapid reaction forces or Marine expeditionary forces if things go to hell without the US
look at the continent ... nobody is doing that now either!

piracy will run out of control without the allpowerfull US navy to stop it ... again, it's out of control allready and nobody is doing anything about it besides firing warning shots at hijacked vessels

I'm not buying the dvd
Good points. It's pretty hard to seperate the actual 'empire'(being lazy not literal) and the image of the 'empire'. In some ways, it wouldn't amount to much, but I think we'd be shocked how much it would amount to in ways we can't predict if 'US were to disappear', etc.

[sp2c]

if it disappears overnight sure because there will be a power vaccuum of sorts and there's also economic ties that might be threathened by such a drastic move but that would hurt the US just as much as it would hurt anyone else

but if the US really wants to withdraw from the world (pass the torch to somebody else if you will) and does it with a little bit of thought and cooperation I don't think much will change

[RoyalScot87]

Time to rattle the cages.
The world without the US?.
Who else would we laugh at if the US wasn't up to it's usual?.
The president kills me pretty much everytime he takes the stand. rofl
So I believe the US teaches us all valuable lessons on what NOT to do.:-*$

[RoyalScot87]

nobody taking the bait? :(

[Lokos]

'everyone flatter themselves and, occasionally, each other, with amateur historiography'.


Who are you referring to?

If it is me, either take issue or desist. Don't indirectly insult me. Do it directly, so I can respond.

If it is not me, you should still approach the issues substantively - not simply taking a step back and calling all involved fools.


But, how was China doing? How was Kiev in the 13th century? How was the Duchy of Moscow?


Kiev and the Dutchy of Moscow weren't around in those forms during the period in question. Though I understand and, in fact, echo your sentiment that the approach witnessed throughout the thread has been primarily a Eurocentric one on this issue.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun with your post. Maybe you weren't taking a snide swipe. If that is the case, my apologies.

Lokos

[Dragonscript]

The only way the world would be without the US is if the country was to have another civil war and break up, which doesn't like like it is going to happen any time soon.

Political power is in part based on economic power and the only way that the US hegemony is going to go away is if the US was to start to lose its economic power, which will take a long time. Think what you want, this most recent recession is not it because it is just an overdue aspect of economic market forces. The US represents at least 24% of the world's economic power and until this is reduced more in line with typical nations of its size, the US will have an incredible influence on world affairs.

There are three ways for this economic power to decrease. The first, and most preferred by the rest of the world, is if every other nation's economy grows at a faster rate the US economy does. This is a long view approach since it could take over a 100 years for this to happen. The second would be if the US had a catastrophic implosion of its economy. Not only would this affect the US in unknown ways, it would have a devastating effect on the rest of the world. It wouldn't be a classic "Dark Ages" but something new. The third way would be a combination of the first and second and it is impossible to predict the outcome of such a scenario except to say that there will be winners and losers and in such an event I'm betting on China as the new world power, they have historical precedence backing them up.

I'm not saying the US is the best nation in the world, only the most economical powerful one, and if the rest of the world want to be on par with it then they either have to either destroy it or beat the US at its own game.

[lider_r]

If USA doesn't give a shiit no one does...

Slim but Growing Number of Iraqi Refugees to U.S. - Thousands Admitted to Europe, Compared to 500 to U.S. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3547713)

Number of Iraqi Refugees Admitted to U.S. Declining Despite Promises to Boost Admissions (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319571,00.html)

[BugHunt]

The president kills me pretty much everytime he takes the stand. rofl



Ill kinda miss having the most powerful man in the world with such a torturous command of his native tongue.....



Hmmm perhaps that might be the problem maybe his first language is really Chinese or Perisan? :backhand:

[Indiana Jones]

12345678910

[Indiana Jones]

Ill kinda miss having the most powerful man in the world with such a torturous command of his native tongue.....



Hmmm perhaps that might be the problem maybe his first language is really Chinese or Perisan? :backhand:
Hmmhhhhhh....

[WarriorMonk]

I think Bush is secretly a Philosopher/Patriot.

(MGS4 ftw)

[ThatHistoryDude]

Lokos its really very simple you are wrong. The Western half of the Roman empire went through a very sharp decline from 400 through the dethroning of the last Roman Emperor.

Since you either do not understand how a Historian or Archaeologist might define a decline or are being obtuse lets clarify it by calling it a loss of complexity and stability. In the Roman world mass production and distribution of high quality low cost consumer goods was very common. These goods included everything from wine, olive oil, professionally made cloth to metal tools and weapons and armor for the military. This type of distribution and production is best typified though by simple ceramic pottery.

A roman pottery production center at La Graufesenque in southern france is a good example. It produced high quality low cost pottery that was distributed throughout the WRE on a grand scale with some making it as far afield as Antioch and modern Poland. Another great example are the huge mounds of discarded single use pottery found at many Urban centers in the Roman world like Monte Testaccio in Rome. both these examples show the interconnected nature of the Western and Eastern Empires. In the west all this ended after the Vandals invaded North Africa and the Visagoths conquered spain. After these invasions imported pottery only shows up in the remains of the privileged classes houses or villas. Losing these goods definatly affected the standard of living of many people not just the rich in the Roman world.

But lets move on to housing. In Roman Britain one of the very poorest provinces it was common for even small family farms to be made of stone or brick and to have a roof that was partially or totally tiled. Infact it was not uncommon for the animals on said farms to have tile covered sleeping areas. After the Anglo-Saxon invasions these Roman innovations were lost until well into the 7th century when some churches were starting to be built by Bishop Biscop from stone again. I do not know this from first hand experince but I am willing to bet that wooden or thatch walls and roofs with a packed dirt floor are a considerable step down from Stone and tile with stone floors. The closer you got to the Imperial heartland like southern France and Central Italy the longer it took stone and tile building to disappear and in both cases it didnt totally vanish but was reserved for churches and the Elites.

Even in the area of farming it seems that there was a loss of complexity which would directly affect the lives of everyone regardless of class. Just look at the average size in Western Europe of Cattle. Cattle of the Roman period averaged a size of 120 CM at the shoulder in the Early Medieval period they averaged 112 smaller even than pre-Roman iron age cattle.

All of these examples point to a decline in standard of living.

As far as stability goes the Romans were used to a much more violent world than we are today. But even through the turbulent 3rd century many major roman cities remained poorly if at all fortified. Meaning that they were still relativly well protected from looting despite the endemic civil wars and major invasions. This speaks well to the amount of stabilty the heart of the empire was able to maintain despite wars with nuisance peoples like the Parthians and Macromanni and internal strife. It was not till real threats to the territorial integrity of the Empire like the Goths and Sassanians emerged that you see major fortifications erected at many cities. It was this very stable setting that allowed the compelxity of the Roman empire to flourish. Stability and Complexity decayed hand in hand with repeated invasions by Goths, Huns, Vandals et al.

Lokos you brought up the arts during the early Medieval period as proof that there was no dark age. I will not argue this my studies include little about the arts and I do not think that art including literature is a fair basis to judge a civilization on. I actually have a high opinion of many of the Primary source authors of the late antique period unlike many other classicists.

The most important thing to note about the 'Dark ages' is that they were not uniformly bad. Not all parts were affected by the declining conditions to the same degree or for the same length in time the traditional date from 500-1000 is arbitary and not very helpful. Parts of Italy recovered fast as did Spain and France. Some one mentioned Charles the Great and he did basically found an empire with similar accomplishments to some later Roman Emperors. However he did this almost 300 years after the empire lost control of France.

I will not broach the topic of the Eastern Empire here this has gone on long enough. If you want an even better out line of the decay in living standards after Rome I recommended some good books in my first post in this thread.

[Former Gold Falcon]

While certainly a provocative title, the trailer itself appears to go in an entirely different direction.

Frankly, the debate of this thread is based solely upon five words....

How does it feel to be lead down the garden path?


T.

[Lokos]

Since you either do not understand how a Historian or Archaeologist might define a decline or are being obtuse lets clarify it by calling it a loss of complexity and stability.

A loss of 'complexity and stability'? Can you further clarify the loss of 'complexity'? Losing stability is catalyst to change - and is never neccessarily a decline in anything but the most perfunctory of conceptions concerning the status quo. But... losing complexity? By which standard is this measured?


I will not broach the topic of the Eastern Empire here this has gone on long enough. If you want an even better out line of the decay in living standards after Rome I recommended some good books in my first post in this thread.

So, essentially, your post is a record of the decline of living standards of Romans in the West European provinces. Which says what, exactly, about the decline of Europe and its myriad cultures and states? That the Western Roman provinces suffered from tribal migrations, ongoing civil conflict and an economy that was already in its death throes during the later Imperial period is... blindingly obvious.

Is this representative of European civilization generally? Not in the least. Populations once again began ascending, the economy expanded, as Minardiau pointed out, for the first time in a very long time, and the centre of gravity for the Roman power structure shifted Eastwards to the ERE - which did not fall for a thousand years thereafter.

You're still busy watching the trees, and have missed the forest. The fall of the Roman Empire was a disaster. For the Western Romans. Not for Europe. Which was the original point. That you're now trying to deconstruct and marginalize.


