Tom Sowell makes the case in his book Applied Economics that areas of government are more likely to have economic development than areas which don’t.
While I am a miniarchist like he is, I sense something is really wrong with his example.
He claims that while the Roman Empire existed all the way from northern Europe to north Africa, the order and common law of all those areas allowed for traders and merchants to make the effort of commerce and allow cities to come up. In his view, the fall of the Roman empire killed all that commerce and the cities around which they were built, going as far as saying that it took Europeans 1000 years to get back the same standard of living they had in Roman days.
Now, Sowell knows alot about alot, but I think he just made the huge mistake of thinking that the Dark Ages actually meant Bad Times or that Europe retrogressed in medieval times. I am quite sure in my reading of history that western civilization continued accomplishing, progressing, and building even in the Dark Ages, and much cultural, scientific, and trade related progress happened throughout the time.
Let’s just face it. We are HOMO SAPIEN SAPIENS for god’s sake! Man doesn’t stop progressing when it is vital to his survival in the first place. Even native Americans developed a lot of medicine, culture, and civilization before anybody ever even came there. And they were not some kind of people in tune with nature, none of that “noble savage” nonsense, who lived off by staying true to Stone Age habits. It doesn’t work that way.
So, is my understanding of history right, or is centuries long retrogression possible? And were the Dark Ages really times of European backwardness or did it show as much progress as any other time in Europe?
I need to correct you, the Dark Ages is not a synonym for the Middle Ages. Is is a synonym for the Early Middle Ages.
In any case whose fault was the collapse of the Roman civilization if not of the state? What entity made peasants landless, created the proletariat, caused countless civil wars, introduced serfdom?
Think of the Dark Ages as a centuries long depression brought on by government excesses. Think of late Rome as you do of Herbert Hoover.
Yes, reversal of gains achieved is certainly possible. Once Rome fell, it wasn’t safe to travel long distances. People stayed within a few miles of where they were born in most cases. The knowledge of the Greek philosophers was mostly lost, just kept alive in Moorish Spain and some monasteries.
That’s not to say there were no advances during that time, but so much was lost that it did take until about the fifteenth century when knowledge really started to advance again.
What is usually sees as “Roman order” was actually a very brief period in history between the battle of Atium (31 BC) and the death of Marcus Aurelius(180 AD), a little over two centuries during which the Roman Empire was at peace inside its borders, except for the long-drawn pacification of the Alpine peoples (a marginal conflict) and the brief civil war following Nero’s death (68 AD). These two centuries are the apex of Roman civilization as we intend them.
While the Dark Ages are commonly accepted to have started with the deposition of Romulus Agustulus, the last Emperor of the West (476 AD), they actually started well before this date. Some put forward the battle of Forum Trebonii (249 AD), which marked the end of the perceived Roman military invincibility, others the reign of Diocletianus (284-305 AD). I incline for this later date: half of the Empire was ruined by war and the other half had been drained of its lifeblood by relentless taxation (notice a pattern?).
Indeed, but in turn, were they better off before the Roman Empire? And if they were better off after coming under Roman rule, I think the tricky part is establishing how much benefit came from having Roman laws. Or whether that benefit resulted from coming under a less despotic environment than what they used to be under before.
I think that’s the tricky part of such issues, and I wonder if there is ever a clear way of talking about how much good or bad government did in a particular situation without looking at the matter from a foregone conclusion.
BUT, I guess the best conclusion I can draw is that a liberal society best gains from the benefit of liberal society if it is consistent in being one, and otherwise it just as well exists to bear the cost of the heavy-handed government it was forced to remove. That many societies where size and powers of government were eventually abridged in times of crisis only saw terrible collapse in certain sectors does not make a case against liberalism, when one sees that societies which liberalised had no choice; as was the case in Russia, which was forced to choose between complete collapse and shortage in keeping the Soviet model and a long recession that would follow from tieing up the government’s hands.
The reaction to the 1991 Russian collapse is unbelievable to me. What would anyone except of an economy in which more than 95% of all capital was invested in unneeded investments? Flower in 3 months!? A is see it, they got off easily. My own Albania experienced a far shorter depression (roughly a year) and started growing by 13% annually in1993, yet every single piece of manufacturing plant had to be broken down to pieces and sold for shillings to do that. never got the guts to go that far.
Those two centuries of peace were marked by a number of innovation. For example slavery went into decline: with less slaves coming from freshly conquered lands and a more prosperous economy causing less debtors to be sold into slavery, large landowners saw their traditional manpower shrinking. They were forced either to sell their lands or rent them out to small free farmers. Also Roman emperors of this period were on the average very capable and, for the age, very balanced and thoughtful leaders. They mostly believed that a prosperous Empire was the best guarantee to internal stability and the energy they put in guaranteeing safe passage from the Black Sea to Gibraltar, as well as encouraging trade both within and without the Empire, speaks volumes. For those more bent on military ventures there was always some obscure war on the borders to win laurels and keep the restless legions busy. Trajanus’ letters paint the image of a stern but very balanced and thoughtful leader, the kind the ancient world loved. While satirists and to a lesser extent historians dwelt on their personal vices they were on the average good quality.
When that balance broke, Rome slide into a long decline. Truth to be told, the seeds for this decline were sown during this two centuries golden age. The “welfarist” mentality was an inheritance of the old Republican system and even capable and resolute leaders like Vespasianus and Trajanus did nothing to dismantle it. The military failed to evolve: it was geared to fight frontier wars against half naked savages and lacked a central reserve. It failed to take notice that the heavy infantry days were numbered. Not only that but the legions grew more power hungry as their military importance declined, doing and undoing emperors with the greatest ease… better to stop here, though I am sidetracking this topic.
According to Tacitus, barbarians were on average taller and more robust than Romans. This is a pretty good indication that they were healthier. If I had a choice between being reincarnated as a random Germanic barbarian or a random Roman, I’d choose the former. It would be as a random Roman that I would more likely end up as a growth-stunted slave.
“The relative freedom made possible by political decentralization led to the industrial and commercial revolution of the high middle ages13 which is egregiously ignored by contemporary popular history. During the high middle ages, water and wind mills peppered Europe like never before. The increased energy thus harnessed and its automaticity had an explosive effect on productivity. Cereals grains were processed with unprecedented efficiency. The greater heat of medieval furnace technology initiated the true iron age, during which quality iron was available for widespread use for the first time. There were huge improvements in agricultural technique, including in field rotation. The medieval harness unleashed the motive power of the horse in agriculture, which dramatically increased productivity. Scientific husbandry at monastery sheep farms led to an explosion in wool productivity. All this happened, and much much more.”
By the way, part of the “much much more” was the almost complete disappearance of chattel slavery in the west.
No, much later than that. (Charlemagne’s reign, I think, was a step back) As I argue in the article I mentioned above, the “Walk to Canossa” in 1077 is as good a starting point as any.
(Some day I’ll get around to fixing the broken images in it.)