Now that many think that we are possibly watching the collapse of our own version of a Western Civilisation that is based upon a Treaty Of Rome, I am reminded of the collapse of that earlier incarnation of our civilisation, one operating under a different treaty of Rome .... the Pax Romana.
A world that collapsed just as surely as ours may do, and under much the same pressures. Then the collapse was caused by an un-assimilated mass migration of peoples into the Western Roman Empire, who didn't speak the same language, worship the same gods, or share the same history (except via earlier conflicts) .... sound familiar?
Strangely as that Roman Empire collapsed, many of its inhabitants also failed to recognise their world was finishing. Some even thought that it was being renewed by the new vigorous blood lines entering the 'Empire' (think 'migrant workers'). They were wrong of course, but they were too close to the events to realise the disaster unfolding around them.
Late antiquity, the period 410 AD to 500 AD in the West (although not in the East, where the East Roman/Byzantine Empire survived and later flourished in the middle ages for over 600 years), was a confusing period for the peoples of Europe. The Romans could still occasionally rouse themselves to fight, and under their last great general Flavius Aetius, even won victories over Attila and his Huns in 451 AD. But generally it was just a tidal wave of mass migration of the barbarian peoples from Eastern Europe, in to Western and Southern Europe, and by the end of the century, although some forms of Imperial civilisation existed in pockets, the collapse of central authority was nearly absolute. So no central taxes meant no payment to soldiers who then deserted, and such taxes as were left in the new barter economies, were collected by local warlords.
The Saxons in Britain were taking over the island south of the wall, the Vandals, Franks, Goths, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Visigoths, and numerous smaller tribes such as the Burgundians, Gepids, and Sueves, were all camped in the wreckage of the old empire .... there was even a 'western emperor' called Nepos on the Dalmation coast (Croatia) in 476 AD.
But by 525 AD in Italy, the Ostrogoth's ruled all of the Italian peninsular, Southern Gaul (France), and Dalmatia (Croatia/Serbia) - having replaced Nepos, and were actually still operating a form of the 'Imperial' government with roads maintained, a civil service, city governance and some semblance of Roman government such as the Senate still operating .... their King was even based in the later Roman capital of Ravenna, and was a fluent Latin speaker.
Elsewhere, the Vandals in North Africa, and Sueves/Visigoths in Spain, were only weak land/over lords (as the Byzantines under the great Byzantine General Belisarius later proved, by rapidly defeating them all inside 5 years), and also employed former Imperial officials to run the civil service etc for their courts. In the North of Gaul, the Franks and Burgundians, and Saxons in Britain, had pretty much collapsed the old systems, with churches gone as well, and it took a century or more for the Roman Catholic Church to regain its footholds, and re-establish some West European structures.
However, had events remained stable at around 525 AD, its possible to imagine that the extremely 'Romanised' and militarily powerful Ostrogoth's may have recaptured both the provinces of North Africa and Hispania within a couple of decades, and thus a Southern based West Roman Empire could have existed once more, with a Latin language base for its richer populations. It may even be that the Franks, Burgundians and the Saxons in Britain, would also have been defeated in a later 'Crusade' against the 'Pagans'. Who knows, but the Ostrogoth's, no matter how religiously tolerant they were, and however keen they were to 'save Roman culture', had two fatal flaws:
1) Like the Poles a millennia later, they had 'elected' Kings instead of hereditary ones (see division of Poland in 17th Century to see how that turns out - badly), which meant when King Theodoric the Great died, a poor successor was elected, and
2) Although they were Christians, they were 'Arians' a form of the religion that the Catholic Church and Pope considered to be heresy, as it considered Jesus to be the son of god and distinct rather than an aspect of god. Rather like the split between the mainstream Sunni Muslims and the Shia splinter groups such as the Alawites.
Individually these might not have proved fatal flaws, but when combined with one other factor they were deadly. The Catholic and Orthodox churches had not irrevocably split that time (the Great Schism between Catholic and Orthodox was not until 1054 AD), and so both areas of what had been the Roman world were practising what was later called "Chalcedonian" Christianity.
This meant that the Pope in Rome, was happy to conspire with the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, against the Arian Ostrogoths ruling Italy. The East Roman Empire was then led by Justinian the Great (a young and ambitious Emperor who had visions of restoring 'Rome'), and who around 530 AD wasted his empires vast resources, on a series of ultimately unsuccessful and very destructive campaigns in the West, which laid waste to Italy, Southern Gaul (France) and Croatia/Serbia. The results of this latter led to the southern half of Italy being ruled by the very non Romanised and brutal Lombard's, while the rest of Italy was split into dozens of kingdoms.
His own empire was weakened, and the newly reconquered Spain and North Africa fell to the Muslims a century or so later when their invasions commenced, and the East Roman/Byzantine Empire, also lost Egypt and Palestine as well ..... much of the world as we know it was created then, and is still playing out across the Middle East, and now Europe.
No one in 450 AD or even 525 AD, could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of the mass tribal migrations, and just as importantly the results of the disastrous and ultimately failed fight back by the 'Eastern Romans' .... but with the hindsight that history provides us, anyone can now easily foresee the consequences of the un-assimilated mass migrations into Europe by peoples who don't speak our languages, share our religion, or share our culture (except via conflicts) on our European civilisation.
Those who fail to learn from their history are doomed to repeat it ....... we can't say we were not warned.
