'Dark Ages America' begins as a grim prophecy of decline and fall, citing four traits shared, he says, by the late Roman Empire and the United States today, namely, 'the triumph of religion over reason,' 'the breakdown of education and critical thinking,' the 'legalization of torture' and declining respect and financial power on the world stage.This isn't the first time Berman has compared America to the last days of the Roman Empire. Back in 2000 he wrote another book, The Twilight of American Culture, that also received a negative review in the Times (by, Alexander Star, editor of Lingua Franca) :
Berman compares the predicament of contemporary America with that of the Roman Empire in its final days. Just like Rome, the United States suffers from an increasing gap between rich and poor, a teeming bazaar of eccentric faiths and a general dumbing-down of the collective intelligence... Despite all of America's entrepreneurial ''dynamism,'' a new dark age is falling.... he tells us that [during the Dark Ages] ''the intellectual disciplines of distinction, definition and dialectic'' were lost...I'm only going to address the newer book (I included the bit from the second just to show that Berman likes to beat this particular horse) and I'm also going to ignore the American half of Berman's hyperbolic (I believe) comparison.
The first thing to note is that it was only the Western Roman Empire that "fell" as Berman believes. The Eastern half did pretty well (as Byzantium) for another 1000 years or so. In fact, if you're bored already: stop reading. What I just wrote is the most important take away point.
The reasons for the "fall" of the Western half are many, including a weakened political system and failed tax system. One potential causal force that has certainly lost favor is that of a military "Barbarian invasion." Yes, there are still aspects of it that are entirely appropriate, but it's no longer simply crossing the Rhine in A.D. 406 followed by Attila 50 years later and it was all over for Rome. Instead, many argue that the Western Roman Empire essentially assimilated itself away.
Now to deal with Berman's list of 4 reasons for the fall of Rome. Hmm. The "triumph of religion over reason"... please see the point about Byzantium. Seems like they lasted for 1,000 years as a religious empire.
Second--and related to the first--the bit about the "breakdown of education and critical thinking." Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it was because of the same church that Berman finds so despicable that the philosophy of Aristotle was rescued. Ever hear of Saint Thomas Aquinas?
Third, the "legalization of torture". I confess, I'm not sure what he means by that one. He could be alluding to the Spanish Inquisition that ocurred 1,000 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, but who knows? Besides, refresh my memory: wasn't there a guy named Jesus who, along with two other fellas, was crucified by the Roman Empired circa A.D. 35? Or is crucification not torture? Or does Berman's timeline for the "fall" begin sometime after Caesar and before Marcus Arelius?
Then there is the last bit about Rome's declining respect and influence. Well, the respect for Rome declined so much that the various Barbarian kingdoms that cropped up tried to mimic it as much as possible (at least initially). They copied Roman law, tried to use Latin, adopted the Roman Catholic religion and a myriad of other things. Of course (again), there was still quite a bit of respect for and influence felt from the Eastern Roman Empire!!!!
To be fair, all of this is a bit snarky and only based on one review. I guess the main point I'd like to make is that any use of the "Fall of Rome" has to take into consideration the fact that the wealthier, more politically and militarily stable half of the Roman Empire managed to "hold on" for another 1,000 years.
The first thing to note is that it was only the Western Roman Empire that "fell" as Berman believes. The Eastern half did pretty well (as Byzantium) for another 1000 years or so. In fact, if you're bored already: stop reading. What I just wrote is the most important take away point.
ReplyDeleteYou must have a different definition of pretty well. This is the empire that lost half of its provinces permanently to Islamic incursions 200 years later and much of the Balkans to Bulgars and Slavs. This would be like the US losing its territory west of the Missippi (the fall of the west) followed by losing everything south of the Ohio a little later. For another historical example, we still say that France fell in 1940, despite the existence of Vichy France after 1940.
Yes, there was still a state, but you can't call it the same as the Roman state of Augustus or even of Constantine. There also wasn't much left that could be called an empire after the 4th crusade in 1204. If the US consisted of DC and a couple of similarly small remnants, each claiming to be the US, I'd say the US fell too. If it was New England through the old Northwest Territories, with DC periodically under siege, similar to Byzantium starting the 7th century, I think many of us would say it fell too.
Second--and related to the first--the bit about the "breakdown of education and critical thinking." Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it was because of the same church that Berman finds so despicable that the philosophy of Aristotle was rescued. Ever hear of Saint Thomas Aquinas?
Everyone has, but "rescuing" something you attempted to destroy nine centuries earlier isn't making much progress. In fact, it's what most of us would call a dark age. The church wasn't very kind to the beginnings of science either after presiding over a thousand year gap in astronomical observations.
