Barbarians Rising

[decaro]

Any thoughts on this new series currently airing on the History Channel?

Although the show has a sympathetic portrayal of the barbarians, I have always considered them to be anathema to the progress of civilization and have found myself rooting for the "evil" Romans.

[wings7]

Joe, I have not viewed any yet but it is a welcome segment of history that has not been covered like others...definitely tuning in! Thanks for the heads up! [:)] What are your thoughts so far?

[Orm]

It is the victorious Romans that has written the history of the 'barbarians'. I suspect that The Roman Empire set back the industrial development in Europe by hundred of years. If not more. The barbarians were often more developed than the Romans in many areas but the one that counts: military. And the Romans were very aggressive. Crushing the civilizations were they advanced.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Orm

It is the victorious Romans that has written the history of the 'barbarians'. I suspect that The Roman Empire set back the industrial development in Europe by hundred of years. If not more. The barbarians were often more developed than the Romans in many areas but the one that counts: military....

Not to mention architecture and aqueducts and a system of roads that connected the known world.
And when Rome finally fell, Europe descended into what was called the dark ages.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: wings7

... What are your thoughts so far?

I'm wondering how the History Channel will present the kinder, gentler side of Attila the Hun?

[Jagdtiger14]

I have always considered them to be anathema to the progress of civilization and have found myself rooting for the "evil" Romans.

I pretty much agree with what Orm wrote above. Take a look at what Theodoric the Great did when the Ostrogoths were ruling Italy+.

The true dark ages occurred when the Byzantine Empire destroyed the Vandals/Ostrogoths, and then again when the Moors invaded Spain.

By the time Theodoric arrived into Italy, the Western Roman Empire was something real only on paper.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I have always considered them to be anathema to the progress of civilization and have found myself rooting for the "evil" Romans.

I pretty much agree with what Orm wrote above. Take a look at what Theodoric the Great did when the Ostrogoths were ruling Italy+.

The true dark ages occurred when the Byzantine Empire destroyed the Vandals/Ostrogoths, and then again when the Moors invaded Spain.

"The true dark ages...."?

"Migration period, also called Dark Ages or Early Middle Ages, the early medieval period of western European history—specifically, the time (476–800 ce) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West or, more generally, the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. The name of the period refers to the movement of so-called barbarian peoples—including the Huns, Goths, Vandals, Bulgars, Alani, Suebi, and Franks—into what had been the Western Roman Empire.... (Britannica)

[Jagdtiger14]

My use of the term "true dark ages" is my opinion.

If you look at the way the Vandal, Ostrogoth, and Visigoth ruled areas (esp the Ostrogoth area under Theodoric) were administered...these areas were revitalized and rebuilt from the disrepair of a hundred years prior. Once the empire was split, especially after the popular Valentinian I's rule and the civil war of 383 things spiraled into a "dark age". Then another dark age after the Ostrogoths were defeated.

Its very simplistic and lazy for historians and encyclopedia's to assign an arbitrary date to what is defined as "The Dark Ages", its more out of tradition than reality (or an easily remembered even number like 500). Under Theodoric, the Ostrogoth area experienced a long period of peace, urban life and religious tolerance. Reconstruction of city walls, large scale reconstruction of ancient Roman buildings, aqueducts repaired, literature, etc, etc...

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

My use of the term "true dark ages" is my opinion...

Its very simplistic and lazy for historians and encyclopedia's to assign an arbitrary date to what is defined as "The Dark Ages", its more out of tradition than reality...

The reality was the incursion of warring, barbaric tribes that pillaged a struggling empire into chaos, isolation and starvation.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I suspect that The Roman Empire set back the industrial development in Europe by hundred of years. If not more

That is the weirdest theory I have seen in a very long time.

Joe D., it's a book but if you are interested about this topic I recommend you this work: https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Barbaria ... 0199892261

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Joe D., it's a book but if you are interested about this topic I recommend you this work: https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Barbaria ... 0199892261

Looks like an in-depth work, thanks for the link! [:)] "Empires and Barbarians presents a fresh, provocative look at how a recognizable Europe came into being in the first millennium AD." How provocative is it?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I suspect that The Roman Empire set back the industrial development in Europe by hundred of years. If not more. The barbarians were often more developed than the Romans in many areas but the one that counts: military.

