Feudalism, bureaucracy, and the fall of the roman empire

[innonimatu]

The currently favoured answer about why the Roman Empire fell involves explaining it in terms of the collapse of central power and not any civilizational catastrophe that suddenly changed the roman world. Feudalism, and I mean here a system where central rule is totally dependant on lines of local rulers (instead of acting through nominated governors and a central bureaucracy), began even before the empire’s collapse. In my view the most important immediate cause for the dissolution of the empire was that it never developed an elaborate bureaucracy and theory of government, unlike China or other eastern empires.

Looking at things this way the striking fact about the empire is how long it lasted, despite this lack of organization, not that it fell. It appears it lasted long enough for its regions to reap the benefits of roman culture, and gradually collapsed after roman law and citizenship were extended to all the population, with romanized elites losing interest in supporting a central government. But even then they did not cease to lead a “roman way of life”, or believe in the idea of an empire. They just wouldn't submit to a central government, or at least never agree on one.

Why did the empire failed to develop a bureaucracy capable of keeping it functioning even through the succession crisis? Was the conservative respect for the old republican forms and traditions the cause of this, with emperors trying to run an empire with a bureaucracy appropriate only for a small republic? No emperor appears to have attempted to create a tradition for a large civil service capable of running an empire.
The byzantine half of the empire would correct this fault and survive another thousand years, despite a more geographically exposed situation. And it would collapse also as feudalism spread there…

And why, after the fall of the empire, did all attempts to recreate it failed? Why, despite the shared cultural inheritance, would europeans always adamantly resist attempts to create larger political units? Was the roman political thought in fact always antithetical to empire, and the empire an accident of history created by power asymmetries, that could not remain stable once roman culture took root on the provinces? This leads to the conclusion that the empire fell because of its success!

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The Roman Empire had a centralized bureaucracy, but it was based on appointment, not examination, as in China. So when the central government collapsed or even while it was weak, administration tended to collapse quickly as well, and could not easily be reconstituted. Contrast this with China, which saw a rise and fall of dynasties for 2000 years, each of which brought about a completely reunified empire. The reason this was possible is because all the agents of state already existed before the state was even formed, in the form of examinations. These examinations were reflected in Chinese cultural values. As we know, culture tends to survive a lot longer than power. Because the agents of Chinese government existed outside of the central government, it was far easier to reconstitute an empire.

 

[jonatas]

Feudalism, and I mean here a system where central rule is totally dependant on lines of local rulers (instead of acting through nominated governors and a central bureaucracy)

I can't address the larger question you pose about the Roman empire as it's not an area I'm really interested in. However feudalism can be notoriously difficult to define. For example I can give the example of Southern France circa 500s-1200s, a region which retained much of your definition of feudalism (rule at the highest levels being determined by local powerful families, and it's worth mentioning this was pretty much a direct continuation from the late Empire's patricians) yet did not incorporate extensive vassalage and swearing of oaths - traditional characteristics of feudal society which were encouraged by the Northern Carolingians who I would argue were the real proto-feudals in this case.

The fact is power was dispersed and splintered in Southern France compared to the North, which was better consolidated and had more of what I would probably define as feudal characteristics. Carolingians did install governors and dukes in the south but local families retained their power and Carolingian power eventually withered away. There are many further cultural/social differences between the area which would become Occitan speaking and the North. Certainly the Carolingians deserve to be called proto-feudals and were centralized in comparison, the Southern French I'm not so sure about. Not in the same way at least. At the very least there seems to be real differences between the two societies which raise questions about how to define Feudalism and its origins. By the Albigensian crusade we can see the beginning of the demise of a distinct Occitan civilization and its incorporation into and under the true feudal structure present in Northern France.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I actually covered this piece recently at my blog, HERE

In the end, there was no money left to pay the army, build forts or ships, or protect the frontier. The barbarian invasions, which were the final blow to the Roman state in the fifth century, were simply the culmination of three centuries of deterioration in the fiscal capacity of the state to defend itself. Indeed, many Romans welcomed the barbarians as saviors from the onerous tax burden.

Although the fall of Rome appears as a cataclysmic event in history, for the bulk of Roman citizens it had little impact on their way of life. As Henri Pirenne (1939: 33-62) has pointed out, once the invaders effectively had displaced the Roman government they settled into governing themselves. At this point, they no longer had any incentive to pillage, but rather sought to provide peace and stability in the areas they controlled. After all, the wealthier their subjects the greater their taxpaying capacity.

In conclusion, the fall of Rome was fundamentally due to economic deterioration resulting from excessive taxation, inflation, and over-regulation. Higher and higher taxes failed to raise additional revenues because wealthier taxpayers could evade such taxes while the middle class–and its taxpaying capacity–were exterminated. Although the final demise of the Roman Empire in the West (its Eastern half continued on as the Byzantine Empire) was an event of great historical importance, for most Romans it was a relief.

