What are the key factors behind the rise and fall of civilizations?

[Ajidica]

Suggestions that he was in charge of a 'people on the move', such as those of Peter Heather, can be dismissed out of hand; they rely on descriptions of Alareiks' troops being accompanied by wagons, women, and children, but that was true of every Roman army in the period, regardless of its ethnic status.

Did contemporary descriptions of Alaric's groups include more mentions of "women and wagons" then contemporary descriptions of formed Roman armies?

 

[Dachs]

Did contemporary descriptions of Alaric's groups include more mentions of "women and wagons" then contemporary descriptions of formed Roman armies?

No. They are mentioned in passing, or to explain events on the march, just like they are with any army.

Guy Halsall memorably deployed the picture above when discussing Heather's "women, children, and wagons" argument. It's a picture of the camp of the British 8th Hussars during the Crimean War, a group that can not seriously be described as a migratory people on the move. Yet this photograph also notably depicts A: a wagon and B: a woman; children were also present in any group of camp followers.

 

[Ajidica]

No. They are mentioned in passing, or to explain events on the march, just like they are with any army.

How then did the "people on the move" narrative gain popularity?

 

[Dachs]

How then did the "people on the move" narrative gain popularity?

Because speaking in terms of "peoples" was par for the course for Western European history from about the Renaissance on up to the nineteenth century, and then got a boost from types like Spengler and Toynbee. We didn't start abandoning the narrative until a few decades ago.

I recommend this book, and that author in general, on the subject of "peoples", migration, and historiography. This one - my standard recommendation - is better on creating an actual narrative.

 

[Traitorfish]

I recommend this book, and that author in general, on the subject of "peoples", migration, and historiography.

Amazon.com: $26.50 (£16.79)
Amazon.co.uk: £45.50 ($71.79)

 

[Dachs]

Amazon.com: $26.50 (£16.79)
Amazon.co.uk: £45.50 ($71.79)

I'm torn between two reactions.

 

[Murky]

What do you think of the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan? He's just getting to the Fall of the Empire. I think the last episode covers 423 to 433.

http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/

 

[Dachs]

What do you think of the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan? He's just getting to the Fall of the Empire. I think the last episode covers 423 to 433.

http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/

Interesting source list (I particularly like Alaric Watson's Aurelian and the Third Century), but he doesn't seem to have updated it for the fifth century. Be interested to see that.

Oh, and I haven't listened to it.

 

[Agent327]

That's a rather ridiculous way to look at things. These are tribal structures. They have little to no permanence. Elements of the group leave and join almost constantly; new groups form and old groups cease to be. Political continuity in the extra-Roman world did not, to all intents and purposes, exist, unless you're really charitable about the Boii (and even then, they didn't have continuity for very long).

Whether ´elements of a group´ leave and join is neither here nor there. Migration is a thing of all ages. And frankly, I don´t see what ´political continuity´ has to do with anything; no one was arguing about that.

Long-extant groups like the Yancai or Sweboz, if they actually were politically continuous (see below), were so not because of some sort of institutionalized political structures but because of contingent events.

Whether they were ´politically continuous is neither here nor there. Again, I wasn´t referring to any politcial continuance, but to tribes´ names, and this by way of example.

Further complicating things is the Roman tendency to anachronistically classicize references to everything. Historians referring to Attila's armies, for instance, mentioned legit groups that had decent chances of taking part in the fighting (e.g. Goths, Sciri, Burgundiones) and also groups that had ceased to exist centuries before (Bastarna, Bructeri, Bellonoti).

Since Goths were a part of Attila´s confederacy, I don´t see anything anachronistic here... The Burgunds only pop up later, after being defeated by Attila. For someone arguing not to take Greca-Roman historiasns at face value, why are you even mentioning groups that no hsitorian today would include among the Huns´ subsidiaries?

It suffices to say that taking Greco-Roman ethnography at face value is foolish.

No argument there.

I apologize. It was a mistake to attribute to you an internally consistent position held by reputable historians (admittedly ones with whom I disagree).

