Lisa M. Lane 2008
The text and audio by Lisa M. Lane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
>> Okay, this is not a whole period lecture because we have group work to do. We need to work on thesis construction and development on Monday, so today we need to work on primary, first document analysis. So this is a mini lecture. It's not a whole lecture. It's to sort of continue with the end of the Roman Empire and get into the contribution of the Germanic barbarian culture. I told you, I'd do this because I don't like the Romans that much. I'm not a big fan. I'm a medievalist. I think the Middle Ages are really cool and the Middle Ages are all based on the culture that these Germanic barbarians brought in. A lot of the traditions and habits that they have we still use and we don't even realize it. We tend to think of ourselves as being very Roman in the way we do things. For example with the law, actually we're not.
[ Pause ]
>> Again, I want to remind you that my interpretation of the barbarians coming into Europe is that it was not an invasion but rather a migration. The map up there which I had to copy from, you know, 2 pages of a book 'cause the map extended across the whole thing to show you how far these pushes of people went back. I have explained before it went all the way back to China, tribes pushing each other ever westward until finally the Germanic barbarians themselves are pushed into the edges of the Roman empire reminding you that they are pastoral up to a particular point but agricultural once you get closer and closer to the edges of Rome. So these are people who are not just raiders. We will see some of those happening in the 9th century but at this point, say, 3rd, 4th, 5th century, these are people who come to stay, not just to take stuff. I mean sometimes the battle tactic made it look as though they were raiders, they come in, grab wealth and run back to where everybody were but overall over the long term these people are coming to live and they are setting up between the cultural centers and cities of the Roman Empire to create their own world.
[ Pause ]
>> Of course you know from your textbook that the empire ends up splitting, not that barbarians are not wholly to blame for this but they are an aspect of what they call the fall of the Roman Empire. That is a misnomer. It is a bad way to talk about this because it implies that the entire Roman Empire fell and some people even put a date on it and say it happened in 476 because that's when Rome was taken over by Germanic barbarians. This is a process that took several hundred years so not only didn't this happen on a particular date but the entire empire doesn't even fall. This area that's kind of shaded here in the vanilla color, the Eastern Roman Empire continued--continued with the structure, the political structure, that the Roman Empire had continued with emperors but they're ruling from, they're not ruling from Rome, where are they ruling from?
>> From Constantinople, a city Constantine named in really the Greek style after himself. This always reminds me of this Alexandrian thing to do. And they are ruling from there and they're calling, they're saying it's the Roman Empire long after the barbarians have taken over the western half. They're still ruling from Constantinople and using the title Roman Emperor. So a lot of the things that some of you may appreciate about Roman culture including the preservation of the law which is probably the most crucial of today is happening, it's just happening to the east. It's happening in Constantinople. Now that city had a previous name, yes.
>> Yeah. The City of Byzantium or I've been corrected recently. Apparently it's supposed to be pronounced Byzan-shium. I did not know that. That city is a Greek city and so if you're using that name for this place, you are using the old Greek name. That's good 'cause it helps remind us that the eastern part of the Roman Empire is really part of the Greek world and was part of the Hellenistic world and had retained a lot of the cultural aspects of being in that mode. The same city then is renamed Constantinople and now that same city is what?
>> Istanbul, when the Muslims took it over and people which name they use tells you their loyalty to which period of history they think is most important. In fact there are still people around who will not call the city Istanbul, who insists on calling it Constantinople. I don't think anybody is still around who's using the Byzantium but there are still people who say this is the City of Constantinople and won't accept Muslim occupation of that city. Yes?
[ Inaudible Question ]
>> The Greek, that's the Greek and Hellenistic, you know.
[ Writing on Board ]
>> Got it. Uh-hmm?
>>Student: I was in Istanbul and like a lot of people on the European side were calling it Constantinople and whenever we said Istanbul it's like not okay.
