Rufinus of the Bacaudae expounds to Gratillonius. Men meet by twilight. Wanderers preach sedition:
"The Empire had rotted to worthlessness... the fat grew fatter, the powerful grew ever more overbearing. Had not Christ Himself denounced the rich? Was not the hour overpast to humble them and take back what they had wrung from the working poor? The Last Day drew nigh, Antichrist walked the world; your sacred duty was to resist him. Righteous men had sworn themselves to a brotherhood, the Bacaudae, the Valiant..." (p. 57)
They rob the rich and are supported by some serfs and freeholders.
Yes! The Andersons allow their character to proclaim revolution convincingly although Gratillonius remains sceptical of the difference between Bacaudae and bandits.
The two men part but Rufinus has been inserted into the narrative for a reason.
(This is probably the last post until next week.)
31 comments:
The fall of the Empire produced economic collapse and mass death.
For example, between the end of the Roman presence in Britannia in 409 CE and a century or two later the population fell from around 4,000,000 to around 1,000,000 or less. And a lot of that, ancient DNA research has indicated, were immigrants from across the North Sea, who enslaved the locals.
Even by 1086, the time of Domesday Book, it was less than 2,000,000.
England's population didn't consistently exceed that of Roman Britannia until the 1600's -- more than 1200 years later!
Literacy, trade, cities -- all fell off a cliff.
So the "the Empire is wicked" folks were completely wrong. The fall of the Empire was an utter disaster for its inhabitants.
"So the "the Empire is wicked" folks were completely wrong."
Ditto all the people who object to the term 'Dark Age'.
If you want to argue about what factors/factions to *blame* for the Dark Age, there is room for reasonable dispute.
Jim: although if the Empire -hadn't- fallen, most probably there would have been no Scientific or Industrial Revolutions.
The Western end of Eurasia might well have ended up like China -- a giant Empire that periodically broke up for a while but was always put back together in the end.
Impossible to say for sure, though.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! I have ZERO use for revolutions--so often, often, often they end in nothing but bloody chaos from out of which emerge regimes vastly worse and crueler than their predecessors.
Your comments about how catastrophic the fall of the Western Roman Empire was reminded me of these texts from Anderson's "Tiger By The Tail" and "A Tragedy of Errors." First, from "Tiger," as Flandry listened to Cerdic ranting about how "decadent" the Terran Empire was: "Only,..., first comes the Long Night. It begins with a pyrotechnic sunset across thousands of worlds, which billions of sentient beings will not see because they will be part of the flames. It deepens with famine, plague, more war, more destruction of what the centuries have built, until at last the wild folk howl in our temples--save where a myriad petty tyrants hold dreary court among the shards."
And this is what we hypthetically see Roan Tom protesting in self defense for what he had done during the chaos of the Long Night: "That was a spiny-tail period. Society'd fallen. And havin' so far to fall, it hit bottom almighty hard. The ee-conomic basis for things like buildin' spaceships wasn't there anymore. That meant little trade between planets. Which meant trouble on most of 'em. You let such go on for a century or two, snowballin', and what've you got? A kettle o' short-lived dwarf nations, that's what--one-planet, one-continent, one-island nations, all of 'em one-lung for sure--where they haven't collapsed even further. No more information-collatin' services, so nobody can keep track o' what's happenin' amongst those millions o' suns. What few spaceships are left in workin' order are naturally the most valuable objects in sight. So they naturally get acquired by the toughest men around who, bein' what they are, are apt to use the ships for conquerin' or plunderin'...and complicate matters still worse.
So I URINATE on practically all revolutions!!!
Ad astra! Sean
Mr Stirling:
Though I do see it argued that the geography of China favors unification of the Yellow & Yangtzee valleys under one state, which will also tend to take over peripheral areas of that region. While the geography of Europe with its peninsulas, islands & mountain ranges, favors division into multiple modest size states.
In the last chapter of the later editions of " Guns, Germs, and Steel" Jared Diamond hypothesizes that the moderate amount of disunity favored innovation in Europe. Eg: Ming dynasty China not only stopped the 'Treasure Fleets' (likely a reasonable policy), but also stopped private traders from opperating over seas.
If any one state tried that in Europe, its neighbors would continue shipping and outcompete that state.
If Spain had rejected Columbus' proposal another state would likely have accepted it or a similar proposal from someone else like Cabot.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Your comments also reminded me of how I've seen so many, mostly leftists, whining about how evil the US/Western civilization are. If they got their wish and the US crashed to ruin, we would see what happened after the Western Empire fell: chaos, wars, famine, hundreds of millions of people dying, etc.
