The fall of Rome (Slavery-Feudalism transition)

[Dimentio]

Even if Spartacus did completely destroy the Roman Empire, it certainly wouldn't be communism or socialism as we know it.

Spartacus never subjectively wanted to create a communist-like system. He wasn't even like the ancient peasant rebels in China, who for all their crudeness, did have very explicit egalitarian ideologies, borrowed from Mohism, Buddhism and Manichaeism. Spartacus lived before Christianity emerged.

Communism is not just about overthrowing the old order, it's also about creating a new order. Spartacus had no conception of what the new order would be like, not even a vague sense of it.

Objectively, the best potential outcome of a successful slave rebellion in ancient Rome would be to accelerate Rome's internal transition to feudalism, and terminating the relatively reactionary slavery socio-economic productive relation before the Roman world was destroyed violently by external invaders.

Had Rome being transformed into a feudal society properly before its fall, it would have handled the barbarian invasions much better. As Chris Harman points out, the reason why China and India handled similar destructions and upheavals better than Rome did was because China and India were already fully feudal societies, while Rome was still a slavery society with some feudal features.

The 5th century was a period of break up and confusion for the three empires which had dominated southern Eurasia. There was a similar sense of crisis in each, a similar bewilderment as thousand year old civilisations seemed to crumble, as barbarians swept across borders and warlords carved out new kingdoms, as famine and plagues spread, trade declined and cities became depopulated.

... ...

The crisis was gravest for the Roman world. The flourishing of its civilisation had depended on an apparently endless supply of slaves. The result was that the imperial authorities and the great landowners concerned themselves much less with ways of improving agricultural yields than their equivalents in India or China. The collapse was correspondingly greater.

--- Chris Harman, A People's History of the World


I am not sure I am in agreement. The reason why is that this largely doesn't hold up, because Rome very much reduced her reliance on slaves during the last centuries of her existence. While the reliance on slaves initially could explain some of the problems which Rome endured, it cannot explain why Rome collapsed (since Rome by large wasn't a slavery-based society by the 5th century).

The Roman economy had relied on constant warfare to get a steady flow of fresh slaves into the economy in order to increase revenue, well until Hadrian's age. The influx had even before that slowed down considerably, and in order to deal with those problems, the Emperors and the Senate installed a number of reforms to stimulate the economy.

I. "Humanitarian laws" which stipulated better treatment of the slaves (it was forbidden to for example kill a slave).

II. Establishment of a donation culture, where a part of public (and private) revenue was supposed to flow back into the community through public works and celebrations, a type of early Keynesian measures.

What we often forget when talking about the Roman Empire during the height of it's glory, roughly the first and second centuries AD, is that it was extremely de-centralised, and that the local government (often on a town and district basis) was responsible for most social and political undertakings, whereas the province and the Empire basically just existed for protection.

Despite that the flow of new slaves practically had ceased by 120 AD, the economy continued to grow, both due to the usage of new engineering and of the prolonged peace.

The real disaster happened in 168-169 AD, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, when suddenly a plague epidemic struck Rome. Other cultures had survived similar epidemics before, and Rome did it as well.

The difference was that Rome had an expensive standing army, something which was new for that era and somewhat unique even. That army gobbled up resources like a hydra. When one quarter of the population had died in the plague, Rome had two choices, either to reduce her armed forces or to increase the tax revenue.

Rome choose the latter path, and steadily started to increase the taxes during the late 2nd century and the 3d century. This process led to an increased proletarisation and unemployment as people fled their homes to not have to pay increasingly crippling taxes.

Moreover, during the Severan Dynasty, the Roman Army started to play an increasingly active role in politics, and every new Emperor was expected to increase the wage of the soldiers. The armies in the North expected more resources and support to themselves for fighting the Germans, while the armies of the East expected more support for fighting the Sassanians.

The Crisis of the Third Century was a crippling experience which reminds of the "La Violencia" period in Colombia, or the constant warfare in African countries. The Senate and the city of Rome lost all political importance as political power was moved to the frontier armies (or rather the frontier armies stopped treating the capital and state as legitimate). One factor in this was that the Roman third century soldiers to an overwhelming majority consisted of provincials, which weren't loyal to Rome as such.

By Gallienus' reign (253-268), the Roman Empire was falling to pieces, with Gaul, Spain, Syria and Egypt lost, and the Roman corelands exposed to constant warfare between various usurpers, at the same time as the borders continuously were penetrated by barbarians.

It was first during the reigns of Aurelian, Probus and Diocletian as the Roman Empire started to recover. Diocletian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian) (284-305) established a new system, the Tetrarchy.

A list of his reforms could be found here (http://isthmia.osu.edu/teg/50501/5.htm).

I won't mention the political and military reforms, but in economic terms, he came to transform Rome.

I. Price controls were instituted, to combat inflation.

II. People on the countryside were bond to their land and barred from moving to other regions or to towns.

III. Guilds were instituted of various professions, and people were obliged to take the profession of their parents.

By the fourth century, most farmers in the Empire were nominally free farmers who de-facto were serfs under large land-owners. This process had come to be silently, both because of the large amount of freedmen who still were dependent and indebted to their former masters, and Diocletian's reforms, which couldn't stop farmers from going bankcrupt (and with no other option than to borrow from wealthy land-owners).

In short, by the Fourth Century, Rome was already largely a feudal society, a process which had been supported by Diocletian's (and later Constantine's) reforms.

Diocletian also increased the taxes more than any other Roman Emperor, while increasing the size of the Army from 300 000 to 500 000 and quadrupling the amount of armies to make it harder for usurpers to arise.

The area where Diocletian failed was in terms of the usurpers. The cycle of civil wars never ceased during the continued existence of the Western Roman Empire, it just became slower, meaning that a new usurper arose every seventh year instead of every year. This came to mean that no Emperor could plan long-term policies.

My conclusion is:

Rome undertook the transition from slavery to feudalism in the third and fourth centuries already, though under extremely unfavourable circumstances. The cause for the fall of the Empire was ultimately the role of the standing army.

Rome fell of the same reason as the Soviet Union. A bloated and over-extended military budget, which had a crippling effect on the civilian sector.

[Dimentio]

Moreover, we should not omit to mention the crippling effects the ideology of Christianity had on the Roman Empire.

[graymouser]

It's an interesting look, although I think a touch deterministic, at the role played by the army in precipitating the fall. The military's requirements actually were connected to and worked in a sort of vicious circle with the inflationary pressures on the currency; you had this cycle where the denarius - which had been a relatively stable currency for generations - becomes debased to the point where the coinage after the crisis was very different from that a generation before it.

There are a lot of factors that play into the fall of Rome, some of which don't get too much mention in your summary. Some of them are military: not only was the Sassanid Persian Empire a much more credible threat than the Parthians who had preceded them, but the strength of the migrations of Germanic groups from the steppe into Europe was much larger after the crisis.

I would argue that everything provoked the increased regionalization of the empire: the quasi-feudal reforms that you correctly note were mostly taking place in the western empire, where a handful of large families controlled most of the land, and over time lost loyalty to the empire as a whole. They suppressed the tax base, meaning that the western emperors couldn't put up much of a defense against barbarians, and made their own separate peaces with the invaders. Most of the commercial network remained stuck in the east, where the silk road terminated, and the geography and demographics of the eastern empire meant that the aristocracy was fighting over smaller, more valuable tracts of land and much more divided. Also the location helped in the case of invasions; in the east you were pretty well isolated from European attacks and the main worry was Persia.

One interesting note about the period of the crisis of the third century: ecology may have played a role in it. There were more extended droughts in the period, which probably had an effect in driving the pastoralists out of the steppe and in exacerbating the problems of Roman society. It's a unique period, because every major world power had a crisis - this was the Three Kingdoms period in China and the transition from Parthian to Sassanid rule in Persia. So I think you have to take into account natural forces, which are pretty strong determinants when 90% of your people are farmers.

It's a good post, btw, I just wanted to bring up some points of nuance.

[Dimentio]

As Iseul pointed out, all empires had problems at that time, but only Rome entered a period of permanent decline.

She blamed slavery, and I don't agree with her.

[graymouser]

As Iseul pointed out, all empires had problems at that time, but only Rome entered a period of permanent decline.

She blamed slavery, and I don't agree with her.
Yeah, slavery is generally not the problem.

I'm curious what sources you have read. I've got a couple of recent books on the fall of the empire (Goldsworthy's How Rome Fell is probably the most noteworthy) but most of what I know I learned in class about 9-10 years ago.

[Dimentio]

Read "The Decline and Fall" when I was 12, and then "The Dark Age" by one Dick Harisson when I was 15. In general, it appears as the 6th and 7th centuries saw some economic growth, and that Roman institutions actually had a kind of renaissance in Ostrogothic Italy and Visigothic Iberia.

Moreover, slavery was evidently prevalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe) throughout the middle ages too. Nowadays it's of course only legalised in Sweden.

[Queercommie Girl]

Read "The Decline and Fall" when I was 12, and then "The Dark Age" by one Dick Harisson when I was 15. In general, it appears as the 6th and 7th centuries saw some economic growth, and that Roman institutions actually had a kind of renaissance in Ostrogothic Italy and Visigothic Iberia.

Moreover, slavery was evidently prevalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe) throughout the middle ages too. Nowadays it's of course only legalised in Sweden.

