Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Paul J Gans <gans@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:34:53 +0000 (UTC)
cemanuel <cemanuel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 14, 1:05 am, Weland <gi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
Weland <gi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
cemanuel <ceman...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I went to some good sessions myself. All three Society for Late
Antiquity sessions were good. I went to two on Eastern European
Archaeology in the 4th-6th c. chaired by Florin Curta. They were solid
but suffered from some speakers not making it. Went to a couple on
religious thought in Late Antiquity and one on 11th century heresy.
There was a paper here and there that weren't that good but I can't
say there was a bad session.
On the negative side, living a bit more than 3 hours from the
conference means I can help feed my hobby fairly inexpensively. But
when you're just over 3 hours from work at something which is a hobby,
when something blows up at work you might end up having to leave to
take care of it. I missed Friday except for making an evening session
and I can firmly state that a 6-hour daily commute is not for me.
Really wanted to go to the Goffart session Paul mentioned.
I'm sorry I missed you at Kalamazoo. I kept looking, but no
luck.
That happens. I run into some people over and over again, but
others, nothing. And which group is which varies from year
to year.
The Goffart session was rather interesting for me, since the
end of the Western Roman Empire is a sort of new subject for
me. Boy, do opinions vary. But I gather that the "barabarian
invasion" with burning, killing, maiming, etc., is not so much
in favor any more.
The tendency now seems to be that the Germanic groups were
first subverted by Rome and then conscripted as troops, moving
them into the Empire. Most were officially recognized by
Constantinople, or at least some were. And when central
authority fell away, they did what many "Roman" groups in
the army did -- declare their leader Emperor or, in many
cases, King, and took control of territory they wanted.
Now this is just my impression from the speakers as to
where things stand now. But it is also true (I gather)
that opinions vary widely.
One thing that came up several times during the Kalamazoo
meeting was the Justinian plague and its effect. It seems
that badly needs sorting out.
On the continent this is unquestionably true when we take off our Gibbon
blinders. Still, there are those who hold to the older view, but
nonetheless it is changing.
Bernie Bachrach, who chaired that session, told me later that
he expected it to be a blood bath. I suggested that perhaps
opinions had mellowed over the years but I don't think he
bought that.
Still, it was a very moderate session with each participant
finding something to agree with.
Well, Bernie was in the front lines when the changeover occurred, as you
know. I suspect he still views the issue from that perspective...but I
think you're right, views have mellowed; what's more the few lobbing
bombs are mostly of the traditional viewpoint, and I think they all know
that the view of Gibbon etc is on the way out.....however much
adjustment the new view is in need of.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The big issue for the traditionalists now seems to be Late Antiquity
authors not paying enough attention to the decline in standards of
living, economic activity, etc. Sort of a "You're soft-selling all the
bad stuff to minimize the damage caused." That's what got Ward-Perkins
so wound up and he took quite a few people along for the ride.
There's no doubt that long-distance trade broke down. But to some
extent that was already happening under the Empire.
I suspect (this is *my* opinion and worth what you paid for it ;-)
that it is very hard for any economy to remain constant. It seems
to be grow or die, or perhaps even grow *and* die. But the
Empire at its maximum extent seems to have been unsustaionable.
Dacia was given up, there was constant trouble with the Persians,
and the economy was becoming stagnant. No more new territory to
loot and absorb.
The withdrawal from England (or I should say, the lack of a replacement
legion for England) would seem to be another signal. The inability
to form any real sort of stable government in the West at the
end is another. IIRC there was some huge number of Emperors
in the West in a very sort period.
So it would seem that a collapse of some sort was on the way.
I'm not sure they're right overall - most books I've read pay at least
lip service to it and others, such as Wickham's "Framing" spend a LOT
of time on it. There is a tendency where the Medievalists want to talk
about process and structure while the Classicists want to talk about
decline and poverty.
I loved "Framing.." We need more of that. Wickham seems to make
it clear that one *could* look that the "Volkswanderung" period as
a succession of smallish fights over local power -- inevitable
with the breakdown of central authority.
Every now and then someone trots out Gregory of Tours as evidence of
how violent things were but that's gotten much easier to counter. Just
takes practice.
Gregory did not get a good press at that session. He has the
advantage of being one of the few sources for the period. He
has the usual disadvantage of having an agenda to push.
There was a similar discussion in another group (I think Erilar
was at that one also) involving the Siege of Paris in eight
hundred mumble by the Vikings. A major account is by Abbo of
Saint-Germain. He too had a major religious point to make
and warped his tale to make it. This of course was rather
common until late in the medieval period.
Disentangling history is much of the fun of reading it.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: erilar
- Re: Kalamazoo
- References:
- Kalamazoo
- From: Paul J Gans
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: cemanuel
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: erilar
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: John Kane
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: erilar
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: John Kane
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Weland
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: John Kane
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Weland
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: erilar
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Weland
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: erilar
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: cemanuel
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Paul J Gans
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Weland
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Paul J Gans
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: Weland
- Re: Kalamazoo
- From: cemanuel
- Kalamazoo
- Prev by Date: Re: Kalamazoo
- Next by Date: Re: Kalamazoo
- Previous by thread: Re: Kalamazoo
- Next by thread: Re: Kalamazoo
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|