>> Not okay. This city is crucial because as you can see here on the map, the city is on the European side of the divide but it overlaps, right. There, the suburbs of Constantinople are across on the other side and yet it doesn't surprise me at all at one side, to one side we're all in Constantinople and to the other side, we're all in the City of Istanbul and the trade network here is what's key. The reason that the city is so crucial, so important it can become the center for the new Roman Empire is precisely because of the trade crossover between the areas we've previously studied including Mesopotamia and parts further east all the way to India, trade goods coming from the Mediterranean to the east, back and forth. They cross over into Europe right there at that point, they still do, and so it's a very important city. It becomes a very, very wealthy city and it's really the heart of the empire. So I've got the data on this map as AD 500, so again I'm kind of focusing on the 5th century and the 6th, we've got the division of the empire. But people tend to call this the fall of the Roman Empire. The fall of the Western Roman Empire or the barbarian migration into the west creates a new culture and a new political system over a very long period of time. So don't take the fall thing too seriously. It's a longer term for as I know. All I'm gonna do here is a real simple review 'cause I've mentioned many of these things before. I'm talking at the end of the Roman Empire lecture the differences and distinctions between the two. I'm just gonna focus on culture though. So housing would be one example of what the Romans thought a good house was versus what the Germanic barbarian thought a good house was. The best houses in the Roman Empire would be the Roman--exemplified by the Roman villa. Very large place, stone structures, lots of columns, very, very permanent. In fact there are villas from the Roman Empire that's still around, still lived in, still used. Some of them are historical sites but some of them are still used. Whereas the ideal safe housing for Germanic barbarians was communal, in a village. Villas, Roman villas tended to be kind of isolated. If you wanted to get away from other people and have your own little household ecosystem. But villages are completely interdependent and as you can see tend to be fortified by some sort of fence or wall. And the houses you can see are very large, oftentimes some are families living in one large building, depends on the tribal group, how cold it is where they are. These Germanic groups are very distinct from each other so there are differences, so I'm over generalizing. But in general they prefer villages, agriculture being more important than cities, and they prefer connections internally rather than isolation by family.
>> I noted last time the difference in personal hygiene. On the left here you have the Roman baths at the City of Bath in England. And as you can see bathing must be very important for them to spend all these time building these lovely bath houses. Bath houses were of course not just for keeping clean, they were for meeting people, they were for making sexual contact, they were for even discussing politics where nobody can hear you. There are all sorts of--all sorts of possibilities there. But they are as you can see structures, architectural structures built around natural hot springs, wherever those can be found. Whereas of course personal hygiene for your average Germanic barbarian would be jumping in the local pond and rinsing off if it wasn't too cold. Different cultures, different ways of lives. Women are seen very differently by each culture. The Roman woman on the left tended at least in the middle and upper classes to be relatively isolated. I realized there were a lot of royal Roman woman who were very active in politics particularly in poisoning anybody who was competing with their sons for power. It's not that women weren't active in Rome but the idea of Roman woman was somebody who stayed at home. When she went out in public was accompanied, if she was, particularly if she was unmarried by somebody from the family. Relatively isolated in terms of public life, in terms of politics. Their society, the society of women considered somewhat separate from the society of men. Whereas the ideal Germanic barbarian woman, this one is a warrior, this is Boudicca who is more on the Celtic tradition but similar standard holds for most of the Germanic tribes. Germanic barbarian women were supposed to be able to defend the village, the homestead when their husbands were off of war. They were supposed to be in charge of the physical labor on the farm and be able to perform at themselves. They're supposed to be large, strong, hearty women. They remind me a little bit of the Spartan ideal of womanhood. And they should be able if necessary to take up arms and fight like warriors. This is completely different from the Roman perception. In laws that you'll find, in examples of Roman laws versus the Germanic barbarian laws, the women have a great deal more in terms of rights and in terms of independence in the Germanic tribal custom than they do in Roman law or in Roman custom. Particularly the areas in Western Europe where Roman law was very, very limiting for females much more so than in the east. You have the Germanic barbarians coming through with their completely different idea of what makes an ideal female and what her rights and responsibilities are, much more extensive in the Germanic tribe, great deal more respect accorded to women there.
[ Pause ]
>> Architecture, again, very formal in the case of the Romans, based on a lot of the Greek ideas of balance and moderation that we've talked about quite a while ago when we were dealing with Hellenic Greek. Similar style with some technological and engineering improvement made Roman architecture very stable, very orderly, very lovely to look at. You get a lot of concept of stoic order. When you look at Roman architecture everything is strong and large and meant to last for a thousand years. Of course in comparison here, a Germanic hut keeps you warm, keeps everybody close, but after a while if you need to move on, it can be torn down, rebuilt, moved to somewhere else if necessary. Not so much nomadic, it's just not using the elements of stone and not as concerned about permanence as Roman architecture, and much more in keeping with the world life. The agricultural life and the materials that you find there rather than huge engineering processes of finding stone and cutting it and making certain shapes and trying to create something very large and labor-intensive.