But even through the turbulent 3rd century many major roman cities remained poorly if at all fortified.

Because the Romans preferred to defend their territorial boundaries at the frontier?


This speaks well to the amount of stabilty the heart of the empire was able to maintain despite wars with nuisance peoples like the Parthians and Macromanni and internal strife

You made a point about wars that spilled over into the Europe you imagine (instead of its wider conception) with the fall of the Roman Empire. They were already raging. Even if only at the frontiers. The fall only facilitated the movement of these conflcits across the formerly Imperial expanse.


It was this very stable setting that allowed the compelxity of the Roman empire to flourish. Stability and Complexity decayed hand in hand with repeated invasions by Goths, Huns, Vandals et al.


The decline of Roman power came well before the invasions of the Goths, Huns, Vandals etc. If anything, the success of those invasions was indicative of the relative shift in power - Rome's position as European hegemon, at this stage, was a fiction that was destroyed by 'barbarian tribes' who often had societies just as complex as those of the Romans. Pity that their scribes did not leave more records.


Lokos you brought up the arts during the early Medieval period as proof that there was no dark age.

Who was it a Dark Age for? Who? Romans? What about the rest of the world? What about the rest of Europe? The Germanic tribes, the Gaul-Romans, the Parthians/Sassanids etc., none of these groups declined with Rome. Europe changed. It only declined in the eyes of Romanocentric worshippers of the writers of the Latin silver age.


and I do not think that art including literature is a fair basis to judge a civilization on

I wonder, then, why architecture amidst affluence and influence, road networks in a bureaucratic, sedentary state and hopeless neptocracy are a fair basis to judge a civilization as superior to the ones that, despite their individual shortcomings, defeated and consumed the former.


Some one mentioned Charles the Great and he did basically found an empire with similar accomplishments to some later Roman Emperors. However he did this almost 300 years after the empire lost control of France.


Charles inherited a complex, powerful, centralized state. As did his predecessor. These things were already in place for generations, when Charlemagne created his Empire through conquest - primarily of the then mostly Slavic tribes of Central Europe. His work was not magic. It was the skill of a statesman at the head of a state that, in many ways, rivalled Rome at its height favourably.

The basis for the aforementioned state was already there when the Roman Empire (WRE) finally fell.


I actually have a high opinion of many of the Primary source authors of the late antique period unlike many other classicists.


You're free to believe whatever you like. That is your prerogative. But knowing that the descriptions of the Soviet military of WW2 by German generals of the time do not correlate with contemporary reality, in a great many ways - and considering we are only going back a relatively paltry sixty years - I have learned to distrust all other-descriptive sources. That is to say, all sources where the author is discussing a political, social, economic and military rival. How many people still believe that all the 'barbarian tribes' of Central Europe spent their lives charging Roman shields naked?


I will not broach the topic of the Eastern Empire here this has gone on long enough. If you want an even better out line of the decay in living standards after Rome I recommended some good books in my first post in this thread.

Uh-huh.

Lokos

[ZeroZen]

This title should be change. The US Without The World.

[ThatHistoryDude]

So far Lokos you are failing to convince me of anything other than the fact that your knowledge of the demographics of late antiquity are poor. Most would say the WRE included anywhere from half to two thirds of the population of Europe at the time lived in the Empire.


Therefore I gave incontrovertible proof that this majority population of Europe suffered in standard of living after the collapse of the Empire. You blew it off as being unimportant because some people some where managed to maintain the old ways or even improved. Most absurd of all you claim the Germans improved their lot with the fall of the Empire. Some did immediatly improve themselves and their peoples lives but most of their reforms were ephemral in nature. Just look at the Ostrogoths. The Germans did not so much improve themselves as bring everyone down to the same living standard wether inside our outside the old empire.

You then accuse me of missing the big picture because things some places got better quickly. If you call 200 years waiting on the Carolingians quick, as the merovingians were little different from regional warlords. Speaking of blindingly obvious things of course it got better everywhere in Europe eventually. This would be cold comfort to a farmer and his family freezing through a cold winter in thier thatch and wood house when their grandfathers had lived in comparitivly well insulated stone houses.

If you want I can discuss the collapse of living conditions that plagued the Eastern Empire in the 6th and 7th centuries from which the Byzantines never fully recovered. But I dont fully see how thats germain to a discussion of the European Dark Age. Unless we focus soley on the Aegean area whose population and economic health collapsed and didnt fully recover for about 300 years after the avars invaded in the 7th century. Of course you keep bringing up the Sassinian Persians as proof that there were no dark ages but lets get more absurd I am sure the Sui and Tang dynasty in China didnt suffer because of the fall of Rome ergo there was no dark age.

Finally you show your poor grasp of the Era though by implicating that the only primary sources of the time were Roman. They were not the Getica is full of useful information and is one of serveral useful primary sources that are 'pro barbarian'. If I drew my opionion of the era only from Sidonious or Marcellinus you might be able to accuse me of being blind to the truth but I do not so maybe its you who should read some primary source material and get back to me.

[oldsoak]

- and how, pray, do you define a dark age ?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

So far Lokos you are failing to convince me of anything other than the fact that your knowledge of the demographics of late antiquity are poor. Most would say the WRE included anywhere from half to two thirds of the population of Europe at the time lived in the Empire.

Just because 2/3 of the population lived in the Empire is irrelevant. Britannia always a poor province in Roman times continued to grow after the fall and by the end of the period became one of the prominent nations in Europe.

Therefore I gave incontrovertible proof that this majority population of Europe suffered in standard of living after the collapse of the Empire. You blew it off as being unimportant because some people some where managed to maintain the old ways or even improved. Most absurd of all you claim the Germans improved their lot with the fall of the Empire. Some did immediatly improve themselves and their peoples lives but most of their reforms were ephemral in nature. Just look at the Ostrogoths. The Germans did not so much improve themselves as bring everyone down to the same living standard wether inside our outside the old empire.

Living standards outside of the main centres of the Empire did not suffer to the extent you mention. I will argue that they in fact grew. One of the key reasons for the fall of the WRE was that the provinces became self sufficient and did not need to be associated with Rome. Why source pots from Africa when you can make them yourself? Being self sufficient does not mean a drop in living standards. Cities still built public baths, town water and such. Remember we are talking about an age where there is no communication between towns on the scale that ensures good trade so if you can do things yourself you are going to do it.

You then accuse me of missing the big picture because things some places got better quickly. If you call 200 years waiting on the Carolingians quick, as the merovingians were little different from regional warlords. Speaking of blindingly obvious things of course it got better everywhere in Europe eventually. This would be cold comfort to a farmer and his family freezing through a cold winter in thier thatch and wood house when their grandfathers had lived in comparitivly well insulated stone houses.

How is a political system important to the discussion? Where is the proof that Britiannia, Gaul had extensive stone built cities? Except for the cities that were important for Rome people still lived in these wooden houses until the invention of modern woodworking/masonry.
Outside of the nobility very few people since the dawn of time had the wealth to live in such buildings and lived in abject poverty.

If you want I can discuss the collapse of living conditions that plagued the Eastern Empire in the 6th and 7th centuries from which the Byzantines never fully recovered. But I dont fully see how thats germain to a discussion of the European Dark Age. Unless we focus soley on the Aegean area whose population and economic health collapsed and didnt fully recover for about 300 years after the avars invaded in the 7th century. Of course you keep bringing up the Sassinian Persians as proof that there were no dark ages but lets get more absurd I am sure the Sui and Tang dynasty in China didnt suffer because of the fall of Rome ergo there was no dark age.

Despite it's setbacks after Justinian the Eastern Empire was still a force to be recognized and controlled the entry point to Europe from Asia and it's cities especially around the Black Sea were prosperous. Bulgaria, Romania and Hungry also became prominent in the Region let alone the Arabs along the African Coast.

Finally you show your poor grasp of the Era though by implicating that the only primary sources of the time were Roman. They were not the Getica is full of useful information and is one of serveral useful primary sources that are 'pro barbarian'. If I drew my opionion of the era only from Sidonious or Marcellinus you might be able to accuse me of being blind to the truth but I do not so maybe its you who should read some primary source material and get back to me.

To put it simply the Dark Ages saw the decline of a large empire into a smaller, more viable self sufficient states. Life went on, local economies grew for the first time in hundreds of years, modern political thinking began to emerge, plebeians, serfs, peasants for the first time began to start seeing REAL freedoms still slavery by todays standards but freedoms none the less.

Rome was a centralized state. Provinces were stripped bare. Once this centralized authority was removed these provinces whether they were conquered by the "Barbarians" or not started to prosper. Even in Italy itself, some cities wealth surpassed Rome itself.

[ghostt888]

I said i disagree with some, not all, American foreign policies. The States hand are not clean thats for sure. Personally id like to see Canada doing more in NATO and the World.

[Alfacentori]

I said i disagree with some, not all, American foreign policies. The States hand are not clean thats for sure. Personally id like to see Canada doing more in NATO and the World.

