Was the fall of Rome necessary for western development?

[Belisarius]

Might I suggest that the main criticism being directed at the Romans here seems to be that they lacked the mindset of 21st century westerners? It is a sort of back-handed compliment to Rome that no-one criticizes contemporary Germans, Africans or Persians for not having the get-up-and-go to invent windmills, steam engines or emancipated voters. Is it that the Romans were close enough to us to be considered 'civilized' so they ought to have done it properly?

 

No, I think thats an unfair characterisation. The argument is not that they weren't 21st century enough in their ambitions and innovation. That would be historicism. I wouldn't expect them to think like us or have our culture.

 

The point is that the roman empire was perhaps much more technologically and culturally sterile than we have given it credit for. It was a force for technological stagnancy rather than invention, and if it hadn't fallen we'd have been stuck at much the same level. They had nearly 1000 years and didn't really change a great deal.

 

The political system did not create conditions for technological growth, except in very limited areas. Where were the great roman writers and thinkers even? Had they been more innovative they might have found solutions for the Hunnic invasions and the Teutonic tribes that they had to face.

 

I see it as a great big military and administrative machine. But not one that seemed to grow and adapt a great deal during its history.

 

I agree by and large.

 

I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem.

 

That didn't happen much in Rome, as there were two kinds of peopls... rich patricians who had no motivation for doing so, and poor plebes who had no ability to be rewarded for it, and lacked education to do it anyway.

 

Not to mention the fact that the conquests and wars of Rome produced a massive quantity of cheap slaves, to the point where even the relatively modest man could own one or more, really did not put labor saving devices at a premium, as they weren't doing the labor anyway.

 

You can make the argument that much of the techonolgical innovation in the West arose from the bulbonic plague. There weren't enough people left to work the fields, so better methods had to be devided. Necessity being the mother of invention and all.

[caldrail]

Plutarch was rewarded by the Caesar of his day (I forget which one it was) for his work in settling differences between greece and its Roman masters.

 

Why wasn't there another Plutarch in the Middle Ages? Someone to write parallel lives comparing great Romans to their eventual germanic masters. Were any of the germanic warlords worthy of such comparisons? Theodoric the Ostrogoth? Charlemagne the Frank? Or should we look to the modern era and compare Caesar to Frederick the Great, Bismarck, or even Hitler?

No true Roman regarded a barbarian as his equal When in Rome, do as the Romans, as the saying goes. In fact some of these warlords are discussed by byzantine writers such as Zosimus, Jordanes, and so forth.

[wryobserver]

I agree by and large.

 

I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem.

 

That didn't happen much in Rome, as there were two kinds of peopls... rich patricians who had no motivation for doing so, and poor plebes who had no ability to be rewarded for it, and lacked education to do it anyway.

 

Not to mention the fact that the conquests and wars of Rome produced a massive quantity of cheap slaves, to the point where even the relatively modest man could own one or more, really did not put labor saving devices at a premium, as they weren't doing the labor anyway.

 

You can make the argument that much of the techonolgical innovation in the West arose from the bulbonic plague. There weren't enough people left to work the fields, so better methods had to be devided. Necessity being the mother of invention and all.

 

Yes I think that's a very good point - western development was helped by the rise of a bourgeoisie, mercantile class who were social upwardly mobile. We saw very little innovation in medieval and feudal Europe where the landed aristocracy ruled, and lower classes were kept in feudal bondage to their lords. In one sense Rome was pretty similarly socially constructed. Unless you were born into the land owning classes, you either made it by trade or by military success in the army and were able to retire off early with a nice pension. Not much social mobility there.

 

Not many drivers for innovation in that social structure either.

 

Thanks for the commentry

[wryobserver]

I agree by and large.

 

I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem.

 

That didn't happen much in Rome, as there were two kinds of peopls... rich patricians who had no motivation for doing so, and poor plebes who had no ability to be rewarded for it, and lacked education to do it anyway.

 

Not to mention the fact that the conquests and wars of Rome produced a massive quantity of cheap slaves, to the point where even the relatively modest man could own one or more, really did not put labor saving devices at a premium, as they weren't doing the labor anyway.

 

You can make the argument that much of the techonolgical innovation in the West arose from the bulbonic plague. There weren't enough people left to work the fields, so better methods had to be devided. Necessity being the mother of invention and all.