>>Student: Were the Germanic barbarian people who would just went where the food was, wherever it's easier to invade [phonetic] or?
>> That's true the further you get from the frontiers. So the further out you go to the frontiers of the Roman Empire, the more you get people who are combining pastoralism with agriculture. So they'll settle for a while and then if conditions change and their animals can't survive they'll move. The further you get inside the Roman Empire the less pastoralism there is. The kind of animals that are being raised are not the kind that get moved very much and you get the fencing in of these large villages, and the great emphasis on agriculture and stock animals instead of pastoralism. That's pretty much true, the farmers tend to be closer to the empire and the further you get away the more there's pastoralism. It's probably because of the geography. There are just too many mountains, rivers and such in Europe proper, and the further you get near the edge the more you get plains where you can move across grassland areas.
[ Inaudible Question ]
>> I think these are a little fuzzy but I think, I'll try to make an impression here, did I succeed? Well, what impression do you get about leadership here?
[ Pause ]
>>Student: Well the barbarian guy looks like he's kind of like more like a normal person because he would be like among his people more and not like he's the leader.
>> Yeah, yeah. Or his allegiance does not come from being above somehow. It comes from the strength more, yeah.
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> Student: And the Germanic guy was more like he uses power and strength.
>> Yeah, yeah, and it's personal power and strength almost from the inside as opposed to be given from the outside like the idea that Augustus is being portrayed here as a God, you know. He is deified not because of anything he's got personally going for him. He is deified 'cause he's the emperor. You know it comes from his position, so he's portrayed this way. Whereas this guy has earned his position as king or tribal leader and he's done it through his own personal merit, his own personal strength. And as I mentioned to you last time if that slipped he could be fought by another member of the tribe and could lose that power. So the necessity for staying on top of things was very strong here. So leadership here I would have to say is significantly more personal. Leadership here is supported not only by this deity concept but by a very large administration of people. It would be very, very difficult for an ordinary person in this system to say, ask the emperor for something that he wanted for himself or his family. Whereas in this system you would have much closer act that he is, and as you point out Chris, much more among his people than the one on the left who is very much removed from the people by the structure and the palace, and his bureaucracy and all these kinds of things. You have much more direct leadership here. This is one of the reasons that mobilization in a military sense was very different in the two systems. When Roman troops, Roman legions try to fight barbarians they were disadvantaged in two different ways. One was that their structure was so formal. Their fighting was so formal and organized and that was versus the more guerilla-style tactic of the barbarians. But the other reason there was a big difference is that the leadership style was so much more direct here that in many ways the barbarians were simply more maneuverable and better led than Roman legions. That's not true in every case or in every battle, but I do see a common theme there.
>> Student: Well with battles too, wouldn't the Germanic people the better advantaged, more advantaged like just in topography. They were known to last more versus than the Romans.
>> They do, and I think that's one of the reasons that the Romans so early on began hiring barbarian troops along the edges of their frontiers. Topographical knowledge can be an extraordinary advantage and the ability to move in that environment, you know. But a lot of those Roman garrisons have been there very long time and they knew the lay of the land, it's just they weren't able to use it as effectively with formal groups of troops, particularly in areas where the geography have a lot of forests, a lot of hills, a lot of rocks. The Roman style of fighting was not really intended for that. It was much more of a battlefield style and a little bit tougher to implement. They've done very well in the quick tactic change as they moved through different areas of geography and towards the end of the empire. But the, I think the main barbarian advantage is in their needs. In some ways isn't it easier to attack than to defend if you need to move, if you need to attack. These people are fighting for the survival of their families and are trying to establish territories and homes for themselves, whereas the Romans are defending and they're often defending, as we mentioned last time, lands that aren't their own.
