tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post297141237586114645..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: Was Christianity responsible?Peter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-38408618456386257222022-05-26T05:43:35.153-04:002022-05-26T05:43:35.153-04:00I'm sorry, but this narrative is built on cher...I'm sorry, but this narrative is built on cherrypicked sources and old historical fallacies.<br /><br />I agree that Christianity didn't cause the fall of the Western Roman Empire (or the Easter 1000 years later). That's about it.<br /><br />The idea that the Roman Empire had a passifying effect on its population is belied by the fact that it survived, successfully as the militarily strongest state in the region for more than 400 years (with the Sassanids as a peer competitor for part of that time - and let's not forget the eastern empire) and that it survided a 50-year period of internal strife in the 3rd century. It seems like a rehash of the myth that "hard times make strong men", which also has roots in antiquity (but then partially for other reasons) - I mean, se Herodotus' description of the Scythians. (Sidenote: this myth feeds into Gibbon's idea that Christianity caused the fall of the western empire.) Actually, high degree of civilisation (e.g. affluence and economic specialisation) enables states to field more deadly armies than most "less civilised" societies (with the occasional exception of Mongols). The historian Bret Deveraux has written far better about this myth than I can here, so here's a link to a comparison of Rome and its non-state neighbours: https://acoup.blog/2020/01/30/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-ii-water-spilled-on-the-sand/<br /><br />Integration of foreign peoples into Roman society and army wasn't new in 4th or 5th cs. Roman use of auxilia (allies) in their armies goes back to the early republic and was a major reason why Roman armies were able to field increasingly diverse (from an equipment, training, tactics perspective) armies - you might see the culmination of this in Bellisarius' use of hunnic warriors in battles against the Sassanid empire (though this is arguably Eastern Rome). The xenophobia evidenced by sources in the 4th and 5th centuries exists in a context that goes back at least to before the Social War and the opposition against granting the Italian allies citizenship. It is also the same rhetoric used against Stillocho (Roman *and* barbarian) in the 4th adn 5th cs. <br /><br />If you were to list all the explanations given for why the western empire collapsed, you could fill a whole book, but I would hold elite competition (also in the sense of civil war) up against barbarian pressure on the border any day of the week. Elite competition is part of the reason why the Gothic integration into the army was bungled and this lead directly to Adrianople-<br /><br />*Something* happened in the 4th and 5th cs. to change the dynamic between Rome and it's neighbours on the Rhine and Danube frontiers, but reducing a host of reasons (demographic decline, climate change - yes; it happend back then as well and put pressure on agriculture, i.a. through increasing desertification in North Africa - internal conflikt, several crises of lacking political legitimacy, more state-resembling organisations among neighbouring peoples in Europe, large-scale migration on the Eurasian steppes) to a more passive population and political naïvete misses the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-31830220583698314112017-04-21T19:33:05.193-04:002017-04-21T19:33:05.193-04:00Wow. You really don't grasp demographics well....Wow. You really don't grasp demographics well. The Roman Empire fell because of demographic collapse brought on by high levels of urbanization of the free population. The rural population was increasingly composed of enslaved males. Urban people have lots w birth rates. The Roman Empire had to import vast amounts of manpower to make up the difference. Eventually it was too late vAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-81011170176154950652010-01-08T16:24:19.257-05:002010-01-08T16:24:19.257-05:00Sorry for bringing this many months old post to li...Sorry for bringing this many months old post to life again. I recently discovered this blog and have been reading through most of the posts, including old ones such as this, with great interest, and this one in particular prompts me to ask a question, which I can only hope will be noticed despite the old age of the original post. <br /><br />The analogy between the old roman empire and modern western europe seems, to me, to have one big flaw, and that is the malthusian dynamics involved. There were pressure on the Roman borders, because, in Roman times, there were no contraceptives. Today, we are witnessing falling birth rates throughout the world, including the middle east. I think the great western complacency is due to the assumption there will never again be violent competition over resources; only economic. Whether this is true or not we can not know - but no doubt this belief is sourced in the reduction in human conflict brought about by economic growth.P.J.S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-30222118931100390332009-11-11T03:17:17.310-05:002009-11-11T03:17:17.310-05:00Related post Was Roman Britain multiracial?Related post <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/11/was-roman-britain-multiracial.html" rel="nofollow">Was Roman Britain multiracial? </a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-24121350195826807502009-08-16T16:56:58.189-04:002009-08-16T16:56:58.189-04:00The Christian late Roman elite's attitude to t...The Christian late Roman elite's attitude to the barbarian influx may have owed something to a perception that barbarians would lack the ability to compete for resources at the elite's level; the Christian attitude to Jews became very negative as Jewish success in the late Roman Empire increased.<br /><br />The Norman conquest saw a massive amount of downward mobility as the former ruling class suffered expropriation and was pauperized. That may have kick started genetic change in the lower classes. Also England was less top heavy as the (Norman) ruling class after the Conquest was tiny compared to what it had been before.Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-10715447380767429492009-08-16T14:42:50.278-04:002009-08-16T14:42:50.278-04:00Vertumne,
This is almost an inevitable outcome of...Vertumne,<br /><br />This is almost an inevitable outcome of mature pacified societies. We come to think that peace and order are just part of the natural state of things. If people don't act peacefully and orderly it's because they have not been allowed to develop normally to their full potential (because of lack of opportunity, poor education, poverty, etc.)<br /><br />Henry,<br /><br />In England, the Industrial Revolution (which began in the 1600s during its initial phase) was the culmination of behavioral evolution that began at least 600 years earlier (after the Norman conquest) when the State established an effective judiciary and effectively monopolized the use of violence.<br /><br />The Roman Empire existed within a shorter time frame. Even if it had lasted longer, I'm not sure that an industrial revolution would have occurred. For one thing, the Romans were constrained by proportionately higher expenditures on defense, which in turn led to high rates of taxation and, ultimately, State controls to ensure that taxable citizens continue to engage in taxable activity.<br /><br />For another thing, the Roman Empire was much more open than England to gene flow from outside, notably the influx of northern barbarians and also inflows from the Arabian peninsula and sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the eastern provinces. This inflow would have dampened any gene-based behavioral evolution within the empire.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-11844674028085881822009-08-15T19:56:48.851-04:002009-08-15T19:56:48.851-04:00Nice job. Your views are not very far from Gregor...Nice job. Your views are not very far from Gregory Clark's. Any ideas about why the industrial revolution didn't start then instead of 800 years later?<br /><br />Henry HarpendingHenry Harpendinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17323186101339026326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-48474977851680780262009-08-14T11:51:07.979-04:002009-08-14T11:51:07.979-04:00Today Westerners face the same issue, with Christi...Today Westerners face the same issue, with Christianism replaced by Human Rights and German barbarians replaced by people from Third-world countries (especially muslim ones). We think that everybody wishes a secular society with low interpersonal violence, a society that respects everybody. However, Al-Qaeda quote "we love death more than you love life" is really clear about islamic intentions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com