And who is to say things would‘ve worked better for the germans if they just gave Rome everything they wanted? In the end of the day, Rome couldn‘t advance very deep into german lands and collapsed while germans of different kingdoms experienced a millennia of growing prosperity throughout the middle ages.
I’m going to unironically argue with the second part. Germanic houses fared relatively well in late antiquity, but quite often from within the Empire, and for ordinary Germans I’m guessing the collapse of western Rome sucked just as much as for the next European. The Carolingian renaissance happened, but then ended, and after that you get the depressing Medieval period.
I mean, things happened and society+technology continued to evolve, but yeah, they were tough times, and people in Europe were poorer in goods and often (but not always!) lived leaner. You can argue about the political desirability of a shitty local warlord vs a greedy distant emperor, but a big empire is definitely better for industry and trade. And, while new technologies developed over time (punctuation, mechanical clocks ect.) a lot of technology was also lost in the transition; I’m going to go ahead and say new sewer systems and aqueducts would have made Medieval cities nicer to be in.
You can see this in reverse after the Mongol expansion, too. Eventually, the Greek Orthodox church packed up and moved to the booming cities under the Russian princes, subservient to a succession of various steppe hordes - despite the tough geography and climate, and the memory of the bloody expansion itself.
I’m not saying a giant self-interested autocracy is good, but I’m going to go ahead and say the end of it didn’t noticeably improve things, and democracy wouldn’t be an option for a long time. (The ancient republics were always of the elite)
And who is to say things would‘ve worked better for the germans if they just gave Rome everything they wanted? In the end of the day, Rome couldn‘t advance very deep into german lands and collapsed while germans of different kingdoms experienced a millennia of growing prosperity throughout the middle ages.
CENSOR, PROSCRIBE THIS BARBARIAN DOG
No, you’re right, but this is a Romaboo community so obviously the filthy barbarians were just resisting the glorious march of civilization
I’m going to unironically argue with the second part. Germanic houses fared relatively well in late antiquity, but quite often from within the Empire, and for ordinary Germans I’m guessing the collapse of western Rome sucked just as much as for the next European. The Carolingian renaissance happened, but then ended, and after that you get the depressing Medieval period.
Oh please.
I mean, things happened and society+technology continued to evolve, but yeah, they were tough times, and people in Europe were poorer in goods and often (but not always!) lived leaner. You can argue about the political desirability of a shitty local warlord vs a greedy distant emperor, but a big empire is definitely better for industry and trade. And, while new technologies developed over time (punctuation, mechanical clocks ect.) a lot of technology was also lost in the transition; I’m going to go ahead and say new sewer systems and aqueducts would have made Medieval cities nicer to be in.
You can see this in reverse after the Mongol expansion, too. Eventually, the Greek Orthodox church packed up and moved to the booming cities under the Russian princes, subservient to a succession of various steppe hordes - despite the tough geography and climate, and the memory of the bloody expansion itself.
I’m not saying a giant self-interested autocracy is good, but I’m going to go ahead and say the end of it didn’t noticeably improve things, and democracy wouldn’t be an option for a long time. (The ancient republics were always of the elite)