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

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#31

Post by jeffreyrogers »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #23
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's lots of disagreement about why the mongols failed. Not at all clear that it was just a succession crisis. And the Europeans were eventually able to counter mongol tactics.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#32

Post by NikolaeVarius »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #31
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's lots of disagreement about why the mongols failed. Not at all clear that it was just a succession crisis. And the Europeans were eventually able to counter mongol tactics.

Whatever reason for their withdrawal, the Mongols literally left Europe, and Europe being any good at resisting militarily was precisely none of those reasons

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#33

Post by pasabagi »

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 wasn't as much to eat.

Do you have any citations? I was always told that the average level of nutrition often increased once the Romans were no longer in charge - since less tax was being levied.

I think the idea that the Roman Empire was bad for its citizens varies in persuasiveness depending on the era. The Roman Empire was very unstable and extremely prone to brutal civil wars, and when it wasn't in a state of active conflict, the maxim of Severus "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn all others" was pretty much the norm. Which isn't exactly great for everybody who isn't a soldier.

That all said, there were definitely times in which the Roman empire was stable and prosperous - but I think the system itself didn't encourage it.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#34

Post by JoeDaDude »

_4gzn wrote: post #25

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…

I don't know if this scratches the itch, but there is an attempt to scientifically explain [1] (and maybe predict?) history from fundamental, quantifiable factors like population, economics, etc. This is the field of study known as Cliodynamics. Why these folks even have their own journal [2]!

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

[2] https://escholarship.org/uc/irows_cliodynamics

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#35

Post by throwaway894345 »

skybrian wrote: post #29
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…

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

You seem to be taking one word in the parent's quote wildly out of context. Here's the full sentence:

> To be Roman, and citizenry became quite broadly spread, during those few centuries, was to be free and safe.

It's pretty plain here that the parent is arguing that Romans, not their slaves, were free and safe. Anyway, the idea that Rome is worse than its contemporaries because of slavery or some other failure to adhere to 20th (or 21st) century mores is silly (though fashionable) without making a case that said contemporaries performed better by those same standards.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#36

Post by jefftechentin »

Definitely agree that the fall of the West is best understood as a consequence of the civil instability/war. I also think it is probable the successor states where most likely better managed/fruitful economically (although I probably would not say that to a Briton who had just been conquered by the Angles). Would seem to be a step too far to not give the Germans due credit for the fall of the West though.

The title Imperator in the days of the late republic was an honorific given to successful generals. This is is quite an apt title for the Roman political head during the Imperium. It was hard for the formally republican Romans of the early Empire to counter the precedent set by Julius and Augustus, who killed their way to the top. Normal stabilizing mechanisms like the divine right of kings were anaesthetized by Roman sensibilities. Conquerors did not face legitimacy issues like they might have in a political system with more ceremonial/spiritual backing.

But when the commander of forces on the Rhine was no longer a Roman General commanding Roman Legions but a German commanding his tribe that same process of conquering yourself a nice political office seems to have more political implications. Sure the Lombards kept the Senate but the lack of political union of the German tribes probably has something to do with break in political union of the Western Empire.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#37

Post by throwaway894345 »

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.

Vikings were very much a culture group. The Old English called them "The Danes" in general (which was a generic name for Scandanavian peoples, not specifically people from Denmark as we define it today), and they settled much of England (the Danelaw) and Normandy (literally "(land of the) North Men").

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#38

Post by throwaway894345 »

danjac wrote: post #28
graeme wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The original Old English term "þa Deniscan" (the Danes) was pretty clearly a people group as well, and they established colonies in England and France. That there is a narrower sense of "pirate" doesn't prove that there isn't a broader ethnogroup sense.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#39

Post by microtherion »

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…

What I take from the scholarship (e.g. Chris Wickham's _The Inheritance of Rome_) is less "the fall of Rome wasn't that bad" as "various things changed in various places, but there wasn't a single event where everything changed" and "the `barbarians' who supposedly took over Rome were virtually indistinguishable from the `Romans` who preceded them".

And there were surprising details, such as that after the Arabic conquest of many areas, the conquerors pretty much kept relying on Roman era tax rolls and local organization.

Re: No Barbarians Necessary

#40

Post by skybrian »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #35
skybrian wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You seem to be taking one word in the parent's quote wildly out of context. Here's the full sentence: > To be Roman, and citizenry became quite broadly spread, during those few centuries, was to be free and safe. It's pretty plain here that the parent is arguing that Romans , not their slaves, were free and safe. Anyway, the idea that Rome is worse than its contemporaries because of slavery or some other failure to a…

I made no argument about whether they were better or worse than their contemporaries.

However, I do think that by modern standards, all governments were terrible back then. Most of history is like that. It's mostly about cruelty and suffering.

Post reply on HN