I'm counting the seconds until the first Canadian member sees this:cantbeli:

[ThatHistoryDude]

To put it simply the Dark Ages saw the decline of a large empire into a smaller, more viable self sufficient states. Life went on, local economies grew for the first time in hundreds of years, modern political thinking began to emerge, plebeians, serfs, peasants for the first time began to start seeing REAL freedoms still slavery by todays standards but freedoms none the less.

Rome was a centralized state. Provinces were stripped bare. Once this centralized authority was removed these provinces whether they were conquered by the "Barbarians" or not started to prosper. Even in Italy itself, some cities wealth surpassed Rome itself.

Your opinion is not supported by the archaeological evidence. I can cite site names and locations of many single family stone farms in england durning the late roman period and none afterward. This is true even in Lombardy after the Roman period and it was part of the core of the Roman world. Certainly some peasant farmers lived in wooden houses throught the roman period but after the roman period even the large land owners did.

If you think hand made poorly fired pottery of the post roman world that is today so fragile it rarely survives excavation made the English better off then importing pottery of good quality from Roman Gaul then i guess I cant convince you. Again though I implore you to not depend on revisionist so called late antique historians like Brown and Wood and actually read some archaeological findings.

The average size of cattle I brought up in an earlier post is from pirmarily British and French sites. It indictates a lack of overall agricultural production in the post roman west. Which to me shows even more clearly the negative impact the fall had on average people.

Saying the provinces eventually did return to their previous standard of living and then surpassed it is a comment worthy of Captain Obvious himself but it took in some places many hundreds of years.

Conditions were not universally bad during the dark ages but they were much less stable and much tougher on all people regardless of class even than they were during the waning years of the Empire.

Your assertion that the Roman empire was parasitic is strange and not at all supported by the archaeology of the time, the republic and principate maybe but not the later empire. If it was sucking all the wealth out of its provinces why did the East remain much richer and more densley populated than the west? How do you explain the shocking development of Gaul, Spain, and North Africa where many cities became in the later empire more important than Rome itself. Its worth noting though that most of those major metorpolitan areas were abandoned or lived on in a much reduced capacity after the empire much as Rome itself did becoming a virtual back water in much of the early medieval period. Which goes back to my point that after the Empire things changed for the worse for most people.

[Lokos]

So far Lokos you are failing to convince me of anything other than the fact that your knowledge of the demographics of late antiquity are poor. Most would say the WRE included anywhere from half to two thirds of the population of Europe at the time lived in the Empire.


At what time? The 5th century? The 6th? The 7th? The population of the Italian hinterlands was already plummetting by the time of the Late Imperial period. The demographics of Europe (you know, the continent, not simply the Western Roman Empire) were on the ascendant. By the 5th century the Frankish Kingdom and the Burgundian Kingdom covered most of modern-day France. The Ostrogoths ruled north Italy, the Lombards central Europe. The Visigoths Spain. The Vandals southern Italy. The Slavs the Central North East of Europe. These peoples replaced, mixed with or lived alongside their new Latin neighbours, and the semi-tribal communities of Gauls and the Germanic tribes of Germania. They took on the trappings of Roman authority; Theodoric was declared Patrician, having been raised in Constantinopole!

That these states evolved and, indeed, progressed from the 5th century to the 10th is, indisputable. By the 7th, Charlemagne was busy building a new European Empire using a Frankish nation as strong as anything seen in the Imperial era. Even in the mid-5th, Justinian had already retaken Italy from the Ostrogoths, and had made the ERE the greatest and most powerful European state of its time. He improved the obtuse Roman codex of laws. He established Constantinopole as Europe's (and maybe the world's) premier city. He did all this in the darkest days of what some would have called 'The Dark Ages'.

You have failed to show anything other than that, at the time of the fall of the WRE, its citizens suffered in terms of living standards for a time. That's all you've done. This is not the whole picture. Not by a long shot.


Most absurd of all you claim the Germans improved their lot with the fall of the Empire. Some did immediatly improve themselves and their peoples lives but most of their reforms were ephemral in nature. Just look at the Ostrogoths. The Germans did not so much improve themselves as bring everyone down to the same living standard wether inside our outside the old empire.


They improved themselves massively in the aftermath of the fall of the Empire (the WRE). They built states. Many of these states had their basis in the traditions of the Romans, to whom the Germanic and Gaulic tribes began referring in political and cultural terms. From tribes to states is an improvement, yes? From nomad to sedentary Kingdom is an improvement, yes? They settled territories they previously could not. They looted, robbed, pillaged, sacked and otherwise acquired a great deal of Roman goods and, indeed, expertise. Their lot improved. They took the reigns of power and, for the most part, kept them. Their states reinvigorated Europe.


If you call 200 years waiting on the Carolingians quick, as the merovingians were little different from regional warlords

The Frankish Kingdom was already arising as a nation of peoples, belonging to recognized political units, speaking Latin vernacular by the middle of the 5th century. The landowning noble class was rising with it. So were the roots of feudalism. The only 'tribes' of the Carolingian period were, in a sense, Lombards and Slavs - who were also building states by the middle of the 7th century. All this is to say, their rulers were warlords only if one assigns the term arbitrarily to a recognized authority of the land - for the sake of labelling them as backward.

Since you like primary sources so much, perhaps you should look into Gregory, the Bishop of Tours, and his History of the Franks. Or the Venerable Bede.


If you want I can discuss the collapse of living conditions that plagued the Eastern Empire in the 6th and 7th centuries from which the Byzantines never fully recovered. But I dont fully see how thats germain to a discussion of the European Dark Age. Unless we focus soley on the Aegean area whose population and economic health collapsed and didnt fully recover for about 300 years after the avars invaded in the 7th century. Of course you keep bringing up the Sassinian Persians as proof that there were no dark ages but lets get more absurd I am sure the Sui and Tang dynasty in China didnt suffer because of the fall of Rome ergo there was no dark age.


You're defeating your own point and not even realizing it, which is golden. A Dark Age is, implicitly, universal, in a contextual sense. You point to the troubles of the ERE in the 6th and 7th centuries. These troubles were not shared by the rapidly expanding, rapidly ascending Carolingian state. Nor the Slavic states of Eastern Europe. You describe negative change for one set of peoples as a Dark Age for all. One must wonder why the first mention of a Dark Age happened in 1330, and not 650. Those people did not see their age as being 'dark'. It was only such for the peoples that suffered decline - which certainly does not describe the majority, let alone all of the peoples of Europe.

Your tangential point regarding the Chinese is ridiculous. I brought up the Sassanids/Parthians because they did not decline with Rome, but were constantly in conflict with it and its successor states. They benefited from the Roman collapse.


Finally you show your poor grasp of the Era though by implicating that the only primary sources of the time were Roman. They were not the Getica is full of useful information and is one of serveral useful primary sources that are 'pro barbarian'. If I drew my opionion of the era only from Sidonious or Marcellinus you might be able to accuse me of being blind to the truth but I do not so maybe its you who should read some primary source material and get back to me.

Perhaps you should take up reading comprehension, before getting back to me. I implied that you were a worshipper of the Latin silver age. I also said that we have very few sources that aren't Roman left from the era in question, for a variety of reasons. Both are true. Gregory of Tours was a Roman, for example, even if he lived in the Frankish Kingdom. The vast majority of the tribal populations of the time, and their successors, were illiterate. Most of the rulers of these burgeoning states turned to Roman scribes.


This is true even in Lombardy after the Roman period and it was part of the core of the Roman world. Certainly some peasant farmers lived in wooden houses throught the roman period but after the roman period even the large land owners did.


This is laughable. You point to Roman architectural tradition in Britain, note that it's lacking in the aftermath of the downfall of the Romans and their replacement by the Angles, the Saxons and the various native tribes of England/Scotland/Wales, and you say 'decline'. Couldn't just be a different tradition, could it? One that doesn't concern itself with stone buildings? Or headstones? People suddenly just... lost the ability to work stone. Amazing.


If you think hand made poorly fired pottery of the post roman world that is today so fragile it rarely survives excavation made the English better off then importing pottery of good quality from Roman Gaul then i guess I cant convince you. Again though I implore you to not depend on revisionist so called late antique historians like Brown and Wood and actually read some archaeological findings.


Which means that the fall of the Polabian civilization saw a European decline too, yes?


Saying the provinces eventually did return to their previous standard of living and then surpassed it is a comment worthy of Captain Obvious himself but it took in some places many hundreds of years.


And in others was already happening at the time of the collapse.


Conditions were not universally bad during the dark ages but they were much less stable and much tougher on all people regardless of class even than they were during the waning years of the Empire.


For who, the Romans?


If it was sucking all the wealth out of its provinces why did the East remain much richer and more densley populated than the west?

Because of a conscious transition of the power structures of the Empire to the Greek provinces.


How do you explain the shocking development of Gaul, Spain, and North Africa where many cities became in the later empire more important than Rome itself

Because these provinces held as much as they could back? Because Rome itself was sacked in the early 4th century (410 by Visigoths, 455 by the Vandals)? Clearly, the Imperial state had no flaws. One wonders whether the term 'Empire' should still describe a state that was forced to use Visigoths, Franks, Celts and Burgundians, commanded by a Visigoth ruler, to finally defeat the Huns. What came first? The decline of Roman civilization, or the fall of the Empire? Hmm...


