The fall of Rome and the end of civilization
I recently finished The fall of Rome and the end of civilization (2005) of Bryan Ward-Perkins . And I liked. I liked it even though the book defends a central idea which not has managed to convince . Of course, by the way he says many other valuable things, and all very well defended, very well said, y. .. y. .. damn!, that it is hard to contradict.
Apparently Ward-Perkins argues just the opposite to Pirenne what he said at the time : come on, who returns to idea of \u200b\u200ba sudden and dramatic extinction of the Roman Empire. Apparently, because in reality both defend the same in many cases, the continuity of many remarkable aspects of the Empire in the Germanic kingdoms. The problem I have with Perkins is not what it says for the after the fall, but for the before .
Let's see, in recent years some historians defended a very pink of the disappearance of the Empire as a political unit, without violence of any kind and with very good vibes throughout. The reaction came in 2005 with two Britons who were recovering a more traditional view: Peter Heather and The Fall of the Roman Empire and Mr before us today.
Ward-Perkins argues that the Roman Empire was brilliant until the last moments before the crash, that the level of welfare of the people was great until his last days, that the farmer humblest had access to quality products, and that any change by a single external factor, internal spark of all: the Germanic invasions. And if the West and the East will not fall, it is bad luck (as it sounds) and a few management errors. We, or decay and causes Social: pure and simple conquest .
This, That sounds really bad, he defends admirably and with a sense of humor: it is noted that Ward-Perkins is the world of archeology, and comes to a very useful tool that every history student learns to hate with all his heart: the fucking ceramic gadgets. With them showing a dramatic decrease of the population in the early Middle Ages, a decline in trade and general living standards.
But until everything is just all of a sudden, the Empire was preserved with enviable health, as would one that I know: Rome goes well .
Things to oppose:
Century III : Empire entered a military and political anarchy 75 years in which to fitting of the last people of Britain named his own emperor. When you retrieve the order and in the fourth century Diocletian makes splitting the Empire into 4 pieces, Constantine united after, but from that day, the division will only get bigger.
Vale, are things that in principle policy need not affect the population, but after 200 years of peace, who suddenly are bundled civil wars everywhere has to be a symptom of something.
Bacaudae and heretics : bands of dispossessed peasants to shake throughout the West since the third century. As Ward-Perkins says, the V century military defeats at the hands of Germans fed the discontent of these social groups and reading, gives the impression that bacauda and displayed the same While the barbarians, but does not say so clearly. Does not say so because the case is that there were already unhappy before. May become more noticeable with successive imperial defeats, but in an empire where, as argued, well kept coming to all layers of the population, do not form bands of robbers. It takes a great discontent prior to the arrival of anyone from outside.
Progress of landlordism : from the anarchy of the third century many inhabitants of cities and many small owners who could no longer pay their taxes are forced to cede their land to a great owner that "protects" (within the meaning of "protect" Godfather ) while they were still working, but now, as settlers.
And generally, the historical experience : there are lots of examples of Empires always have the same pressure at the border, but only when it becomes unbearable collapse them all alone inside.
however, has very interesting things:
The Romans had the great good fortune of their invaders, if they felt something , was admired, and only wanted was to partake of the material wealth of the empire . That makes things much easier for further co-existence of each other, and the merger of the two peoples. It does not say the same of the Romans, who note that despised the Germans , and these, which were not fools, they were well aware, giving a pair of interesting evidence to respect:
In 393, the Roman aristocrat led Symmachus Rome a group of prisoners Saxons with the intention that they should kill each other publicly, in a gladiatorial games that would be held in honor of his son. However, before the exhibit, twenty-nine of them committed suicide the only way they had at their disposal: strangling each other with their own hands. For us, the terrible death is a brave act of defiance. But Symmachus understood his suicide as the work of a "group of men most vile Spartacus" who had been sent to test him.
also states look for me fundamental in the military defeat of the Empire: Roman society was hiperespecializada, the Romans bought their pottery professional workshops, cities imported agricultural products and a specialized field trusted his defense to a professional army . The Germans did not have this expertise, so while every man (and if necessary all women) Germany was a warrior in power, once dismantled a Roman legion was not as easy to replace, and so does the rest: end the industry one place supposed to leave without a supply to regions far unable to produce for themselves even the most basic goods . Less complex peoples were the most self-sufficient. Imagine if that happened today: Ikea would have to go into the forest to cut the logs yourself. A drama.
But anyway I still think there was previous decline. As for the causes of this ... a German scholar was dedicated in 1984 to gloss over all the possible causes of the decline that had been ground in the historiography: 210 met . Including more jets as impotence! (Cipolla makes good fun of this in Allegro, ma non troppo ). And I, like every Tom, Dick, I have my own opinions ... but we will see in the next episode I'm already brewing.
meantime I invite you to say: decadent or breakthrough?