Well, I largely got the idea from Chris Harman. I like quite a lot of his views because he writes from a very non-Eurocentric perspective. (e.g. like actually admitting that ancient China was more advanced than the West during certain periods)

Slavery still exists today, but under capitalism and feudalism it's certainly not the dominant form of productive relation.

[Dimentio]

It wasn't the dominant form of productive relation during the fourth and fifth centuries of the Roman Empire either.

China and India were wealthier than Rome.

India had like 12-15% of the global population and 25% of the global GDP, while Rome had 12-15% of the global population and 10% of the global GDP.

[Pavlov's House Party]

The Roman economy had relied on constant warfare to get a steady flow of fresh slaves into the economy in order to increase revenue, well until Hadrian's age. The influx had even before that slowed down considerably, and in order to deal with those problems, the Emperors and the Senate installed a number of reforms to stimulate the economy.

The problem with the Roman Empire was that military conquest was indeed necessary for the enrichment of not only the slave-owning elite, but also the poor who served in the army; many rank and file Roman soldiers (post-Marian reforms) wanted to go to war because plunder from captured cities or peoples would give them money they would never get from their meager army salaries. Even if slavery was no longer a primary mode of production in Rome, generals would still lobby for war to ensure the loyalty of their troops, who depended on loot for a kind of retirement pension. The best example I can think of is Sulla's legions offering to fight for free on Sulla's behalf in the Civil War because he led them to victory and subsequent looting in Greece (notably Athens) during the First Mithridatic War.

[chimx]

My conclusion is:

Rome undertook the transition from slavery to feudalism in the third and fourth centuries already, though under extremely unfavourable circumstances. The cause for the fall of the Empire was ultimately the role of the standing army.

Rome fell of the same reason as the Soviet Union. A bloated and over-extended military budget, which had a crippling effect on the civilian sector.

let me preface this by saying I'm far from being an expert on classical roman history, but I agree with your sentiment that it was from within the roman slave economy that sowed the seeds for the transition to a feudal economy. however, you seem to place a lot of emphasis on the political legislation.

what about the natural transformation of the agrarian economy from small farming by a peasantry, towards massive latifundias ran by a new land owning class? I would argue that this displacement of the peasantry not only aided in the ultimate failings of the roman economy, but also laid the ground work for the feudal economy that subsequently developed.

[Dimentio]

Yes, I think you are correct there. The original latifundias though were largely monocultures which focused on producing for example wine, meat, olives, fruit and grain to cities. It was first during the Third Century they started to become self-sustaining entities.

[resurgence]

Moreover, we should not omit to mention the crippling effects the ideology of Christianity had on the Roman Empire.

Just what were these crippling effects and how come they didnt also work to cripple the later western civilization that arose out of the ashes of the western Roman Empire?

Also when talking about the Roman Empire we should remember that it survived in the east for a long time after it fell in the west.

[Dimentio]

Just what were these crippling effects and how come they didnt also work to cripple the later western civilization that arose out of the ashes of the western Roman Empire?

Also when talking about the Roman Empire we should remember that it survived in the east for a long time after it fell in the west.

That the Emperors focused their attention of attacking Pagan shrines and shrines of alternative churches, provoking unneeded revolts during times when invaders strolled around inside the Roman Empire and enjoyed the view?

Moreover, the Church was never loyal to the Empire until Justinian. They were basically indifferent to whom controlled the land, as long as those were Christian.

[Tim Finnegan]

Rome undertook the transition from slavery to feudalism in the third and fourth centuries already, though under extremely unfavourable circumstances.
I agree. I think it's important to remember, when discussing the fall of Rome, that it really did not take the form of a sudden, violent collapse, as imagined by Early Modern historians, but a gradual collapse of pan-imperial infrastructure, leading more often to the atomisation of local dominions than to some violent overhaul. (In fact, we usually find that the invading Germanic aristocracy very quickly integrated with the Roman or Romanised native aristocracy, becoming very quickly indistinct. Only in Britain was the existing aristocracy supplanted wholesale.) While this certainly cemented the predominance of serfdom- the collapse of large-scale included much of the slave-trade, thus making a more localised system enormously preferable- the aristocracy was really just making use of the institutions it had to hand.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

In my view, the over-arching cause of the collapse of the Roman empire was economic; the continual debasement of Roman Coins caused an ever increasing inflation, and due to tribal migrations and the prefrence for giving germanic tribes in the west territory for military service (thus being tax exempt), rather than intergrating them into the Roman Economy overall resulted in an ever reduced tax base, leaving the Empire in the west, increasingly poor, and after the Division of the Empire into East and West by Constatine, resulted in the wealthier and more developed East being unable to contribute money to the impoverished west, the lack of funds combined with an-over extended military, bloated by years of neopotism, cronyism and corruption, that was largely incapable of defending the Wests extensive boarders. Furthermore as Dimentio pointed out, the oppression of Christianity (and then pagans) lead to unessicary internal pressure, and expensive and damaging revolts.

Without the money to support it's armies, which lead to generals and officers seeking either war for loot, or being easily swayed by bribes.

In my opinion, it was the comparative poverty of the west, and the wealth of the East, that led to the fall of Rome, and the survival of Constantinople, the economy, as so often in history, was the underlying cause of Rome's decline.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah, slavery is generally not the problem.

I'm curious what sources you have read. I've got a couple of recent books on the fall of the empire (Goldsworthy's How Rome Fell is probably the most noteworthy) but most of what I know I learned in class about 9-10 years ago.

Rome was less productive in agriculture compared with China at around the same time. Chris Harman believes this is due to the fact that Rome relied on slavery while China relied on landlordism.

Therefore when Rome and China faced a similar kind of crisis, China was able to handle it better than Rome did. China never had any kind of "Dark Ages", unlike Western Europe.

The problem with Eurocentrists is that they refuse to admit that Europe could be more backward compared with the Chinese during certain periods of history. They think all progressive things must have originated from Europe.

[Dimentio]

Rome was less productive in agriculture compared with China at around the same time. Chris Harman believes this is due to the fact that Rome relied on slavery while China relied on landlordism.

Therefore when Rome and China faced a similar kind of crisis, China was able to handle it better than Rome did. China never had any kind of "Dark Ages", unlike Western Europe.

The problem with Eurocentrists is that they refuse to admit that Europe could be more backward compared with the Chinese during certain periods of history. They think all progressive things must have originated from Europe.

That is rather an issue of grain vs rice.

Rice could be harvested four times a year, whereas grain only could be harvested once.

[Queercommie Girl]

That is rather an issue of grain vs rice.

Rice could be harvested four times a year, whereas grain only could be harvested once.

That's perhaps part of the reason, but China had more advanced agricultural techniques compared with Rome. Also peasants have more incentive to work than slaves, leading to greater productivity.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Rome was less productive in agriculture compared with China at around the same time. Chris Harman believes this is due to the fact that Rome relied on slavery while China relied on landlordism.

Therefore when Rome and China faced a similar kind of crisis, China was able to handle it better than Rome did. China never had any kind of "Dark Ages", unlike Western Europe.

The problem with Eurocentrists is that they refuse to admit that Europe could be more backward compared with the Chinese during certain periods of history. They think all progressive things must have originated from Europe.

I don't see how the differing methods of producing food lead to the fall of Rome, Rome did not fall due to a sudden collapse of Grain production, or due to a famine, agricultural output slowly declined throught the third and fourth centuries.

Nor do I see what a thread on the Roman Economics has to do with Eurocentric historians, unless you are making a simple statement that China had a better agricultural system..?

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't see how the differing methods of producing food lead to the fall of Rome, Rome did not fall due to a sudden collapse of Grain production, or due to a famine, agricultural output slowly declined throught the third and fourth centuries.

Nor do I see what a thread on the Roman Economics has to do with Eurocentric historians, unless you are making a simple statement that China had a better agricultural system..?


Yes, China did have more advanced agricultural technologies. Agricultural productivity was higher in China than in Rome during the same period. That's a fact. Call it a "simple statement" or whatever you wish. Why the fuck is it so difficult for "holier-than-thou" Europeans to be humble for once and simply acknowledge your inferiority and backwardness during certain periods of history?

As for productive relation, slaves never work as efficiently as peasants in agricultural production, since they have no incentive to work.

Eurocentric historians refuse to acknowledge that China was ahead of Europe in any way during any period, whether in productive force or productive relation. This is a form of unacceptable ethnocentrist myth, something the far-right and white supremacists like to get their hands on to use as evidence to promote their reactionary ideologies.

Read Chris Harman's A People's History of the World, it's a superb book written from a non-Eurocentric perspective. Chris Harman, who passed away recently, was a Trotskyist Marxist.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Yes, China did have more advanced agricultural technologies. Agricultural productivity was higher in China than in Rome during the same period. That's a fact. Call it a "simple statement" or whatever you wish. Why the fuck is it so difficult for "holier-than-thou" Europeans to be humble for once and simply acknowledge your inferiority and backwardness during certain periods of history?

As for productive relation, slaves never work as efficiently as peasants in agricultural production, since they have no incentive to work.

Eurocentric historians refuse to acknowledge that China was ahead of Europe in any way during any period, whether in productive force or productive relation. This is a form of unacceptable ethnocentrist myth, something the far-right and white supremacists like to get their hands on to use as evidence to promote their reactionary ideologies.