Then there is the last bit about Rome's declining respect and influence. Well, the respect for Rome declined so much that the various Barbarian kingdoms that cropped up tried to mimic it as much as possible (at least initially).
I'm not sure how much respect they felt when they were besieging or destroying Rome (the word vandal has a long history) and soon after Byzantium. There was some respect for Roman culture, but not for the Roman military or state.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletePoint 1: Valid point, but we have differing definitions. When I hear "fell" I think "disappeared", as in the USSR "fell".
Point 2: Let's not forget who was feeding who to the lions. Besides, I used Aquinas, but Augustine relied on Plato too (c. 400 AD), as did others. In short, the Church used the philosophy of those who came before. Did they sometimes twist it? Of course. Also, I don't think that many historians find the direct correlation between Christianity and the "Fall of Rome" a la Gibbon. Those from families who had served as Roman officials--such Sidonius or Avitus of Vienne--no longer had the option because of a breakdown in the Roman bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the Church was beginning to do many of the services--charitable workds--that had previously been done by the Empire. Now, this was all concurrent, and as Romans from the bureaucratic class entered the church, they brought their knowledge of how Roman institutions were run with them. Thus, part of the reason that the institution of the church superseded Roman bureaucracy was because the Roman bureaucracy itself failed. The Church filled the void, it didn't create it. The question as to why the Roman bureaucracy failed is an open and ongoing debate.
Point 3: We agree that there was a respect for Roman culture. As for the Roman state, see point 2. Relatedly, many of the kings of the early Barbarian kingdoms wanted to be acknowledged as magister militum by the emperor. To me, that denotes a certain amount of respect for Roman politiacl institutions and the military.
You seem to think that because the Barbarians sacked Rome and fought the Roman military that they didn't "respect" it. That's a different meaning of respect than that which I'm familiar. The Red Sox and Yankees respect each other, but they still square off! Besides, Barbarians respected Rome enough to be part of the military you think they disrespected. They also certainly wanted to trade with Rome along the limes and elsewhere. In fact, the participation of the Barbarians in the Roman military and via economic exchange changed the Barbarian society just as significantly as it did Roman.
I could go on, but I'm not going to. You bring up some good points, and I hope I've shown that I'm acquainted with a deeper level of knowledge on this topic than just that typed above in a blog post. But that's what this was...a blog post, not a research paper. We can agree to disagree.
Point 2: Besides, I used Aquinas, but Augustine relied on Plato too (c. 400 AD), as did others. In short, the Church used the philosophy of those who came before. Did they sometimes twist it? Of course.
ReplyDeleteNo one is claiming that one day there was flourishing culture of learning and the next day after Christianity became official it disappeared. The fall into the Dark Ages took decades or even longer to happen. Augustine was born before the closing of the old centers of learning like the Library of Alexandria, though the Christian Emperor Theodosius did close them during his lifetime. Even after such centers were closed and books of the classical era were disregarded, they still had an effect, much like the closing of the modern US' universities and publishing houses would leave millions of educated people and books behind. However, that effect gradually faded as generations passed and books were destroyed or decayed from neglect, leaving much of Europe in the Dark Ages.
Also, I don't think that many historians find the direct correlation between Christianity and the "Fall of Rome" a la Gibbon.
Christianity wasn't the only source of the Fall of Rome, but most historians do list it as one of the causes. An intolerant brand of Christiainity has been one of the causes of the fall of most empires in the West through two effects:
1. Suppression of learning.
2. Conflicts between different Christian sects or other religions.
Constantine thought Christianity would unify the empire, but internecine conflicts between sects weakened it instead, hastening its fall. The East/West Christian split helped ensure that Justinian couldn't unify the empire, prevented the Western states from aiding the Eastern Empire in its time of need against Islam, and later led to the 4th crusade. The division between the Monophysites and the Orthodox in the East helped to ensure the permanent loss of North Africa, Palestine, and Syria, and the Iconoclast conflicts weakened the Empire for no good purpose.
Centuries after the fall of Rome, we see the same effects in Spain, who lost most of its better educated people with the expulsion of the Jews and Moors on the eve of becoming a great power and later through the Inquisition of Christians too. Spain also frittered away its economic and military power in the CounterReformation.
You seem to think that because the Barbarians sacked Rome and fought the Roman military that they didn't "respect" it. That's a different meaning of respect than that which I'm familiar. The Red Sox and Yankees respect each other, but they still square off! Besides, Barbarians respected Rome enough to be part of the military you think they disrespected. They also certainly wanted to trade with Rome along the limes and elsewhere. In fact, the participation of the Barbarians in the Roman military and via economic exchange changed the Barbarian society just as significantly as it did Roman.