A world that collapsed just as surely as ours may do, and under much the same pressures. Then the collapse was caused by an un-assimilated mass migration of peoples into the Western Roman Empire, who didn't speak the same language, worship the same gods, or share the same history (except via earlier conflicts) .... sound familiar?
 |
| The Fall Of Rome And The Western Civilisation Didn't Happen In One Day ...... |
Strangely as that Roman Empire collapsed, many of its inhabitants also failed to recognise their world was finishing. Some even thought that it was being renewed by the new vigorous blood lines entering the 'Empire' (think 'migrant workers'). They were wrong of course, but they were too close to the events to realise the disaster unfolding around them.
Late antiquity, the period 410 AD to 500 AD in the West (although not in the East, where the East Roman/Byzantine Empire survived and later flourished in the middle ages for over 600 years), was a confusing period for the peoples of Europe. The Romans could still occasionally rouse themselves to fight, and under their last great general Flavius Aetius, even won victories over Attila and his Huns in 451 AD. But generally it was just a tidal wave of mass migration of the barbarian peoples from Eastern Europe, in to Western and Southern Europe, and by the end of the century, although some forms of Imperial civilisation existed in pockets, the collapse of central authority was nearly absolute. So no central taxes meant no payment to soldiers who then deserted, and such taxes as were left in the new barter economies, were collected by local warlords.
The Saxons in Britain were taking over the island south of the wall, the Vandals, Franks, Goths, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Visigoths, and numerous smaller tribes such as the Burgundians, Gepids, and Sueves, were all camped in the wreckage of the old empire .... there was even a 'western emperor' called Nepos on the Dalmation coast (Croatia) in 476 AD.
But by 525 AD in Italy, the Ostrogoth's ruled all of the Italian peninsular, Southern Gaul (France), and Dalmatia (Croatia/Serbia) - having replaced Nepos, and were actually still operating a form of the 'Imperial' government with roads maintained, a civil service, city governance and some semblance of Roman government such as the Senate still operating .... their King was even based in the later Roman capital of Ravenna, and was a fluent Latin speaker.
Elsewhere, the Vandals in North Africa, and Sueves/Visigoths in Spain, were only weak land/over lords (as the Byzantines under the great Byzantine General Belisarius later proved, by rapidly defeating them all inside 5 years), and also employed former Imperial officials to run the civil service etc for their courts. In the North of Gaul, the Franks and Burgundians, and Saxons in Britain, had pretty much collapsed the old systems, with churches gone as well, and it took a century or more for the Roman Catholic Church to regain its footholds, and re-establish some West European structures.
However, had events remained stable at around 525 AD, its possible to imagine that the extremely 'Romanised' and militarily powerful Ostrogoth's may have recaptured both the provinces of North Africa and Hispania within a couple of decades, and thus a Southern based West Roman Empire could have existed once more, with a Latin language base for its richer populations. It may even be that the Franks, Burgundians and the Saxons in Britain, would also have been defeated in a later 'Crusade' against the 'Pagans'. Who knows, but the Ostrogoth's, no matter how religiously tolerant they were, and however keen they were to 'save Roman culture', had two fatal flaws:
1) Like the Poles a millennia later, they had 'elected' Kings instead of hereditary ones (see division of Poland in 17th Century to see how that turns out - badly), which meant when King Theodoric the Great died, a poor successor was elected, and
2) Although they were Christians, they were 'Arians' a form of the religion that the Catholic Church and Pope considered to be heresy, as it considered Jesus to be the son of god and distinct rather than an aspect of god. Rather like the split between the mainstream Sunni Muslims and the Shia splinter groups such as the Alawites.
Individually these might not have proved fatal flaws, but when combined with one other factor they were deadly. The Catholic and Orthodox churches had not irrevocably split that time (the Great Schism between Catholic and Orthodox was not until 1054 AD), and so both areas of what had been the Roman world were practising what was later called "Chalcedonian" Christianity.
This meant that the Pope in Rome, was happy to conspire with the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, against the Arian Ostrogoths ruling Italy. The East Roman Empire was then led by Justinian the Great (a young and ambitious Emperor who had visions of restoring 'Rome'), and who around 530 AD wasted his empires vast resources, on a series of ultimately unsuccessful and very destructive campaigns in the West, which laid waste to Italy, Southern Gaul (France) and Croatia/Serbia. The results of this latter led to the southern half of Italy being ruled by the very non Romanised and brutal Lombard's, while the rest of Italy was split into dozens of kingdoms.
His own empire was weakened, and the newly reconquered Spain and North Africa fell to the Muslims a century or so later when their invasions commenced, and the East Roman/Byzantine Empire, also lost Egypt and Palestine as well ..... much of the world as we know it was created then, and is still playing out across the Middle East, and now Europe.
No one in 450 AD or even 525 AD, could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of the mass tribal migrations, and just as importantly the results of the disastrous and ultimately failed fight back by the 'Eastern Romans' .... but with the hindsight that history provides us, anyone can now easily foresee the consequences of the un-assimilated mass migrations into Europe by peoples who don't speak our languages, share our religion, or share our culture (except via conflicts) on our European civilisation.
Those who fail to learn from their history are doomed to repeat it ....... we can't say we were not warned.
Thanks for the lesson in History. I'll read it again but I will have forgotten it in a week! We are indeed doomed.
ReplyDeleteSadly you wouldn't be the only one to forget our own history and we are indeed repeating the mistakes of the past, but we may not bounce back from these ones.
Delete