Read Chris Harman's A People's History of the World, it's a superb book written from a non-Eurocentric perspective. Chris Harman, who passed away recently, was a Trotskyist Marxist.

Ok, so this is just a rant about how Historians are Eurocentric?

[Queercommie Girl]

Ok, so this is just a rant about how Historians are Eurocentric?


It's a discussion of why Rome fell and Europe went into a relative "Dark Ages", while China never had any "Dark Ages" despite facing similar kinds of political, economic and environmental problems. (corruption, immense inequality, warlordism, barbarian invasions, climate problems etc)

The real answer for this is that China had more advanced agricultural technology than Rome, and Chinese peasants were generally more productive than Roman slaves. Eurocentric historians would tend to deny this, because for them Europe is the land where all good, positive and progressive things came from, and it's unthinkable to think otherwise. They would either purely attribute the causes for the Dark Ages in Western Europe to super-structural factors, or indeed completely deny there was a Dark Ages in Europe altogether, claiming that European civilisation was just as continuous as Chinese civilisation is.

So how the fuck is pointing out the Eurocentric flaws in the arguments used by some historians regarding the matter around the fall of Rome, which by the way is indeed the central theme of this thread in case you forgot, "ranting" at all? Or do you simply deny the fact that China had a better agricultural system than Rome?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

It's a discussion of why Rome fell and Europe went into a relative "Dark Ages", while China never had any "Dark Ages" despite facing similar kinds of political, economic and environmental problems. (corruption, immense inequality, warlordism, barbarian invasions, climate problems etc)

The real answer for this is that China had more advanced agricultural technology than Rome, and Chinese peasants were generally more productive than Roman slaves. Eurocentric historians would tend to deny this, because for them Europe is the land where all good, positive and progressive things came from, and it's unthinkable to think otherwise. They would either purely attribute the causes for the Dark Ages in Western Europe to super-structural factors, or indeed completely deny there was a Dark Ages in Europe altogether, claiming that European civilisation was just as continuous as Chinese civilisation is.

So how the fuck is pointing out the Eurocentric flaws in the arguments used by some historians regarding the matter around the fall of Rome, which by the way is indeed the central theme of this thread in case you forgot, "ranting" at all? Or do you simply deny the fact that China had a better agricultural system than Rome?

I fail to see how a more advanced agriculture system prevented Chinese collapse. I do not deny China was more advanced, but I do not see the connection between a greater agricultural output and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

Furthermore, the Idea that Europe collapsed into some kind of 'Dark Age' after the fall of Rome has been largely discredited, the Dark Ages did not result in a complete collapse of European civilization, but rather a transition from a centralized Empire into a collection of states, and you are forgeting that the Roman Empire in the East did not truely end until 1453, European civilisation during the Dark Ages does undergo rapid and radical change, but there is still a strong continuty throught this period.

I don't really see how Europe not undergoing a Dark Age equal Eurocentricism either. I for one do not see history as some kind of nationistic ego boosting excercise in which we compete to prove 'our' (despite how far removed from past soceites we are) ancestors were the best, but a continual evolution of humanity.

[Queercommie Girl]

I fail to see how a more advanced agriculture system prevented Chinese collapse. I do not deny China was more advanced, but I do not see the connection between a greater agricultural output and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.


Read Chris Harman.



Furthermore, the Idea that Europe collapsed into some kind of 'Dark Age' after the fall of Rome has been largely discredited,


That's mistaken. Mostly it's the mainstream bourgeois historians who dismiss this completely. As Chris Harman, who is a completely Marxist historian, points out, the population in Western Europe halved, literacy rates dropped to nearly zero, town and cities became de-populated and even abandoned, the great libraries containing the great texts of Greco-Roman knowledge were burned down. Few people during the early Middle Ages had any knowledge of Greek astronomy, medicine or mathematics. Greek texts were only re-translated back into Western Europe from the Arab Islamic World during the late Middle Ages.



the Dark Ages did not result in a complete collapse of European civilization,


Nothing can "completely" collapse, but to deny a significant collapse of civilisation in Western Europe as a result of the fall of Rome is to deny historical reality.



you are forgeting that the Roman Empire in the East did not truely end until 1453,


No, I forgot nothing. I was only talking about the former territories of the Western Roman Empire, not the East.



I don't really see how Europe not undergoing a Dark Age equal Eurocentricism either. I for one do not see history as some kind of nationistic ego boosting excercise in which we compete to prove 'our' (despite how far removed from past soceites we are) ancestors were the best, but a continual evolution of humanity.

Ok, I don't disagree in principle, but there is a difference between "left-wing nationalism" and "right-wing nationalism", between the reactionary promotion of Eurocentrism and the relatively progressive promotion of non-European cultures to counter this Eurocentrism.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Read Chris Harman.

So you cannot explain your main point?


That's mistaken. Mostly it's the mainstream bourgeois historians who dismiss this completely. As Chris Harman, who is a completely Marxist historian, points out, the population in Western Europe halved, literacy rates dropped to nearly zero, town and cities became de-populated and even abandoned,

I'd like some sources to support this. Also do not forget that the culture largely changed, with the Germanic peoples perfering to live in Villages rather than large urbanized settlements.


the great libraries containing the great texts of Greco-Roman knowledge were burned down.

In the west


Few people during the early Middle Ages had any knowledge of Greek astronomy, medicine or mathematics.

As most Romans did?


Greek texts were only re-translated back into Western Europe from the Arab Islamic World during the late Middle Ages.

Not really, Libraries in Rome remained largely intact, and most medieval scholars were aware of Greek Classics, and as early as 1084 the Italian Lawyer Irnerius had established a law school teaching the law code of Justinan I, which had recently been recoved. Hardly 'late medieval'. While Europe certainly lagged behind the Muslim World and China in the Sciences, and therefore largely ignoring the Greco-Roman works on such subjects, other works, such as the histories and plays.


Nothing can "completely" collapse, but to deny a significant collapse of civilisation in Western Europe as a result of the fall of Rome is to deny historical reality.

Roman civilisation collapsed, in the west, European civilisation consits of more than the WRE.


No, I forgot nothing. I was only talking about the former territories of the Western Roman Empire, not the East.

But that was not the entire Roman Empire was it? You are will fully ignoring what was always the most populus and wealthy part of the Roman Empire, just to fit your adopted theories.


Ok, I don't disagree in principle, but there is a difference between "left-wing nationalism" and "right-wing nationalism", between the reactionary promotion of Eurocentrism and the relatively progressive promotion of non-European cultures to counter this Eurocentrism.

So you are a nationalist? At least you have no pretense of objectivity, then.

[Queercommie Girl]

So you cannot explain your main point?


I can but I'm bit lazy now. Also whatever I say you would no doubt ask me to back up with primary sources, and I can't be bothered to type large chunks of text from Chris Harman's book on RevLeft, takes too long. And there are no online versions of the book as far as I know.

So why don't you go and read it yourself? It's all there. I can refer you to the chapter called Centuries of Chaos.



I'd like some sources to support this. Also do not forget that the culture largely changed, with the Germanic peoples perfering to live in Villages rather than large urbanized settlements.


Chris Harman, Centuries of Chaos, A People's History of the World

The Germanic invaders also massacred many civilians in cities, which is why the cities became de-populated in the first place. Massacres accounted for a significant proportion of the halving of the population as a result of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.



In the west


Which is what I'm talking about.



As most Romans did?


Literacy rates were significantly higher during the Roman era than during the early Middle Ages.



Not really, Libraries in Rome remained largely intact,


Factually untrue.



and most medieval scholars were aware of Greek Classics, and as early as 1084 the Italian Lawyer Irnerius had established a law school teaching the law code of Justinan I, which had recently been recoved. Hardly 'late medieval'.


Actually when I said "early Middle Ages" I mean the period from the fall of Western Rome in the 5th century CE to around the 10th and 11th centuries CE. So by 1084 CE, many aspects of productivity and culture in Western Europe had already began to recover to reach a level comparable to those of ancient Rome.



While Europe certainly lagged behind the Muslim World and China in the Sciences, and therefore largely ignoring the Greco-Roman works on such subjects, other works, such as the histories and plays.


True. Another reason is the hold reactionary religious doctrines had on people's minds. Many works of literature from ancient Greece were pagan and therefore "heretical", unfit for a Christian audience.



Roman civilisation collapsed, in the west, European civilisation consits of more than the WRE.


I was referring to the significant reduction in material productivity and culture during the period from 476 CE to around 1000 CE in Western Europe in the objective sense.



But that was not the entire Roman Empire was it? You are will fully ignoring what was always the most populus and wealthy part of the Roman Empire, just to fit your adopted theories.


But your accusation makes no sense. Because when historians like Chris Harman who do believe in the "Dark Ages" theory talk about the fall of Rome, they are talking about the Western Empire, and everyone knows this already.



So you are a nationalist? At least you have no pretense of objectivity, then.


I'm not an intrinsic nationalist, but I see nothing wrong with utilising "left-wing nationalism" sometimes to counter "right-wing nationalism", like how one would support oppressed nations and cultures against Western imperialism.

Marxism believes there is no such thing as "pure objectivity" in a purely abstract sense. Things can be either "progressive" or "reactionary" depending on their ideological utility.

[Dimentio]

The economy of Europe generally grew from 480 to 530, then again from 600 to 700, and from 770 to 840. Then it had one long decline between 840 and 1000 AD.

