Author: photog

Thoughts on the Fall of the Roman Empire – Part 2

photog photog's Corner , , , , , ,

There was a lot of good discussion centering around slavery and its negative effect on technical innovation.  After all, why would you need automation to increase the effectiveness of farming or other industrial work if you can just buy another thousand or even ten thousand war slaves for use as laborers on your farm or in your copper mine?  Sure, they cost something but not much and if you keep them starved to the edge of death you don’t even need to feed them much.  Just replace them with younger, stronger slaves.

Of course, every once in a while, the slaves will produce a Spartacus who decides to burn the whole thing down but that’s what the legions are for anyway.  And crucifying a few thousand slaves along the Appian Way is a good reminder of who’s boss.

But even slavery is not the whole story.  When the majority of Romans were plebians living on family farms, and these same farmers were the citizen soldiers who were legionnaires when an enemy threatened, there was a patriotism that made the Romans the greatest military force of their age.  They might lose twenty or thirty thousand men against Hannibal and then come back and field an army just as large from volunteers who served to protect their nation, their families and their homes.

But the patricians who ran the senate were greedy and selfish and after a soldier returned home from war, he stood to lose his land because he would default on the debts that he couldn’t pay off due to his absence and loss of harvest.  These patricians would scoop up these small farms and then use their connections to obtain the defeated enemies as slaves and outcompete the remaining small farmers who couldn’t match the efficiency of the large plantations.  And in addition, the patricians eventually discontinued the practice of plebians obtaining conquered lands as colonists.  The patricians turned these foreign lands into even larger plantations for themselves.

So eventually these landless plebians ended up as a discontented rabble living on the bread and circuses that the emperors provided in Rome.  And eventually they ended up in the armies which was the profession of last resort.  So essentially the Roman elites eliminated the middle class.  And eventually that reduced the effectiveness of the legions too.  And finally, manpower was so depleted through destruction of the actual Roman citizens that the legions more and more were populated with barbarians from the fringes of the empire.  So much so that by the fourth and fifth centuries the Franks, Germans, Goths and other pastoral peoples in Gaul and the northern border were the legions.

When Atilla finally invaded the western empire, it was Frankish legionnaires and even generals who resisted him most effectively.  But at this point, the jig was up.  The barbarians realized that the empire was a paper tiger.  Its citizens were downtrodden serfs who couldn’t or maybe wouldn’t take up arms to defend their “nation.”  Being ruled by a Roman emperor or an Ostrogothic “king” was a matter of complete indifference to them.  In point of fact the barbarian could probably provide better protection and possibly the taxes would be lower if the imperial bureaucracy ceased to exist.

So, whether the Romans could have produced more defensible borders against the nomadic Eurasian pastoral peoples, whether Huns, Alans or even the westernmost tribes like the Goths and Vandals is probably immaterial.  If a nation doesn’t have a population willing to defend its homeland, then it is as good as done.

And this was known all the way back in the time of Aristotle.  Strong states had a large prosperous middle-class.  Because this is the group that produces children and believes in the value of the nation.  Not the very rich and not the desperately poor.  Rome committed slow suicide when it allowed the patricians to destroy the plebian farmer/soldiers.  Because the early Romans so thoroughly defeated the neighboring peoples it took five hundred years to produce new enemies to tear down the rotted corpse of Rome but by the time of Marcus Aurelius the damage had already been done.  It just took three hundred more years for Atilla to show up and prove to the Germans that there was nothing there to stop them.

As a footnote I think it’s interesting to see that our modern-day patricians (elites) are busy destroying the working and middle classes and importing migrants to act as cheap (slave) labor to replace them.  What a brilliant plan.  But not very original.

Thoughts on the Fall of the Roman Empire – Part 1

photog photog's Corner , , , , ,

I have a copy of the first volume of H.G. Wells’ “The Outline of History.”  And in a real way the Roman Empire is the center of the book.  His descriptions of the civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Greece are all sort of a set up for Rome.  And in a real way Rome is the basis for discussing Medieval Europe but also as a point of comparison, China, India and the Islamic world.  And this is not to say that Wells had a romantic or idealized conception about the Roman republic or empire.  Far from it.  He goes to great lengths to explain why even at the height of the Pax Romana; the something like two hundred years from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius that the people of Rome, with the exception of the truly wealthy, were profoundly and justifiably miserable.  And I can see his point of view.  I only have to remember that renegade Roman citizen from Greece that Priscus wrote about, who willingly joined up with Atilla the Hun, to realize how the fall of Rome was probably an improvement in the fate of Europe as a whole; though maybe not for the inhabitants of the areas that descended into chaos in the fifth century.

Among the many short comings of that civilization, Wells counts a lack of scientific curiosity as one of the most damning.  He singles out the fact that a working steam engine was created in Hellenistic times but the Romans never took this knowledge and harnessed it in the way that modern Europe did in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with such inventions as the locomotive.

