Late Antiquity now

‘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!