By consensus we find in current historiography a whole chain of processes that built the foundations of the Middle Ages and how the decay of the Western Roman Empire contributed to this construction. In this text, we will try to explain, based on an interpretive analysis of the work: Origins of the Middle Ages of William Carroil Bark, understand how Rome's final phase influenced the entire medieval period that followed.
We constitute, in general, an idea of the emergence of the Middle Ages, as the decadence of civilization, represented in figure of the Roman Empire and with it the emergence of a time marked by the “civilizing retraction” of the world in the middle of the fifth century
However, what we must ask ourselves is what situation did the empire find itself in? What are the causes that led him to a situation of decay in which he was subjected between the end of the second century and the beginning of the fourth century? And finally, what measures taken in the social, political, economic field by the emperors influenced the future of Rome?
By trying to answer these questions, we will develop a warm analysis and we will ask again, if the Middle Ages was not the best way out of the chaos that had settled in Europe, because "the regression of Western civilization, starting from the Roman level, was a happy occurrence" .
Much of the world during the late 2nd century was dominated by the Roman Empire, which at this time had its greatest extent, however the political situation in which it found itself was not of great stability.
The death of Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus, more commonly called, just, Commodus, marks the end of the age of the Antonines, starting a period of uncertainty and great crisis throughout the empire. After the brief dynasty of the severe in which there was a substantial increase in conflicts with the barbarians and problems with the succession of emperors, the empire was seen to enter by the third century. in several civil wars, fought between pretenders to the Roman throne, who were mostly generals of the armies, thus constituting a series of rulers of an anarchy military. With this crisis in place, we can say that “it destroyed the foundations of economic, social and intellectual life in the ancient world”.
In 285 d. Ç. comes the figure of Diocletian, considered one of the great reformers of the Roman Empire, together with Constantine, who became emperor later on.
The policy exercised by these reformers, while allowing greater control of the state, over itself and over its invaders, dividing it into administrative regions, forming a tetrarchy and separating the east from the Western. It also instituted a form of government based on the oppression of everyone who lived in its territory. Creating laws that would later constitute the foundations for the emergence of the Middle Ages.
“The political unity and centralization that in later medieval centuries were entirely impossible, they were already beginning to disappear from parts of the empire located in western Europe. of the century III, and the way was prepared for the medieval kingdoms and the slow process of adaptation, called feudalism”.
Another important factor that took place in politics at that time was the adoption of Christianity by Constantine, who could no longer deny the force that the Christian religion took within the empire, thus causing the reasons for maintaining Roman unity to change from focus. “Allowing the replacement of Roman political unity by Christian religious unity”.
The political changes introduced throughout this period cannot be thought of if not in conjunction with the social and economic changes they caused.
With the separation of the empire into western and eastern we verified that there was the establishment of a growing inequality between the two parts. Already verified that the biggest cities were in the east side and the great concentration of the gold of the whole empire was also part of the east. On the other hand, the West was suffering more and more from the barbarians and from the political changes imposed since Diocletian. “The destruction caused by civil wars and invasions of the century. III of our era seem to have been particularly severe in Gaul, no doubt because this was one of the richest and most economically productive parts of the West and therefore the most vulnerable” .
With the western side quite economically affected, we can see that the natural economy started to have an individual character more effective in the life of the Roman citizen, taking an intense, but not total, focus from the economy based on the gold. Not that the empire had ever experienced this type of economy, we might even say that economic empire building fluctuated between the two types, but not as much as it does now.
The Orient was better adapted to the new reality imposed by the reforms and in a way keeping up. However, it is worth noting that “it is known that Constantinople escaped capture several times, in part by bribery of likely attackers with gold, whereas the West had to overcome such difficulties without this advantage... The East could buy protection with money, the poorer West could not, and that is why it suffered what the former avoided” .
One of the facts, but striking in the reforms established by the empire, was the harsh imposition in the creation of taxes and the measures linked to the state apparatus to guarantee their receipt. With the increasing barbarian invasions and an increase in the collection of taxes the people were leaving the empire, to contain this exodus, artifices were established that fixed man to land and cities, transforming both urban and rural activities into hereditary functions, thus creating a system of castes. With this violent suppression of individual freedom, the free man of the time became a servant of the State. Servitude arose. The Greco-Roman ideals of a community of free citizens disappeared.
Returning to the economic field and the question of the growing development of the natural economy, we observe that it is based on self-sufficiency, on exchange trading and now, to the misfortune of the state, on payment of taxes.
“Thus, despite the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine, the movement to repulse the monetary economy could not be stopped and the land tax was often paid in natura” .
Faced with this growing oppression, where the colonists were no longer able to produce anything more than what was sufficient for them pay the taxes, we observed, once again, that the structure that was set up was towards a total collapse on the side. western. This is evident in the words of William Carroil Bark, when he says that: “the state was incapable of help the independent farmer for which he, like the colonus, had few solutions to his front... For men who had families, even fleeing into banditry was out of the question.
In any case, what happened is evident: an increasing number of struggling farmers accepted the protection of feudalist potentates capable of defying the state, and thus practically selling themselves to bondage".
We evidence once again a great indication in the direction of a great social change, which is notably related to the extinction of a middle class, the disappearance of small properties, bought by the big landowners and the great increase in the power of the aristocracy agrarian.
Faced with so many causes and consequences, found to support the emergence of the characteristics that made up the moment of transition between the end of the Roman empire and the beginning of the Middle Ages, we can now try to refute the statement made at the beginning of the text, in which we say that the only way out for Rome is the Age Medieval.
This becomes clear when analytically we verify that it was not feudalism that built a relatively poor, broken, ununity and agrarian-based society, rather, we can indicate the Roman Empire as creator of this reality, which within its bellicose and conquering spirit did not have the necessary care and skill with its people and the conquered peoples, treating them in a violent and oppressive way, causing social, political and economic structures to merge into reality medieval.
However what is clear is that all these changes caused, in the words of Rostovtzeff, “a slow and gradual modification, a transference of values in the consciousness of men" making the change structural and not part of a mere conjuncture.
Here we see how Roman leadership in the West was deteriorating at the same time it produced its legacy for the future.
Produced by: Volnei Belém de Barros Neto
Historian and columnist Brasil Escola.com
History - Brazil School
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/historia/legado-romano-para-o-ocidente.htm
