The Debate on The Dark Ages

[MicroBalrog]

People went back from living in villas and multistory apartment blocks with jobs and fast-food takeout on the way home to basic subsistence farming, hunting, and living in huts or lean-tos, in some of the same areas, even amid the ruins of Roman cities.

Most Romans didn't live in villas. The conditions in those multi-story houses were such that I'd honestly prefer the hut.

[Manedwolf]

Most Romans didn't live in villas. The conditions in those multi-story houses were such that I'd honestly prefer the hut.

You would prefer a hut with no assurance of food supply or clean water, with stench and dirt and filth and brigands able to kill your family at any time...

...to even a room in an insulae with a public fountain right outside, where if you had your day's wages, you could walk down to the corner goods store for packaged staples and several brands of garum, or to the nearest thermopolium for a cup of hot wine and a garlic-and-chickpea salad on hot flatbread to go? And then the public baths?

Right.

The insulae weren't THAT bad. Some had fires or poor construction, but the government did tend to crack down on that, especially after one series of fires.

[MicroBalrog]

The insulae STANK, literally. People would get sick and die from just living in them, and the ones outside Rome were worse.

And of course, they had brigands too, especially during the late Republic.

[Manedwolf]

The insulae STANK, literally. People would get sick and die from just living in them, and the ones outside Rome were worse.

And of course, they had brigands too, especially during the late Republic.

And what do you think a hut smelled like? The wood-scented unused ones they show you on historical tours? Or body odor, rotting garbage, dead rodents, and general filth?

At least in Rome, you could go take a nice hot bath even in the middle of winter.

[MicroBalrog]

At least in Rome, you could go take a nice hot bath even in the middle of winter.

Precisely. In Rome. Do you think the average Imperial subject living in, say, Spain, could do it if he didn't live in a major center of the Empire

Or body odor, rotting garbage, dead rodents, and general filth?

You are confusing myth with reality here. A lot of these 'huts' had pretty good ventilation and the peasants bathed (in rivers, mind you, not actual baths).

[BlueStarLizzard]

You are confusing myth with reality here. A lot of these 'huts' had pretty good ventilation and the peasants bathed (in rivers, mind you, not actual baths).

i would not think that anyone smelled particularly good. clean people was not a big thing amoung the lower classes until victoria, really. at least not by our standards.

i think the only western culture that kept a real habit for bathing during that period was the scandinavians.

[Manedwolf]

You are confusing myth with reality here. A lot of these 'huts' had pretty good ventilation and the peasants bathed (in rivers, mind you, not actual baths).

And you're not dealing with reality at ALL.

Do you really think people bathed outside all winter? Or wasted fuel to heat water to do it inside? Or even cared?

[MicroBalrog]

And you're not dealing with reality at ALL.

Do you really think people bathed outside all winter? Or wasted fuel to heat water to do it inside? Or even cared?

No, but then you forget that the life of Romans as depicted in Gibbon etc. only showcases the reality of middle and upper-class urban romans, and farm-owners to a lesser extent.

i think the only western culture that kept a real habit for bathing during that period was the scandinavians.

And the Jews, who are required religiously to bathe often.

[Perd Hapley]

I know it's way off topic, but Manedwolf's last post is why I'm skeptical of claims that, when pre-modern people (even pagans) brought evergreen trees or branches into their homes, they did so for religious reasons.  I suppose sometimes they did, but I would imagine a lot of people used evergreens soley as air freshener and decoration for those long, smelly winters.  Not to mention that you can make gin from Juniper berries.

Sorry, I'm tying this in with a conversation about Christmas, that I had on another forum. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

I know it's way off topic, but Manedwolf's last post is why I'm skeptical of claims that, when pre-modern people (even pagans) brought evergreen trees or branches into their homes, they did so for religious reasons.  I suppose sometimes they did, but I would imagine a lot of people used evergreens soley as air freshener and decoration for those long, smelly winters.  Not to mention that you can make gin from Juniper berries.

Sorry, I'm tying this in with a conversation about Christmas, that I had on another forum. 

i don't know much about this, but on pure conjecture i would think that the evergreen would be very symbolic, especially during a long, cold winter.

[Tallpine]

A more apt comparison might be a tenement/project in New York or Chicago, versus a log cabin in Montana

[lupinus]

Rome in the west fell.  Rome in the east (Byzantium) persisted for a long time after.

The dark ages generally refer to the West, so I stuck to that.  In areas aside from Western Rome, life pretty much went on as normal until civilization went away.