You can economically interact with someone without respecting them. Think of European Jews in the Middle Ages.
As for military respect, the Roman borders were largely maintained by respect, as they were too long to fortify and man at all points and transport was too slow to move forces to defend the border. Instead, the Romans relied on respect of their power to prevent incursions and the ability to transfer legions to mount punitive expeditions months later against those who made incurions. In the 3rd century, that system failed and the barbarians lost respect. Diocletian and his successors restored it momentarily, but then the empire fell into employing barbarian mercenaries. While Alaric and the like saw advantage in working for the Roman Empire, I think their actions make it clear that they didn't respect its power.
First, with regards to Alaric, I should think that he respect the power of the Roman military as he was part of it! Besides, I believe he lost to Stilicho, right? But that's enough of that. We just fundamentally disagree over the respect thing.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I never intended to be cast as a defender of the Church. Of course the Inquisition was bad...but so were the lions. Pre-Christian Rome wasn't some tolerant--no slaves here!--society in comparison to the Christian dominated society that followed.
You said: Constantine thought Christianity would unify the empire, but internecine conflicts between sects weakened it instead, hastening its fall...
True, but internecine warfare wasn't something distinctly Christian. Rome had a long history of such goings on and most of the splintering between east and west had much more to do with politics than religion.
I'm not saying that the spread of Christianity wasn't a factor in the splintering of the Western Empire, either. Only that it was part of a much larger change in society caused by the assimilation of vast amounts of people, the crumbling of institutions, the Plague, the rise of the Muslims, etc.
Finally, the bigger point is that, while the form and substance of society did change from late antiquity to the middle-ages, the nature of man didn't. They still played power politics, they still disliked and belittled the "other" and they still fought. And they still do, regardless of whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist. We just disagree. You put a lot of the blame on the Church. I put it on the nature of man. Finis.
Pre-Christian Rome wasn't some tolerant--no slaves here!--society in comparison to the Christian dominated society that followed.
ReplyDeletePre-Christian Rome was certainly more tolerant than Christian Rome. Pre-Christian Rome tolerated dozens of different religions, condemning only the atheism of Christianity (as they wouldn't worship the Roman gods too, they were considered atheists) and even there, feeding Christians to the lions was a rare if horrible occurrence that affected a few dozen people in a population of a 100,000,000 over the course of centuries. It was bad, but it wasn't as prevalent as your repeated mentions of it seem to make it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "no slaves here!" as Rome and other European societies had slaves before and after Christianity.
True, but internecine warfare wasn't something distinctly Christian. Rome had a long history of such goings on and most of the splintering between east and west had much more to do with politics than religion.
Rome had a serious problem with succession, which led to many wars, but making Christianity official added a new set of serious conflicts, between Christians and other religions and between different branches of Christianity. It didn't lead to the initial splintering between East and West as that predated the rise of Christianity as the official religion, but that division helped prevent the East from reconquering the West and preventing the West from assisting the East much against the Islamic invasions.
They still played power politics, they still disliked and belittled the "other" and they still fought. And they still do, regardless of whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist. We just disagree. You put a lot of the blame on the Church. I put it on the nature of man. Finis.
The nature of man is vague, general cause that applies to every human event in history without telling us anything. Citing the nature of man as a cause is like explaining the flight of an airplane by stating that physics is the reason it flies. It's a true cause, but a useless one that offers us no help in understanding either past or current events.
You can't take human nature out of the evaluation of history. To my mind, human nature falls under the broad mantle of contingency in history. Institutions like the Church or the Roman Empire are composed of men--and they sometimes have the strangest reasons for doing what they do! Jealousy, hatred, greed are all motivators, whether one is a Roman patrician or a Pope.
ReplyDeleteYou put great weight on the Church as an institution and imply that it seems to have operated on its own as a historical force. I suppose where I differ is that I would tend to focus on the individuals who make up the Church. Men and women made the decisions--some good, some bad. You blame "the Church", I blame individuals for certain actions, but overall think the Church--especially the everyday monks, nuns and priests--was an overall "good".
Anyway, the original post was to explain that Rome didn't "fall" in the manner explained by Berman. You've disagreed and contributed much by way of offering your take on the various causal forces that contributed to the fall of the Western half and the shrinking of the Eastern. I've offered some, too. We disagree in our interpretation and, I suspect, methodology.