The reason for that was that the Arabs established a silver embargo on Europe, which meant that the rulers started to pay their troops with land instead of coins.

Italy was never de-urbanised, while most of the old WRE was de-urbanised. In general, most peasants were not slaves, but at the 5th century consisted mostly of indebted labourers to landlords.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I can but I'm bit lazy now. Also whatever I say you would no doubt ask me to back up with primary sources, and I can't be bothered to type large chunks of text from Chris Harman's book on RevLeft, takes too long. And there are no online versions of the book as far as I know.

So why don't you go and read it yourself? It's all there. I can refer you to the chapter called Centuries of Chaos.


Well, considering Chris Harman isn't a recognized historian, nor has had any formal education as a historian, I'd consider his book popular history at best, rather than a serious historical discourse, a better text on the Roman Economy would be Class Struggle in the Ancient world, by G.E.M. De Ste Croix.

Surely you can summaries his main points, explaining how Roman agricultural output lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire.



The Germanic invaders also massacred many civilians in cities, which is why the cities became de-populated in the first place. Massacres accounted for a significant proportion of the halving of the population as a result of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

If you seriously belive that Germanic invaders massacred the Romanized population and replaced it with their own numbers you need to do some more research, as those opinions are incredibly outdated


Which is what I'm talking about.

So we've gone quickly from discussing the entire 'European Civilisation' to the Western Roman Empire


Literacy rates were significantly higher during the Roman era than during the early Middle Ages.

True, but if you think that your average Roman pesant could read and write you are mistaken, the declining Literacy was largely due to the influance of the Roman Catholic Church, which used control of literacy to reinforce its domination of Christendom.



Factually untrue.

Reading History of the Wars III.ii, by Procopius of Caesarea, regarding Alaric's sack of Rome, it has no mention of the sacking of libaries, rather the mausoleums of the Emperors, and the large houses of Noblemen.


Actually when I said "early Middle Ages" I mean the period from the fall of Western Rome in the 5th century CE to around the 10th and 11th centuries CE. So by 1084 CE, many aspects of productivity and culture in Western Europe had already began to recover to reach a level comparable to those of ancient Rome.

I'd call that Late antiquity, but I was taught in England that the Medieval period began in 1066 with the Norman Conquest, however that is a very anglo-centric attitude.


True. Another reason is the hold reactionary religious doctrines had on people's minds. Many works of literature from ancient Greece were pagan and therefore "heretical", unfit for a Christian audience.

True, this is further reinforced by the fact that in the Greek-speaking ERE, the word for 'Greeks (Hellens/Ἕλληνες)' came to be an insult along the lines of 'heathen', or 'witch' in english.



I was referring to the significant reduction in material productivity and culture during the period from 476 CE to around 1000 CE in Western Europe in the objective sense.

I thought we were just talking about the Roman Empire? Germany certaily increased productivity and culture, as did Scandinavia, England and Scotland.


But your accusation makes no sense. Because when historians like Chris Harman who do believe in the "Dark Ages" theory talk about the fall of Rome, they are talking about the Western Empire, and everyone knows this already.

I do not take it as such, but then I always find the portraly of the fall of Rome and the apparent 'collapse' of European Civilisation an irritatingly large oversight.



I'm not an intrinsic nationalist, but I see nothing wrong with utilising "left-wing nationalism" sometimes to counter "right-wing nationalism", like how one would support oppressed nations and cultures against Western imperialism.

Nationalism is always wrong, it is inherntly devisive and reactionary, regardless of any 'good intentions'.


Marxism believes there is no such thing as "pure objectivity" in a purely abstract sense. Things can be either "progressive" or "reactionary" depending on their ideological utility.

If you admit that you have a bias towards one side of a debate, you loose any semblance of legitimacy, and any arguments you make are tinged with prejudice.

[Queercommie Girl]

Italy was never de-urbanised


According to a Chinese history book:

公元４１０年，阿拉里克决定打进罗马城，他向士兵们宣布：攻进罗马，可以任意抢动３天。

In 410 CE, Alaric decided to sack the city of Rome. He declared to his soldiers: once they sack Rome, they can loot the city completely freely for 3 whole days.

一个雷电交加的夏夜，穿着兽皮的哥特人吹着牛角号，冲进了罗马城，３天３夜的洗劫，四面八方的大火，使巍峨 的殿宇，壮丽的宫殿化为一片焦木。金质神像和黄金器皿装满一车又一车，都被拉走了。

During a summer evening filled with thunder and lightning, the Gothic invaders wearing animal skins and blowing ox-horns rushed into the city of Rome. After plundering and pillaging the city for 3 days and 3 nights, the grand temples and beautiful palaces were burned down to the ground in a great fire that burned in all directions. Gold-made statues of the gods and other items made of gold were carried away, one cart after another.

抢光、烧光之后，哥特人在入城的第六天放弃了罗马，向意大利南部推进。不久，阿拉里克突然死去，据说哥特人 强迫罗马俘虏排干了一条河，把阿拉里克的遗体和无数宝物一起埋在河底，然后再把水放进河里。工程完成后，全 部俘虏都被杀死。所以他的葬地及殉葬品始终未被发现。

After pillaging, plundering and burning down everything in Rome, the Goths abandoned the city on the 6th day after its sacking, and began to push into the south of Italy. Soon, Alaric died, and the Goths forced the Roman prisoners of war to completely dry out an entire river, in which Alaric's body as well as countless treasures were buried at the bottom of the river-bed. After this water was allowed to flow into the river again. After this project was completed, every single prisoner of war was killed. Therefore to this day no-one really know where Alaric's burial place and burial items are located.

The Germanic invaders of Rome were generally speaking mass killers, not some kind of peaceful peasants. In this they were no different from the Huns and Mongols who invaded Han China. Marxists have a duty to uphold historical truth at all times, why shy away from describing acts of barbarity done by barbarians in ancient times?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

According to a Chinese history book:

公元４１０年，阿拉里克决定打进罗马城，他向士兵们宣布：攻进罗马，可以任意抢动３天。

In 410 CE, Alaric decided to sack the city of Rome. He declared to his soldiers: once they sack Rome, they can loot the city completely freely for 3 whole days.

一个雷电交加的夏夜，穿着兽皮的哥特人吹着牛角号，冲进了罗马城，３天３夜的洗劫，四面八方的大火，使巍峨 的殿宇，壮丽的宫殿化为一片焦木。金质神像和黄金器皿装满一车又一车，都被拉走了。

During a summer evening filled with thunder and lightning, the Gothic invaders wearing animal skins rushed into the city of Rome. After plundering and pillaging the city for 3 days and 3 nights, the grand temples and beautiful palaces were burned down to the ground in a great fire that burned in all directions. Gold-made statues of the gods and other items made of gold were carried away, one cart after another.

抢光、烧光之后，哥特人在入城的第六天放弃了罗马，向意大利南部推进。不久，阿拉里克突然死去，据说哥特人 强迫罗马俘虏排干了一条河，把阿拉里克的遗体和无数宝物一起埋在河底，然后再把水放进河里。工程完成后，全 部俘虏都被杀死。所以他的葬地及殉葬品始终未被发现。

After pillaging, plundering and burning down everything in Rome, the Goths abandoned the city on the 6th day after its sacking, and began to push into the south of Italy. Soon, Alaric died, and the Goths forced the Roman prisoners of war to completely dry out an entire river, in which Alaric's body as well as countless treasures were buried at the bottom of the river. After this water was allowed to flow into the river again. After this project was completed, every single prisoner of war was killed. Therefore to this day no-one really know where Alaric's burial place and burial items are located.

The Germanic invaders of Rome were generally speaking mass killers, not some kind of peaceful peasants. In this they were no different from the Huns and Mongols who invaded Han China. Marxists have a duty to uphold historical truth at all times, why shy away from describing acts of barbarity done by barbarians in ancient times?

Sino-centric nonsense.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sino-centric nonsense.


"Sino-centrism" that defends the Euro-centrism of the Roman Empire? :rolleyes:

The book I quoted from happens to be generally written from a Historical Materialist perspective, similar to Chris Harman's book, and therefore from a Marxist perspective much more progressive than the mainstream bourgeois sources that you quote from.

Give me one good reason why Marxists should apologise for the barbaric acts down by the ancient Germanic people?

Or are you really so stupid and deluded to believe that the ancient Germanic invaders of Rome were just no more than peaceful peasants? :rolleyes:

Talk about historical revisionism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, considering Chris Harman isn't a recognized historian, nor has had any formal education as a historian, I'd consider his book popular history at best, rather than a serious historical discourse, a better text on the Roman Economy would be Class Struggle in the Ancient world, by G.E.M. De Ste Croix.


De Ste Croix isn't a Marxist. Expertise isn't the only point to consider. Personally I'd trust a Marxist historian like Chris Harman more.



If you seriously belive that Germanic invaders massacred the Romanized population and replaced it with their own numbers you need to do some more research, as those opinions are incredibly outdated


Not the entire population in any region obviously, but do you seriously expect me to believe that no civilians were massacred in the numerous Germanic invasions of Rome?

Even invading armies today always tend to harm civilian populations, (Iraq comes to mind) let alone those of the Iron Age.



So we've gone quickly from discussing the entire 'European Civilisation' to the Western Roman Empire


That has always been what I was talking about.



Reading History of the Wars III.ii, by Procopius of Caesarea, regarding Alaric's sack of Rome, it has no mention of the sacking of libaries, rather the mausoleums of the Emperors, and the large houses of Noblemen.


Sometimes ancient historians deliberately hide away unpleasant details.

Have you ever read the Book of the Yuan Dynasty? According to this text, the Mongol invaders never massacred Han Chinese people or razed cities at all.

Do you really expect me to believe in this?



I thought we were just talking about the Roman Empire? Germany certaily increased productivity and culture, as did Scandinavia, England and Scotland.


Material productivity and culture declined across all the former territories of the Western Roman Empire.



I do not take it as such, but then I always find the portraly of the fall of Rome and the apparent 'collapse' of European Civilisation an irritatingly large oversight.


It was not a complete collapse, but many native peoples were indeed hit very hard.

Look at linguistic changes. Why is it that formerly Latin and Celtic speaking areas became Germanic speaking areas? Are you seriously suggesting that no population displacements or one ethnic group dominating another one took place at all?

Before the Anglo-Saxons entered England, no-one in the British Isles spoke a Germanic language.



Nationalism is always wrong, it is inherntly devisive and reactionary, regardless of any 'good intentions'.


Not true. The "left-wing nationalism" of national liberation movements, of oppressed national groups, can be partly progressive. Refer to what Lenin wrote on the national question.



If you admit that you have a bias towards one side of a debate, you loose any semblance of legitimacy, and any arguments you make are tinged with prejudice.


According to the standards of mainstream bourgeois academia, perhaps. But Marxists understand that there is no such thing as "pure objectivity", and all interpretations of history are necessarily influenced by various ideological constructions.

[Dimentio]

According to a Chinese history book:

公元４１０年，阿拉里克决定打进罗马城，他向士兵们宣布：攻进罗马，可以任意抢动３天。

In 410 CE, Alaric decided to sack the city of Rome. He declared to his soldiers: once they sack Rome, they can loot the city completely freely for 3 whole days.

一个雷电交加的夏夜，穿着兽皮的哥特人吹着牛角号，冲进了罗马城，３天３夜的洗劫，四面八方的大火，使巍峨 的殿宇，壮丽的宫殿化为一片焦木。金质神像和黄金器皿装满一车又一车，都被拉走了。

During a summer evening filled with thunder and lightning, the Gothic invaders wearing animal skins rushed into the city of Rome. After plundering and pillaging the city for 3 days and 3 nights, the grand temples and beautiful palaces were burned down to the ground in a great fire that burned in all directions. Gold-made statues of the gods and other items made of gold were carried away, one cart after another.

抢光、烧光之后，哥特人在入城的第六天放弃了罗马，向意大利南部推进。不久，阿拉里克突然死去，据说哥特人 强迫罗马俘虏排干了一条河，把阿拉里克的遗体和无数宝物一起埋在河底，然后再把水放进河里。工程完成后，全 部俘虏都被杀死。所以他的葬地及殉葬品始终未被发现。

After pillaging, plundering and burning down everything in Rome, the Goths abandoned the city on the 6th day after its sacking, and began to push into the south of Italy. Soon, Alaric died, and the Goths forced the Roman prisoners of war to completely dry out an entire river, in which Alaric's body as well as countless treasures were buried at the bottom of the river-bed. After this water was allowed to flow into the river again. After this project was completed, every single prisoner of war was killed. Therefore to this day no-one really know where Alaric's burial place and burial items are located.

The Germanic invaders of Rome were generally speaking mass killers, not some kind of peaceful peasants. In this they were no different from the Huns and Mongols who invaded Han China. Marxists have a duty to uphold historical truth at all times, why shy away from describing acts of barbarity done by barbarians in ancient times?

Alaric spared the churches, and he was not some barbarian maniac with loincloth and a double-bladed axe. He just wanted to get the right to settle on Roman territory, and decided to take Rome hostage.

They did not destroy buildings, just loot the valuables. And they completely spared the churches.

The worst destruction of Rome was caused by two guys named Belisarius and Narses, who destroyed the aqueducts to kill the people of Rome to make them surrender. They were Eastern Roman generals.

How are Chinese historians supposed to be more knowledgeable about western history, than western historians? It is a bit Sino-centric, don't you think?

[Dimentio]

"Sino-centrism" that defends the Euro-centrism of the Roman Empire? :rolleyes:

The book I quoted from happens to be generally written from a Historical Materialist perspective, similar to Chris Harman's book, and therefore from a Marxist perspective much more progressive than the mainstream bourgeois sources that you quote from.

Give me one good reason why Marxists should apologise for the barbaric acts down by the ancient Germanic people?

Or are you really so stupid and deluded to believe that the ancient Germanic invaders of Rome were just no more than peaceful peasants? :rolleyes:

Talk about historical revisionism.

Is a "progressive" perspective with wrong facts better than a "reactionary" perspective which got the facts right?

[Queercommie Girl]

Is a "progressive" perspective with wrong facts better than a "reactionary" perspective which got the facts right?

How is it wrong factually?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that the Germanic invaders of Rome never massacred any citizens or burned any cities, that they were either a well-disciplined army of honourable knights, a nice collective of simple and peaceful farmers, or a revolutionary force that only slaughtered the aristocrats and the slavelords? :rolleyes:

Are you serious?

I'm not just picking out Germanic tribes, but the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as a "honourable war", much less a "honourable invasion". Every war, especially if it's an invasion, always leads to the deaths of innocent civilians. This is true in the 21st century today, and it was certainly true back in the 5th century CE.

All wars, especially invasions, lead to the deaths of innocent people. This is an absolute truth.

[Queercommie Girl]

How are Chinese historians supposed to be more knowledgeable about western history, than western historians? It is a bit Sino-centric, don't you think?

I never said that at all. I only quoted this book because it's written from a Historical Materialist perspective.

The Western Marxist Chris Harman has a similar view, so it has nothing to do with whether it's from China or the West.

I like them because they are Marxist histories, not because they are Chinese or Western.

[Queercommie Girl]

Alaric spared the churches, and he was not some barbarian maniac with loincloth and a double-bladed axe. He just wanted to get the right to settle on Roman territory, and decided to take Rome hostage.

They did not destroy buildings, just loot the valuables. And they completely spared the churches.

The worst destruction of Rome was caused by two guys named Belisarius and Narses, who destroyed the aqueducts to kill the people of Rome to make them surrender. They were Eastern Roman generals.


I'm not specifically singling out the Germanic tribes. Roman armies in Gaul for instance were very brutal as well.

However, objectively all invasions would lead to the deaths of innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a "maniac in a loincloth" to do that. It's a constant of all warfare.

[Dimentio]

How is it wrong factually?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that the Germanic invaders of Rome never massacred any citizens or burned any cities, that they were either a well-disciplined army of honourable knights, a nice collective of simple and peaceful farmers, or a revolutionary force that only slaughtered the aristocrats and the slavelords? :rolleyes:

Are you serious?

I'm not just picking out Germanic tribes, but the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as a "honourable war", much less a "honourable invasion". Every war, especially if it's an invasion, always leads to the deaths of innocent civilians. This is true in the 21st century today, and it was certainly true back in the 5th century CE.

I have never claimed that they never did that. The Vandals and other groups could be brutal, and the Goths of the Third Century were just looting.

In the fifth century though, the Goths living within the Roman Empire were Romanised and Christianised refugees, who had been driven away by the Huns from their homeland.

Their goal was not to plunder, but to find land to be able to survive. The reason why they defeated the Romans at Adrianopel in 378 was not because they wanted to destroy Rome, but because they had been placed into refugee camps where they were forced to sell their children to prostitution in return for food.

Attila's plunder was the most brutal, as he destroyed Milan and Aquiliea, but the Goths overall rather replaced or mingled into the local elite and took over the Roman customs.

Theoderic the Great for example built churches in Italy and improved the Italian economy, whereas the Visigoths established their own Senate in Spain and loved to portray themselves as Roman consuls. The Vandal sack of Rome in 455 was somewhat more destructive than the Goth occupation of 410 (but the Vandal conquest of Carthage was bloodless).

What devastated Italy completely was Justinian's Italian war, which lowered the population from 6 million to 2,5 million and almost erased Rome from the face of the Earth.

You are basing your opinions on history on the Gibbonite "Gentleman Historians" from the 18th century, who loved to project the brutality of "Di Sacco di Roma" 1527 and the Thirty Years War on the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That created a "grand narrative" about the greatness of Rome as an ancestor of western civilisation.

The Visigoths, Ostrogoths and the Vandals were like Africans coming to Europe or Mexicans coming to the United States.

Watch all parts of this episode.

nc_DFs2ZzD8

The Goths were just a group of people who wanted to have land, because they needed to feed their people. Their brutality was not exceptional and the sack of Rome in 410 was not a spontaneous Genghis Khan-like occurrence.

The Chinese historian who wrote that projected China's experiences with the Xiong Nu and the Mongols on Rome. The Goths were not a nomadic people, but a dispossessed farming nation, much like modern-day Palestinians.

What they experienced in the Roman Empire was ghettoification, racism and eventually an attempted genocide, despite that they tried to their best to adapt to Roman culture.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

"Sino-centrism" that defends the Euro-centrism of the Roman Empire? :rolleyes:

The book I quoted from happens to be generally written from a Historical Materialist perspective, similar to Chris Harman's book, and therefore from a Marxist perspective much more progressive than the mainstream bourgeois sources that you quote from.