While the economic achievements of medieval society, as jfruser pointed out, were limited, art, literature, and even certain types of technology continued to grow and improve.

With very little strides here and there.  And mostly in places that were not hit as hard by the fall of Rome.

In this case, I give you Petrarch and Dante in literature and Da Vinci and Giotto in arts. I give you gothic architecture.

Again, a little here, a little there.  And these are not at the hight of what were some seriously dark times.

The insulae STANK, literally. People would get sick and die from just living in them, and the ones outside Rome were worse.

Sure they did.  You think sharing a hut with pigs or other live stock smelled any better?  Fact, ancient cities stunk. 

And of course, they had brigands too, especially during the late Republic.

Uhm...no.  The late republic was a good time to live within the boundaries of Rome.  Rome wasn't sacked or seriously harassed herself for literally hundreds of years.  Much else within the empire was pretty damn stable as well with the exception of the occasional civil war here and there.  In which case, still Romans, so not to terribly bad.  With little exception, outside of the late empire, living within Romes boarders was pretty safe provided you weren't ride on the boarder or something.

Precisely. In Rome. Do you think the average Imperial subject living in, say, Spain, could do it if he didn't live in a major center of the Empire

Even just an average size city had amenities that shined compared to the dark ages.  Public baths, advanced hospitals (these guys were doing eye and brain surgery 2000 years ago, they had a basic understanding of infection), markets, everything you could want or need.  Not everyone lived in them, but most lived within range of them.  Especially if you were in an area that was in Roman hands for a good time.

You are confusing myth with reality here. A lot of these 'huts' had pretty good ventilation and the peasants bathed (in rivers, mind you, not actual baths).

People rarely bathed, they had no understanding of it's benefits aside from not stinking.  And unless you lived in the middle of nowhere you didn't want to drink the water let alone bathe in it.  Even Elizabeth (little later mind you, but still) bragged about bathing once a month.  ONCE A MONTH, Romans living in a city would nearly vomit at the thought.

[MicroBalrog]

Rome wasn't sacked or seriously harassed herself for literally hundreds of years.

Correct. But during the late Republic - Cicero talks about it in his speeches - various political parties in rome itself used to hire bands of brigands to intimidate their opponents. So you could still get killed or robbed by them.

Even Elizabeth (little later mind you, but still) bragged about bathing once a month.

Some authors actually claim kings and such actually bathed LESS than peasants because the latter had more contacts with water in their daily life. Can't vouch for it either way.

[lupinus]

Correct. But during the late Republic - Cicero talks about it in his speeches - various political parties in rome itself used to hire bands of brigands to intimidate their opponents. So you could still get killed or robbed by them.

Yes, but these were not burn everything to the ground, kill the men, rape the women brigands.  These were often members of the collegia (Roman mafia sorts) directly harassing said political opponent.  Plebs didn't generally get harassed in this manner unless they were in a position to be so.  And the dude getting harassed generally did it right back.  In other words, no different then many third world politics today.

Some authors actually claim kings and such actually bathed LESS than peasants because the latter had more contacts with water in their daily life. Can't vouch for it either way.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  What is for certain is the average Dark Ager held bathing and personal hygiene in general to a MUCH lower standard then the "civilized" people before him.

[txgho1911]

Fall of Rome. Like taking your 4x4 suv on that last drive to the bug out location. Park the truck on solid ground. Set up on blocks and let the air out. Blow a quart of oil into the cylinder heads and button the thing up as you expect to never drive it again.
Start farming and careful consideration of how barter with friendly neighbors may go.

[De Selby]

One notable fact about Rome in the heyday-it was most definitely NOT a nation-state in any sense of the term.

It was multi lingual, multi ethnic, religiously diverse, racially diverse, and all those other things that nationalists tend to claim would destroy a nation.  Yet it lasted for longer than any nation state so far and did so over an area that no empire has replicated for even close to the same amount of time.

I think the destruction of linguistic diversity in Europe is seriously underestimated as a factor in contributing to the Dark Ages.  The Germanic hordes nearly wiped out latin and all of the learning that went with it. 

[Perd Hapley]

Since it wasn't a modern nation-state, is it any surprise that those factors didn't destroy it?  But would the Empire have been possible, if it hadn't been based in territory that was already Hellenized, i.e., already linked by the Greek language and Hellenistic culture? 

Edit:  I'm not saying everyone spoke Greek, or worshiped Zeus.  And obviously the Romans went places Alexander hadn't been.  But could the Romans have spread their rule to non-Hellenized areas, without having a basis in a very large area where Hellenistic culture had already been established? 