>> You know a lot of these guys in the Roman military are landless or farmers who have lost their lands, sent hundreds of miles away from their home to fight, to defend this very large empire against people whose needs are much more local and much more focused. I think that the Romans were at somewhat of a disadvantage there too. The fact that the Romans told that they're just for the empire, as long as they do it's remarkable, that they are able to get the barbarians on their side and fighting and holding their frontiers for them, maybe the one reason why the borders last as long as they do. So, that's again, that's my theory, my take on it. Just to give you an example 'cause I very much like this picture of the immediate culture clash when these leaders, these barbarian leaders take over in the Roman civilized world. This is actually of course in the Eastern Empire because this is in Athens in Greece. But the--sort of the image, this is like the ideal image of the barbarian king who's able to take over at the highest levels of power and still have the cultural remnants under his control and at his service. And this picture is a rather flattering portrait, but I'm sure you can imagine this being shown in other ways. But he's, he's very different and yet he's willing to adopt whatever the local style is, but his system of rule is still very much in the Germanic barbarian tradition rather than in the Roman Empire tradition.
Okay, some of the important traditions we need to be aware of that the Germanics people brought into this region. The law is very different from Roman law. And of course, I'm showing you a bit of a document here that was written down. It would have been written long after because most of the Germanic tribes were not literate and has no reason to be. What do you notice about this little section of the law, or the Salian law of the Franks, the Frankish tribe?
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Yeah definitely. There's a very clear separation here of punishment based on whose side you're on, you know, and who you are. You see, there's a lot in the Germanic tribal law, the differentiation is very open. There isn't really an attempted equality beyond the tribe. And everything's equal for the group in but it's also very clear who is out. What else do you notice here that's maybe different from other codes we've looked at such as the Hammurabi's code?
[ Pause ]
>> What are the penalties?
>> Student: Mild--
>> Student: It's just mild--
>> Student: No an eye for an eye.
>> Yeah, there's no eye for an eye. Now these tribes did have punishment, corporal punishment that punishes the body. They tribe didn't have lose the hand if you do this, but not in direct proportion to the action that you're taking. Money, cash was much more a part of the judicial systems of these tribes, and it's much more part of our system in a lot of ways. I mean our system may be based on Roman justice, but once you get into the courts, a great deal of it is about money, isn't it? If this time was done, you have to pay this much in damages. That's much more out of the Germanic tradition than it is the Roman. The idea of witnesses is the Germanic idea that comes from a preliterate society, and yet we still use it. We have to have witnesses at a wedding. If two people get married, it's not considered legal unless you have two witnesses. That's a western tradition that comes right out of the Germanic tradition. Somebody has to see it, somebody has to be physically present to see it, to be able to verify that a particular event happened and took place. I think you can see why this is from a preliterate culture. You can't just record what happened, these people got married, somebody has to actually see it and verify that they saw it.
>> Student: I don't if they have courts, but when there was [inaudible] the character witness?
>> A character witness would always be brought forward in Germanic trials, and they did have courts, local courts and the courts that the kings ran at the larger level, huge court system. And you have to get not only people who have witnessed the actual event, but if you didn't have any of those, or there was some doubt as to their veracity, or they're testimony conflicted with each other or something like that, you need not only character witnesses but what I would call memory witnesses. You need people who not only know the character the people involved, but people who remember long ago what various relationships are. For example if there is a land dispute which happens a lot among the Germanic barbarian tribes, you would need a witness who remembered who owned what piece of land, or at least acted like they owned what piece of land during the father's lifetime or the grandfather's lifetime. Older people are accorded a great deal of respect in Germanic tribal culture because they are the ones who were there. They are the ones who can give the memory testimony as well as the character testimony going back through previous generations. So it's not enough, you're right, to just have seen the thing happen, you have to be able to attest to the character of all involved in any previous relationships or arrangements that might have been made. It's not just the immediate situation, it has a history and your older people are important for that. This ceremony here, the [inaudible] is the giving of--is the transfer of, not giving, usually purchase, the transfer of land from one person to another. When we do that now, how do we do it, when somebody sells land and somebody else buys it?