Its worth noting though that most of those major metorpolitan areas were abandoned or lived on in a much reduced capacity after the empire much as Rome itself did becoming a virtual back water in much of the early medieval period. Which goes back to my point that after the Empire things changed for the worse for most people.

That was already true by 476AD, the date most people assign to be the 'Fall of the [Western] Roman Empire'.

Lokos

[ThatHistoryDude]

At what time? The 5th century? The 6th? The 7th? The population of the Italian hinterlands was already plummetting by the time of the Late Imperial period. The demographics of Europe (you know, the continent, not simply the Western Roman Empire) were on the ascendant. By the 5th century the Frankish Kingdom and the Burgundian Kingdom covered most of modern-day France. The Ostrogoths ruled north Italy, the Lombards central Europe. The Visigoths Spain. The Vandals southern Italy. The Slavs the Central North East of Europe. These peoples replaced, mixed with or lived alongside their new Latin neighbours, and the semi-tribal communities of Gauls and the Germanic tribes of Germania. They took on the trappings of Roman authority; Theodoric was declared Patrician, having been raised in Constantinopole!

This is wrong while the population in Central Europe may have been on the rise it was not even close to equal to that of the Mediterranean basin. Maybe a link would help you out.
http://migration.ucc.ie/population/4%20eupophistory.htm (http://migration.ucc.ie/population/4%20eupophistory.htm)

Oh and your placement of the sucessor kingdoms is off the Lombards originated in central Europe but settled and established their kingdom in LOMBARDY primarly which is in Italy. You also imply that those kingdoms coexsisted at the same time which they did not by the time of the Lombards the Gothic kingdom of Italy was gone replaced by Byzantine rule. The Vandals were located primarily outside of Europe in North Africa and controlled not south Italy but only Corsica and Sardina. The Goths owned all of italy including Sicily. At least try and fact check prior to
posting Professor.

You finally tried facts and it did not work out well but thanks for trying



That these states evolved and, indeed, progressed from the 5th century to the 10th is, indisputable. By the 7th, Charlemagne was busy building a new European Empire using a Frankish nation as strong as anything seen in the Imperial era. Even in the mid-5th, Justinian had already retaken Italy from the Ostrogoths, and had made the ERE the greatest and most powerful European state of its time. He improved the obtuse Roman codex of laws. He established Constantinopole as Europe's (and maybe the world's) premier city. He did all this in the darkest days of what some would have called 'The Dark Ages'.

I dont remember giving firm dates for the dark ages good job implying I did. I also dont remember disputing the Carlonigian achievement. So what is your point?



You have failed to show anything other than that, at the time of the fall of the WRE, its citizens suffered in terms of living standards for a time. That's all you've done. This is not the whole picture. Not by a long shot.


Again I do not remember implying anything different only that it included the majority population of the continent ergo when the living conditions decline for those people it decline for the majority. I never said Central europe declined or changed for better or worse as it probably did not change at all. It stayed firmly Iron Age prehistoric as it was throughout the Roman period until Charles the Great and his predecessors pulled it up by force of will. Do I need to start quoting myself or can you not remember what I posted. I never said the Dark Age was universal not ever you have implied I did but it did not happen.




They improved themselves massively in the aftermath of the fall of the Empire (the WRE). They built states. Many of these states had their basis in the traditions of the Romans, to whom the Germanic and Gaulic tribes began referring in political and cultural terms. From tribes to states is an improvement, yes? From nomad to sedentary Kingdom is an improvement, yes? They settled territories they previously could not. They looted, robbed, pillaged, sacked and otherwise acquired a great deal of Roman goods and, indeed, expertise. Their lot improved. They took the reigns of power and, for the most part, kept them. Their states reinvigorated Europe.


The migratory tribes did improve themselves but they were tiny fractions of the population of either their lands of origin or the places they settled. So the majority suffered but a few prosepered ergo no Dark Ages.




The Frankish Kingdom was already arising as a nation of peoples, belonging to recognized political units, speaking Latin vernacular by the middle of the 5th century. The landowning noble class was rising with it. So were the roots of feudalism. The only 'tribes' of the Carolingian period were, in a sense, Lombards and Slavs - who were also building states by the middle of the 7th century. All this is to say, their rulers were warlords only if one assigns the term arbitrarily to a recognized authority of the land - for the sake of labelling them as backward.

Since you like primary sources so much, perhaps you should look into Gregory, the Bishop of Tours, and his History of the Franks. Or the Venerable Bede.


So because the ruling class Franks improved their lot it is ok to ignore the worsing conditions of the majority populations of Gallo-Romans how very elitist of you.

Bede only reinforces my point about decaying conditions in England and Gregory is a good source showing some continuity of Gallo-Roman culture and its effects on the Merovingians. However like Sidonious he is sometimes overly flattering to his benefactors. Its also worth noting that Gregory used terrible and simplistic latin to make sure he Merovingian master could and would read it.




You're defeating your own point and not even realizing it, which is golden. A Dark Age is, implicitly, universal, in a contextual sense. You point to the troubles of the ERE in the 6th and 7th centuries. These troubles were not shared by the rapidly expanding, rapidly ascending Carolingian state. Nor the Slavic states of Eastern Europe. You describe negative change for one set of peoples as a Dark Age for all. One must wonder why the first mention of a Dark Age happened in 1330, and not 650. Those people did not see their age as being 'dark'. It was only such for the peoples that suffered decline - which certainly does not describe the majority, let alone all of the peoples of Europe.


A Dark Age is universal? Really thats strange I dont remember being told that in school. Some one better tell those post-Mycenean Greeks what they went through was not really a Dark Age as it was too small geographically. Nice try but again wrong. Also whats with all the semantics I use Dark Age and Late Antique interchangably to give people an idea of the time frame and thats pretty much all. But since your so hung up on vocabulary I will from here on out call in the Early Medieval Recessionary Period After the Collapse of the Western Roman Empire (EMRPACWRE) does that make you happy?



Your tangential point regarding the Chinese is ridiculous. I brought up the Sassanids/Parthians because they did not decline with Rome, but were constantly in conflict with it and its successor states. They benefited from the Roman collapse.


Intentionaly absurd as I noted in my intial posting and we are talking about Europe here not Asia do try and keep up. Besides Persia can hardly be said to have benefitted from the fall of WRE as they were still fighting endemic wars with the Eastern Empire.




Perhaps you should take up reading comprehension, before getting back to me. I implied that you were a worshipper of the Latin silver age. I also said that we have very few sources that aren't Roman left from the era in question, for a variety of reasons. Both are true. Gregory of Tours was a Roman, for example, even if he lived in the Frankish Kingdom. The vast majority of the tribal populations of the time, and their successors, were illiterate. Most of the rulers of these burgeoning states turned to Roman scribes.


Why should I take up reading comprehension you implied I relied on only Roman written sources. When infact I have read at least in part ever primary source so far mentioned in this discussion as well as basing much of my conclusions on archaeological work I have read about or participated in myself. So far you have yet to even try and refute me archaeologically.



This is laughable. You point to Roman architectural tradition in Britain, note that it's lacking in the aftermath of the downfall of the Romans and their replacement by the Angles, the Saxons and the various native tribes of England/Scotland/Wales, and you say 'decline'. Couldn't just be a different tradition, could it? One that doesn't concern itself with stone buildings? Or headstones? People suddenly just... lost the ability to work stone. Amazing.


Apparently they did lose the ability to work in stone on any large scale. Speaking of reading comprehension you might recall Bishop Biscop from an earlier post? He had to import stone masons from Gaul and Italy just to build a couple of storage shed sized chapels. The anglo-saxons were a tiny minority amongst a Romanized population in England. Most of the small farmers who lived in stone farms were native english who abandoned their old Celtic tradition of building in wood for an imporved style of building in stone. I can not believe that within a generation of the Anglo-Saxon invasions stone fell out of favor because a tiny minority brought a new culture with them. It took a couple of hundred years after the conquest of Britian by the romans for stone construction to become common outside the Roman colonies. If the British retained the infastructure for stone cutting on a large scale to make it affordable why didnt they keep building in stone. And why go back to stone buildings starting in the 8th century on a large scale when apparently culturally wood was preferable right? Is it that stone is a superior building material?




Which means that the fall of the Polabian civilization saw a European decline too, yes?


No they were tiny and represented a small fraction of the European population where as the WRE represented a very large if not majority population. Bad analogy bad. Also usefully proves that while for the Polabians themselves their conquest by the HRE was probably a dark age it did not affect the whole contient. As stated earlier dark ages can be rather small geographically like the one at the end of the Bronze age.




And in others was already happening at the time of the collapse.


At some cities yes at others no not till after the fall of the Empire. Ravenna and Constantinople were growing rapidly. As were many cities outside our area of intrest but still inside the WRE like Carthage.



For who, the Romans?


