|
By the time of the Middle ages Europe had evolved the medieval Feudal System, but the system was based more on the Germanic Concept of leaders and his followers than the Roman Concept of Landowner and his workers/Slaves.
From the late Roman Republic to the Dark Ages the condition of the poor in the Roman Empire was terrible (And I mean the poor NOT the Slaves who were treated even worse). A poor person had no right to property, no education, and if he lived on the property of another (and most tended to do so in Rural Areas where 90% of the population lived) the poor person was subject to the whim of the property owner. From the Time of Caesar (Death 44 BC) to the Time of Constantine (c312 AD) the condition of the poor Roman Citizen had become one of complete toil. The raise of Christianity can be traced to its belief system in a better life in the next world if you suffered in this one (and its system of taking care of other people, a system reserved under the Empire to the Emperor, the Empire Charity System worked if the Emperor wanted it to work, it did not if he had other priorities, thus Christian Charity was much less but more reliable).
The Condition of the poor of Rome can be seen in some of the records that have survived. For example you had to be at least 5'6" to join the Roman army in the time of Caesar by the time of Fall of the Empire it had dropped to 5'2". This reflected the general drop in height of the Roman Poor.
For your information, people's height, reflects not only their genes BUT the how much food their mother and grandmother ate. This can be seen in the general increase in the height of the average Japanese since WWII. With improved food after WWII Japanese Students height increase not only through the 1960s (First Generation of Good Food) but into the 1980s (Second Generations of Good Food). Presently it is believed almost all ovums of a woman develop while she is in her mother's womb. This explains the two generation increase in height. If your mother has access to adequate food than you will be taller than someone whose mother did not (The access to food reflects in your early development and thus height). If your maternal Grandmother had access to adequate food than the ovums developed in her daughter's body is imprinted with increase height tendency. This probably evolved to compensate for temporary famines and feasts so that people's height (and thus height and thus how much calorie intake their need to survive) tended to reflect LONG TERM access to food as opposed to any temporary famines or feast.
I went into the details of height and access to food to show that the Roman Poor was in decline even BEFORE the fall of the Empire (Even Caesar Commented that his Roman Soldiers where already substantially smaller than the Germans and Gauls he was facing). This lack of access to food was a product of the bad economic system of both the Roman Republic and the Empire.
Another way to look at the problem of the Late Roman Empire is that when the Goths invaded Italy in 405 AD their army actually GREW as Italian peasants joined their Column giving up their Roman Rights and becoming "Goths" (Who where Christians like the Romans). Religion was NOT a factor in the Roman Peasants joining the Goths and the other barbarian invaders of Western Europe. In fact up to and including the Battle of Chalon (451 AD, when Attila the Hun was defeated in France by a Roman/Germanic Army) Christian Romans and Germans rarely Joined non-Christian Germans. In Chalon Attila the Hun had all of the pagan Germans as his allies, while the Romans had all of the Christian Germans as their allies. In fact the Roman Peasants in what in today called the Brittany Province of France joined the Romans in the battle of Chalon even through their where in open Revolt against Rome. The Roman Peasants were in Revolt against the Roman Landowners NOT the Empire or Christianity.
Now this brings up the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Rome needed troops, it had survived since the Third Punic War with a Mercenary Army, but Roman Finance could no longer pay for the Army (and the Mercenary Army was only successful when it was kept small and that was only possible when Roman had no real enemies, a situation that existed from the Defeat of Carthage, Egypt, Macedonia, and the Securid Empire around 100 BC till the advent of the Sassaid Persian Empire and the raise of the Goths about 200 AD).