A link to the larger article


The monetary economy collapsed (caused by inflation and price controls), all the while people were more and more enslaved (taxed, then tied to their lands and professions). The system was for all purposes dead by the time of the barbarian invasions.

 

[innonimatu]

Sorry, but arguing that the empire fell due to the inability to pay for military costs and that the cause of this was excessive taxation is a contradiction. The Roman Empire never had a coherent tax policy, and the early expansion of the empire was funded not by taxes but by sack and tributes. What may be argued was that the bureaucracy that sufficed for these extortionary operations was insufficient for regular tax collection, and therefore consecutive emperors resorted to other ad hoc means of financing, such as confiscations or debasement of the coin. This really does not contribute towards stable government, but the reason for those measures was that the government was too small.

The development of a system with some feudal characteristics (yes, I understand the word may not be appropriate, it was not like middle-ages northern France feudalism) with people becoming attached to the land also undermined central government. That would not have been due to any direct economic of financial impact of the measure. The problem with this king of system is that, in the absence of a large bureaucracy, it can only be imposed by local “notables”. Central government becomes more dependent on these agents, increasing their power. At the same time those measures, combined with inflation, must have reduced trade. Thus we have more powerful local lords, who depend less on what happens far from their surroundings. Their interest in acting independently increases, their interest in being part of the empire decreases.

What I never understood was why the roman emperors even never attempted to create large bureaucracies and tighten control by the central government, like the chinese did. Might it have been really a cultural thing – it never occurred to them? Or were there circumstances particular to the empire that prevented this?

I think Europe ultimately benefitted from division, but is seems strange that an empire which lasted some 500 years wouldn't really try to perpetuate itself.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Sorry, but arguing that the empire fell due to the inability to pay for military costs and that the cause of this was excessive taxation is a contradiction.

As taxes increase, the incentives to produce diminish. This also couples with price controls (which caused massive shortages) and inflation (that eventually wrecked the monetary economy). All these measures can have a significant effect on the taxes collected.

As the private wealth of the Empire was gradually confiscated or taxed away, driven away or hidden, economic growth slowed to a virtual standstill. Moreover, once the wealthy were no longer able to pay the state's bills, the burden inexorably fell onto the lower classes, so that average people suffered as well from the deteriorating economic conditions.

[...]

At this point, in the third century A.D., the money economy completely broke down. Yet the military demands of the state remained high. Rome's borders were under continual pressure from Germanic tribes in the North and from the Persians in the East. Moreover, it was now explicitly understood by everyone that the emperor's power and position depended entirely on the support of the army. Thus, the army's needs required satisfaction above all else, regardless of the consequences to the private economy.

With the collapse of the money economy, the normal system of taxation also broke down. This forced the state to directly appropriate whatever resources it needed wherever they could be found. Food and cattle, for example, were requisitioned directly from farmers. Other producers were similarly liable for whatever the army might need.

[...]

Careful calculations were made of precisely how much grain, cloth, oil, weapons or other goods were necessary to sustain a single Roman soldier. Thus, working backwards from the state's military requirements, a calculation was made for the total amount of goods and services the state would need in a given year. On the other side of the coin, it was also necessary to calculate what the taxpayers were able to provide in terms of the necessary goods and services. This required a massive census, not only of people but of resources, especially cultivated land. Land was graded according to its productivity. As Lactantius (1984: 37) put it, "Fields were measured out clod by clod, vines and trees were counted, every kind of animal was registered, and note taken of every member of the population."

Taxable capacity was measured in terms of the caput, which stood for a single man, his family, his land and what they could produce. [12] The state's needs were measured in terms of the annona, which represented the cost of maintaining a single soldier for a year. With these two measures calculated in precision, it was now possible to have a real budget and tax system based entirely on actual goods and services. Assessments were made and resources collected, transported and stored for state use.

[...]

In order to maintain this system where people were tied to their land, home, jobs, and places of employment, Diocletian transformed the previous ad hoc practice. Workers were organized into guilds and businesses into corporations called collegia. Both became de facto organs of the state, controlling and directing their members to work and produce for the state.

As the article I quoted, production switched to a centralized (barter-like) system, with further controls by the institution of monopolistic trade guilds and land bound agricultural workers (a form of slavery).

Now, in our age, all these imbalances would tend to unravel quickly. The roman bureaucracy was strong enough to maintain this precarious status quo for a couple of centuries. They can get the credit for that at least.

Arguably, a greater discipline among the ruling class and a smaller, more evenly distributed tax burden would have prolonged the system. But it's usually wiser to bet people will follow their nature and interests, other than ideals of honor, duty or "patria."