Hi Orm. I've never heard this interpretation of history before. Where did you read this? [&:]

[Jagdtiger14]

a struggling empire into chaos, isolation and starvation. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

The Western Roman Empire...at least from 383 "struggling"? That is quite the understatement. I hope you enjoy the show.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: wings7
Looks like an in-depth work, thanks for the link! [:)] "Empires and Barbarians presents a fresh, provocative look at how a recognizable Europe came into being in the first millennium AD." How provocative is it?

I don't know why they call it "provocative" [:)] Perhaps because he tries a new approach, or refutes, nuances old theories. That's what original scholars who propose new ideas try to do. More or less like dogs urinating to mark their new territory [:D] And of course, to the older dogs that might be "provocative" ie a stranger is urinating in their own territory and we can't have that [:D]

The author explains very well the interaction between the Roman Emperors and the barbarian chieftains. How this relation evolves, changing the barbarian tribes and the Empire itself in the process.

A good read.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The barbarians were often more developed than the Romans in many areas but the one that counts: military.

By the time of the Barbarian Invasions that is simply untrue. The military advantage had already disappeared long time ago. When Marius annihilated the Cimbrians and Teutons (a very dangerous invasion) in the north of Italy on 101 B.C. the military superiority was real though. But that was during the Golden Age of Roman arms.

And anyways, I can't see how they could be more developped than the Roman world. Somehow their cities, intellectual and scientific works went unnoticed by all the scholars then...

[demyansk]

I have it on dvr and watched the Hannibal episode. Good

[barkhorn45]

Another thing that disappeared with the roman's,bathing.
The industrial advances were delayed because of the use of slave labor
Why would you need mechanical labor saving devices?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

Another thing that disappeared with the roman's,bathing.
The industrial advances were delayed because of the use of slave labor
Why would you need mechanical labor saving devices?

Only problem is that the zenith of slave labour was reached at the end of the Republic. Like most of the conquests. The last centuries of the Roman Empire saw the number of slaves decrease a lot in fact. This is a well known documented fact. There was a shortage of manpower: for the Legions, for the agriculture. That's why the late Roman emperors were forced to create the colonii: the direct ancestor of the Middle Ages serf. The barbarians who took over simply kept using the institutions they found.

Let's keep in mind that unlike what happened much later, slaves in the Roman society as a norm could expect freedom... That is they did not reproduce themselves [;)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Orm

The barbarians were often more developed than the Romans in many areas but the one that counts: military.

By the time of the Barbarian Invasions that is simply untrue. The military advantage had already disappeared long time ago. When Marius annihilated the Cimbrians and Teutons (a very dangerous invasion) in the north of Italy on 101 B.C. the military superiority was real though. But that was during the Golden Age of Roman arms.

And anyways, I can't see how they could be more developped than the Roman world. Somehow their cities, intellectual and scientific works went unnoticed by all the scholars then...

1) Almost all of 'barbarian' advances and so on have been unnoticed by the scholars. With no written records themselves this is no surprise. And buildings made by wood are difficult for the archaeology to find and evaluate.

2) Romans fought 'barbarians' since around year 390 BC. They considered many (most?) early civilisations as barbaric. Among them the Celts, Iberians and Thracians.

3) The Roman military existed for around a thousand years. During those years I claim that they had a military advantage over the 'barbarians' a lot more often than not. Say 800 years of military advantage?

4) My statement that the Romans hindered industrial development was not just because of their treatment of the 'barbaric' people. It has as much to do, if not more, how they treated the 'civilized' people.

5) Recent archaeological evidence suggests that the pre-Roman Celtic societies were linked with overland trade routes that spanned Eurasia. So this road network predates the Roman roads.

6) I am convinced that the Roman empire slowed, or even stopped, the Greek advancement in technology and mathematics. The Greeks (most likely) built the Antikythera mechanism a hundred, or even two hundred, years before Christ. To the 'barbaric' Romans such technology was just loot. My mind boggles at the thought of a alternate history where such technology flourished instead of lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

[warspite1]

I know nothing of this period (other than 300 and Gladiator [:)]) and I am finding this discussion, and this idea, really interesting.

Keep it up guys [8D]