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Yeah, we use a lease, the documents of sale, title documents, all these kinds of stuff. It's all written down. There's no witness that's necessary although, frankly on title documents when you buy a property, the title company and there's a notary, and they're providing the witness aspect of this for you. Here you have to actually take a chunk of dirt and hand it to the buyer or the person you are giving it to, or the person who is inheriting it is in front of witnesses. You have to actually hand them a chunk of dirt because that would be visual effect, right, the witness is seeing that. It gets into your head, okay, this is the transfer of land from one person to another. And if there's any question later, you've got a group of people who can say I was there, I saw that land being transferred. So even though we have writing now, we still do this, we still need witnesses and notaries and people who can verify that this happened. Also obviously in court cases of [inaudible].
[ Pause ]
>> The idea of testimony then is crucial that somebody swears to a higher power regardless of whether it's the tribal gods or the Christian God. Somebody who swears that they will tell the truth and provide testimony, something that they saw or something that they know and that they better be truthful about. Now we've seen this problem before, right. False accusation was a big deal in the Hammurabi, in Hammurabi code as well. And one of the ways that the Germanic tribe ensures against false accusation is to make sure that that accusation is pledged, that there is some sort of calling on a higher ethical authority that you are testifying to the truth, and that you're doing that again in front of witnesses, very, very Germanic thing. To decide guilt or innocence among the Germanic barbarian groups even long after they had settled down into communities, you would have the trial by ordeal. Let's say your witnesses, the evidence they brought was not trustworthy or it was contradictory. Let's say your character witnesses and your older people simply did not have knowledge of whatever had happened. Nobody really saw it, it's not clear cut, your witnesses can't help you, how does the judge decide guilt or innocence? Again, the calling upon higher powers. In this case, not ethical powers, but the actual idea that there are influences from the outside that can help show guilt or innocence. The trial by ordeal is one of these. This is the ordeal of boiling water, where you've got boiling water and the person being accused would have to put their hand in the boiling water for a certain period of time, usually to cause blisters on the hand. And then they would wrap up the hand. This is very similar to the ordeal by fire, same kind of process just different substance. They would wrap up the hand and they were not allowed to unwrap it. And then 3 days later, they would unwrap it and if it was healing, that would be a sign the person was innocent, and if it was festering, got infected, et cetera, a sign that the person was guilty.
>> Usually, this is not the only evidence. You know, they call it trial by ordeal and this is the final say that wasn't really--that's not really accurate all the time, that was evidence included with other evidence. But it is, I think you'll agree, a barbaric way of deciding guilt or innocence, but it was a last effort. It was desperate. What do you do when you do not have the information and somebody has been accused? You can't just ignore it, and say, well, we're sorry, we can't tell, so goodbye. So they used the trial by ordeal. Now, when there were two parties involved who had a conflict, another aspect of trial by ordeal could be a battle, could be a fight. In Germanic culture, this makes perfect sense. In Roman culture, it's completely stupid. But in Germanic culture where might often is right give you the right to control the entire tribe, it makes a sort of sense to have the two fight it out and whoever is stronger is in the right and whoever is weaker has lost. Questions on any of these? Some people, I fear, they're worried about their hands, right? I see people doing this. Well, it's not too hard. Put in water. This continued for a long time by the way. You'll read in the, I think, it's the next chapter, the chapter after how Henry II of England in creating a law code for all of England doesn't dare get rid of this? It was just too important to the common people to have trial by ordeal, but he insisted that whether the person was found guilty or innocent in a local court by the trial by ordeal, it has to come and stand trial at the King's Court. You know, he sort of--he made a super rational system where, okay, you can go ahead and do trial by ordeal but it's not gonna decide this person's fate. Yes.
>> Student: What is the middle slide, 5 middle slides?
>> The trial by battle, which is that sometimes it's called trial by battle. Sometimes it's just trial by ordeal, but this is the ordeal, is actually fighting whoever wins his right. This is real common in property dispute. You know, the person who said he stole my property.
>> Student: Was that truly unfair?
>> Student: Yeah.
>> Again, it's a situation where you don't have the witnesses you need and you don't have a clear winner. What are you gonna do? How do you decide who's right, who's wrong when both insist that they're right?
>> Student: Right.
>> So these are last ditch efforts to solve the problem and move on, and we call it now getting closure, right, in our modern psychobabble.
>> Student: Was that a common occurrence and was there always disputes?