Give me one good reason why Marxists should apologise for the barbaric acts down by the ancient Germanic people?

Or are you really so stupid and deluded to believe that the ancient Germanic invaders of Rome were just no more than peaceful peasants? :rolleyes:

Talk about historical revisionism.

It was a jest, at you writing off vitually any other writers than Harman. As alternently 'Eurocentric' or 'non-marxist'. I agree with Dementio.


De Ste Croix isn't a Marxist. Expertise isn't the only point to consider. Personally I'd trust a Marxist historian like Chris Harman more.

Oh great Iseul, decider of political ideologies, I beseech you, why is De Ste Croix not marxist? Have you actually read Class Struggle


Not the entire population in any region obviously, but do you seriously expect me to believe that no civilians were massacred in the numerous Germanic invasions of Rome?

Nice strawman, but I never said that 'no civilians were massacred', I mearly stated that the view that the population migrations of the late roman empire/dark ages, replaced the entrie Roman population with their own germanic peoples.



Even invading armies today always tend to harm civilian populations, (Iraq comes to mind) let alone those of the Iron Age.

No shit



That has always been what I was talking about.

No you wern't.



Sometimes ancient historians deliberately hide away unpleasant details.

Have you ever read the Book of the Yuan Dynasty? According to this text, the Mongol invaders never massacred Han Chinese people or razed cities at all.

The Yuan dystanty were a mongol Dynasty, of course their offical history is biased towards them. You are making sweeping generalization. Procopius of Ceseara was not writing an offical history of the Western Roman Empire, and had no need to hide the truth regarding the fall of Rome.




Material productivity and culture declined across all the former territories of the Western Roman Empire.

Not in England, where the previously backward and largely irrelevant province of Britannia, into a powerful semi-feudal state, which repelled Viking invasions with easy.




It was not a complete collapse, but many native peoples were indeed hit very hard.

Only the urbanized elite sufferd, for your average pesant, all that changed was the Roman taxman no longer botherd you.



Look at linguistic changes. Why is it that formerly Latin and Celtic speaking areas became Germanic speaking areas? Are you seriously suggesting that no population displacements or one ethnic group dominating another one took place at all?

I never said that. That is a massive generalization



Before the Anglo-Saxons entered England, no-one in the British Isles spoke a Germanic language.

Cultural change can happen rapidly when the ruling classes change, look at how rapidly Europe became Amercanized during the Cold War.



Not true. The "left-wing nationalism" of national liberation movements, of oppressed national groups, can be partly progressive. Refer to what Lenin wrote on the national question.

I don't give a fuck what Lenin said. True marxists desire an end to all nations.


According to the standards of mainstream bourgeois academia, perhaps. But Marxists understand that there is no such thing as "pure objectivity", and all interpretations of history are necessarily influenced by various ideological constructions.

No, any conlusions should be drawn from the evidence at hand, rather than fitting the evidence to an ideological framework, which is what you are doing.

[Queercommie Girl]

Attila's plunder was the most brutal, as he destroyed Milan and Aquiliea,


I agree. The Huns in Western Europe at this time were ethnically related to the Xiongnu nomads who invaded China many times throughout history. They were a brutal militaristic people, ruled by a military aristocracy that only respected strength and violent power, and only had contempt for the weak.

The Xiongnu had the cultural custom of killing the adult males of the enemies they defeat and conquer, while taking the females as sexual slaves. As this ancient Chinese saying states: "At the front of the horse hangs a man's head, at the back of the horse a woman is placed".

During the Qin and Han Dynasties, a significant proportion of the entire national wealth of China was spent on defending China's northern border against these peoples, e.g. the construction of the Great Wall, and mobilising hundreds of thousands of troops on repeated, extended campaigns against these invaders.



You are basing your opinions on history on the Gibbonite "Gentleman Historians" from the 18th century, who loved to project the brutality of "Di Sacco di Roma" 1527 and the Thirty Years War on the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That created a "grand narrative" about the greatness of Rome as an ancestor of western civilisation.


Well, objectively I still think it's more progressive relatively speaking to think of Rome as a "civilisational ancestor" than to think of the Dark Ages under the reign of the reactionary Church as the "civilisational ancestor".

I don't believe in exaggerating the brutality of the Germanic and Hunnic invasions of Rome, but on the other hand one shouldn't deliberate downplay the brutalities that did occur either.



The Visigoths, Ostrogoths and the Vandals were like Africans coming to Europe or Mexicans coming to the United States.


I think your comparison here is fundamentally flawed, due to a fundamental difference in power balance. Romanised to some extent they may be, but the Goths and Vandals had more military power than the Romans of this time, which is why they were able to defeat Rome. Immigrants into the US are not militaristic in any way, and are generally speaking very powerless.

There is a fundamental difference between powerless weak immigrants and militaristic conquerors (even ones that weren't particularly brutal at all).

I tend to be always on the side of the relatively weak, rather than the relatively strong, as I oppose social darwinism.

[Queercommie Girl]

It was a jest, at you writing off vitually any other writers than Harman. As alternently 'Eurocentric' or 'non-marxist'. I agree with Dementio.


Chris Harman is one of the most respected figures of the contemporary Marxist left. He is also one of my favourite Marxists. (Though I don't agree with his theory of "state-capitalism") Harman is a genuine internationalist and anti-Eurocentrist. It's very unfortunate that he passed away in 2009. Maybe you shouldn't dismiss him so completely.



Nice strawman, but I never said that 'no civilians were massacred', I mearly stated that the view that the population migrations of the late roman empire/dark ages, replaced the entrie Roman population with their own germanic peoples.


But you used the "strawman" first since I never claimed there was complete population displacement (say like the Europeans in North America) in the first place. (Nor did Harman claim this)



No you wern't.


Elaborate.



The Yuan dystanty were a mongol Dynasty, of course their offical history is biased towards them. You are making sweeping generalization. Procopius of Ceseara was not writing an offical history of the Western Roman Empire, and had no need to hide the truth regarding the fall of Rome.


But actually the Book of the Yuan Dynasty was first written during the Han Chinese Ming Dynasty.



Only the urbanized elite sufferd, for your average pesant, all that changed was the Roman taxman no longer botherd you.


I'd say all urban citizens suffered, including the proletarii, and not just the elites.



I don't give a fuck what Lenin said. True marxists desire an end to all nations.


I'm a Marxist-Leninist, not just a Marxist. While I'm not a dogmatist by any means, generally for me what Lenin says is just as important as what Marx says.



No, any conlusions should be drawn from the evidence at hand, rather than fitting the evidence to an ideological framework, which is what you are doing.


Facts are facts, but interpretations of particular empirical facts are always somewhat influenced by ideological constructions.

[Dimentio]

The Civilisationary ancestor to Western Civilisation was Charlemagne's Frankish Empire and the failure to reestablish it, no matter how progressive or reactionary we deem that in retrospect, was crucial in the development of western culture. Then Machiavelli and others could try to revive the ancient world, and to some extent, America has succeeded, but it is still deeply ingrained with Christianity.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Chris Harman is one of the most respected figures of the contemporary Marxist left. He is also one of my favourite Marxists. (Though I don't agree with his theory of "state-capitalism") Harman is a genuine internationalist and anti-Eurocentrist. It's very unfortunate that he passed away in 2009. Maybe you shouldn't dismiss him so completely.

He's a trot, and has little formal training in historical discourse. Furthermore he was a central member of the SWP, a party I have little love for.



But you used the "strawman" first since I never claimed there was complete population displacement (say like the Europeans in North America) in the first place. (Nor did Harman claim this)

You stated that Germanic massacres were the main cause of the halving of the WEuropean population.


Elaborate.

You began discussing 'European civilsation' then 'The Roman Empire' then the 'Western Roman Empire', every post the area you are willing to discuss gets smaller, except for your inevitable comments about China.


But actually the Book of the Yuan Dynasty was first written during the Han Chinese Ming Dynasty.

But it was an offical history, and under the Mandate of Heaven, the Ming Dyansty considerd the Yuan Dyansty it's legitamat predicessor, and it could hardly have the blood of so many Han upon it's hands.



I'd say all urban citizens suffered, including the proletarii, and not just the elites.

Perhaps from looting or slavery, but compared to the Roman elites, who were wholesale replaced by Germanic leaders, pesantry were largely, unaffected, which was the largest part of European society at the time, the urbanized population was relatively small. Roughly 12% if I remeber correctly.



I'm a Marxist-Leninist, not just a Marxist. While I'm not a dogmatist by any means, generally for me what Lenin says is just as important as what Marx says.

For you, not for me, I have little caring for the sayings of hundred year old politicians who's world bears little resemblance to ours. Dogma should remain a part of religion.


Facts are facts, but interpretations of particular empirical facts are always somewhat influenced by ideological constructions.

True, but not to the point of bearfaced lies or omissions of facts.

[Dimentio]

12% urban population was huge for a pre-modern society. Usually, just 3% of the population in agrarian societies could be urban.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

12% urban population was huge for a pre-modern society. Usually, just 3% of the population in agrarian societies could be urban.

It's most likely wrong, It's been ages since I studied Roman Social make-up, I usually study Hellenic colonization of the Middle east.

