What If?

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

However, the figure you use to underline that - " tiny handful of watermills in Roman Britain in around 300 AD to well over 6000 of them in England alone in 1100", rather oversimplifies thing.

I mean, of course the Roman watermills were mostly big affairs (those that we know of), state-owned or not. But one has to take into account that all of these vanished, before the number went up again to reach those 600 by the year 1100. So how many watermills in 1000 AD? In 700? 500?

They almost certainly did vanish in England with the collapse of the Roman state, so the numbers in 500 AD were likely minimal or even none. But, working from less complete surveys than the Domesday Book (which the basis for the figure of 6000 mills in 1100 AD) and from charters and archaeology, scholars like Richard Hold in The Mills of Medieval England and Terry S. Reynolds in Stronger than a Hundred Men: A History of the Vertical Waterwheel show that watermills appeared again in England as early as 640 AD and their numbers increased steadily from that point onwards.

Obviously those 6000 watermills didn't spring up suddenly out of nowhere, and the evidence shows that this large number of mills was the result of a steady and then quite rapid growth in the use of this technology in the period between 600 and 1100 AD. And similar evidence from various places in Europe indicates that this growth in the use of this technollogy in the 'Dark Ages' was not confined to England - it was Europe-wide.

Therefore I'd like to characterise the so-called dark Ages not so much for the loss of technology, but far a failure to implement it on a larger scale?

In the case of a coin economy, mass produced goods and even large-scale stone buildings that's generally true. In the case of watermills, however, it is not supported by the evidence at all. What the evidence actually shows is that the collapse of the Empire and the subsequent economic and social consequences actually stimulated the use of that technology and some others.

[Optio equitum]

Another thought...what if Rome had come up against the armies of China? Say the Han dynasty? How would the legions fair against the power of a united China? Any ideas?

[tlclark]

So the idea that the fall of the Empire and the ‘Dark Age’ fragmentation that followed retarded technology is a bit too simplistic. In fact, it seems to have stimulated it substantially.

Brilliant post! and dead on.

I'm always having to remind my students that no one woke up one day and said..."I'm living in the Middle Ages/Dark Ages!" In fact, quite the opposite. In fact when speaking of Gothic Architecture, it's important to remember that it was applied by Vasari in his Ars Technica as a slur against Northern European arts "invading" Italy a second time. The term used by N. Europeans to describe Gothic was "Lavori Moderni" or the "Modern Work".

What defines the middle ages as "dark" in the view of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (who coined the terms as perjorative) was the lack of central authority, and the degradation of classical institutions, such as art and architecture. We now know that Roman Arts had been moving towards the mannerist, primitive and linear LONG before the 'Fall of Rome'. You can't blame the Barbarians for the change it art. The Romans simply changed styles and had no impetus to return to the historical style.

Likewise its important to remember that almost all of the cultural institutions of the Roman Empire continue, unabated, in the Byzantine Empire, who consciously thought of themselves as 'Roman' right up until May 20 1453!!

Crop rotation, the plowshare with throwboard, the windmill, the perfection of steel and smelting furnaces, the creation of genuine coordinate map systems, improvements of all types in textiles, tanning, weaving, BUTTONS, and many others are all innovations of the middle ages, and modern democracy owes as much to the markets and Rathhauses of N. Europe as it does to the ancient Greeks.

In fact, feudalism is not an invention of the Medieval world, but the late Roman one. By the end of the Middle Ages, feudalism was under assault by market forces.

Similarily, the degradations of sanitation/roads and other public works was not due to a loss of economic means or technical ability, or else we wouldn't have the cathedrals of Europe. Rather it was a lack of coherent state-wide authority (and at times I wouldn't mind a little less gov't authority in my own backyard)

There is a clear reduction in economic activity between the 5th C - 10th C. but we have to view these as "Crisis" centuries that included, amongst other things, the arrival of the black plague, a drop in the water levels of the mediterranean that closes many portages, massive migrations of steppe peoples, the Persian invasions, the Muslim Invasions, the Iconoclasm and a host of other social problems that would have just as easily sunk the empire had they happened in the 2nd C.

It was not a 'dark' age unless you define 'dark' to mean the lack of the resources and order of empires and classical art.

Anyway, great post.

Travis

[tlclark]

Another thought...what if Rome had come up against the armies of China? Say the Han dynasty? How would the legions fair against the power of a united China? Any ideas?

That's actually not so crazy!

During the Byzantine period, there were numerous attempts to create contacts and make allies with the Chinese. They even sent spies to procure the secret of silk.

Tight diplomatic relationships with China and the E. Empire is something I believe the Sassanians would have actively tried to stop.

I can imagine the Romans and Chinese finding lots of common ground and using a beneficial trading relationship to squeeze the Persians, or maybe even the Muslims.

This was in fact, a major goal of Kublai Khan and sparked the whole adventure of Marco Polo.

Travis

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

In fact, feudalism is not an invention of the Medieval world, but the late Roman one. By the end of the Middle Ages, feudalism was under assault by market forces.

That is an intersting one. I always thought that feudalism was invented because of the viking-invasions?

[tlclark]

In fact, feudalism is not an invention of the Medieval world, but the late Roman one. By the end of the Middle Ages, feudalism was under assault by market forces.

That is an intersting one. I always thought that feudalism was invented because of the viking-invasions?

Actually a lot of it has to do with so-called Land Reforms of the Late Period. Justinian's land reforms basically made freedom of travel and the freedom to buy and sell private property subject to the local Dux. This made people subjects instead of citizens, and eventually serfs.

Travis

[Optio equitum]

Imagine the manpower of China, coupled with the technique and training of Rome, throw in some Chinese innovations in metallurgy and equipment. Talk about a different world! 200 legions of Chinese troops, the sound alone would shake the ground. Any artistic folks out there imagine what that would look like?