The work is quite old (1994), but still eyebrow-raising.
The analysis is an extremely daring one, putting the fall of Rome solely down to the demands of excessive taxation, regulation and high inflation.
Followers of ancient history will also be most surprised to learn that Antony and Cleopatra were socialists at heart.
But the denouement is truly breathtaking.
In conclusion, the fall of Rome was fundamentally due to economic deterioration resulting from excessive taxation, inflation, and over-regulation. Higher and higher taxes failed to raise additional revenues because wealthier taxpayers could evade such taxes while the middle class--and its taxpaying capacity--were exterminated. Although the final demise of the Roman Empire in the West (its Eastern half continued on as the Byzantine Empire) was an event of great historical importance, for most Romans it was a relief.So Rome's fall had nothing to do with any of the following:
- the enormous strain to Rome's frontiers caused by vast population migrations and powerful incursions by tribes from the north and east
- a political class in Rome that was corrupt, venal and deeply dysfunctional
- political institutions that were unrepresentative and inflexible
- the rise of Christianity
- the lack of government institutions capable of keeping generals and governors in check
- the fact that as the dangers to Rome's frontiers increased, the army became all-powerful and generals decided who was to be emperor, thus leading to civil wars between rival generals.
Many examples in Roman history exist of extortionate taxes destroying communities or causing revolts. But in many cases the problem was not that the tax burden on the average citizen was too much, but that the burden was borne unevenly.
It is also a bold claim to make that for most Romans the fall of Rome was a relief. The disintegration of Rome led to chaos throughout Western Europe for centuries afterwards. For example, Italy became a backwater as Rome weakened, its population ravaged by one enemy incursion after another. We don't refer to them as the Dark Ages for no reason. Some may have been better off, but most?
So the Romans fail the libertarian test. Thankfully there are many great figures in ancient history for libertarians to admire. Attila the Hun, one of Rome’s greatest enemies, was very effective at cutting through red tape. And necks too. He got things done, and wasn’t constrained by excessive regulation. If Mr The Hun wanted to undertake a new business activity (say conquering a territory, enslaving or slaughtering its entire population), all he had to do was jump on his horse and get on with it.
Actually, Attila sounds more like an objectivist than a pure libertarian.
The Roman empire didn't have to collapse when it did. Most modern scholarship now says the sort of arguments you've enumerated - not the mention the arrant nonsense from the Cato Institute - do not adequately explain the empire's fall, since in many ways the empire was thriving in the early fourth century.
ReplyDeleteNothing in the Roman Empire in, say, 330AD pointed to a fatal crisis of any sort whatsoever. Rome had an onging threat from near-by barbarians (who themselves had become richer and more numerous as a result of interaction with the Roman empire, and that wealth had led to more stratified and better organised tribal kingdoms that were more powerful than anything in the second or third century) but the Roman armies were easily able to control these barbarians. In the east the worst of the Sassinad crisis had past, and the Roman were breathing much easier there as well.
It was the impact of the Hunnic invasions into the Balkans and central Europe in the late fourth and early fifth centuries that triggered a series of (with hindsight) inter-related crises that led to the fall of the Western Empire. But if the Huns had not shown up when they did, there is no reason why Romans could not have easily persisted in the west for as long as they did in the east (Byzantium didn't finally cease to exist until 1453...).
Just the fact that they actually believe there was such a thing as middle class in the ancient world shows that they really just wanted to prove their ideological point.
ReplyDeleteIt's like when televangelists insist Jesus was middle-class, or, even better, "quite a wealthy man", to justify their wealth.
Actually I think the question as to whether living standards changed following the fall of the Roman Empire is a pretty good one. Your description of "chaos" really doesn't speak to events directly after the fall so much as those centuries later. Ditto Italy becoming a "backwater" - that's a concern for Great Power politics, not the material circumstances of the majority of Romans.
ReplyDeleteSanctuary, Hugh, historians have been debating for decades what caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. I don't think you'll get any two historians to agree on the central cause.
ReplyDeleteMy view is that there were numerous contributing factors, not the least of those being the Huns, and the inability of Rome to go more than a few years without some sort of civil disorder or generals' revolt.
Which makes the simplistic conclusion of the piece I linked to all the more objectionable.
As to whether the fall of Rome was a good or bad thing for those who lived under the Roman system, we can't be certain. It most certainly was bad for an awfully large number of people who got caught up in the fighting, whose lands were pillaged by roaming armies, or who got in the way of the various "barbarian" invasions. They would have longed for the days when Rome was strong and well governed.
And it most certainly was bad for the Italians in the aftermath of the fall of the Western Empire (generally dated at 476AD). Their economy tanked, the population plummeted as a result of numerous wars, and the city of Rome itself became little more than a rural town. The wars in the sixth century between the Goths and Justinian's great generals Belisarius and Narses for control of Italy were particularly brutal. The reason Italy became a backwater for centuries was because its populaces had been massacred, its cities destroyed and most of its wealth looted.
We can't be sure whether for most people Roman rule was a curse or a blessing. It seems overly simplistic to say that because of the effects of taxes, regulation and inflation most Romans were relieved to see the empire gone. I'm sure that for those caught in the path of enemy armies these would have been the least of their worries.
Scott - if you haven't read Peter Heather's "The Fall of Rome" it is a jolly good read.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Roman Empire - it is worth always bearing in mind they saw nothing wrong in feeding people to wild animals and forcing men to fight to death for simple entertainment. Some "civilization".
It's interesting to contrast Peter Heather's book against Adrian Goldsworthy The Fall of the West - there are often different conclusions to the same events. Both are superb reads and very definitely recommended to anyone with an interest in the era.
ReplyDeleteGoldsworthy's book is especially interesting in discussing the parallels Americans such as the Cato Institute would like to draw. I imagine he had a good laugh when he saw their article (which predates his book by about 15 years).