EDIT: Just done some research, finding wildly varying figures, from as high as 30%(!) to 10-11%. It's safe to say that the demographics of the Roman Empire, are something of a mystery.

[Dimentio]

Yes. But Rome had slavery, which created an Urban proletariat of a kind which weren't present in China for example. I would think that unemployment would be higher in Rome than in China or India.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Yes. But Rome had slavery, which created an Urban proletariat of a kind which weren't present in China for example. I would think that unemployment would be higher in Rome than in China or India.

Indeed, especially considering Romans (as in, the inhabitants of the city itself) recived free food, thus removing the major motivation to work in the ancient period.

[Queercommie Girl]

He's a trot, and has little formal training in historical discourse. Furthermore he was a central member of the SWP, a party I have little love for.


Well, my stance is completely different from yours then. Since I'm Trotskyism-leaning and a critical supporter of the British SWP.



You stated that Germanic massacres were the main cause of the halving of the WEuropean population.


I said it was one of the main causes, not THE main cause. I said it was a significant factor. Famines and plagues were the other factors, as well as deaths due to warfare (not massacre of non-combatant civilians).

Not all of the Germanic and Hunnic settlers in Rome were brutal, but you really shouldn't deliberately downplay the de-population in many urban centres due to conquest, especially by the earlier invaders before their Romanisation, as well as the Huns who were never Romanised.



You began discussing 'European civilsation' then 'The Roman Empire' then the 'Western Roman Empire', every post the area you are willing to discuss gets smaller, except for your inevitable comments about China.


The Western Roman Empire at this time was the most significant pillar of European Civilisation, in terms of productivity and culture.



But it was an offical history, and under the Mandate of Heaven, the Ming Dyansty considerd the Yuan Dyansty it's legitamat predicessor, and it could hardly have the blood of so many Han upon it's hands.


I agree, which is why I said ancient historians usually hid many details, due to various reasons.

Even today this factor still matters in China because modern Chinese nationalists like to see Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing as "completely Chinese" dynasties, so that the modern Chinese state could "inherit" most of the territories of these dynasties, including e.g. Tibet, which was first annexed by the Yuan.



Perhaps from looting or slavery, but compared to the Roman elites, who were wholesale replaced by Germanic leaders, pesantry were largely, unaffected, which was the largest part of European society at the time, the urbanized population was relatively small. Roughly 12% if I remeber correctly.


12% (majority of which are non-elites) of more than 50 million people (at least) is still a lot of people who were looted, enslaved or killed by invaders.

You wouldn't just dismiss it like this if it were a modern army sacking a city, like say the Japanese army's massacre of 300,000 in Nanjing during WWII.



For you, not for me, I have little caring for the sayings of hundred year old politicians who's world bears little resemblance to ours. Dogma should remain a part of religion.


Then we must differ. I respect Lenin as a great Marxist.



True, but not to the point of bearfaced lies or omissions of facts.


Well, you are making a bear-faced lie about me right now: what exactly are the "lies" that I have told? :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

In general, the total amount of Germanics strolling around in the Roman Empire never were more than 100 000 at any given point. Most of them just became the new landed aristocracy, at least regionally. In 476 AD, the main bulk of the Western Roman army consisted of them.

Britain saw an era of migrations which greatly reduced life expectancy.

But the main culprits for the population reduction were:

The Antoninian Plague 169-180.

The Third Century Roman Usurper wars.

Lead poisoning.

The Justinian Plague.

The Justinian Wars.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Well, my stance is completely different from yours then. Since I'm Trotskyism-leaning and a critical supporter of the British SWP.

I citicise Harman for his frankly, poor historical discourse, as if he does argue that Rome collapsed due to a poorer Agricultural technological base comparitavely with China


I said it was one of the main causes, not THE main cause. I said it was a significant factor. Famines and plagues were the other factors, as well as deaths due to warfare (not massacre of non-combatant civilians).

The plage of Justinian is, in my opinion one of the largest causes of the decline of the Roman Empire, I have written an essay on this, and the Plague is reportedly to have killed around 50-60% of the entire European population (including the ERE and Britain), Germanic migration was a relatively minor influence on the post-roman depopulation.


Not all of the Germanic and Hunnic settlers in Rome were brutal, but you really shouldn't deliberately downplay the de-population in many urban centres due to conquest, especially by the earlier invaders before their Romanisation, as well as the Huns who were never Romanised.

I thought we were discussing post roman population decline? Any tribes who later Romanized after raiding a few border limes would logically contribute to a net population increase.


The Western Roman Empire at this time was the most significant pillar of European Civilisation, in terms of productivity and culture.

Really? I would consider the Eastern Roman Empire to be the strongest and most significant European Civilisation at the time, and I suspect most people would agree. the WRE was largely consisted of various quasi-germanic fiefdoms with little centralized control by Ravenna.


I agree, which is why I said ancient historians usually hid many details, due to various reasons.

Even today this factor still matters in China because modern Chinese nationalists like to see Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing as "completely Chinese" dynasties, so that the modern Chinese state could "inherit" most of the territories of these dynasties, including e.g. Tibet, which was first annexed by the Yuan.

Then why did you go on a divergant tangent about Chinese offical histories? Rather than criticising Procopious' histories? It makes little sense


12% (majority of which are non-elites) of more than 50 million people (at least) is still a lot of people who were looted, enslaved or killed by invaders.

You wouldn't just dismiss it like this if it were a modern army sacking a city, like say the Japanese army's massacre of 300,000 in Nanjing during WWII.

The rape of Naking was a systematic and planned campaign of terror, hardly a loot, which the main aim to to take plunder rather than massacre the population.




Then we must differ. I respect Lenin as a great Marxist.

He had a nice beard, thats about it.



Well, you are making a bear-faced lie about me right now: what exactly are the "lies" that I have told? :rolleyes:

I wasn't talking about you.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

In general, the total amount of Germanics strolling around in the Roman Empire never were more than 100 000 at any given point. Most of them just became the new landed aristocracy, at least regionally. In 476 AD, the main bulk of the Western Roman army consisted of them.

Britain saw an era of migrations which greatly reduced life expectancy.

But the main culprits for the population reduction were:

The Antoninian Plague 169-180.

The Third Century Roman Usurper wars.

Lead poisoning.

The Justinian Plague.

The Justinian Wars.


Lead posioning is kind of bollocksy, and doesn't have much crediblity.

[Dimentio]

The Romans used lead to conserve their wine, and their water pipes were made of lead. That could have affected the fertility of the urban population negatively.

[Queercommie Girl]

I citicise Harman for his frankly, poor historical discourse, as if he does argue that Rome collapsed due to a poorer Agricultural technological base comparitavely with China


Yes, Harman does basically argue for that, though his focus is on Rome's relatively backward productive relation of slavery, rather than on poor agricultural technology per se:

Had Roman agriculture been more advanced and based on something other than a mixture of large, slave-run latifundia and the smallholdings of impoverished peasants, the conquerors would have successfully taken over its methods and settled into essentially Roman patterns of life. We shall see that this is what happened with successive waves of "barbarians" who carved out empires in China and its border lands. But Roman society was already disintegrating as its conquerors swept in, and they simply added to the disintegration. Some of the conquerors did attempt to adopt Roman agriculture, cultivating huge estates with captives from war. Some also attempted to re-establish the centralised structures of the old empire. At the end of the 5th century the Ostrogoth Theodoric proclaimed himself emperor of the West. At the end of the 8th, Charlemagne established a new empire across most of what is now France, Catalonia, Italy and Germany. But their empires fell apart at their deaths for the same reason that the original Roman Empire fell apart. There was not the material base in production to sustain such vast undertakings.

Soon the cities were not only de-populated but often abandoned and left to fall apart. Trade declined to such a low level that gold money ceased to circulate. Literacy was confined to the clergy, employing a language - literary Latin - no longer used in everyday life. Classical learning was forgotten outside a handful of monasteries, at one point concentrated mainly on the Irish fringe of Europe. Itinerant, monkish scholars became the only link between the small islands of literate culture. The books which contained much of the learning of the Greco-Roman world were destroyed as successive invaders torched the monastic libraries.

--- Chris Harman, A People's History of the World, pg. 104 - 105



The plage of Justinian is, in my opinion one of the largest causes of the decline of the Roman Empire, I have written an essay on this, and the Plague is reportedly to have killed around 50-60% of the entire European population (including the ERE and Britain), Germanic migration was a relatively minor influence on the post-roman depopulation.
Marxists should not apologise in any way for any kind of invasion force, whether they killed one million innocent civilians or 10 million.

We should oppose all invasions.



I thought we were discussing post roman population decline? Any tribes who later Romanized after raiding a few border limes would logically contribute to a net population increase.
I was talking about the population decline due to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

As for population increase, in many cases the invaders killed more people than the total population of their own tribes.

You have a tendency to implicitly down-play the horrifying nature of destructive offensive warfare as simply "a few little raids". I treat all wars in the same way, whether it's the Germanic tribes and Huns invading Rome or US imperialism in the Middle East today, or even Islamic terrorism against the West. Whenever innocent unarmed civilians are hurt and killed, then I oppose it. I'm not an absolute pacifist but I essentially oppose all kinds of offensive war.

I put myself on the side of the civilians massacred by the invading armies at all times, not on the side of the powerful and victorious conquerors. I oppose militarism.



