Thanks for the ask to answer.
Was Rome as Advanced as Europe?
Well, rome was far more advanced in every single capacity, but it had endless slaver labor and no incentive to automate. But for europe to dig out of the hole after the roman empire took almost as long is it took to build the roman empire. So europeans had increasing (often external) incentives to innovate.
I think that RL’s statement is easily interpreted as overly broad and as such easily mistinterpreted. Productivity was not higher in Europe for a long time (at least until after 800-900). That said, yes, the problem facing the ancient world was the use of human and animal labor, particularly slave labor (humans as yet another domesticated animal) produced a disincentive for investment in mechanization that by the black death became necessary. (I THINK this is the point RL’s making.) And the restoration of classical though combined with the printing press in 1440 and the ending of the medieval period 13 years later by the ottoman capture of byzantium in 1453. That’s the transition between late medieval and early modern periods.
Rome had a huge trade network. Complex bureaucracy. And while productivity was low, it could afford a vast distribution of labor, and most importantly, people who could specialize (Like Rudyard and I do today) in concepts and information that are only available when the result of TRADE, the ideas that are shared by trade, the wealth created by trade.
Both before and during the Feudal period there was a shortage of labor AND a shortage of coinage. There was a shortage of order, and a shortage of transport and trade. Europe has rivers but they are not like the rivers of the middle east, india, and china. They’re sufficient for transport but not for centralization of government, and concentration of military and political power. Our european sense of freedom and liberty are as much a product of the independencde of medieval manors as it is indo european steppe, Greek Hopelites, Roman Legionaires, and Germanic Warriors.
TRADE FIST CIVILIZATION SECOND
In case I’m not being clear. It’s trade that makes a difference possible for people. They cannot make a difference without trade (and they don’t). So when you look at history look at it as trade (cooperation) in an increasing division of labor and attribute far less to the ideas in peoples heads independent of trade. 😉
AFTER ROME
Roughly speaking:
Immediate Aftermath (5th – 6th centuries):
The Justinian Plague and It’s Iterations: Killed about 40% of Byzantium’s population, Estimates for roman and europe vary from 25-50% depending upon region.
Population Decline: The immediate years following the fall saw a sharp decline in population. This was due to a myriad of factors, including invasions, internal strife, and economic collapse.
Urban Decay: Cities, especially in the western part of the former Roman Empire, lost a significant portion of their population. Rome itself shrank considerably.
Economic primitivism: Agricultural output radically declined. AFAIK Productivity per capita remained unchainged – but so did the number of people.
Early Middle Ages (7th – 10th centuries):
Stabilization: The population stabilized and, in some areas, began to grow gradually, although it remained below the Roman peak.
Rural Shift: The population became more rural as the urban centers of the Roman era continued to decline.
The Carolingian Attempt: The Carolingians did a fair job of trying to restore order to europe. But their efforts failed after 800.
The Vikings and Trade: Instead of the mediterranean, the north sea, the baltics, and the river route through eastern europe to constantinople. They made it to sicily, and if not for one sea battle (agean?), might have rather reasily made it to the middle east.
High Middle Ages (11th – 13th centuries):
Population Surge: Europe saw a significant increase in population, sometimes called the “Medieval Warm Period.” Technological innovations in agriculture contributed to better yields.
Re-urbanization: Cities began to grow again, marking the rise of medieval urban centers.
The Rise of The Hansa: Creates the ‘free cities’ and restores trade.
The restoration of classical thought: Including Aquinas’ attempt to reverse Augustine, and restoring our classical thought (realism and naturalism) with the political religion of christianity.
Late Middle Ages (14th – 15th centuries):Population Crisis: The Black Death in the mid-14th century led to a severe population crash, reducing Europe’s population by about 30% to 60%.
Renaissance and Onwards (16th century -):Recovery and Growth: The population started to recover and grow, setting the stage for the modern era.
The End of Mediterranean Trade Centrality:, the ending of the vienna-byzantium partnership, the capture of Byzantium, the closing of the ports by muslims, and the european age of sail uniting the world.
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
So RL’s reliably true after 1000ad. With the carolingians we start to see order. But its after 1000 (we can get picky with the dates) we can argue that europe began to restore trade routes, return greek and roman knowledge, restore some meagre literacy and knowledge production.
RL AND CD
I think in terms of economies trade technology the complexity of the society, the decade by decade progress they make. Rudyard is the best in the world at explaining with compassion and understanding the experience of any given people at any given point in time. He also tends to think in terms of the church and the people and think in terms of the military and the state and ‘being stuck with these people’. It’s why I appreciate him so much. He’s always right. But he’s right from a different starting point. And when different thinkers arive at the same conclusions from different positions it’s confindence inspiring – not only to us, but to the audience.
CD’S HARSH VERSION
The hard problem of european trifunctionalism is the common law, vs the state vs the faith. We all gravitate to some corner of this triangle in our understanding of the world around us. Other civs are primitive by comparison because they DON’t have trifunctionalism. The middle east has one thing: religion. India has one thing: I guess we can call it religion but it’s much more than that. China has state and philosophy, but not politics and law. Europe has all three axis of coercion: masculine state, feminine faith and neutral law(trade). It’s a much more complicated system. Jesus vs Caesar is hard enough. Now add natural common law and politics and ‘thinking’ like ‘weird’ european is hard.
In my view we did not restore anything close to the development of rome until the age of napoleon. And once we did that – we did what rome and greece couldn’t, because we lacked sufficient labor, and needed to invent machines. And that’s what made the difference.
There isn’t any economic difference in all of history until the european third agrarian revolution in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it wasn’t meaningful until the industrial revolution. (The first agrarian revolution in Anatolia and the Levant in 10k bc, second in europe between 800 and 1300, and the third in europe between 1650 and 1750/)
So I view humanity as the struggle to get from hunting and gathering to agrarianism and cities and the struggle to get to industrialism and nation states. And the little self congratulations that people give one another at any point within or across civilizations – well, they either make that windfall happen or inhibit it. So I do see a dark age of ignorance and superstition replacing a bright age from 800bc to 200AD. And a bright age beginning in about 1650 through 1920. Whether we are in another bright age right now, or in the final stages of collapse depends on what you measure.
SOURCES
Fall of Rome
Harper, Kyle. “The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire.”
Rosen, William. “Justinian’s Flea: Plague, Empire, and the Birth of Europe.”
Little, Lester K., ed. “Plague and the End of Antiquity: The Pandemic of 541–750.”
The Dark Ages
“The Carolingian Economy” by Adriaan Verhulst
“Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800” by Chris Wickham
“Trade and Exchange in Early Medieval Europe’s Northern and Eastern Margins” edited by Stephen Sherlock and Aleks Pluskowski
The Rebirth of Europe
Lopez, Robert S. “The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 950-1350.”
Spufford, Peter. “Power and Profit: The Merchant in Medieval Europe.”
Razi, Zvi. “Life, Marriage and Death in a Medieval Parish: Economy, Society and Demography in Halesowen 1270-1400.”
Hallam, H.E., ed. “The Agrarian History of England and Wales: Volume II, 1042-1350.”
Campbell, Bruce M. S., ed. “Before the Black Death: Studies in the ‘Crisis’ of the Early Fourteenth Century.”
Reply addressees: @NorseJarl @whatifalthist