Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-08-2008, 11:48 AM

From the Butterflies and Wheels blog, a different perspective on a perennial topic here.

The Barbarian's Raw Deal by Christopher Orlet.

Quote:

. . . Here is one case where the victors did not write the history (perhaps because most of them couldn't write). But while the barbarians (literally "babbler" or one who does not speak Greek) did wreak a great deal of havoc, an impartial look at the facts will show that their role in abolishing Greco-Roman culture was almost nil.

In fact, most barbarian kings and warlords greatly admired Greco-Roman culture-when it did not conflict with the tenants of their Christian faith. Take the Roman general and first Germanic king of Italy Odoacer (CE 435-493). During his rule, Odoacer retained Roman law, administration, even the Roman Senate, and, though an Arian, tolerated orthodox Christianity. Then there was the greatest of barbarian kings, Theoderick the Ostrogoth, whose armies defeated Odoacer. Hardly a textbook Goth, Theoderick was raised at court in Constantinople. His father, a political and military ally of a Byzantine emperor, handed over his son as a hostage, a standard practice for the time. Theoderick was known to tell his fellow tribesmen that "an able Goth wants to be like a Roman." Despite conquering much of the Italian peninsula, most barbarian rulers wisely recognized the Eastern Emperor as their sovereign. And in order to facilitate their assimilation into Roman society, Goth and Vandal kings often married the daughters of Roman or Greek Emperors and nobles. Destruction was seldom on their minds and Rome, though sacked repeatedly, was never destroyed by barbarians.

. . .

Indeed much of what we have come to regard as the savagery of the barbarians was a consequence of their Christianity and their attempts to stamp out the orthodox heresy and paganism. After the Visigoth leader Alaric took Athens, he proceded to crush the last remnants of the pagan cult of Demeter and Persephone based at Eleusis, which was heretical to his Arian Christian beliefs. Augustine, in CE 430, encouraged his fellow Romans to resist the siege of Hippo primarily because the Vandals were Arian Christians, and not because they were barbarian hordes. And indeed orthodox Christians fared badly under Arian rule. Bishops were exiled or killed, while laymen were excluded from office and frequently suffered confiscation of their property. The Vandals tried for several decades to force their beliefs on their North African subjects, exiling clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Christians. The Vandal king Geiseric demanded all his close advisors follow the Arian form of Christianity and banned conversion for Vandals. It was, in other words, internecine warfare.

andrewcriddle · 09-08-2008, 12:47 PM

It is an interesting post.

One obvious problem is that the claim that the invading Barbarians did not intend to destroy Greco-Roman culture is entirely compatible with their activities in fact having just that effect.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 09-08-2008, 05:40 PM

My notes on the book Barbarians --- by Terry Jones (2006) after referral from this discussion group includes the following review:

Quote:

Barbarians: A Review

I would like to see the documentary. The book was read within 24 hours, and was presented with a generous supply of footnotes, and further references, index, etc. The authors do an extensive excursion around the perimeter of the Roman empire, and dig out all the various forms of barbarians that were known to exist.

The scene opens before the Roman empire has been formed, in 576 BCE, when Cyrus I, King of Persia began his rule, until 535 CE, and the Byzantine conquest of Ravena. Almost a thousand years of ruthless imperial oppression is recorded, enacted on the "subjects" of the empire, or the "Commonwealth", as Ammianus Marcellinus would sometimes call it.

Enthusiastically liberating in its thesis and scope

The following tribes of barbarians are indentified, and discussed
in terms of the technology and systems of law, and learning, that
each are now known to have possessed, prior to "Romanisation":

Greek "barbarians" (Archimedes speared by a Roman soldier)
Irish Celtic "barbarians"
British Celtic "barbarians" (centralised Druidic priesthood)
Scotish Celtic "barbarians"
Gallic Celtic "barbarians"
Germanic Celtic "barbarians"
Dacian Celtic "barbarians"
Jewish and Hebrew "barbarians"
Parthian/Persian "barbarians"
Goths, Visigoths and Astrogoth "barbarians"
The Vandals, etc "barbarians"
The mysterious Huns
All who were non-Roman, were "barbarians".

A very relational picture of the development of history. Emminently readable and informative. Quite enthusiastically liberating in its thesis and scope. As I mentioned earlier, I look forward to the opportunity of seeing the corresponding documentary. For those who rate a text on the value of its footnotes, this text rates surprisingly high. Surprising because all the footnotes, carefully placed at the back of the book, do not get in the way of the casual reader, who may not be impelled to check the sources.

Minor note

Only a minor note, it is interesting to observe that the authors skillfully avoided having to deal with what is currently known as the christian ecclesiastical history, in the time prior to Constantine, with one very small exception. This exception is the history provided for of the Persian sage and prophet, Mani, who is known to have lived under the rule of Shapur I.