Yes and it is as we have already established significant because the majority population the Europe was Roman. I find your ability to dismiss poor conditions for the majority population of an entire continent strange.



Because of a conscious transition of the power structures of the Empire to the Greek provinces.


After Constantine there was no conscious transition of power but an eventual division of the Empire. The split was never really official or permanent in nature as is evidenced by Byzantine efforts to regain North Africa for the West and placing one of their own on the throne of the West in the 460s. The Greek East was the older more prosperous more well populated and at least its European borders were more easily defended half of course it came out better.




Because these provinces held as much as they could back? Because Rome itself was sacked in the early 4th century (410 by Visigoths, 455 by the Vandals)? Clearly, the Imperial state had no flaws. One wonders whether the term 'Empire' should still describe a state that was forced to use Visigoths, Franks, Celts and Burgundians, commanded by a Visigoth ruler, to finally defeat the Huns. What came first? The decline of Roman civilization, or the fall of the Empire? Hmm...


What do you mean the Imperial State had no flaws it was one of the most deeply flawed civilizations ever but for all that its accomplishment culturally and for its people is stunning. Or were you once again trying to put words in my mouth?

By the time Rome was sacked it was the capital of the Empire in name only. Since the time of Constantine the capital was where the Emperor resided witness Trier and latter Ravenna the sack of Rome was more a moral victory for the Vandals and Goths than a military one.

Clearly conditions inside the Empire were declining prior to the fall, the late Empire was a far cry from that of the principate or the late republic. It was however still able to perserve a high standard of living for many of its people right up until the fall as many of the primary sources maintain.

[ren0312]

I'm counting the seconds until the first Canadian member sees this:cantbeli:

They are doing a lot, it is just that they have historically not recieved very much support from their government, funding wise, much like New Zealand.

[Alfacentori]

They are doing a lot, it is just that they have historically not recieved very much support from their government, funding wise, much like New Zealand.

I know thats why I couldn't believe the comment, for a smaller (not is physical size) nation they punch well above their weight in international aid and peacekeeping operations, same as New Zealand and indeed Australia and have a long history of doing so.


Alfa

[Lokos]

This is wrong while the population in Central Europe may have been on the rise it was not even close to equal to that of the Mediterranean basin.

You remember what I said about reading comprehension? Read. The population of northern Italy was plummetting by the late Imperial era. This =/= there are more people in Central Europe. Neither does my assertion that the demographics of the rest of Europe were on the ascendant. Way to be irrelevant, HistoryDude.


Oh and your placement of the sucessor kingdoms is off the Lombards originated in central Europe but settled and established their kingdom in LOMBARDY primarly which is in Italy. You also imply that those kingdoms coexsisted at the same time which they did not by the time of the Lombards the Gothic kingdom of Italy was gone replaced by Byzantine rule. The Vandals were located primarily outside of Europe in North Africa and controlled not south Italy but only Corsica and Sardina. The Goths owned all of italy including Sicily. At least try and fact check prior to
posting Professor.


How marvelous! Pity for you the period in question is stated as 'by the 5th century AD' (that pesky reading comprehension issue raising its head again). You know, before Justinian retook Italy from the Goths? Before Vandal North Africa was destroyed? A portion of the Vandal Kingdom I don't mention because it is not European - I've never heard the 'Dark Ages' described as an African affliction. It was only at the END of the century in question that the Lombards had moved in on most of Italy. Prior to this, they WERE in Central Europe. You can find the map in J. M. Roberts' 'A History of Europe', both pre and post the imperial reconquests.


You finally tried facts and it did not work out well but thanks for trying


No, it's ok. My pleasure.


I dont remember giving firm dates for the dark ages good job implying I did. I also dont remember disputing the Carlonigian achievement. So what is your point?


My point is that the very start of the 'Dark Ages' (the 5th century AD), saw the rise of an extremely powerful imperial state in the ERE, and the formation of the foundation of the Carolingian state of the 7th century AD. It's not really hard to grasp, if you think about it.


I dont remember giving firm dates for the dark ages

I've already set the parameters in a chronological sense. Reset them, if you so wish.


Again I do not remember implying anything different only that it included the majority population of the continent ergo when the living conditions decline for those people it decline for the majority.

I'm sorry. I should have clarified. Some of the citizens of the WRE suffered. The 'barbarian' tribes settled in Roman lands (comprising a large and rapidly growing population) and many tribal remnants in old Gaulic lands, the Iberian peninsula etc. prospered after the fall of the Roman superstate. You yourself have admitted that, within the WRE, decline was neither universal nor longlived for significant parts of the old Empire.


I never said Central europe declined or changed for better or worse as it probably did not change at all. It stayed firmly Iron Age prehistoric as it was throughout the Roman period until Charles the Great and his predecessors pulled it up by force of will.

... Iron-age prehistoric? These 'iron-age prehistoric barbarians' were busy organizing armies that the Romans never again managed to match. Gothic cavalry made the legions as obsolete as the legions had made the phalanx. The Western Romans were forced to turn to the barbarians... to stop the barbarians. Such backward people, those barbarians. So stupid. So unorganized. Unlike the mighty Western Roman Empire. And Charlemagne's state was built on the backs of such frighteningly alien elements to romanitas.


The migratory tribes did improve themselves but they were tiny fractions of the population of either their lands of origin or the places they settled. So the majority suffered but a few prosepered ergo no Dark Ages.


So what's the time period of the Dark Ages, hmm? If the majority suffers for a year, and then recovers for a decade, was the decade dark? We argue here over the notion of a Dark Age. Not a dark decade. Not a dark twenty years. But an Age. Reconcile your position with the metatopic. The expanse of the Western Roman Empire certainly suffered as the tribes and their armies pillaged it. Then these tribes settled. Created states. Founded dynasties. And new empires were born to rival that of the old Roman one. Where is the darkness?


So because the ruling class Franks improved their lot it is ok to ignore the worsing conditions of the majority populations of Gallo-Romans how very elitist of you.


And for how long are you thinking this was the case? Like I said, by the 5th century AD the Franks were building a community of peoples - they went the way of the Bulgars of the same period; cultural assimilation. They were not a 'ruling class' for long.


However like Sidonious he is sometimes overly flattering to his benefactors. Its also worth noting that Gregory used terrible and simplistic latin to make sure he Merovingian master could and would read it.



Because his Merovingian master spoke vernacular Latin which incorporated many non-Latin words?


A Dark Age is universal?

In a contextual sense, like I said right after that. This context being Europe in the aftermath of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. And the Dark Age in question, certainly, is considered a European phenomenon, not something that merely afflicted Italy and the core provinces of the Roman Empire. Ergo, pointing to the decline of some, in a context wherein others are prospering, and calling it a Dark Age is silly.


Also whats with all the semantics I use Dark Age and Late Antique interchangably to give people an idea of the time frame and thats pretty much all.

Dark Age connotates something other than a time period, as you well know and continue to argue for.


Intentionaly absurd as I noted in my intial posting and we are talking about Europe here not Asia do try and keep up. Besides Persia can hardly be said to have benefitted from the fall of WRE as they were still fighting endemic wars with the Eastern Empire.


I brought Persia up in response to you bringing up all the conflicts of the post-WRE era, arguing that the aforementioned conflicts were in some way related causationally to the fall of the Empire. I retorted by saying that the conflicts in question were already raging. Remember?

And the Sassanids definitively benefited from the ERE being forced to divert large forces to the Balkans, and to eventually recover the territories of the Old Empire.


Why should I take up reading comprehension you implied I relied on only Roman written sources. When infact I have read at least in part ever primary source so far mentioned in this discussion as well as basing much of my conclusions on archaeological work I have read about or participated in myself. So far you have yet to even try and refute me archaeologically.


I don't have the resources here to enter into a battle of primary sources. My period of specialization is a little further along. My sources are primarily secondary and analytical. I trust the judgement of the historians enough to adopt it. Good enough? Perhaps I should take your nonsensical analyses at face value, as you clearly have the advantage in primary sources? My assertions, truly, must be so misinformed and ludicrous that they require no debate. Yet we are debating. And I don't see your advantage.


Apparently they did lose the ability to work in stone on any large scale. Speaking of reading comprehension you might recall Bishop Biscop from an earlier post? He had to import stone masons from Gaul and Italy just to build a couple of storage shed sized chapels.

Because... they didn't have a stoneworking tradition? How astute of you! Now tell me why that is a bad thing. One that implies decline. Considering that stoneworking was completely removed from their tradition.


The anglo-saxons were a tiny minority amongst a Romanized population in England. Most of the small farmers who lived in stone farms were native english who abandoned their old Celtic tradition of building in wood for an imporved style of building in stone.

So you're saying that this Romanized population in England did not retain any masons, yes? They simply lost both the trained personnel AND the knowledge, in but a few short decades? Very interesting!

How did this happen?


If the British retained the infastructure for stone cutting on a large scale to make it affordable why didnt they keep building in stone. And why go back to stone buildings starting in the 8th century on a large scale when apparently culturally wood was preferable right? Is it that stone is a superior building material?


You tell me. What happened to the largely Romanized population? Did all the stonemasons leave with the last of the soldiers?