After the appearance of Real enemies on the Roman Frontier Rome had three Choices, first arm its peasants, but if you arm the peasants you have to give them rights, something the Roman leadership did not want to do. Second Increase the Size of the Mercenary Army (Which Rome Did from 200 AD till 300 AD) the problem with this is how to pay for this large mercenary army? Taxes went through the Roof mostly on the poor. This was the preferred choice of the Roman Elite for their kept all of their power as long as their kept the Army paid. The problem was the taxes were so brutal that it increased the decline in the average poor Roman AND those poor Romans NOT in the Army tended to revolt at the high taxes (Which lead to increase use of the Army in suppressing peasant Revolts). Constantine's acceptance of Christianity while real from all accounts, was also supported by his ability to steal all of the Gold and Silver from the Pagan Temples and used them to pay his troops. Previous Emperors had tried to loot the Persians to pay for their troops but except for Severus all failed (as would Julian after Constantine). By the time of Constantine the Persians were to strong to be defeated by Rome thus the Wars with Persia after about 250 BC were all money losses for Rome.
This was the Situation when Julian Became Emperor, he apparently wanted to return Rome to Paganism, but needed the Gold and Silver to do so, so he invaded Persia to steal Gold and Silver. The Persians defeated his invasion (not in open battle but a series of battles that forced Julian to admit he had to retreat and as he started his retreat he was killed in battle). With Julian's Death and defeat of his Invasion Rome was Broke. Taxes could NOT replace what had been lost by Julian.
Thus Rome turned to the Third Option it had, hire Germanic Barbarians but not with the payment of gold or Silver but with payment of land. Thus Rome started to invite in the German to put down various Peasant Revolts. Settling the German "Invaders" in provinces where the peasants were or had recently in revolt. In fact except for the Vandals, ALL OF THE GERMAN INVADERS OF THE 400s WERE DEFEATED BY ROME AND THAN SETTLED (and even the Vandals had been invited in by first the Roman Elite of Spain and than the Roman Elite of what is today's Tunisia). Thus the Germanic Invaders did not invade the Empire their were invited in by the Roman Elite to replace the Roman Mercenary Army that Rome Could no longer pay for. This was preferred over arming their own peasants.
Now after a few generation the Germans and the Romans tended to merge, but not as the Roman Elite liked. The Germanic invaders had more in common with the Roman Peasants than the Roman Elite and after about two generation the Germanic Invaders started land reform to give land not only to themselves but to the Roman Peasants (And to implement the tradition German method of Communal Land ownership with the "Chief" owning the land, but his "men" having rights to use various parts of the land). This land reform was opposed by the Western Roman Elite who Complained to the Emperor (who by this time period 500 AD sat in Constantinople not Rome). The Western Roman Elites still owned most of the land in Western Europe and when the Germans started to redistributed them to the poor the Elites demanded that the Emperor Justinian defend their Rights as Romans.
Thus the early attempts at land reform lead to the Invasion of Italy, Tunisia and Spain by Armies of the Eastern Empire in the first half of the sixth Century i.e. 500-530 AD). Most of the Western Roman Peasants backed the Germans during these invasion, The Eastern Empire won, but lost Italy again in 570 AD (When the Lombards not only invaded but re-distributed the land to the peasants).
The Franks in Gaul had adopted a similar policy, but it was not as extensive as the distribution in Northern Italy of the Lombards but enough to make the Franks the most powerful country in Western Europe. Now both the Lombards and the Franks were of Germanic background so each retained a MILITARY attitude to ownership of large estates. This attitude was one of mutual rights and duties, i.e. the "Owner" of the property had DUTIES he had to perform for his "serfs" while the "Serfs" had duties their owned to their "Master". At the same time BOTH the "Master" and the "Serf" had rights not only to the land but from each other. This system started to replaced the older Roman system of the "owner" having complete rights over the land and the peasants on the land. In Lombardy this seems to occur quickly after the Lombard invasion, in France a bit later. Elements of the older Roman System survived till about 900 AD.