>> There were always disputes. I will say that the witness and testimony procedures, a lot of people took them extremely seriously in Christian tribes. Especially newly Christianized tribes, when you swore to God, there really was a belief that He was gonna get you somehow or another if you were lying. The attribution of a higher power and the need to do this in front of a higher power was taken quite seriously. So yeah, it did happen. It did happen, but not usually because of false testimonial, usually because there wasn't enough, but fairly common. Of course you've got a warrior society, so this one was often preferred too to the other kinds of ordeal, being strong to see who's right.
>> Student: Can you say, hey, like I'm over here with my hand burned and then it's [inaudible] like--
>> Now, do they have to decide? Yeah, the group has to decide. A lot of the decisions that are being made here either by the king, the tribal leader, or the community, so it's not the person who's being accused or the person accusing is usually not allowed to choose the system. They try to have somebody who's impartial choose which method is gonna be used.
>> Student: And then they got like for the death or someone like losing a leg [inaudible] over.
>> Depends on what it's over. If the crime is murder, for example, it can be to the death. If the crime is something like property, that would be really rare, very rare.
[ Inaudible Question ]
>> Well this is the thing, and that's where the community would have to figure who's our best good warrior. You know, who's gonna have the power of god or the gods behind him to fight this guy if he really did it, you know. And you choose your top guy. I guess the main point is it may not seem like a rational system to you. We're very much law based. But on the other hand, if you've ever had anything go wrong in the legal system or you know somebody where it just didn't work out the way it was supposed to, I mean, this isn't any stranger than that, really. Seeing bad things happen and people aren't always right and people lie and things occur and sometimes justice isn't done. And proportionally, my expectation is that's exactly the same here as it is now. That's my guess. Now Christianity plays a role. As I say, for a newly Christianized tribe, this is important to be swearing to a higher power and the backup there for godly interference is pretty intense. Entire tribe could be Christianized just because their king decided he was Christian. That happened a great deal. That it's not the heartfelt belief of the individual that's at stake here. You're talking about kinship planting group, and if the king decides, I'm gonna be Christian, that's it. Everybody is baptized. So, entire tribe gets baptized that way. That's very, very common. They make a lot of what does it--out of the stories of how the Germanic tribes were Christianized. The church has a great many fables and tales about how it happened. In this case, Odoacer, one of the leaders of the Germanic tribe, meet the monk who convinces him that Jesus is lord and Christianized him, and therefore his entire extremely large tribe. Politically though, this Christianity is important as well. The fall of the Western Roman Empire, the transition of the Western Roman Empire is a story of centralization turning to decentralization, right? The Roman Empire was the central power, whether it was in Rome or in Constantinople, it's a central power that's said to be controlling this large area with its bureaucracy. Once that system falls, what, it's falling to is decentralized Germanic tribal control. Each tribe is operating its own area. It's taking over its own--there is no central head of Europe anymore once that happened. So, I guess that we can put somewhere near 476, the transition from centralized power to decentralized power in Western Europe. What that means is that the groups are not collaborating with each other to run Europe. They're just each running their own little sector. So there's really only one group of people who could possibly claim that they are in charge of all of Western Europe, that they have a right to interfere anywhere, and that's the church. You read last time about the pope and how the pope gets all his power and this whole structure. Essentially in some ways, he's taken over the Roman Emperor's role. There may be some guiding Constantinople who's calling himself the Roman Emperor but he has little or no influence in the west. The pope, however, has a great deal of influence in the west and his influence increases proportionally to the number of barbarians who convert to Christianity. So the more tribes get converted to Christianity, and some of them do it, again not for heartfelt reasons but for reasons of trade and convenience, okay. As they convert to Christianity, the pope's power increases accordingly and he could rightfully say, "I'm what's left of the Roman Empire. I am the central power in Europe. I'm the only one."
>> Student: Wouldn't they like not wanna listen to him now 'cause originally wasn't he calling them like all heretics when they celebrate?
>> Yeah, the Arianism problem? Sure. You've got these tribes who converted to the wrong kind of Christianity. So you gotta get the monks out there and you've gotta get your priest out there from Rome and correct them. And if you put your papal power behind the orthodox, the Catholic groups, over time they will win.
>> Student: When they took over Rome, why didn't they just get rid of Christianity because they didn't appear being Christian even before that?