No they were tiny and represented a small fraction of the European population where as the WRE represented a very large if not majority population. Bad analogy bad. Also usefully proves that while for the Polabians themselves their conquest by the HRE was probably a dark age it did not affect the whole contient. As stated earlier dark ages can be rather small geographically like the one at the end of the Bronze age.



Oh I see! So Dark Ages are Dark Ages for some - all the inhabitants of a particular geographical set of boundaries, for example. Therefore, when one talks of a European Dark Age, one is clearly implying a Dark Age for all Europeans, yes? Otherwise, the 'Dark Ages' in question would have to be redefined; it was some of the citizenry of the Western Roman state that suffered - some - not the wider European population, and especially NOT the rulers of the new European states.


Ravenna and Constantinople were growing rapidly. As were many cities outside our area of intrest but still inside the WRE like Carthage.


Yes. As I said, the balance of Roman power was shifting Eastwards. Consciously. The growth of Constantinopole - constant throughout the early 'Dark Ages' - is exemplary of this. Therefore, the Dark Ages were dark only for a select group, yes?


Yes and it is as we have already established significant because the majority population the Europe was Roman.

It was? Roman? As in, this population would claim more than citizenship and its trappings? They'd claim the identity, too? I was almost sure that one of the biggest problems of the Roman Empire was that very, very few people who lived in it were Roman. Most of the Roman army of the 4th century was pretty damned Germanic, if you asked them. Were they Romans? Were not the true Romans in the process of depopulation in the 3rd and 4th centuries, forcing the Empire to rely on the Germans for their armies?


After Constantine there was no conscious transition of power but an eventual division of the Empire. The split was never really official or permanent in nature as is evidenced by Byzantine efforts to regain North Africa for the West and placing one of their own on the throne of the West in the 460s.

The building of the city of Constantinopole is pretty conscious to me. And the split was pretty official when Diocletian made it official in 285 by appointing two equal Emperors to the two halves of the Empire. That subsequent persons attempted to undo this matters for naught. It was official. And it became permanent.


The Greek East was the older more prosperous more well populated and at least its European borders were more easily defended half of course it came out better

It also did not suffer the troubles of the core provinces of the WRE circa 476. Funny, that.


What do you mean the Imperial State had no flaws it was one of the most deeply flawed civilizations ever but for all that its accomplishment culturally and for its people is stunning. Or were you once again trying to put words in my mouth?


Clearly, it was a facetious comment.


but for all that its accomplishment culturally and for its people is stunning.

The peoples they conquered, enslaved, drove out or exterminated would beg to disagree about the relative significance of Rome's accomplishments for its limited citizenry.


By the time Rome was sacked it was the capital of the Empire in name only. Since the time of Constantine the capital was where the Emperor resided witness Trier and latter Ravenna the sack of Rome was more a moral victory for the Vandals and Goths than a military one.



Which deflects the point... how?

The sack of Rome was preceeded by the pillage of northern Italy...


It was however still able to perserve a high standard of living for many of its people right up until the fall as many of the primary sources maintain.

Read the work of Lucien Musset on the subject of the fall of Rome. He is a French historian of note. Or that of Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke. Or Michael Rostovtzeff, Ludwig von Mises and Bruce Bartlett. Or William H. McNeill. Or Peter Heather. Or Joseph Tainter. Or Bryan Ward-Perkins.

All are better and more informed historians than you. All disagree with you.

Regards,
Lokos

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Yeah what Lokos said x2.

[ThatHistoryDude]

When did military might become the basis on which to judge a civilzation? If thats the case the US is the penultimate civilization in the history of man. Or better yet the Germans of 1939 were at that time the greatest civilization on earth.

The might of the german tribes or the huns for that matter in no way makes them not classified as Iron Age Prehistoric. Which simply means they had the use of Iron but little if any written language of their own and therefore we have few primary sources for their history prior to their close contact or invasion of the Roman Empire. It is not a measure of their overall sophistication. Iron age tribes like the Celts of Gaul were very sophisitcated for all that they were still prehistoric. Tacitus gives us a descent insight into the sophisticated nature of the Germans even if he is ****e to exaggeration.


Ward-Perkins supports the idea of a catastrophe for the people with the fall of the Empire read his latest book The Fall the Roman Empire and the End of Civiliztion thank you.

Heather was in his early career and very much still is pro-Barbarian in many ways but even he recognises the scope of the human catastrophe of the fall. All in all though he is rather balanced noting the horrible conditions in some parts of the post collapse West but not failing to mention the ultimate good that came of the fall.

Rostovtzeff is a revisionist socialistic historian whose conclusions are not well respected in regards the fall of Rome any longer. Even if he is a good read.

Toynbee is a Republican era historian who specialized in the punic wars what did he have to do with the fall of rome? edited to add wrong Toynbee not familar with the meta historian you cited but the Roman historian of the same last name who was a specialist in the Republican period JMC Toynbee.

Burke is a popularizer who focuses more on the history of knowledge than any period history and I have not read him.

Ludwig von Mises I had not even heard of till I searched him on amazon and he appears to be some sort of socialist humanist or some such I can not even tell what he is but a classical historian he is not.

Lucien Musset I have not read but seen referenced before are there any good English translations of his work?

William H. McNeill is a general historian and also a populist not a specialist.

Your case would have been strengthened if you could have recommended Mommsen or Bury. Both are top rate historians who are more in line with your way of thinking than mine.

Even Grant would have been ok to bring up he is a populist but at least he is a specialist in the Classical world although he takes a middle road between collapse and transition.

Which leads to the main point you and your kind wish that history was simple and there was only one school of thought on any particular issue in history but this is simply not so. Many well respected historians like Ward-Perkins and to a lesser degree Grant still ascribe to a definate dark age. The dark age of the modern historian is not considered universal in Western Europe. Some places like England were in a dark age prior to the fall of the Empire while others like Italy were prospering under the Goths until decades of war between Goth, Byzantine, and Lombard wrecked the northern half of it for a few hundred years.

Others like I have mentioned Bury and Mommsen do not believe that there was a dark age so much as just a transition in power from the Emperors to the new barbarian kings.

Do not allow your thinking to be dominated by a single school of thought. One man's thinking on the Eastern Empire has until very recently relegated the study of Byzantium to a small side note of Roman history, at least in the Western world. Only now as many modern historians take a fresh look at Gibbon is some of this error being rectified.

I realize that because history is subjective I can no more win this argument than one on the nature of god or politics at least you could have the academic honesty to not misrepresent authors who do not agree with you.

But the ultimate point of a discussion of history is to give someone something to think about and I have enjoyed the conversation Lokos. Sorry if I did get a little testy here and there I wrote most of this quickly while working.

Edited to add: God I cant believe I forgot to mention A. M. H Jones he basically paved the way for the idea of a relativly smooth transition from Imperial rule to Barbarian leadership. He is one of my favorites if a little on the dry side.

[Shakey]

ThatHistoryDude,

Thanks for yourcomments here...I really found them informative. Its not often that one comes across someone in an internet forum with such in-depth knowledge of a really vital period in western civilization.

And I definitely agree with you on the importance of studying primary texts in order to understand historical context.

[Alfacentori]

Well I as someone who is personally interested in the subject and indeed going to be studying it this year I have really enjoyed the debate on this thread and I would like to thank ThatHistoryDude and Lokos for their contributions.
Its not often you got to see a debate by two obviously very knowledgeable people on such a subject on an internet forum, well this one atleast p-)


Alfa

[Lokos]

When did military might become the basis on which to judge a civilzation? If thats the case the US is the penultimate civilization in the history of man. Or better yet the Germans of 1939 were at that time the greatest civilization on earth.


We are speaking of the sophistication, organizational capability and progress of states. The ability to mobilize a large and powerful army, and to heavily defeat what was arguably the world's most organized, well regimented and competently led armed force in the space of less than a century is indicative of anything but decline...


Which simply means they had the use of Iron but little if any written language of their own and therefore we have few primary sources for their history prior to their close contact or invasion of the Roman Empire.

The manner by which one records history does not implicate the lack thereof. An oral history - as practiced by the Greeks of the Homeric era - does not mean that the Greeks were prehistoric. The Germanic tribes had a recorded history; though the way it was passed down did not involve parchment or papyrus at that stage. It is no less a history for that. The words you use to conceptualize a position are often too general, too open - or too closed - and my semantic focus on them is an indicator that your language is not neutral enough, in this case. 'Prehistoric tribe' is a loaded term.


Ward-Perkins supports the idea of a catastrophe for the people with the fall of the Empire read his latest book The Fall the Roman Empire and the End of Civiliztion thank you.


Ward-Perkins also supports the symptomic nature of the fall (instability, increasing separatism, lowered tax base, Germanic army etc. etc.), rather than the fall causation of the decline you're advocating.


Heather was in his early career and very much still is pro-Barbarian in many ways but even he recognises the scope of the human catastrophe of the fall. All in all though he is rather balanced noting the horrible conditions in some parts of the post collapse West but not failing to mention the ultimate good that came of the fall.


