‘Late Antiquity’ is the term introduced in the 1970s in the English-speaking academia describing the centuries when the Roman Empire was in decline and Europe was plunged into the Dark Age. The Empire fell and the half of the Mediterranean world was taken over by the force of Islam.
Of course this is too simplistic. The Roman Empire did lose
territories, and eventually had to accept even the loss of the city of Rome,
the birthplace of the Empire. But, Rome itself was not the only magnet of ancient
economy to begin with, and, in her place, other big cities were thriving. The
decline of the city of Rome does not necessarily mean that the entire
Mediterranean world was in decline.
The traditional view of the fall of Rome was basically about
barbarian invasions from the periphery, especially those of the Germanic
peoples from north, forcing Rome to overspend on defence. But in the post-WW2
period, historians and archaeologists began to find evidence to indicate that
in many parts of this world, people are doing rather well.
More recent historical studies also show that what was
happening in the late period of the Roman Empire, i.e., from the fourth into
the seventh century, was the process of a transformation from a bipolar world
to a multi-polar one. At the heyday of the Empire, only two powers, Rome and
Persia, mattered. Within a few centuries, however, peoples in regions
surrounding these empires were touched by these advanced civilizations, and,
exploiting Roman peace, got richer. Vibrant and rich culture of Rome spread,
changing the ways people live and think fundamentally. As a result, new
political and social forces emerged. Having learned advanced civilization, they
could form more efficient and powerful states that could rival the Roman state
itself.
Sounds familiar? I wonder if we live in a world that resembles
the late antique Roman world. The USA is no longer a dominant hegemon. We often
talk about the decline of the USA, the US dollar and even the English language.
But of course this does not mean that world civilization as a whole is in
decline and will be plunged into another dark age. Our living standard has been
steadily rising for the past half-century or so and the world population keeps
growing.
In fact, the world is now more prosperous. More people are
considered as ‘middle class’, relatively well off, well educated and
politically more assertive than in the past. We demand more than just food and
shelter; and we absolutely refuse to let the few push us around. Pluse our
middle class morality led to be compassionate, trying to feed the poor in the
less advanced parts of the world. Just as Christianity spread in the late Roman
period.
One downside of this society is that we are not producing
cultural giants. Everyone is mediocre (including you and I!). Literary and
artistic skills, and scientific and philosophical training are not monopolised
by the handful of privileged people. This means that in future people would not
be reading twentieth or twenty-first century authors as Classics as we read
Homer, Herodotus or Shakespeare, or listening to Bach or Mozart. In late
antiquity, we have a similar, culturally lean period with few original works of
science or literature was produced. Before modern archaeology, historians
thought that this was a sign of decline, but maybe it could also be a sign of a
rich, smug and lazy society?
What will be the conseuquences of all this? It can be argued
that the late antique world eventually led to a fragmentation of the world once
connected with trade presicely because of its success. The ancient world was
linked by trade routes, stimulating international trade and commerce,
encourageing population movements and specialisation of local economies. When
financial and economic crisis of the third century led to the massive
restructuring of the world system, which inevitably produced winners and losers,
the middle class peoples, having enjoyed dividend of Roman peace, demanded more
power, hoping to replace the existing elite who had cuased the crisis. Thus the
centralised system of Roman imperialism was under increasing pressure, giving way
to regional and more localised centres of political power.
Within the Roman Empire, Egypt and Western Europe were
particularly strong dissenting voices. Keeping Europe in the Roman orbit was
not as crucial as Egypt, so the Empire downsized by shedding the West. Letting
Britain go was no surprise; Gaul had to go too, as the cost of controlling this
province was too high; losing Italy was a bit shocking, as Rome was where the
Empire had started in the first place. After a brief lull in the sixth century,
which the Romans used to regroup and reorganise (historians call this empire
Byzantium), the force of Islam took Egypt away in the seventh century. The
Egyptians did not exactly welcome the Arabs, perhaps, but the Muslim leaders
could exploit the independent spirit of the Egyptians to their advantage.
Translated into today’s political landscape, the same sort
of thing is going on in various parts of the world. Countries are getting less
inclined to adhere to a system that intricately connects up different parts of
the world, which encourages specialization of economy and can deprive nations
of ability to control their own future. Europe’s financial crisis is one good
indication that various European states with varying degree of financial and
industrial development could get together and form a community of equals is a fiction.
Either we must accept the reality that the EU is essentially a Franco-German
Empire (Charlemagne’s dream, basically) and impose their rule with intimidation
behind closed doors, or, just give up the idea. A partnership of equals can
work only among countries like Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands.
It is said that out of ashes of Rome, three worlds were
born: Western Europe, Orthdox East and Islamic East with their own unique
cultural and economic outlook. Our world is going through a similar
transformation. This time the story is unfolding in a truly global scale. What
is ironic is that thanks to globalised economy, we enjoy today’s prosperity,
making us more assertive and critical of forces of globalisation. (Those
liberals who think they are poor and therefore protesting against capitalism
and globalisation would have been busy just getting next meal without benefits
of globalisation.)
The political forces arising out of this generation which takes
everthing for granted would eventually lead to changes in the ways our economy
works, perhaps leading to more localised economy and restrictive political culture. Access
to resources to sustain today’s technology and economy could easily be hampered
by suspicious and jealous local rulers whose primary mission is to protect the
locals. In other words, by trying to get rid of distant demon emperors, we would just invite barbarian kings. I bet they would tolerate no liberal protesters squatting in city squares!