I think the destruction of linguistic diversity in Europe is seriously underestimated as a factor in contributing to the Dark Ages.  The Germanic hordes nearly wiped out latin and all of the learning that went with it. 

So it sounds like "lack of linguistic diversity" wasn't the problem, so much as the loss of a common tongue. 

[Tuco]

Okay, so what's the downside ?   

No lightbulbs.

[De Selby]

MTP,

The Hellenistic culture was itself a modern "multiculturalist's" dream-lots of different languages, religions, and races were mixed into it.  Greek was a trader's language for much of that time; a lot of the speakers and areas where it was spoken were hellenic in the sense that they were part of that trade network, but they were not hellenic in the sense that they had anything remotely approaching a homogenous political or cultural identity.  "Hellenic" doesn't describe a single cultural identity so much as some shared technology between many diverse cultures.

The Latins worked with the Greeks (even adopted their language in part of the empire-greek and latin both were languages of learning) and spanned a patchwork of peoples in the region that the greeks had dealt with before.  It was not uniform nor, again, anything like a nation.  In the hellenic world that the Romans came to occupy, you might have a dozen languages in a single marketplace-not including travelers.

With respect to linguistic diversity, the germanic hordes mostly had a common tongue-it just wasn't latin.  The Romans were a lot smarter than the hordes, and they didn't wipe out and totally replace what they conquered. So knowledge from other cultures and people was transmitted, and Roman knowledge was stored in multiple locations amongst different linguistic groups as a result. That's how linguistic diversity contributed (apart from stability-that was an important aspect of it) to learning in the Roman system. 

The Germanic hordes had a  language that didn't encompass much learning compared to the Roman network.  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.

[MicroBalrog]

Fall of Rome. Like taking your 4x4 suv on that last drive to the bug out location. Park the truck on solid ground. Set up on blocks and let the air out. Blow a quart of oil into the cylinder heads and button the thing up as you expect to never drive it again.
Start farming and careful consideration of how barter with friendly neighbors may go.

Eh. If I'm taking my SUV to the last bug-out location I'm going to use it to aid in the farming until I run out of fuel and spares. And by that time civilization will be back.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know if you saw the edited post or not.  I understand that Hellenism was not a "cultural identity," and was limited to traders and the like.  And again, it's not surprising that a non-nation can work with the sort of diversity that would allegedly destroy a nation.

But your arguments continue to reinforce the notion that a common language is beneficial to learning and progress, even when it links diverse linguistic groups. 

With respect to linguistic diversity, the germanic hordes mostly had a common tongue-it just wasn't latin.

And the illegal alien hordes tend to have a common tongue, just not English.   

[Manedwolf]

It was multi lingual, multi ethnic, religiously diverse, racially diverse, and all those other things that nationalists tend to claim would destroy a nation.  Yet it lasted for longer than any nation state so far and did so over an area that no empire has replicated for even close to the same amount of time.

They also did not tolerate threats to the Empire. Instead, they would march in in a line of legions and completely eradicate it. As in, "scorched earth".

I tend to consider that the reason it lasted so long. It lasted up until it was unwilling and unable to completely destroy threats.

[Sawdust]

It lasted up until it was unwilling and unable to completely destroy threats.

Hmmm...that sounds vaguely familiar and contemporary. I wonder if any comparison could be made with a present-day nation...hmmm...

Sawdust

[SADShooter]

shootinstudent:

You are overlooking the point that the Roman state tolerated diversity, so long as loyalty to the state and associated customs were maintained as the overarching binding which maintained political and economic cohesion. I'll agree with your point that homogeneity isn't essential to nationalism, but the spirit of civis Romanus sum was more critical than the Latin expression in itself.

[Perd Hapley]

He also overlooks the fact that the Roman Empire was not a modern nation-state, with anything approaching even manhood suffrage.  Yeah, if you wanted to hold sway over a large territory, you could do it with military force.  That's been proven over and over again.  Who cares if the masses aren't united by a common language or culture, when they don't vote, and don't matter, so long as they grow the wheat and pay the taxes? 

So what's the point he is trying to make?  That the Romans showed you don't need a common language or culture, etc., to hold together the sort of liberal-democratic nation state they had never heard of? 

Yeah, I get the point that the Romans succeeded partly because they didn't tamper too much with the cultures or religions of their subjugated peoples.  But they also didn't let very many of them vote or run for office.