In the period from 850 AD till 950 AD Western Europe went through one of the greatest changes in World History. Charlemagne's empire had fallen, the Northmen were raiding Northern and Western Europe, the Muslims were raiding Italy and Southern France (and had taken Spain). Something had to be done and the Emperor Otto I did it, he expanded the German Feudal System throughout his Empire (Both Germany and Northern Italy). If an "owner" of land did not stay to defend his land and his peasants he lost his rights and was replaced by someone who would defend his peasants. This was the heart of Feudalism, that the leadership only were the leaders and owners of the land to permit them to DEFEND THE REST OF SOCIETY. Now to defend the rest of Society included arming the peasants. This increased the ability of a "Baron or "Count" to defend his "County" against foreign raids but also against the power of the King to Remove him. By 1000 AD barbarian Invasions went a thing of the past, the new ruling elite of Western Europe had defeated them, not in a pitch Battle but in arming and organizing their peasants into a decent defensive system. From 1000 AD Western Europe was no longer the object of invasion (it was to strong) but an area where invasion came from (The Crusades).
The key was the mutual understanding of the local Barons and Counts with their Knights and peasants. It was the Duty of the Baron and Counts to defend organize and lead their Peasants. In exchange the peasants had to follow the lead of their Count or Baron ("Count" being the Latin term "Baron" the German Term for the same County Official). Everyone owned a duty to someone and in exchanged were owned duties by that person.
This started to break up in the 1300 with the raise of the Middle Class (And I mean the "Upper Middle Class" as that term in used in Modern American Usage, not the American Term "Middle Class" which includes everyone from people on welfare to Billionaires and thus is a meaningless term). With the success of Feudalism the Middle Class could exist but as the power of the Middle Class expanded it ran into the various mutual obligations of Feudalism. These Middle Class Merchants wanted things determined by "Contract" not "Status" but this took centuries to replace the older system.
The Raising Middle Class wanted things to be flexible not fixed obligation that one had to do whether you received any benefit out of it or not. For example under Feudalism all employment and housing was for one year periods. The Middle class did not want to pay an employee for a whole year for work done just for 2-3 months (or even 9-10 months of the year). The Middle Class did not want to provide housing for its employees, another obligation of a "Master" under Feudalism. The Middle Class grew to hate these "Costs" of doing business and our present "hatred" of things Feudal is more a reflection of the raise of the Middle Class and the Middle Class desire for more "flexibility" than permitted under Feudal rules. Thus the change from the above rules to employment at will, housing for one month period, and one's obligations to one's employee is to pay him want ever was contracted for.
If the above sounds like a desire to return to the harsh rules of Pre-Christian Rome you are right, many of our Social and Financial Elite would like to return to that period NOT the Middle Ages. Thus my point here is Bush and Company do NOT want a return to Feudalism, for under Feudalism the poor had rights AND THE RULING ELITE HAD DUTIES TO PROTECT THE POOR. No, what Bush and Company want is a return to the pre-Christian Roman Empire, where the ruling elite had all of the Money, Land and Power, something that Feudalism rejected as unworkable.
The system worked for Rome while it kept its Army small and profitable (The Roman Army was into the Slave trade from 100 BC till 200 AD and was its main source of revenue during that time period). Once the army had to be increased to face a REAL threat, Rome rejected the concept of a Nation in Arms for to go to the Concept of a Nation in Arms you MUST give your poor something to fight for (For example Napoleon had distributed land to his ex-soldiers, land taken from large land owners opposing the French Revolution, these peasants had something to fight for, their new farms).
Like Bush and Company the Roman Elite did NOT want to give their poor rights and thus preferred to Bankrupt themselves and than turn themselves over to Barbarians rather than give rights to their poor. Bush and Company are doing the same, shipping jobs overseas rather than strengthen the US and the working Class of the US. All to increase the Power and wealth of the Elite even as the Country goes down hill overall.
The comparison with the late Roman Empire is Frightening, I would PREFER A RETURN TO FEUDALISM TO A RETURN TO THE PRE-CHRISTIAN ROMAN EMPIRE for under Feudalism I would have RIGHTS, something no member of Roman Society had except if you were a member of the Social Elite of the Empire.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