Heather also posits the assertion that the Germanic foes of the Roman Empire, in the aftermath of their all-out effort to contain the Sassanid threat in the 1st century, had become wealthier, more organized and infinitely more dangerous foes. Heather then points to the pressures exerted by the tribal movements in the East as the domino-like culprit behing the migrations into the Empire, which eventually brought about its downfall, as its reduced tax base, faltering economy and ailing military could no longer defend its boundaries.

One of his interesting points is that public buildings by the 4th century (whilst the Empire still existed) had become far more modest than at any preceeding time, as regional tax incomes atrophied and shrunk, and the money had to be withdrawn from the central budget.

I consider this sufficient for a symptomic, contextual approach to the problem.


Rostovtzeff is a revisionist socialistic historian whose conclusions are not well respected in regards the fall of Rome any longer. Even if he is a good read.


Being a revisionist and a socialist do not put a black mark against his name, as far as I'm concerned.

Especially since his thesis, and Mises' are very similar. Here is a quote from a Bartlett article concerning the theories of Rostovtzeff and Mises:


According to Rostovtzeff and Mises, artificially low prices led to the scarcity of foodstuffs, particularly in cities, whose inhabitants depended on trade in order to obtain them. Despite laws passed to prevent migration from the cities to the countryside, urban areas gradually became depopulated and many Roman citizens abandoned their specialized trades in order to practice subsistence agriculture. This, coupled with increasingly oppressive and arbitrary taxation, led to a severe net decrease in trade, technical innovation, and the overall wealth of the empire

This is decline before the fall, again.


not familar with the meta historian you cited but the Roman historian of the same last name who was a specialist in the Republican period JMC Toynbee

Arnold Toynbee argued that the Roman economy was, basically, Raubwirtschaft. A plunder economy. The institutions of the Roman state destroyed it from within etc. It's an interesting theory.


Ludwig von Mises I had not even heard of till I searched him on amazon and he appears to be some sort of socialist humanist or some such I can not even tell what he is but a classical historian he is not.


Ludwing von Mises. One of the most prominent founders and developers of the Austrian economic school of thought... He wrote material on the economic foundations of the Roman decline. Not a socialist humanist.


Lucien Musset I have not read but seen referenced before are there any good English translations of his work?


The Germanic Invasions is the book you should be looking into, and is available in its English translation from Barnes & Noble.


William H. McNeill is a general historian and also a populist not a specialist

He has sound judgement and good sense.

Though the material you should concern yourself with is his work on plagues of the early Christian period.


Your case would have been strengthened if you could have recommended Mommsen or Bury. Both are top rate historians who are more in line with your way of thinking than mine.


Bury was an unfortunate omission.


Many well respected historians like Ward-Perkins and to a lesser degree Grant still ascribe to a definate dark age.

Good and well for them.


Do not allow your thinking to be dominated by a single school of thought.

I am a realist.


I realize that because history is subjective I can no more win this argument than one on the nature of god or politics at least you could have the academic honesty to not misrepresent authors who do not agree with you.


I didn't misrepresent anyone. None of the authors described advocated an approach emphasizing the stability and progressiveness of the Empire before its disastrous fall brought all of Europe down with it. This is the impression I get as I read what you write. The problems were there. The decline was there - well before the 'fall'.


Sorry if I did get a little testy here and there I wrote most of this quickly while working.



That's fine.

Lokos

[afreu]

This discussion is definitly a rare highlight on militaryphotos.net. Thanks guys!

[ThatHistoryDude]

Since apparently you dont understand the term prehistoric maybe this while help you out courtesy of the American Heritage Dictionary.

Prehistoric:
1. Of, relating to, or belonging to the era before recorded history.
2. Of or relating to a language before it is first recorded in writing.

Every tribe or culture we know anything about from secondary sources has had oral traditions and/or oral histories this does not save them from being prehistoric by definition. You are the one all hung up on semantics at least be consistent.


I didn't misrepresent anyone. None of the authors described advocated an approach emphasizing the stability and progressiveness of the Empire before its disastrous fall brought all of Europe down with it. This is the impression I get as I read what you write. The problems were there. The decline was there - well before the 'fall'.

I have stated at least once that the Empire of the 4th and 5th centuries was not that of Augustus or Trajan. It had been in period of decline as well as rapid culture change since the last decade of the 2nd or at the latest the middle of the 3rd century. I thought since this is a relatively undisputed fact it did not bear harping on. Apparently though you need me to write another dissertation on the late empire and not assume you know anything or else later I will be lambasted for not mentioning it earlier. Foolish me I thought the issue was were conditions better for the majority of the European population before or after the disentigration of the empire not the decline of the Empire and the nature of the fall. Can we at least stay somewhat on topic or should we just start talking about all aspects of the late antique period?

And yet archaeologists note a major decline in living condtions from the period starting in 400 and ending around 600. Some of the dates vary based on what region we are talking about but the decline was universal in Western Europe at least for a time. See page 122 in The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Ward-Perkins for easy to read charts documenting a steep decline in living conditions and sophistication between about 450-600. You will note in the chart on page 122 that while conditions were declining prior to 400 the rate of decline was much much more rapid after 450 in the west.

[Lokos]

Prehistoric:
1. Of, relating to, or belonging to the era before recorded history.
2. Of or relating to a language before it is first recorded in writing.


By the first definition, the states in questions were not prehistoric. Their method of recording history is just out of sync with your conception of what it should be (written down). I doubt you were using the definition in its second term of usage.


have stated at least once that the Empire of the 4th and 5th centuries was not that of Augustus or Trajan. It had been in period of decline as well as rapid culture change since the last decade of the 2nd or at the latest the middle of the 3rd century.

The point is that the fall of the Empire was a symptom of an existing decline - and not the cause of the aforementioned. It's a very simple point. I'm being forced to repeat myself a lot.


Foolish me I thought the issue was were conditions better for the majority of the European population before or after the disentigration of the empire not the decline of the Empire and the nature of the fall. Can we at least stay somewhat on topic or should we just start talking about all aspects of the late antique period?


Any point made by me goes towards shaping, defining and adding to the topic at hand. How can an age be dark if the time preceeding its often stated onset (the fall of the Empire) shows every one of its symptoms - merely to a lesser degree in some cases? In others, the trend was reversed, and the decline arrested by the time of the period in question. It's a simplistic notion (the Dark Ages), and one who claims academic honesty should steer well clear. If a Dark Age is defined by a fall in living standards, then one must label the Empire of the 3rd century in the throes of a Dark Age. And the Republic of the Punic Wars. And the Roman state in every crisis, notably the 1st-2nd century attempts to deal with the Sassanids.

The age in question would have been dark only if its most serious implications extended well beyond your living standard index. Especially since it is an uneven one that fails to take into account vast swathes of Europe's population - including the citizens of Rome we have spent so much time on.


And yet archaeologists note a major decline in living condtions from the period starting in 400 and ending around 600.

Is this an attempt to redefine the Dark Ages in a chronological sense?


You will note in the chart on page 122 that while conditions were declining prior to 400 the rate of decline was much much more rapid after 450 in the west.

The constant warfare of the time in the regions in question may - may - have had something to do with that. But did such conditions persist for an Age? Well, you tell me.

Lokos

[ThatHistoryDude]

Thanks for repeating yourself uslessly I never disputed the idea that it was a decaying Empire that collapsed. It is an uncontested issue why keep bringing it up I acknowledged the veracity of the decline prior to the fall and so did you discussion over let it go.

Since you obviously did not look up the chart as I asked you too. I will explain it. In it you see a slow decline in conditions from 400-450 in the five main regions of the WRE Italy,Spain, Gaul, England, and North Africa After 450 the decline is steep and finally in most areas other than England it bottoms out by 550. Some areas start a very slow rate of increase after 550. Worth noting though is that none were even close to the levels indicated prior to 450 by 600. Italy falls the shortest distance but then declines more to even out with Gaul and Spain after the three way wars I have mentioned in earlier posts in later part of the 6th century.

There are no firm dates for the 'dark age' as i have said over and over and over in basically every post, conditions varied by region you can not paint with a broad brush when discussing the effect of the Fall of the Empire.

For example conditions at their worst in Italy after the Lombard invasions still supported a stronger economy and more sophistication than England did in the two centuries after the Anglo-Saxon invasion.


And the Roman state in every crisis, notably the 1st-2nd century attempts to deal with the Sassanids.

Bad and wrong the Sassanids do not appear on the scene until well into the 3rd century maybe you were looking to say the Parthians?

In all the crises you mentioned yes even in the 3rd century AD, living conditions never took such a huge blow as they did after 450AD. Take a look at Micheal Grant's the Climax of Rome or David Potter's The Roman Empire At Bay as well as Ward-Perkins and to a lesser degree Heather for information about the economic health of the empire in the centuries preceding the fall.

[ThatHistoryDude]

I am going to post one last thing in this thread as I feel that at this point Lokos and I are talking in circles and not getting anywhere. He has his own opinion on a subjective matter and I mine.

This is part of an interview with Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins I saved a while back from and archaeology blog found here http://blog.oup.com/


How important was the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in terms of its consequences for the history of Europe?