On many planets during the Long Night, mankind simply died out in miserable ways. Think of what would happen on Unan Besar if production of the antitoxin needed for living there was disrupted. Other planets, like Lokon, collapsed into cannibalistic savagery.
Jim: I am not so sure. I think somewhere in one of Anderson's stories we see a character speculating the Roman Empire could have expanded further, not just to the Elbe River, as Augustus had planned, but even more, annexing what is now Poland, Belarussia, Ukraine.
Or probably not. Stirling believes the Roman Empire of Marcus Aurelius' was as large a state as possible, given the technology then available.
And Columbus did try to interest Henry VII of England in his projected journey west across the Atlantic, but was turned down. The entire Tudor dynasty, 1485 to 1603, was disinterested in journeys of exploration.
Ad astra! Sean
"The entire Tudor dynasty, 1485 to 1603, was disinterested in journeys of exploration"
The monarchs were likely disinterested, but private interests could finance exploration.
Eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cabot#Expeditions
Then there is Francis Drakes privateering expedition that turned into exploration.
Also once the Portuguese had figured out the Volta do mar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volta_do_mar
others could imitate them, possibly with a bit of espionage to learn the technique.
Without Columbus' expedition America would still be discovered. a 1500 Portuguese expedition around Africa to India bumped into Brazil. They would have (quietly?) explored along the coast and similar events to our history would have happened with the differences being in what European countries ended up dominating which parts of the Americas
Kaor, Jim!
There were some efforts, late in the Tudor period, along those lines, but they never amounted to much. The sole attempt at colonization by the English in this period, the Roanoke expedition, failed and there were no further efforts during Elizabeth's reign.
Btw, in Spanish eyes Francis Drake was a criminal and was lucky he was never captured by them--else he would have been hanged as a pirate. All Elizabeth really cared about, as regards Drake, was getting a cut of the loot he got from raiding Spanish colonies.
I agree, it was inevitable the Americas would be discovered by SOMEBODY around 1500. And, considering how disinterested the French and English were about exploration, that leaves the Portuguese and Spanish as the most likely candidates.
Ad astra! Sean
After the Treaty of Tordesillas, the Spanish viciousness toward any interlopers from other European states in the Americas, rather helped keep other European from doing anything in the Americas, other than raiding Spanish treasure ships.
Kaor, Jim!
True, but for a LONG time, aside from some adventurous individuals, not many others were interested in the Americas.
I have wondered, what might have happened if the English colony at Jamestown, founded in 1607, had failed (as it very nearly did)? Would the English have again lost interest for another 25 or 30 years? That might have given Spain time for founding colonies on the east coast of N. America (as happened in Florida).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Does anyone want the US to crash to ruin?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry to sound snarky, but do you really need to ask? The US is the de facto hegemon of Western civilization--and lots of people, some of them crazy, others not--would love to see it falling. China, Russia, Iran, N Korea, for example, would not weep if the US collapsed.
It's the ancient pattern, nobody loves top dogs, who will always have to contend with ambitious would be rivals and supplanters.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I meant serious domestic critics. Some of us want society to be improved, not destroyed.
We will not "always" have to do anything. Things change.
Paul.
Cultural and constitutional change: public officials not as individual wielders of power over the public but as servants of the public will.
Institutions to hold them to account. Disincentives to seeking office in the expectation that it will equate to personal aggrandisement.
Kaor, Paul!
And, bluntly, I would oppose all alleged "reforms" coming from leftists, or left wing Democrats. So often, often, often their "ideas" are catastrophic, counterproductive, or contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Your second comment: It sounds nice but has never worked in actual practice, in any State, in whatever form, thru out human history as far back as it can be traced. Because ANY gov't, in no matter what form, has to be able to command and coerce when necessary if it's going to be able to govern at all.
Third comment: Disincentives HOW? I don't understand your comment here. The desire for power is the huge motivating factor driving ambitious men to seek and gain power. The closest we can come to what you suggest would be a hereditary monarchy, where the heirs are not necessarily obsessed with gaining or using power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The desire for power motivates the attempt to gain power. Tautology. Public service should not be power. Nor should it be a means to wealth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But a TRUE tautology, you are merely projecting what you wish onto how real humans actually behave, people who stubbornly REFUSE to do what you want them to do. Ambition, strife, conflict, competition, etc., are not "problems" to be "solved," they are CONDITIONS which can only be MANAGED.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And they can be MANAGED by disincentivizing the pursuit of power for its own sake.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that is not going to happen, because the competitive urge which drives that desire for power is an innate part of all human beings, to a greater or lesser degree. It is sheer UNREALISM to think otherwise.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have no innate desire for power over others and I know many others who do not have it either. Cooperation is the single most basic fact about human beings. We cooperate linguistically by agreeing on the meanings of words even when we use those words to express disagreement about just about everything else. It is sheer UNREALISM to think otherwise. (Let's do without the capitals which are the equivalent of shouting.)