 

Yes I think that's a very good point - western development was helped by the rise of a bourgeoisie, mercantile class who were social upwardly mobile. We saw very little innovation in medieval and feudal Europe where the landed aristocracy ruled, and lower classes were kept in feudal bondage to their lords. In one sense Rome was pretty similarly socially constructed. Unless you were born into the land owning classes, you either made it by trade or by military success in the army and were able to retire off early with a nice pension. Not much social mobility there.

 

Not many drivers for innovation in that social structure either.

 

Thanks for the commentry

[wryobserver]

I agree by and large.

 

I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem.

 

That didn't happen much in Rome, as there were two kinds of peopls... rich patricians who had no motivation for doing so, and poor plebes who had no ability to be rewarded for it, and lacked education to do it anyway.

 

Not to mention the fact that the conquests and wars of Rome produced a massive quantity of cheap slaves, to the point where even the relatively modest man could own one or more, really did not put labor saving devices at a premium, as they weren't doing the labor anyway.

 

You can make the argument that much of the techonolgical innovation in the West arose from the bulbonic plague. There weren't enough people left to work the fields, so better methods had to be devided. Necessity being the mother of invention and all.

 

Yes I think that's a very good point - western development was helped by the rise of a bourgeois, mercantile class who were social upwardly mobile. We saw very little innovation in medieval and feudal Europe where the landed aristocracy ruled, and lower classes were kept in feudal bondage to their lords. In one sense Rome was pretty similarly socially constructed. Unless you were born into the land owning classes, you either made it by trade or by military success in the army and were able to retire off early with a nice pension. Not much social mobility there.

 

Not many drivers for innovation in that social structure either.

 

Thanks for the commentry

[Virgil61]

I would like to ask others to comment on this theory that I have had since reading a number of books on the Roman empire which I have never heard expressed anywhere else before.

 

Traditionally we look back at the Roman empire with a certain amount of admiration and see it as a high point in social organisation, achievement and civilisation (in the broad sense of the world). The classic view is that the fall of the Roman empire was a catastrope for western civilisation and caused the onset of the "dark ages" which were dominated by fiefdoms, religious oppression, instability, economic difficulty and lack of learning.

 

I'd like to propose that the Roman empire had reached a technological and social plateau for hundreds of years which actually blocked change, and blocked advancement - culturally, socially, economically and intellectually. The reason why I have come to this conclusion is that when I scan the entire length of the Western empire (and the same thing is true of the Eastern empire which lasted much longer in the form of the Byzantine empire), I don't see a society in evolution, in growth and development.

 

For the sake of argument even if it did reach a technological and social plateau the aftermath of its fall wasn't a picnic for a few centuries after.

 

Let's remember up until Dominitian's reforms and especially in the Principate local cities and towns in the West continued to hold elections for local officials. That seems to have continued at least up until the 3rd century when things started to go south. Probably not a what we Americans would call "Norman Rockwell" style local politics but still a semblance of democratic activity.

 

I think one could forge an argument there was social evolution of sorts and it was an incredibly unique contribution. The extension of the right of citizenship from first city, to Latins to Italians to Gauls and then empire-wide regardless of culture was certainly a social evolution of sorts, one that's stands out. Especially for most of the modern English speaking countries today that seems to have become the standard to varying degrees.

 

In fact it appears to be a sterile empire from that point of view. This is what I mean - can anyone think of any intellectual movements of thought that emerged from the Romans? Any great cultural works of art that have been worth noting after the fall of the republic? (One could of course argue that Roman art took the form of great buildings and monuments, but personally I think that is like pointing to the statues of any other great dictator and claiming this to be art. It was usually crude propaganda, even though admittedly there was great craft in the buildings). Any radical political ideas or discourse that evolved post the onset of empire? Any great advances in medicine, in science that weren't linked to military conquest or engineering works built for the agrandisment of the emperor? Can anyone think of great Roman philosophers, or any renown centres of Roman learning? The only great thinker after the fall of the republic I can think of was Augustus, but can anyone name any others? (Thats not a rhetorical question, I would be interested to know).

 

There's more than you might think. Stocism seems to be the big contribution philosophically (taken from the Greeks but with a pretty healthy contribution from Seneca, Epictetus and even Marcus Aurelius. While they aren't popular today they had a strong influence on early Christianity.

 

Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Lucan, Juvenal and Apuleius--to name a few writers--for centuries influenced Western Civilization. Up until the last century and a half hardly any European who considered themselves educated had not read at least one of them.

 

Galen was the standard for medicine until the Renaissance and greatly influenced Islamic doctors of the era.

 

I think I'd dispute that architecture isn't part of a legacy of culture works of art. The Colosseum & Pantheon are impressive architecture. Though he wrote the Prince Machiavelli spent vastly more time on his Discourses on Livy.

 

In fact I would go further and suggest that under the Roman empire there was little impetus for development. Most of the public works had been sponsored directly by the emperor, which seemed to be the main driver for new building projects, but this flagged if the emperor wasn't interested or too busy staying alive, or fighting wars. So what we see is an period of rule that lasts for nearly 1000 years which is a very stable plateau of knowledge and technology because the main driver for investment in this was the state itself, and namely the emperor.

 

That's probably overstating it. Works on a grand scale perhaps. From what I've gathered from archaeological & classical journal articles until the end of the Principate in many cities and towns of the Western empire local municipal positions were held by influential (and usually rich) men who contributed to public works, development of their city, etc.

 

I would suggest that the break up of the roman empire allowed divergent social and political communities to emerge, competing with each other, which had to adapt and change to survive. In that fall were the seeds of the rebirth of western civilisation - which didn't truely kick off until the renaissance. But by then there were enough new drivers in society to drive change - centres of learning, patronage by nobility, states vying for power, business models emerging, trade as a driver for social change etc. Through this period/process we eventualy developed a discourse around human rights and political rights which the republic had in nascent form but which had been crushed by empire.

 

I think there's such a passage of time between the fall of the Western Empire to the Renaissance it's impossible to really make a guess with much accuracy. Fun to speculate. The Eastern empire was financially, intellectually and socially ahead of the West for several centuries but got so bound up in simple survival they don't make for a very good comparison say after the 12th/13th century or so.

 

On the other hand the effects of the Roman model of governance given to us by Livy and Polybius and of behavior by Plutarch among others were immense. Without classical literature and history to go by I can't imagine the city-states of late Medieval or Renaissance Italy being the same. The ideas of republicanism, good administration and so on were pretty firmly rooted in their readings of the classical era.

 

I see more the influence by Roman civilization throughout European history stronger than any other force except Christianity until modern times.

 

I apologize that I couldn't figure out how to shoehorn Hitler, Obama and U.S. constitutional law into the discussion.

[barca]

 

Where were the great roman writers and thinkers even? Had they been more innovative they might have found solutions for the Hunnic invasions and the Teutonic tribes that they had to face.

 

I see it as a great big military and administrative machine. But not one that seemed to grow and adapt a great deal during its history.

 

 

There were still great Roman writers and thinkers in the late Roman period. Boethius is a good example.

 

They did find solutions to the Hunnic invasions; ultimatelly the Huns were defeated.

 

If you look at the military of Belisarius, it is clear that the Roman army had adapted to changing conditions. They had upgraded their horse archers, for example, along Hunnic lines.

[caldrail]

I'd say the fatal flaw of Rome was its relative lack of social mobility. Progress comes from people trying to make things better. Technology is developed by someone wanting to make money and fix a problem.

 

That didn't happen much in Rome...

I would argue that the increasing social mobility as the empire aged was very much a symptom of the empires decline. Think of Rome as a huge multinational corporation (the analogy works very well).

[wryobserver]

If you look at the military of Belisarius, it is clear that the Roman army had adapted to changing conditions. They had upgraded their horse archers, for example, along Hunnic lines.

 

barca,

 

Hmmm, so they copied some techniques? That is hardly innovation. The Huns did the same, in copying Roman siege tactics for scaling walls, but we wouldn't argue that the Huns were in any way a technologically innovative society.

 

They managed to wrestle with the Huns by making alliances with former enemies and bringing them into the fray on their side. The fact is that the Hunnic empire just fell apart when Atilla died suddenly of a heart attack. They were never defeated by the Romans. But they did enough damage to leave the empire fatally exposed to its Germanic enemies, who easily pressed home their advantages in Tunis, seizing Cathage and the grain baskets of the empire.

[Onasander]

Some nit picking, after reading the first 2 pages:

1) The Spartans did vote

2) The Persians Invented the Windmill

3) Emphasis on Luckas, a Hungarian intellectual leaning to Lenin, doesn't translate very well into English, given Polyani and Drucker headedfrom Hungary to the US and intellectually prepared us to confront European styled tyranny. If you keep pushing Lukacs, then discussing Obama and Hitler has everything to do with this. This is the inescapable historical dualism that advocates of Lukacs must face.

 

Skipping over the Lukacs/Lenin vs. John Adams/Drucker loggerhead this thread unconsciously stumbled upon and aped out with unimpressive showing, I need to point out the technological evolution, and much less its philosophical inventiveness, hardly died out from its transmission from republic to empire, nor during the fall of the west. The dark ages and Manorism was indeed a stupid era in terms of comparing the most elite of the elites intellectually to more intergrated states before and after, but they still produced intellectuals, both in theory and invention.

 

The biggest issue of the early dark ages wasnt the lack of intellectual curiosity, but a complete and frightening lackof understanding of epidemics, which killed intellectuals at frightening rates (see the comical pilgrames and monastics dying left and right in St. Bede's History).

 

The second is, the mad success of civilization in the dark ages. They were not against it, they were completely for it. They simply were not in a position to pull it off under the same scope, as civilization was neither a top down nor bottom up imposition, but rather a acceptance by a middle class, warrior elite who could replicate the forms as far as they could maintain them on their individual manors.

 

It took centuries to gain enough resistence to the plagues for feudalism and monasticism to evolve. If anything, it was the most agressive intellectual era in the western world until the US came around, the current modern attitudes and intellectual divergencies we now hold come from it. We are still very much a medieval society.

 

What makes the various renaissances, especially the Italian one so special is the expansion of knowledge from other sources from older, imperial era sources. As inventive as the middle ages were, its hard to create grand ideas via a historic void, after all, just look at the eastern island big heads.... very smart people, but a people in isolation, that was the best they could do, no fault of their own.

 

The major push of the medieval era was to intergrate, and they never quite got there via a imperial-feudal model. The ancient knowledge worked in the medieval era, but worked best for the nation state model of government.

 

The great accident of the medieval model is, in its rush for trying to sustain civilization, the sinews of it fragmented far and wide, and became near impossible to eradicate. It made sense to even the most backwards of tribes, who adopted it. The emphasis on feudal loyalty, commodity and coin economies, and intellectual/military support and alliances, even when afar field from one's home territory, were roman ideas the feudal age spread very far, and very wide.

 

There was great advantage with the Roman West collapsing. It caused the barbarians to give up any pretense to grudges against roman civilization. Rome sadly had to die for this to happen, but it is also the Romans greatest success, converting their enemies even in death. However, the idea Rome technologically stagnated and had to die is false, at least in terms of technological history. Losing the west was a major blow. The eastern empire maimtained technological and philosophical investigations, despite a short ban on some philosophical schools. They rested on controlling the silk road trade for money, and less on building a solid basis for sustaining civilization beyong ecunumical civilization, which to this day survives for the pagan enthusiasts in this thread biased against christian ascendency.

 

It was a combination of both the Roman Ideas of a top down state, with middle of the road representation, and the near impossible to eradicate feudal, built from the dirt ingenuity of Feudal-Capitalism that makes the US the technological powerhouse that it is. It's capable of viroid replication, taking root in any state. Just once it takes root, it desires the fullness of a state system, and all its

advantages.

 

To grasp the aftermath of Rome, and its feudal-economic

[Onasander]

To grasp the aftermath of Rome collasping, technologically, you only need to look at Liberia andSierraLeone. General Buttnaked running loose, killing tens of thousands, for his little piece of civilization, a awareness of technological and social backwardness, and a partial, at best, capacity of militants of any capacity to recreate it via their own will. High profit exports of oil or diamonds to sustain the system, and this threatening entity called Christianity confronting the chaos, overwhelming the system for better or worst.

 

Now, General Butt naked is a Christian, layed down arms. Feudal capitalism, such as Arcelar Mittal andits rubber plantations dominate, the population has a pitiful small American Library to rely on, etc. Its a feudal state in transition to a modern one. I dont see however how generalbutt naked is necessary for creating a better light bulb. He sure the hell didn't design it, nor charles taylor They were hiccups on the road, who by incident added feudal aspects to their country that could of been acquired by other means.