OK, I was just wondering since Charlemagne was an avowed enemy of free trade…
This is such a blatant case of putting the cart before the horse that it begs reason to seriously ask such a question. Does anyone honestly believe that a single city state conquered the entire known world by… um… awesome military tactics?
The case of the Roman empire is exactly the same as every other imperial state from the beginning of time to the present day. Some region became more advanced and rich than neighboring regions due to greater liberty and maybe natural conditions, enabling some ambitious head of state to eventually seize and and mobilize its immense resources for conquest of the other states. A process of gradual decay of every past advantage of the home region and accumulating crises then sets in as a result of ever higher state controls culminating in a latent ultimate catastrophe.
Tacitus was very partial when praising the barbarians, since he thought the romans were decadent and the barbarians more virtuous. Those were very rough times, nutrition wasn’t very good, and no matter how good the genetics, without proper nutrition no population can be very tall.
For example, southern koreans are usually 3 to 4 inch taller than northern koreans just for having a much better nutrition. The dutch population, known nowdays for being very tall, was shorter than the current brazilian population during the 19th century. So the romantic image of germanics being very tall compared to the romans is…just a romantic image. They were a bit taller thanks to genetics, but not by much. Actually being 1,75m (5’9") tall would already make the person being taller than average.
And roman soldiers were in quite good shape, marching dozens of miles every day with armor.
That is quite wrong. One person does not need good nutrition to be tall. Thus, a large group does not need good nutrition to be average tall.
This argument makes little sense. Romans were not a race: they were a civilization. Rome itself didn’t claim to stem from a legendary race but from a mythical leader gathering a varied group of followers to his banner. The Republic first and the Empire later comprised many, many people even before Caracalla extended citizenship to all males living inside the Imperial borders (mostly to increase revenues through succession taxes, non-citizens being exempted). Julius Caesar’s legions were mostly recruited among the people of Gallia Cisalpina , what is now Northern Italy, mostly Romanized Celts. Hans Delbruck covered the recruitment in detail in Volume II of his History of the Art of War.
The Roman superiority was not racial or physical but exquisitely military. The legionaries were better trained, better equipped and regularly fed and paid. Caesar’s conquest of Gallia stemmed more from his ability to recruit and fed a large, well trained standing army for long periods than from his battlefield prowess (he was a good general but lacked the genius of his uncle, Gaius Marius). “Barbarians” were incredibly brave and well able to wield their weapons (but Romans had a tendency to praise their enemies to enhance their own glory) and on one on one were probably superior to legionaries. Yet they lacked cohesion and tactical discipline. This is very similar to Napoleon’s remarks regarding the Mamelukes: extremely brave and well practiced warriors but easily defeated by superior French tactical organization.
But “Barbarians” learned their lesson well, from both fighting and serving Rome. They learned to appreciate the advantages of fighting in body armor, they learned how to fight in closely knit tactical units (usually a tribal chief and his most valiant warriors), they learned how to exploit the weak spots of the Roman system (chiefly the lack of central reserve). But most importantly they learned to fight on horseback, while Romans stuck to heavy infantry for far too long. But that’s another story for another day.
I think that was just his point. It is an indicator that the average barbarian ate better than your Roman commoner. Just like the Korea situation. Or just like how in 1789 France the average serf was three or four inches shorter than the average noble.
I think the interim period in England, between the time the Romans retreated from Hadrian’s wall to the Norman invasion, is a good example of the impact of Roman order. There’s no doubt that land based trade and market centers were impacted by the political instabilities of the time, as well as the lack of security on the roads and borders. This was repeated again in what is today central and northern France - from the contraction of the western empire until the carolingians took over the leadership of the Franks, trade suffered and living near any of the marches was pretty risky. Say what you will about Charlemagne, his ability to keep the local brigands focused on external conflict was a boon to trade within his borders.