The christian ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, attempts to make Mani christian, in his literature. Moreover, a sucession of christian bishops are by Eusebius asserted to have existed in Ctsiphon, and other Persian cities, around the time of Mani. There are reasonable grounds to reject this information. Although Mani existed, it is likely that he had never heard of christianity, and/or the fabrication of the Galilaeans. Mani travelled to India, and was quite the universal pilgrim. It is consistent to view him, not as a christian, but of the Persian religion Zorastrianism by which Shapur I, and his father before him, had ruled, and passed on with the deathbed message ...

“Consider the Fire Altar and the throne
as inseparable as to sustain each other.”

The Manichaeans (in the Roman empire) suffered persecution at the hands of Diocletian, and in subsequent centuries by the christian emperors, and the long controversial status of their often highly heretical writings is long documented by 4th and 5th century christian documents. But this is simply a minor issue, in the overall picture painted by Terry Jones. It is not widely known, and acknowledged, that the citations by which Mani is proclaimed to be a christian, are not only very late, but also very suspect, to say the least.

Best wishes,

Pete

Roger Pearse · 09-09-2008, 12:25 AM

The idea that the Vandals were nice charming people is a curious one. It certainly isn't what Possidius records in his life of Augustine.

MarkA · 09-11-2008, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It is an interesting post.

One obvious problem is that the claim that the invading Barbarians did not intend to destroy Greco-Roman culture is entirely compatible with their activities in fact having just that effect.

Andrew Criddle

You cannot paint all barbarians with the same brush. Indeed the bacaudae probably did more damage in many areas than the Germanic invaders.

The Goths certainly did much to preserve the fabric of the empire and to ensure the continuation of Roman political institutions albeit modified to reflect the contemporary political situation.

Theoderic was a much more civilized ruler than many traditional Roman rulers. Even Gaiseric and Alaric imposed order after their successful conquests.

Clivedurdle · 09-11-2008, 01:20 PM

It is interesting how one imagines where one is on the planet affects this discussion! Me with clear Celtic roots am obviously a barbarian, if I had been brought up in Constantinople I would have called myself Roman to the 1450's!

A Persian has never called themselves a Barbarian!

And as Constantine was Arian, surely that means the followers of the Orthodox heresy are Barbarians!

Quote:

Despite conquering much of the Italian peninsula, most barbarian rulers wisely recognized the Eastern Emperor as their sovereign.

Lovely bath!

andrewcriddle · 09-12-2008, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Theoderic was a much more civilized ruler than many traditional Roman rulers. Even Gaiseric and Alaric imposed order after their successful conquests.

I would agree about Theoderic. Gaiseric and Alaric seem more dubious.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 09-12-2008, 09:43 AM

Which Roman Emperors might be defined as Barbaric? Is this a city and country distinction?

Was Asterix a Barbarian?

Toto · 09-12-2008, 12:17 PM

On laïcité and Asterix

Quote:

Secondly, if (as I believe) popular culture is a mirror of national prejudices, then the French and the British both love detective stories; a comparison, thus, between Sherlock Holmes, or the heroes of Edgar Wallace, and Arsène Lupin, the gentleman-thief created in France by Maurice Leblanc (1864-1941), might be quite instructive. All these characters quite often find themselves very close to death (if only to survive at the last minute, ready for yet another episode). Wallace’s characters quite often pray, and Holmes, whose author was a lapsed Catholic turned Spiritualist, took comfort in a higher good and a vague spirituality. Lupin (no doubt, quite strangely for readers in nations with no strong nationalist traditions) often waits for what he thinks is his imminent death with patriotic thoughts on la République and la France. And, if we want to include comics, then the national French hero, Asterix, is nothing less than a Gallic hero fiercely defending the autonomy of his French village against Julius Caesar and his Roman gods and lifestyle. The metaphor (France resisting Rome) is almost too obvious.

premjan · 09-12-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Which Roman Emperors might be defined as Barbaric? Is this a city and country distinction?
Was Asterix a Barbarian?

Barbaric sounds like a Visigoth.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-08-2008, 12:47 PM	#2
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	It is an interesting post. One obvious problem is that the claim that the invading Barbarians did not intend to destroy Greco-Roman culture is entirely compatible with their activities in fact having just that effect. Andrew Criddle

09-09-2008, 12:25 AM	#4
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	The idea that the Vandals were nice charming people is a curious one. It certainly isn't what Possidius records in his life of Augustine.

09-12-2008, 09:43 AM	#8
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Which Roman Emperors might be defined as Barbaric? Is this a city and country distinction? Was Asterix a Barbarian?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.