WARD-PERKINS: Peter is primarily a historian of the state and of the army, while my background and intellectual roots are mainly in Archaeology; so our approaches to this question inevitably do differ. Peter prioritizes the collapse of a great power, in terms of its political and social consequences – above all, how landed aristocrats, once operating within a finely tuned and empire-wide system of patronage and status, had to adjust to life under heavily militarized and locally-based Germanic kings.
My book, and this is its major novelty, concentrates on the impact of the fall of the West on daily life, as revealed by a mass of new archaeological research over the last few decades (which I hope is presented in a readable and approachable manner). I argue what is currently an unfashionable view (though, in my opinion, it is blindingly obvious) – that the Roman world brought remarkable levels of sophistication and comfort, and spread them widely in society (and not just to a tiny elite); and that the fall of Rome saw the dismantling of this complexity, and a return to what can reasonably be termed ‘prehistoric’ levels of material comfort. Furthermore, I believe that this change was not just at the level of pots and pans, important though these are, but also affected sophisticated skills like reading and writing. Pompeii, with its ubiquitous inscriptions, painted signs, and graffiti, was a city that revolved around writing – after the fall of the empire, the same cannot be said for any settlement in the West for many centuries to come.
I recommend caution in praising ‘Civilizations’ (whether Roman, or our own), and I do emphasize that ‘civilizations’ have their downsides. But, equally, I think the current fashion for treating all cultures as essentially the same – and all dramatic changes (like the end of the Roman world) as mere ‘transformations’ from one system, to another equally valid one – is not only wrong, but also dangerous. It evens out the dramatic ups and downs of human history, into a smooth trajectory. This risks blinding us to the fact that things have often gone terribly wrong in the past, and to the near certainty that, in time, our own ‘civilization’, and the comforts we enjoy from it, will also collapse.
HEATHER: I never know, really, how to judge good & bad in global terms when looking at any societies. I am very sure, though, that the effects of Rome’s fall were huge and felt right across the board. It’s quite common now, for instance, while describing the history of subjects as diverse as Christianity or literacy in this period, to view Rome’s fall as incidental or unimportant. In my view, that is straightforwardly wrong. Late Antique Christianity evolved a series of authority structures, both centrally and locally, which were shaped around and based upon the existence of the Roman state. When that went, these authority structures, even when they survived, changed their nature fundamentally. In shorthand, the medieval monarchical Papacy is inconceivable had powerful western Emperors survived. So too literacy. Patterns of elite literacy, for instance, were based upon the career structures generated by the Empire’s bureaucracy – lots of jobs for those knowing a particular kind of Latin well – and once that bureaucracy went, so did the jobs and the patterns of education and literacy attached to them.

[Lokos]

Bad and wrong the Sassanids do not appear on the scene until well into the 3rd century maybe you were looking to say the Parthians?


If you get to call them Sassanians in your first reference to them, I get to call them Sassanids when I mean the Parthians. Regardless of the nomenclature, they remained a thorn in Rome's side from the 1st century well unto the 3rd.


It is an uncontested issue why keep bringing it up I acknowledged the veracity of the decline prior to the fall and so did you discussion over let it go.



The issue is symptomatism vs causation, but I see that it's a moot point, this discussion will not be resolved to either side's favour.


Since you obviously did not look up the chart as I asked you too. I will explain it.

No, I'm not hitting up the library because you asked me to - just like I don't expect you to read the works of all those authors I mentioned who disagree with you.


In it you see a slow decline in conditions from 400-450 in the five main regions of the WRE Italy,Spain, Gaul, England, and North Africa

No decline during the second and third centuries? Really? The problem did not arise in the 4th century, and that is certainly not Ward-Perkins' claim.


Worth noting though is that none were even close to the levels indicated prior to 450 by 600. Italy falls the shortest distance but then declines more to even out with Gaul and Spain after the three way wars I have mentioned in earlier posts in later part of the 6th century.


We've had this discussion.


There are no firm dates for the 'dark age' as i have said over and over and over in basically every post, conditions varied by region you can not paint with a broad brush when discussing the effect of the Fall of the Empire.


Make up your mind. Is it a European Dark Age? Or a WRE one? Is it an identifiable, tangible historical period? Or a slew of mini-Dark Ages afflicting different peoples and geographical locales at different points in history? Which would, in fact, make it not a Dark Age of the sort commonly believed in.


In all the crises you mentioned yes even in the 3rd century AD, living conditions never took such a huge blow as they did after 450AD

The decline was there. The destruction of the status quo certainly did lower the living standards and economic markers of many citizens of the Western Roman Empire - whereas many others prospered both inside and outside the Empire. Like any solid recession, it has its winners and its losers.

But, certainly, we are talking about a recession based on continuous conflict over the remnants of the Empire and its legacy; not a decline based on the Empire's fall. The fall itself was symptomatic. As were the conflicts that raged over the territorial expanse of the WRE thereafter.

From the interview:


Pompeii, with its ubiquitous inscriptions, painted signs, and graffiti, was a city that revolved around writing – after the fall of the empire, the same cannot be said for any settlement in the West for many centuries to come.


Interesting. So Europe darkened because the Roman Empire was the only literate society around? I see.


But, equally, I think the current fashion for treating all cultures as essentially the same – and all dramatic changes (like the end of the Roman world) as mere ‘transformations’ from one system, to another equally valid one – is not only wrong, but also dangerous.

Dangerous to whom? Cultural relativism is only dangerous insofar as one allows it to be. On an intellectual, academic level cultural relativism is the only honest way of approaching cultural issues. It is the only conscious treatment for inbuilt biases.


It evens out the dramatic ups and downs of human history, into a smooth trajectory.

Most of these ups and downs are rhythmic and predictable - as modern economic thought shows. The pulse of human history is fairly regular. In effect, it's not a smooth trajectory, it's the transformation of progressive and retrogressive movements; and they are such only in singular terms (i.e. economy, civics, tangible power etc). A definition of a retrogressive movement that removes it from the ongoing trends in question is, in my humble opinion, disingenuous. So, calling the recessive period Roman Europe experienced from the 2nd until the 5th centuries a 'Dark Age' (or any period of time thereafter) gives the transformation/retrogressive trend a status it does not deserve.


This risks blinding us to the fact that things have often gone terribly wrong in the past, and to the near certainty that, in time, our own ‘civilization’, and the comforts we enjoy from it, will also collapse.

Relativism does not blind anyone. If our civilization does fall - which in a historical sense is a certainty - other civilizations will prosper, in a number of ways. Even if they do suffer momentarily, time will roll on, and the transformative effects of the fall will be felt. Eventually, civilization will continue, and progressive forces will overtake retrogressive ones. But it will only be a Dark Age for us, the children of a fallen civilization - and those whom the fall immediately impacts in a negative sense.


I am very sure, though, that the effects of Rome’s fall were huge and felt right across the board.

Across what board?

In any case, this discussion is stale. I likely won't convince you. You very likely will fail to convince me. Let us mutually allow this to die.

Lokos

[ThatHistoryDude]

Well I wanted to let this thread die and as such I wont discuss Rome in this final post but I will not let Loko's error be perpetuated.



If you get to call them Sassanians in your first reference to them, I get to call them Sassanids when I mean the Parthians.

Sassanian is the dynastic name of the sassanid kings as such it is a correct term to use when refering to the Sassanid empire founded in the 3rd century. Parthians were a different empire and not interchangeable with sassanian/sassanid. Facting checking is your friend professor.

[Shakey]

ThatHistoryDude,

You're banging your head against the proverbial brick wall here. I think that other posters on this thread are concerned more with semantic sophistry than reaching compromise or some semblance of truth on the topic.

[kaspersky143]

:slap:
Let China deal with the world's problem.



ye lets china deal and we all be communist hahahah

[Kilgor]

:slap:



ye lets china deal and we all be communist hahahah

China isn't communist anymore, they've seen the light.

Chinese are some of the shrewdest business people you;'ll ever meet.

[Lokos]

Facting checking is your friend professor

And spell checking is yours?

I was under the impression that you were referring to the state, and had somehow managed to meld Sassanids and Parthians. Since I have zero interest in the imperial era history of that part of the world, forgive the error. Or don't. I adore the fact that your final point is a matter of 'semantic sophistry' - as your friend and admirer above puts it - and that the point of the Sassanid/Parthian reference is lost entire. That's fine. The topic's done.


You're banging your head against the proverbial brick wall here. I think that other posters on this thread are concerned more with semantic sophistry than reaching compromise or some semblance of truth on the topic.

If you have something to say, say it. Don't dance like a dervish.

Lokos

[Group9]

Well, if we in the US can ever figure out a good alternative power source to fossil fuels, you may get your wish for our non-involvement in any affairs outside our borders. I, for one, would be in favor of it.

[ghostt888]

I'm counting the seconds until the first Canadian member sees this:cantbeli:

Oh i think you misunderstood me, I am very grateful of my countries role in Afghanistan and previous NATO/UN missions, but i think we could do more within NATO beyond Afghanistan and Anti-piracy.