Another fine update. By your description it seems that the economy of Western Europe remained more or less unchanged from before the Roman conquest until the Early Modern Period? And this Khaldun guy sounds very interesting!
The prevailing consensus among economists and economic historians is that the economy of Europe was relatively stagnant until the early modern period. Angus Maddison, from which this graph is from, is the undisputed master in the field of economic history, and all economic historians are indebted to his research! I basically just reinforced his conclusions in this section covering the Romans.
His work is great if you're interested in economic data and writings!
I find your opinion of the Late Roman Empire quite callous! True, the western empire was highly decentralized, and true it was extremely corrupt, yet the benefits of living under Roman rule were undeniable. Having a relatively safe and stable empire encouraged trade and prosperity, knowledge spread more quickly between the constituent states, and the Romans are well known for being more tolerant of different religions than there successors.
I agree that I have an extremely negative view of the Roman Empire, but that's mostly because I loathe the often "cool" stereotypes of the Roman Empire perpetrated by young gamers or the History Channel!
The Roman Empire is much more cruel than you have been let on. Roman stability didn't create trade and prosperity, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians are far more responsible for that. The Romans had civil wars nearly every generation. Alexander's Hellenization spread education greater than anything the Romans did. Most of the great ancient histories and philosophical texts are in Greek and not Latin, I would know, I read a lot of them!
I reject the term callous, as someone who has read hundreds of articles and books on the subject, I am very well-versed and have come to the conclusions that most historians and scholars would generally agree with.
The successor kingdoms were actually very religious "tolerant" only because they were religiously homogenous, when persecution occurred, it was generally under the directives of Rome (the Church) not the kings. The Muslim successor kingdoms, especially in Spain, were by far the most tolerant of the kingdoms in Late Antiquity and the early Medieval Era. Religious persecution under the Roman Empire was higher than in any of the successor kingdoms. While it is true that the Romans were not as bad as some may portray them, the empire itself persecuted Jews in many wars, Christians, and Zoroastrians, and after becoming Christian, persecuted the Pagans. The empire was built upon violence, and maintained itself with violence. I've read no serious scholar who thinks otherwise.
Dr.Livingstone said:
I once recalling a documentary on the subject stating where once you could travel in relative safety to Rome through the Roman Empire, after its collapse you now had to cross through a thousand! This is a bit of an exaggeration, and it does show the decentralization of the late empire, but the level of fragmentation is still staggering.
If you'd like a good history on the fragmentation and breakup of the Roman Empire and its influence on Western Europe, I recommend Chris Wickham's
The Inheritance of Rome, of which this AAR shares many agreements with and is sort of a mini tribute to his work! I generally steer clear from documentaries since I've caught about a dozen mistakes in History Channel and other public broadcasting channels when they put out their content. I'm afraid what is included in that "The World Wars" 3 day show coming up for Memorial Day. I'll probably have a notebook filled with mistakes after watching it! (This is what we do as historians for original research!)
Dr.Livingstone said:
The collapse of the Empire also led to the so called 'Dark Ages' (though I am loathe to use that hated phrase), and most certainly after the decline mortality rates spiked, knowledge, like the empire, fragmented, disease treatment descended into bloodletting, and society in Western Europe became what is essentially a cast system! Thousands of scrolls, books, works of art, and architecture, were destroyed, and I weep for the lost knowledge.
wikipedia said:
Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between extinguishing the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.[5] [3] This definition is still found in popular use,[1][2][6] but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages has led to the label being restricted in application. Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century).[7][8] However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[9][10][11] - wikipedia article introducing the historiography of the Dark Ages.
wikipedia said:
[T]he period between the fall of the Empire and the Middle Ages became known as the Dark Ages, a term displaced in most current periodisations by the introduction of "Late Antiquity". - wikipedia article introduction on the topic of Late Antiquity.
Although I usually don't endorse getting information from wikipedia, the article on Dark Age historiography is very good. Few historians now consider the Dark Ages at all bad. In fact, there were many great advancements in knowledges and the sciences during the "Dark Ages." The idea of a "dark age" and a collapse of knowledge after the fall of Rome has been thoroughly rejected by the scholarly field. Since I will end up with a PhD in Late Antiquity, I am generally grateful for the last 20 years of advancement made in historiography to overturn an archaic and misleading paradigm. The idea that so much knowledge was lost in a complete myth. Roman scientific advancement had already begun stagnating by the late 2nd century CE. I am part of the historical school that completely reject the "Dark Ages" in favor of the term "Late Antiquity," which will probably become the only accepted scholarly position within the next generation.
Livingstone said:
Certainly the Empire had many, many,
many faults, but none of them compare with the immediate aftermath! You sir may be glad of the empires demise, but I am not, and never will be!
I agree with you, and I also exalt in my writings the many great things from the Roman Empire, especially the Edict of Milan, arguably the earliest document of religious toleration anywhere in the world!
However again, most modern historians do not believe the traditional stories about how bad things got with the Barbarians in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire. The most recent historiographical trend in historical scholarship in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages is that the "Barbarians" and the conquering Muslims played a very positive role in European development, with the Umayyads and Abbasids being closer to the earlier Greek and Roman civilizations of Antiquity!
This is a good and brief article on the historiography of the Barbarians and their contributions to European development.
Were the Barbarians a Positive or Negative Influence in Ancient and Medieval History? (the link is a pdf to the file I have in one of my folders).
Regardless, the Roman Empire did fall. And that's how history goes, it gets one shot.
Dr.Livingstone said:
In other news, we have a Star Trek club? How could I not know of this! I shall join the club immediately! Thank you for alerting me of said club, and great update!
I love Star Trek, but you sir are probably more well-versed, seeing I have slacked the last 5-6 years, although I saw both Abrams' films in the reboot and came away with a positive opinion about both.
Thanks again for your continued patronage Dr.Livingstone! It is always appreciated and your comments stimulate good dialogue.
Maybe instead of going into the hard sciences I can persuade you into Roman history and you'll probably change your opinions once you start heavy research and writing on the subject! I used to have the same sympathies you had and was mislead that if Rome never fell Christopher Columbus would have been "sailing to the moon!"