As I can appreciate a lame attempt at humour on your part, champ.

You cannot speak of 'kingdoms' established on Roman soil until the 460s, by which point the empire's Italian field army had virtually ceased to exist and the other field armies in Gaul, Spain, etc. had decided to strike out for themselves. For instance, the Frankish state of the Merovingians descended from the Roman field army on the Loire River, whose soldiers were mostly Roman but which seem to have included some people of Frankish descent. The 'Frankish' ethnicity that the soldiers adopted was a constructed identity and had no relationship to ancestry or where the soldiers had actually lived before they joined up with Rome. Even a cursory look at the Salian Frankish law code will show that the definition of a Frank had nothing to do with language and everything to do with his legal ability to wield arms.

Why would the Franks define language as part of ´the definition of a Frank´? Speaking of anachronism... That´s an idea which only surfaced in the 19th century. That elements of Roman were part of the Dalian law doesn´t seem surprising. The Germanic tribes had no tradition of written law. Roman law was in fact one of the things that stayed on long after the Western empire had ceased to exist.

The Goths of Alareiks were self-evidently Roman. He seems to have clearly been a regular Roman officer, just like Sarus, Gainas, and Tribigild; unlike those three (but rather like Constantinus "III" or Marcellinus), he used his troops against imperial forces in order to improve his position within the Roman military hierarchy. At no point attested in the sources during his period of semi-independent dueling with the Ravennate authorities was he ever explicitly described as being solely in command of allied federate formations, nor were the federate soldiers operating under him ever described as completely ethnically Gothic. Suggestions that he was in charge of a 'people on the move', such as those of Peter Heather, can be dismissed out of hand; they rely on descriptions of Alareiks' troops being accompanied by wagons, women, and children, but that was true of every Roman army in the period, regardless of its ethnic status.

Again, no one was claiming that Alarik´s Visigoths were a people on the move. But his Goths weren´t ´self-evidently´ Roman; no one ever is. These ´self-evidently´ Romans were slaughtered by Romans in Rome, for one. Now, if neither Alarik was Goth, nor they, why would he take command to avenge this act and sack Rome?

Your lack of familiarity with the period you're attempting to argue about does not undermine my point.

No, your own argument does that all by itself.

Sure thing, champ.

This is wrong. Previously noted.

Saying something is wrong does not make it so. See above.

Similarly wrong. Worst offender is bolded. Underlined segment is the part where you insinuated some sort of political institutional development in the extra-Roman world that I (apparently mistakenly) thought was a reference to something real historians were actually talking about.

The mistake is on your part though. Check P. Heathers´ The fall of the Roman Empire - who, AFAIK, does not repeat your ´people on the move´ thesis. I´m not sure where you get this ´political institutional development´ from that you keep repeating, by the way.

This is a gross simplification, moving a process that mostly happened during and after the 460s (when Rome was already kinda screwed) to much earlier in the century.

Not really. The Goths entering the Balkans, originally in the East Roman Empire, fit this picture; this was before Attila´s Huns came onto the scene. That was the first group crossing the border, quite a long time before the 460s.

Speaking Latin, serving in the Roman army, conversion to (Chalkedonian) Christianity...not the hallmarks of "Romanization" I guess?

I´m not sure where you are going here now... The Germanic kingdoms adopted Arianism, which was officially declared heretic in the empire long before. Speaking Latin shouldn´t be surprising after centuries of cross-border contacts with Romans. Or perhaps you´d rather have the Romans speak lots of Germanic dialects instead?

Directly contradicted by yourself earlier in your post when you agreed with me.

I´m afraid you´ll have to do better than that.

The fact that civil war itself had happened before does not mean that the specific civil wars of the late fourth and fifth centuries were not the proximate causes of the demise of the WRE. It just changes the cause from a long-term Great Big Trend to contingent events.