He further produces as evidence the Romans’ complete neglect of geography as a tool for determining the advantageous borders of their enormous empire.  For instance, if they had realized the outline of the North and Baltic seas and the distance to the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian Sea, they might have realized that conquering Germany and the Slavic tribes would have produced a shorter and more defensible eastern border than the one that allowed the Huns to stampede the German tribes into the western empire and effectively destroy their civilization.

As for this last claim I have my doubts.  This would have required the Romans to occupy all of Eastern Europe, up to and including Poland, Ukraine along with parts of southern Russia and Iran.  In defense of my ancestors, I would remind Mr. Wells that those areas are very, very much colder than Italy.  Getting Roman colonists for these Hyperborean locales would have been a real stretch.  But let’s assume that the emperor Trajan at his height was aware of the geographical imperative to conquer these areas and that he had made it happen.  What then?

Would the Roman legions and the citizens have repelled the Huns when they came crashing into this Eastern border in the fifth century AD?  Well, that’s the question.  It has been stated that by 180 AD the empire was weakened by a series of plagues that reduced population but also because the downtrodden peasants refused to have children under the onerous conditions they lived under.  This seems to fly in the face of the archeological evidence of bustling cities and far-flung trade with India and even China that sent enormous quantities of silver and gold eastward into Asia from Roman coffers.

What is the truth?  I’ll give my opinion in the second part.  But feel free to give your ideas in the comments.

Guest Contributor – Tregonsee – 03SEP2025 – Now and Forever

photog Current Events, Guest Contributors, Tregonsee

For some reason I always come back to Rudyard Kipling’s poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings (https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm). It is 10 stanzas so a little long to stick in a post (if it is new to you it is well worth going and reading it), but here are the last two talking stanzas about how things end

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

It is an appalling good prediction, Kipling could see things screwing up well over 100 years ago (the poem was first published in 1919) and got them darn near spot on.

The Dresser (1983) – A Movie Review

photog Movie Reviews, Reviews , , , , ,

“The Dresser” is a very odd film.  It’s based on a stage play and since it involves the staging of a performance of King Lear, you could say theater suffuses the movie.  It takes place in England during WWII.  Albert Finney plays Sir; an aged Shakespearean actor of the old school, full of exaggerated gestures and overblown histrionic elocution.  He leads a company of actors travelling around Britain performing Shakespeare to the wartime population.  But it’s not going well.  Because of the draft, Sir declares that he must find his actors from amongst, “old men, cripples and nancy-boys.”  And he says this to his dresser Norman even though Norman is obviously one of those nancy-boys.

Tom Courtenay plays Norman as a somewhat flamboyant homosexual who assists Sir in preparing for his performances.  He bathes him, helps him apply his make-up and if necessary, reminds him of his lines from the wings.  But this assistance has of late become much more difficult because Sir seems to be having a mental and physical breakdown.  He becomes incoherent and agitated and is liable to run screaming through the streets shouting that he can’t go on.

On the day of his first performance in a new city he is hospitalized because of one of these fits coming upon him in public.  And the company and especially Madge the business manager are convinced that Sir has reached the end of his career and must retire to a rest home.  But when he shows up back at the theater Norman uses all of his knowledge of Sir’s psychology to calm him and orient him into the mental state needed to perform the part of King Lear.  Using visual and vocal cues he walks him through the ritual by which the make-up and costume of Lear bring Sir back into the mindset needed to perform.

And that is the film; Norman coaching, praising, wheedling and sometimes chastising the old man into producing a performance of Lear that the audience receives enthusiastically.  And during the performance and the breaks in the play when the Lear character is not on stage we learn about Sir’s relationship to his troupe; Madge’s basically unrequited love for Sir and his relationship with his wife; “Her Ladyship” who is playing Cordelia and how he stands with the other members of the acting troupe, who mostly fear him for his cantankerous temper.

And by the end of the play when Sir dies peacefully in his dressing room with only Norman there to witness his end we find out that Norman loved him too although it was completely unexpressed in life.  And he weeps over the body of Sir.

Now this is a very strange film.  And if it’s a pro-homosexual movie then it’s a very odd one.  Norman takes abuse by anyone outside the theater who sizes up his obviously gay speech pattern and mannerisms.  He’s told to “sod off,” “get stuffed” and “bugger off” by three different characters.  One of the actors who knows of his friendship with a homosexual actor who has been arrested, notes to Norman that, “The pansy fraternity is always upset when one of their own is caught.”  And even Sir, when discussing this actor’s arrest with Norman states that he himself “holds no brief for buggers.”  So obviously this is not one of the modern paeans to gayness.

But I found it quite entertaining.  Albert Finney’s portrayal of Sir is by turns; interesting, humorous, sad and extremely human.  The character of Norman is also well-drawn.  He’s a fussy, neurotic but loyal friend to Sir and a hard-working part of the acting company.  You can see that this acting troupe is his whole life and Sir’s death represents the end of his own small world.  He will be all by himself.

Recommending this film is difficult.  The gay identity of Norman may put off some viewers.  So, let’s put that in as a caveat.  If that doesn’t preclude someone from watching the film then I can recommend it from the point of view of entertainment.  The play within a movie keeps your attention and the characters are well-drawn and interesting.