The Debate on The Dark Ages

[MicroBalrog]

He also overlooks the fact that the Roman Empire was not a modern nation-state, with anything approaching even manhood suffrage.

Any male over a certain age could vote. Only problem was, Rome was the only place you could vote in, so only people who were rich enough to travel to Rome or that lived there voted.

[lupinus]

Actually unless you were actually Roman (or one of a few select proveniences), fought long enough in the army, or were rich enough to buy it, your rights were pretty low.  Better then many other places, but nothing like we would expect to have today.  Certainly nothing like what we give Non-Americans coming to America.

[MicroBalrog]

Actually unless you were actually Roman (or one of a few select proveniences), fought long enough in the army, or were rich enough to buy it, your rights were pretty low.  Better then many other places, but nothing like we would expect to have today.  Certainly nothing like what we give Non-Americans coming to America.

It pretty much sucked to live anywhere in terms of rights. Unless you were a patrician.

[Leif Runenritzer]

A common tongue is useless if the only other people you can talk to are living in the same wooden huts and killing each other for fun, which is a description of Germanic Europe that isn't terribly unfair.

In what context are they killing each other? I doubt you mean that life among Germanics was an orgy of murder, but that's what it sounds like. I believe murder and manslaughter (terms rooted in Germanic language) were discouragingly regulated and those who committed such acts had legal consequences to face.

[De Selby]

In what context are they killing each other? I doubt you mean that life among Germanics was an orgy of murder, but that's what it sounds like. I believe murder and manslaughter (terms rooted in Germanic language) were discouragingly regulated and those who committed such acts had legal consequences to face.

The legal system was one of oaths and personal promises more than of general laws-a murder just as often led to a blood feud as it did to anything else, and "trial" in the Germanic systems meant more "trial by torture" than it did "trial by jury of your peers."

The germanic hordes and their germanic systems were barbaric compared to the Roman system.  That doesn't mean they were inhuman on the level of "event horizon", but it was not a system that promoted peaceful living or meted out what today (or by Roman standards) could be considered justice. 

MTP,

It wasn't a democratic state-it was multicultural and multilingual.  And the important feature there was that they had a common second tongue, not a common tongue, which allowed for a transfer of knowledge between diverse groups.  In other words, the multiplicity of languages helped transmit and preserve learning.    Roman learning did last a lot longer than most people think...just not in Latin, and that would never had occurred had they focused on a common language/culture like nation-states do.

SADShooter,

I agree with you on that point.  That's part of the reason why Rome did not resemble at all a modern nation; there was nothing to be "nationlist" or "patriotic" about.  You just had to follow the law, and that was enough.

Contrast that to the Germanic system, where the oath (rather than the law) was primary-people who dealt with them could not expect predictable treatment.

[roo_ster]

Almost by definition, empires are multi-ethnic.

Empires are won and held together with a mixture of force, guile, bribery, etc.  They are by no means a liberal nation-state and tolerate no dissent or action deleterious to governance. 

As such, SS's point has no relevance to the liberal nation-state.  It does, however, have relevance to the failed USSR, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and other similar empires.

Roman citizenship and suffrage was "liberalized" over time.  As more & more non-ethnic Romans became citizens, the Roman state became less & less stable.  I am not arguing causation, but my point is that the thesis, "A multi-ethnic and multi-lingual state with universal citizenship/suffrage can be stable" is not supported by any period of Roman history.


The Roman Republic & Empire was not particularly innovative, relative to the creative chaos of the Hellenic world.  Its art and technology during its heyday was moribund relative to the Greeks in their heyday.  Thing was, Romans knew how to act & execute in ways the Greeks could not.

The revisionist side of "Late Antiquity" is grasping at straws.  Yes, there was some progress.  Without it, Europe wold never have gone on the the less-dark Middle Ages & Renaissance.  The record shows some serious retardation in nearly every sphere of human endeavor and a cataclysmic fall from Roman civilization.  I am not sure how pointing out a few high points discounts the record of overall decline.

[lupinus]

It pretty much sucked to live anywhere in terms of rights. Unless you were a patrician.

Compared to today?  Yes in many ways you are right.  Patricians didn't necesarily have more rights, just more power and ways to wiggle out of ramification.

But if you were an actual Roman citizen, even a poor one, you had more and better rights then most in the ancient world.

[MicroBalrog]

I am not sure how pointing out a few high points discounts the record of overall decline.

Common law, and primarily trial by jury, which is the capstone of all Anglo-Saxon liberties, originate from the late-antiquity period. This should in itself be enough. :D