With that said, the civil wars of the late fourth and early fifth centuries were systemic: they represented a clash between Gallic interests and imperial ones. Even after one civil war was won, more of the same for the same causes popped up afterwards because the underlying problem - elite management - was never dealt with. Eventually, the emperors began to deal with that problem, but by that time, the Roman army had ripped itself apart and much of the remainder was increasingly convinced that the imperial government was no longer able to provide for their needs.

That would suggest that the underlying cause of Rome´s fall lies rather in its inability to provide a stable top structure. Indeed this is a key ingredient of post-republican civil wars: there was a de facto monarchy, but no de jure dynastic rule of succession. Again, that - if it was so - this civil war was so disruptive as to undermine the Roman empire´s durability, makes it still not the cause, but a sympton of a deeper lying problem. The Gallic example also wasnt the first time that a part of the empíre threatened to secede.

 

[wolfigor]

That would suggest that the underlying cause of Rome´s fall lies rather in its inability to provide a stable top structure. Indeed this is a key ingredient of post-republican civil wars: there was a de facto monarchy, but no de jure dynastic rule of succession. Again, that - if it was so - this civil war was so disruptive as to undermine the Roman empire´s durability, makes it still not the cause, but a sympton of a deeper lying problem. The Gallic example also wasnt the first time that a part of the empíre threatened to secede.

I'm not an historian and I feel I should take care before entering a discussion between Dachs and Jeelen.

However it seems to me that the fall of the Roman empire cannot be attributed to only one single cause, but only to a coincidence of various events converging in the centuries between 100AD and 500AD.

In my view it's true that the greatest weakness of Rome was the continous state of civil war.
This is not something new to the empire (or even to the republic) but in previous centuries the Romans did not have that much "pressure" on their borders of West.

It's clear that after 500AD we have large parts of the WRE controlled by populations that were not originally part of the empire in the previous centuries.
This is, probably, not the coordinated invasion envisioned by "classic" historiography but there have been clear movement of populations from the "east" into the WRE.

At the same time modern studies on weather pattern suggest that changing climate had a considerable impact on the demise of the Roman Empire.

Rome expanded through the period we now call the Roman Optimum (among other names) and when that period or cycle began to change to a colder one it not only caused problems for the Romans in food production and the related colder weather disadvantages, it caused problems for the Northern tribes who had increased in the warm climate to a point of suffering want of food as the northern and higher areas under cultivation diminished.
This contributed to the unrest, and generally caused warfare.
This not only started a southern migration but prepared the "barbarians" through warfare for the battles against a nation (Rome) which military might was too "distracted" to react appropriately.

Again this is not the only or main reason for the "fall" but it's con-cause that made the other crisis more difficoult for the Roman empire to overcome and survive.

 

[Lone Wolf]

At least, no one suggests that the Roman Empire fell because the slaves did a revolution. That dubious thesis was popular in early Soviet popular history books.

 

[GoodGame]

I wonder (a) why people still usually refer to "Occam's razor" when the standard modern spelling is "Ockham", (b) whether any of these people know what Ockham actually said and meant by it, and (c) why it is so commonly assumed that whatever it was Ockham said, he was right.

A quick google search in English shows about as many hits for Occam than Ockham. I've never seen it listed as Ockham before you mentioned it, and I first encountered it in a philosophy course. I'd say that it's probably not been universally standardized although the English (UK) name for the namesake location is Ockham.

 

[GoodGame]

Back to the OP:

I'd guess that the key factors of a "rise" are an abundance of food, naive intelligence, basic inventiveness to craft, a means of preserving writing, a literate social class/caste, and a sustainable culture (the last part especially from reading Masada's posts in this thread). Military means of dominating neighbors is optional, while military means of defending one's core assets is mandatory. The alternative to military domination of the neighborhood as a means of extending territory would be economic or cultural domination.

I'd say that economic disaster, especially the agricultural/fishing sector, is such a problem that environmental problems can cause a fall of civilization if they are closely tied to the agricultural/fishing sector. If the environment decays to be unfriendly to food production, then cultural stability and hegemony can't guarantee food on the table, unless the population turns to cannibalism. I'm not trying to argue here about the Easter Islanders, etc... and I'm not a Diamond fan. Just arguing from a simple macro-economics stance, not a history one.