We cannot say what is not going to happen. There has been enormous change in the past and there can be a lot more in an indefinite future provided that we survive long enough which is the immediate issue.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we cannot agree. Also, I do not believe what you hope for is ever going to happen.
Sorry about the use of upper case, which I sometimes use for stress and emphasis.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Bluntly, those who don't want power will be shoved aside by those who do. That is simply a fact. The best we can hope for is that the competition for power and status will be non-violent and carried out according to certain norms, laws, customs, etc. And that will vary at different times in different nations.
If not, well, think of the third century AD crisis of the Roman Empire!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You assume the continued existence of power structures. We can build a society that is fully democratic, where anyone elected to public office will serve the electorate and will have no means of imposing his will on anyone else.
Paul.
Sean: Elizabeth certainly liked getting a share of Drake's loot, but that wasn't the primary reason she backed him.
It was doing the dirty to Philip and to Spain, which was the same reason she backed the Dutch rebels.
And the reason she needed the money was the war with Spain, too. She was notably frugal for a 16th-century monarch.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I don't understand what you mean by "power structures." Political systems of all forms? Hierarchical organizations and bureaucracies of all kinds? If so, I disagree with you, because humans will always need such things. The real question and need is how to keep them within limits.
There is never going to be a "fully democratic society," there are always going to be some who are going to compete for power and status. To say nothing of how there are always going to be some who want to hurt and prey on others. What you hope for is a Utopian impossibility.
Mr. Stirling: In her frugality Elizabeth was much more like her miserly grandfather Henry VII than her wastrel, monstrous father Henry VIII.
Wars are expensive, so that gave Elizabeth another incentive to be stingy! And why her successor, James VI of Scotland, was so eager to make peace with Spain.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We seem to flounder with communication. A power structure is a form of social organization that enables some people to exercise power over others. People can only seek power if there are such structures. In a society that has existed for a generation or more without any such structures, no one will seek "power" any more than they will seek any other outmoded way of life. You keep saying what there is never going to be but you cannot say that when we have (if we survive) an indefinite future ahead of us. Some will prey on others? But there will be nothing to prey for when technology (as it can) generates vast wealth for all. But we keep saying the same things over again. How many will want to hurt others for no reason? Very few and society at large will easily restrain and hospitalize them.
What I hope for is a reasonable aspiration for the future. Society cannot continue as it is. It is destroying itself. If it survives, then it will definitely change itself fundamentally whether in the way that some of us envisage or in unpredictable ways that we cannot currently imagine.
Paul.
Sean: James could make peace with Spain because Elizabeth's long reign gave Spain a hearty smack in the face.
And the Hapsburgs (implicitly, without open acknowledgment) abandoned their crusading zeal about crushing Protestantism and establishing a universal monarchy.
It's notable that the real beginnings of English colonial expansion started in 1607, during James' reign -- because by then, Spain couldn't even attempt to enforce the monopoly of the extra-European world they'd claimed and attempted to enforce during Philip's reign.
The peace that Elizabeth's long war made possible freed up the energies and resources that eventually resulted in 25% of the habitable surface of the world speaking English.
(And of course the Dutch revolt was essentially successful by then too.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree Spain was forced to limit her ambitions. No argument there!
But, at first, English attempts at colonization in the New World were slow, inept, and half hearted. The second attempt, Jamestown (1607), very nearly failed more than once. If it had failed I can see the English again losing interest for another 20 or 30 years. After all, the second permanent colony, Plymouth, was only founded in 1627, by malcontents who disliked the Anglican church.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Jamestown was more like the 5th or 6th -- there had been multiple tries, and there were others immediately afterward, including a few in very distant areas like the Indian Ocean.
Barbados was settled starting in 1625-27, for instance. The Caribbean settlements attracted more English settlers than North America up until the 1630's-40's.
Mostly the pre-1607 attempts failed due to a combination of novelty (the circumstances were unlike any previous English overseas settlements(*), and during the 1500's Spanish hostility.
(*) The English weren't used to places where you had to start from scratch, including cutting down a lot of trees.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I sit corrected, there were a few other English attempts at colonization besides Roanoke and Jamestown. Even if later than 1607 in the Caribbean/Indian Ocean.
Starting from scratch? Brutally hard labor cutting down massive old growth trees!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment