Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Barbarians Necessary

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#21

Post by jbandela1 »

>During the fourth century, competing emperors fought each other in murderous civil wars.

It was actually the third century that had the worst of the civil wars. By the fourth century, Diocletian and later Constantine had pretty much restored stability to the empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

That being said, I think the thrust of the first book reviewed is correct, that it was the Roman Civil Wars more than the barbarian invasions that destroyed Rome.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#22

Post by Joker_vD »

trgn wrote: post #18
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #4

There is a strange tendency in modern scholarship to try to say, "actually the fall of Rome wasn't that bad". Which I guess is true from the perspective of several hundreds of years later after new, more successful societies have begun to form, but the fall of the Roman empire really was quite bad. Trade networks collapsed, entire industries disappeared, and animals and people shrunk in size because there wasn't as m…

Yes, flippantly, because each new generation of historians needs to find a new hook to hang their career on. They add nuance, but it's unclear if it will stick. The same happens for example with the rehabilitation of the Vikings, which were savages who built a culture, by any account, on pillage, rape and murder, supported by the archaeological record (the many burnt settlements) and the historical one (the many firs…

I've seen around the internet an illustration from a history textbook that had vikings loading their drakkar, and a burning village in the background, with a mocking caption added: "Vikings rescuing the women and valuables from the burning buildings after all the men in the village have suddenly and mysteriously died". Hey, it could've happened like this, right?

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#23

Post by NikolaeVarius »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #15
DamnYuppie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mongols did have a primitive form of artillery which they used on the Song. Most large cities were well fortified back at that time, none of that stopped the Mongols from laying siege to them and decimating them. In short they would have laid waste to Europe.

Except that they did invade Europe and while they were initially successful eventually failed. In part because the Europeans (if we can call them that at the time) improved their fortifications and had cavalry as well.

Wat. The mongols failed the invasion due to succession crisis. The Mongols were flattening Europe and were pretty much considered a punishment from God.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#24

Post by Talanes »

trgn wrote: post #18
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #4

There is a strange tendency in modern scholarship to try to say, "actually the fall of Rome wasn't that bad". Which I guess is true from the perspective of several hundreds of years later after new, more successful societies have begun to form, but the fall of the Roman empire really was quite bad. Trade networks collapsed, entire industries disappeared, and animals and people shrunk in size because there wasn't as m…

Yes, flippantly, because each new generation of historians needs to find a new hook to hang their career on. They add nuance, but it's unclear if it will stick. The same happens for example with the rehabilitation of the Vikings, which were savages who built a culture, by any account, on pillage, rape and murder, supported by the archaeological record (the many burnt settlements) and the historical one (the many firs…

Viking was a profession, not a culture group, so forgive me if I take the rest of your historical expertise with a giant grain of salt.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#25

Post by _4gzn »

Everyone and their dog have a pet theory on the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Let me copy a previous comment of mine.[0]

My dream is a book/blog explaining historic processes with Ishikawa cause-and-effect fishbone diagrams.[1] For history, the main branches of the fishbone could be: Military, Economy, Society, Politics, and Nature. So a tentative diagram explaining the fall of the Western Roman Empire would have:

* Military: weakened army (increasing dependence on mercenaries), fights with the Germanic tribes (in turn, caused by the expansion of the Huns).

* Economy: inflation (debasement of currency), decline in the influx of slaves (end of expansion), lost taxation from some provinces (Germanic invasions), decline in maritime trade (Vandalic pirates), decline of agriculture (excessive taxes), drain of money (trade deficit with the Eastern Empire).

* Society: decline of civic virtue (expansion of Christianity), loss of ties with Rome in the provinces.

* Politics: political instability, overly powerful Praetorian Guard.

* Nature: population decline (Antonine Plague, Plague of Cyprian), soil erosion (deforestation, excessive grazing, soil salinization).

Improving the diagram and making similar diagrams explaining other events and processes is left as an exercise to the reader.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23190738

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawa_diagram

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#26

Post by ksdale »

gumby wrote: post #10
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #4

There is a strange tendency in modern scholarship to try to say, "actually the fall of Rome wasn't that bad". Which I guess is true from the perspective of several hundreds of years later after new, more successful societies have begun to form, but the fall of the Roman empire really was quite bad. Trade networks collapsed, entire industries disappeared, and animals and people shrunk in size because there wasn't as m…

> There is a strange tendency in modern scholarship to try to say, "actually the fall of Rome wasn't that bad". Not sure why that is particularly strange. In the age of overt empire, Gibbon wrote an explicitly cautionary tale, like the momento mori that accompanied a triumph. But we aren't in that same age. From a broader perspective, the nature of "structural" Rome, especially once Octavian (Augustus) took control,…

I think your comment and the parent are addressing slightly different points. Your assertion about the destruction and rebirth of companies/societies as good and necessary can be true at the same time as the assertion that that process is an absolute nightmare for the people involved.

I think I agree with you about the Hayflick limit idea, but I also think it's useful to point out, as the parent does, that a sclerotic, moribund empire is probably a better place to live for the majority of people in it than not an empire, assuming there is trade and general stability.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#27

Post by graeme »

Talanes wrote: post #24
trgn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, flippantly, because each new generation of historians needs to find a new hook to hang their career on. They add nuance, but it's unclear if it will stick. The same happens for example with the rehabilitation of the Vikings, which were savages who built a culture, by any account, on pillage, rape and murder, supported by the archaeological record (the many burnt settlements) and the historical one (the many firs…

Viking was a profession, not a culture group, so forgive me if I take the rest of your historical expertise with a giant grain of salt.

In English the word commonly refers to the norse people of the time as a whole.

“ In modern English and other vernaculars, the term also commonly includes the inhabitants of Norse home communities during this period.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#28

Post by danjac »

graeme wrote: post #27
Talanes wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viking was a profession, not a culture group, so forgive me if I take the rest of your historical expertise with a giant grain of salt.

In English the word commonly refers to the norse people of the time as a whole. “ In modern English and other vernaculars, the term also commonly includes the inhabitants of Norse home communities during this period.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

That's modern English though, when the word "Viking" was re-introduced as part of the general romantic revival and where much of the popular ideas of Vikings - horned helmets, dragon ships, beserkers etc - were either invented or at least highly exaggerated by modern writers and artists.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#29

Post by skybrian »

trgn wrote: post #18
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #4

There is a strange tendency in modern scholarship to try to say, "actually the fall of Rome wasn't that bad". Which I guess is true from the perspective of several hundreds of years later after new, more successful societies have begun to form, but the fall of the Roman empire really was quite bad. Trade networks collapsed, entire industries disappeared, and animals and people shrunk in size because there wasn't as m…

Yes, flippantly, because each new generation of historians needs to find a new hook to hang their career on. They add nuance, but it's unclear if it will stick. The same happens for example with the rehabilitation of the Vikings, which were savages who built a culture, by any account, on pillage, rape and murder, supported by the archaeological record (the many burnt settlements) and the historical one (the many firs…

Well, "free" is an exaggeration given how common slavery was. I guess it depends who you identify with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#30

Post by bitdizzy »

I'm currently reading The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. It's quite an anachronistic book, has an obvious slant from the author's bias, and is outdated in a few parts compared to the modern views of the fall of Rome (according to my historian pal), but it's a delightful read on a literary level. That's not even to mention the casual prejudice and racism; the author really hates the Ottoman empire for obvious reasons and ranks peoples of his time on how barbarous they are.

It's an absolutely massive work that even so scarcely indicates the complexity of Rome's decline. I hope to branch out and read some more modern takes afterwards. One interesting observation of the varied causes attributed is that they all exist in some form or another today, in the most powerful nations of the world, and they could come to a critical point once more, and it's not clear where that would take us.

Post reply on HN