Then why did you go on a divergant tangent about Chinese offical histories? Rather than criticising Procopious' histories? It makes little sense
Just to make the point that ancient historians aren't always reliable.

I'd rather put my trust in modern historians like Chris Harman.



The rape of Naking was a systematic and planned campaign of terror, hardly a loot, which the main aim to to take plunder rather than massacre the population.
Such systematic campaigns of terror were widely used in ancient times by various peoples, such as the Mongols and the Xiongnu/Huns. That's an objective fact. The Mongol invasions and conquest of China led to around 30 million civilian deaths. In many places it was a systematic campaign of genocide, exceeding even what the European colonists did in the Americas.

But I agree with the fact that generally speaking Germanic tribes in ancient times were never as brutal as the Mongols and the Huns. Even in Europe at the time of the fall of the Western Empire, it was the Huns under Attila who were the most brutal and violent, and often the Germanic peoples allied with the Romans against them.

However, we should not just ignore the plebians and proletarii who were killed as a result of these invasions, even if these were not as systematic as the Hunnic/Mongol/Japanese campaigns of terror.

[Queercommie Girl]

More on Rome, from Chris Harman:

The 5th century was a period of break up and confusion for the three empires which had dominated southern Eurasia. There was a similar sense of crisis in each, a similar bewilderment as thousand year old civilisations seemed to crumble, as barbarians swept across borders and warlords carved out new kingdoms, as famine and plagues spread, trade declined and cities became depopulated.

... ...

The crisis was gravest for the Roman world. The flourishing of its civilisation had depended on an apparently endless supply of slaves. The result was that the imperial authorities and the great landowners concerned themselves much less with ways of improving agricultural yields than their equivalents in India or China. The collapse was correspondingly greater.

The period which followed in Europe is rightly known as the "Dark Ages". It saw the progressive collapse of civilisation - in the sense of town life, literacy, literature and the arts. But that was not all. The ordinary people who had paid such a price for the glories of Rome paid an even greater price with its demise. Famine and plague racked the lands of the former empire and it is estimated that the population halved in the late 6th and 7th centuries. The first wave of Germanic warriors to sweep across the former borders - the Goths and Franks, the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes - began to settle in the Roman lands and soon adopted many Roman customs, embracing the Christian religion and often speaking in Latin dialects. But behind them came successive waves of conquerors who had not been touched by Roman influence in the past and came simply to loot and burn rather than settle and cultivate. Huns and Norsemen tore into the kingdoms established by the Franks, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, making insecurity and fear as widespread in the 9th and 10th centuries as it had been in the 5th and 6th.

... ...

Such was the condition of much of Western Europe for the best part of 600 years. Yet out of the chaos a new sort of order eventually emerged... ...But it was a long time before this laid the basis for a new civilisation.

[Dimentio]

In terms of brutality, there are no sources that Germans systematically massacred Romans. They took hostages and demanded gold in return. But you guess that if barbarians kill lots of people, then it would certainly end in the scrolls - especially given how brutal barbarians were seen as. And it is correct that in terms of Attila's destruction of Northern Italy, it was reported. In terms of Alaric's and Geisieric's sackings of Rome, very scant information about massacres of civilians. Evidently, the moral shock was worse than the de-facto brutality.

Honorius was worse than Alaric. He ordered the massacre of the families of German soldiers in the Roman Army, killing 70 000 women and children all over Italy, for no other reason than that he suspected that those regiments might defect (and because of anti-barbarian racism). So, he was not only excessively cruel, but also explicitly stupid. Many of the survivors of that massacre flocked to Alaric.

The situation with the Goths... let me get a modern equivalent.

Imagine that Mexico for example fell to pieces, together with Brazil and Colombia, and suddenly 20 million refugees from Latin America were hoarded in camps in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and so on.

In Arizona, the new-comers are soon a majority, and due to horrible discrimination, they declare independence under a government. The Presidential Cabinet answers by setting white militias on illegal immigrants all over the USA, killing thousands of them.

One Latino leader then threatens New York with a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon and demands an end of the oppression of the Latino refugees.

[Dimentio]

More on Rome, from Chris Harman:

The 5th century was a period of break up and confusion for the three empires which had dominated southern Eurasia. There was a similar sense of crisis in each, a similar bewilderment as thousand year old civilisations seemed to crumble, as barbarians swept across borders and warlords carved out new kingdoms, as famine and plagues spread, trade declined and cities became depopulated.

... ...

The crisis was gravest for the Roman world. The flourishing of its civilisation had depended on an apparently endless supply of slaves. The result was that the imperial authorities and the great landowners concerned themselves much less with ways of improving agricultural yields than their equivalents in India or China. The collapse was correspondingly greater.

The period which followed in Europe is rightly known as the "Dark Ages". It saw the progressive collapse of civilisation - in the sense of town life, literacy, literature and the arts. But that was not all. The ordinary people who had paid such a price for the glories of Rome paid an even greater price with its demise. Famine and plague racked the lands of the former empire and it is estimated that the population halved in the late 6th and 7th centuries. The first wave of Germanic warriors to sweep across the former borders - the Goths and Franks, the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes - began to settle in the Roman lands and soon adopted many Roman customs, embracing the Christian religion and often speaking in Latin dialects. But behind them came successive waves of conquerors who had not been touched by Roman influence in the past and came simply to loot and burn rather than settle and cultivate. Huns and Norsemen tore into the kingdoms established by the Franks, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, making insecurity and fear as widespread in the 9th and 10th centuries as it had been in the 5th and 6th.

... ...

Such was the condition of much of Western Europe for the best part of 600 years. Yet out of the chaos a new sort of order eventually emerged... ...But it was a long time before this laid the basis for a new civilisation.


Rome was not based on slavery in the 5th century, but on serfdom.

[Queercommie Girl]

Indeed, especially considering Romans (as in, the inhabitants of the city itself) recived free food, thus removing the major motivation to work in the ancient period.

Apart from the aristocratic elites in the cities and the unemployed proletarii, there were also many poor plebians, such as artisans.

You are wrong to somehow favour the peasantry over the urban plebians and proletarii, and claim that the destructiveness of the invasions didn't matter so much because the peasantry weren't hit as hard as the "urban elite".

The majority of the urban population were not "elites", that's a ridiculous claim. Many poor plebians and proletarii are actually poorer than most peasants.

Also, as Harman points out, slavery still existed at this time, so a lot of the landholdings controlled by tribal aristocrats of the Germanic and Hunnic invaders used prisoners of war as slaves for agricultural production. It wasn't just peasants.

It's almost as if you are saying the lives and rights of the urban poor don't matter as much as that of the peasantry, simply because you think the former was "less productive". This is ridiculous and reactionary. Marxists shouldn't put productivity at the centre of normative discourse instead of productive relation.

Ultimately socialism is all about the emancipation of all humans against every type of oppression, not necessarily about some abstract "productive efficiency". Only a Stalinist bureaucrat or a Dengist revisionist would put such things above real human relations.

[Queercommie Girl]

The situation with the Goths... let me get a modern equivalent.

Imagine that Mexico for example fell to pieces, together with Brazil and Colombia, and suddenly 20 million refugees from Latin America were hoarded in camps in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and so on.

In Arizona, the new-comers are soon a majority, and due to horrible discrimination, they declare independence under a government. The Presidential Cabinet answers by setting white militias on illegal immigrants all over the USA, killing thousands of them.

One Latino leader then threatens New York with a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon and demands an end of the oppression of the Latino refugees.


But from an ethnic perspective, aren't the Latinos more like the Romans (Latins) and the white Americans more like the Germanics (Anglo-Saxons)? :lol:

Maybe it's the "revenge of history"!

I'm the kind of Marxist who would oppose terrorist threats against any civilians, such as 9-11. 9-11 was wrong and reactionary despite the brutal oppression of US imperialism in the Islamic World.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not in England, where the previously backward and largely irrelevant province of Britannia, into a powerful semi-feudal state, which repelled Viking invasions with easy.


The Celts had a flourishing Iron Age civilisation before the Anglo-Saxons showed up.

Marxists don't put "power" before everything else. We are always on the side of the oppressed peoples. The Anglo-Saxon invasions of the British Isles led to many Celts being killed. Even today, the English people's racist contempt towards the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish is a continuation of this historical legacy.

[Queercommie Girl]

Rome was not based on slavery in the 5th century, but on serfdom.

The tribal aristocracy of the Germanic and Hunnic invaders often used prisoners of war as slaves to work on their large landholdings. These were slaves, not serfs, because they had no right of life, and the aristocratic warrior-landlords could slaughter them at will if they wanted to.

During the later centuries of the European Middle Ages, although serfs were heavily oppressed, they could not be legally slaughtered at will by the feudal lords. There were feudal laws protecting the serf's basic rights to live.

[Tim Finnegan]

Not in England, where the previously backward and largely irrelevant province of Britannia, into a powerful semi-feudal state, which repelled Viking invasions with easy.
Actually, England suffered a greater decline than almost anywhere else, because it retained no Roman infrastructure whatsoever. Continental fiefdoms were often rooted in the old Roman provincialism system, and had the alliance of the church, but the Saxons destroyed both and established a semi-tribal system that saw more frequent conflict and the far slower development of powerful, centralised fiefdoms.

That may be why the "easy" repelling of the Danish invasions involved the collapse of all but one Saxon kingdom, which only survived by the skin of its teeth.