 

[innonimatu]

At least, no one suggests that the Roman Empire fell because the slaves did a revolution. That dubious thesis was popular in early Soviet popular history books.

Well, they did had peasant's rebellions.

 

[Dachs]

Well, they did had peasant's rebellions.

You referring to the bacaudae? It's not clear that that's what they actually were.

 

[Plotinus]

A quick google search in English shows about as many hits for Occam than Ockham. I've never seen it listed as Ockham before you mentioned it, and I first encountered it in a philosophy course. I'd say that it's probably not been universally standardized although the English (UK) name for the namesake location is Ockham.

Well, "Ockham" is pretty much universally used by scholars today - you simply will not see "Occam" in modern professional literature now - I certainly never did when I studied him. "Occam" is the old-fashioned spelling and I always find it somewhat jarring. I suppose that "Occam" remains the more common popular spelling for the simple reason that popular culture always lags well behind academic and professional culture. It's also presumably because "Occam's Razor" is so well-known (although almost universally misquoted and misunderstood) that the name remains in constant use, and the old spelling is simply repeated without ever being updated.

 

[innonimatu]

You referring to the bacaudae? It's not clear that that's what they actually were.

Yes, I was thinking of that. I do get the idea we don't know what exactly they were, but they were rebellions (disturbances?) against imperial authority which seemed to lack the usual element of promoting an alternative emperor. So, rebellions "from below". That's why I just class them as peasant rebellions.

Did they affect major cities also, or had any recorded leaders?

 

[Masada]

Yes, I was thinking of that. I do get the idea we don't know what exactly they were, but they were rebellions (disturbances?) against imperial authority which seemed to lack the usual element of promoting an alternative emperor. So, rebellions "from below". That's why I just class them as peasant rebellions.

Actually, it seems that the bacaudae popped up in areas where the Imperial writ had ceased to function. Thus we get bacaudae in northern Gaul and Brittany initially, particularly after 388 when the Gallic frontiers in the north were left alone. With the fall of Spain and Southern Gaul we see much the same thing happening. It would seem to me that the bacaudae were more like a local self defence force, responding to a general state of lawlessness than anything else. In the north of Gaul, and Dachs will likely correct me, it seems that the bacaudae were likely organised around an aristocratic core. In Spain similar groups were organised along a civic core in the South; with Northern groups organised along aristocratic/estate lines.

 

[Phrossack]

Has anyone else read War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin? I found it a good read. Basically, his thesis is that empires rise due to asabiya, or ibn Khaldun's term for society's capacity for collective action, and fall due to a lack thereof. Pretty obvious, but he also claims such asabiya always appears in societies that are threatened over a long period of time by a distinct and neighboring civilization. For example, Turchin claims the Romans (and some other northern/central Italian peoples) were solidified by a common struggle against the invading Gauls. Additionally, Turchin says that several generations after such a struggle ends, society begins a slow decline in unity, which is exacerbated by a growing rich-poor divide.

Though I think this theory has some merits, it also has a few holes in it. For example, Japan was hardly ever threatened by outsiders, yet it is a remarkably united society.

So what are your opinions on the matter, CFC?

 

[Yui108]

Has anyone else read War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin? I found it a good read. Basically, his thesis is that empires rise due to asabiya, or ibn Khaldun's term for society's capacity for collective action, and fall due to a lack thereof. Pretty obvious, but he also claims such asabiya always appears in societies that are threatened over a long period of time by a distinct and neighboring civilization. For example, Turchin claims the Romans (and some other northern/central Italian peoples) were solidified by a common struggle against the invading Gauls. Additionally, Turchin says that several generations after such a struggle ends, society begins a slow decline in unity, which is exacerbated by a growing rich-poor divide.

Though I think this theory has some merits, it also has a few holes in it. For example, Japan was hardly ever threatened by outsiders, yet it is a remarkably united society.

So what are your opinions on the matter, CFC?

More than few holes, like every single European colonial empire.