Were the barbarians more beneficent than the Romans? A couple of Englishmen are trying to convince you that this is so. They state that the only uniquely Roman feature of the Empire was its professional army (hardly an advance).
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/5037/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-myth/
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Myth?
Previous post: Is Bernanke An Admirer of Galbraith?
Next post: Athens and the US: The Decline and Fall
{ 9 comments }
I would need to read the article to be definitive about this, but taking the fall of the Roman Empire in the round, the fact that Europe entered a 1,000 year period back at the stage of economic development before the classical Greek and Roman civilisations, largely bereft of the Age of Commerce that they ushered in, suggests that Adam Smith’s assessment was correct.
The destruction of the western European economy under the war lords, the great land grab and the almost permanent centuries of warfare between and among local war lords, were not conducive to economic progress. I am not sure we owe very much to the barbarians, whose demise was the appearance of settled fuedalism, almost non-existant trade and thereby local self-sufficiency at a low standard of living (‘princes’ included), and a curbing of science and technological progress.
Still, I am always willing to study new scenarios. Where can I get a copy of their arguments?
The Barbarians were riddiculed in Roman propaganda, which is all that remains to tell the tale.
The Romans like Bush needed a boogie man to keep the restive masses under control. Similar to the circus, news of invasions and defeats were the things kept the masses interested in living in un natural human conditions and working for peanuts, to sustain their father land.
The Barbarians were forced west by the various Hunic and Mongol migrations which continued until 1300. Russian princes sent tribute to the Khan into the 1400′s.
The Barbarians in eliminating inhuamn defintions of commerce which made people assets of production reintroduced the natural state of man.
This natural state the Clets lost in Gaul, Iberia and Briton through Roman colonization and a form of feudalism with massive estates sustained by slavery.
Oh yeah Rome was great, a slave and serf economy over all their “civilization”.
Serfs of the Roman era were little different from Roman citizens or US workers today.
The natural condition is not to moil and toil for someone else’s profit nor to die for propagandistics phoney crusades which enrich and secure the ownership class’ position and luxuries.
Rome was all the talk and no walk on the human condition of 98% of the population within the empire.
Not much different today, even the need for huge armies to defend against the ‘barabian’ migrations.
In the beginning barabrian derived from the fact the haughty Roman’s taught the new tribes were babblers.
But if you ilike roman stoicism, and surpression of human nature you think barabrians were bad.
The Nazi Germans thought the US GI was really bad too, gonna chnage their quiet enjoyment of their form of romanism.
I do like roman stoicism and the suppression of human nature! Guess I was ruined by my Christian upbringing. I’d just prefer that good behavior be the result of institutions other than government like family and church.
Where is the dividing line between “natural” and “unnatural” ways of living? It seems to me that either everything humans do is natural or nothing they do is.
Also, I think U.S workers are a lot different from Roman slaves. We don’t get branded when we run away from our employers.
Cato published a very informative article several years ago on the socialist structure of Roman government, its disastrous welfare, and ultimate collapse as a result of monetary manipulation.
Certainly commerce and production were affected by the Barbarian settlements in the Empire, but Rome had already suffered a series of civil wars that impacted in the economic life of Romans. Take into account the high taxation and the manipulation of money, and you had a recipe for economic stagnation.
Barbarians were not entirely “barbarian” for long – they finally settled and created many of the institutions we have today, including the Universities, the Church and Law. Remember as well that the Barbarian west was able to grow economically during the Little Renaissance (or the Renaissance of the 12th Century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_of_the_12th_century)
Rome was a warfare state, and as such suffered from being too big and bloated. The small kindoms of the Barbarian West, however, could do little damage in comparison.
Mr Gaskell is correct in that Rome’s demise was ultimately because of socialism. I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if the Romans turned to capitalism instead of socialism. We would probrably would have conquered intergalatic travel and be living to 300+ years of age.
The funny thing is that the Times article was written by Python’s Terry Jones. How did he manage to miss the “What have the Romans done for us” scene from Life of Brian?
Why do they call the period after the fall of Rome the Dark Ages?
In ancient pre-renaissance times, as manuscripts used to vanish in disastrous fires quite often, one had to rely on the Church “rewriting” the historical documents… yet the rewriting must have been somehow selective if not biased. Jewish ancient (merchant) tradition typically may have been swept aside more than once. As for the figure of “Charles the great” in the 9th century, he obviously became a symbol for the “pan-European concept” long before now… serving the interests of centralized power.
Strange also that no historian I’ve heard of ever gave a satisfactory explanation to the fact that gothic post-roman, pre-renaissance cathedrals were called after the Goths… because the Goths being barbarians, they could never have given the inspiration for such great architectural achievements…
All this is not clear, but what shall we do: calling it officially “history of propaganda” in stead of the old “history of civilization” from public school perhaps?
This discussion reminds me of the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the rebels complain how the Roman’s have bled the people white.
REG:
And what have they [the Romans] ever given us in return?!
XERXES:
The aqueduct?
REG:
What?
XERXES:
The aqueduct.
REG:
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that’s true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3:
And the sanitation.
LORETTA:
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG:
Yeah. All right. I’ll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS:
And the roads.
REG:
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don’t they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads–
COMMANDO:
Irrigation.
XERXES:
Medicine.
COMMANDOS:
Huh? Heh? Huh…
COMMANDO #2:
Education.
COMMANDOS:
Ohh…
REG:
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1:
And the wine.
COMMANDOS:
Oh, yes. Yeah…
FRANCIS:
Yeah. Yeah, that’s something we’d really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO:
Public baths.
LORETTA:
And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let’s face it. They’re the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS:
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES:
Brought peace.
REG:
Oh. Peace? Shut up!
Comments on this entry are closed.