>> They weren't the ones being persecuted for it. The people who were persecuted for their Christianity, that had happened couple of hundred years before the invasion of Roman [inaudible] and had happened to people inside the Roman Empire. By the time the barbarians actually reached Rome, Christianity is the official religion of the Roman Empire, so that persecution was not an issue. It was how Christian and what kind of Christian.
>> Student: But once the tithe was around and the bishops were in charge of the town, then that means that the bishops were--they can get money from the--these people?
>> Yeah, but the bishops aren't in charge of the town. Each bishop has, if you can imagine just sort of a flat map of Europe, each bishop has his own section called the diocese. There may or may not be a town in there or it may just be an area, but that's the area where he's responsible for all of the churches and the churches are the people [inaudible].
>> Although--and deacons are the ones who have contact with the ordinary people. And taxes are being collected in the form of a tithe, about 10 percent of the income of a region. It gets funneled right through the bishop's job and up to the papacy. Now, for a long time the bishops are wealthier than the pope. It doesn't move that efficiently towards Rome. But yes, it's setting up a monetary system as well and a trade system as well and an information network as well, all of it run by the church. And so tribes naturally, some of them are happy to give up their Arianism to be part of that system too. Yes, Andrew and then--
>> Student: Yeah. Well, the whole thing behind Roman Empire and Christianity, I think that the key point is that barbarians were so entranced with the idea of Rome's story, like it was a very prestigious thing if you could control Rome. They didn't know that [inaudible] Rome itself really had no importance to keep you [inaudible]. There's no real point including the city because it has conquered basically the people and [inaudible] no Rome at the time. It was a city worth invading and it's like the religious principles that bind it weren't worth all that. So like you're applying for like Arianism, what you know by the capital church. It's hard to get rid off because [inaudible] the line of barbarian [inaudible] the Roman Empire will--this eventually goes away. Those people will say that's not the Roman way of doing it.
>> Right. Right. They want the stuff of Rome without wanting to be Roman, yeah. And here's something. Christianity is something that may be identified with the heart of power, but it's more important than that culturally and that transition is very important for them. And to be associated with the takeover and yet at the same time they're not managing it like an empire at all. Yes, Kurt [phonetic].
[ Inaudible Question ]
>> Yeah, they don't call--yeah, they don't call them taxes. They call them tithes. You're right. They call them tithes, and the movies that you're watching and then things like Robin Hood where the sheriff is coming to collect the taxes and he's the bad guy, are collecting them for the secular authority, not for the church. And the money is being funneled, the tithes are being funneled through the church up to the higher level of church. So you've got four deacons and four priests and four friars, you know, in the system and the tithes are moving up and making the bishops and the archbishops and the papacy wealthy. So the tithe, by definition, is 10 percent. On top of that, you would have whatever local taxes your king or ruler is exacting for the privilege of holding the land, and that's part of feudalism and that comes later. We're not there yet.
>> Student: And the church becomes extremely wealthy?
>> Yes, and that's how they do it, but it's very gradual.
>> Student: Right.
>> It's very gradual and much of it has gone through this tithe system which is 10 percent. You know, people don't notice quite as much as the taxes that are gonna come around later with the feudal structure. So yeah, you're absolutely right. This is not what you normally see, but it's important to understand there is this long term trickle of money coming into the churches nowadays. And once a group is Christianized, of course, they have a duty. The king has a duty to make sure that the tithe goes to the church because it becomes terribly important for the priest to be praying for the soul of the tribe. They're doing a job. They've got a service here that they're offering. They're offering baptism and last rites for the dying so people can go to heaven, and marriage before God. And they're offering a huge service to the community so, of course, 10 percent seems like [inaudible].
[ Inaudible Question ]
>> The money that is collected initially, the popes used to run their own administration rather than personal wealth. The idea that the pope himself becomes personally wealthy comes--
>> Student: Later.
>> Comes later, yeah. You're trying to--you're using the tithe to run the whole system, to provide the services for the most number of people. That's what the money is being used for. And like any system that involves money, there are corruptions and nastiness and all that. But the intent is to run the church as bureaucracy.
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Student: Yeah.
>> And like so I think bishops would manage their own territory. I think what make the pope so wealthy was because Rome is a huge tourist attraction and Italy is probably a very wealthy area where much of the [inaudible] were all the industry was, were all the wealthy merchants [inaudible], but it wanted to look very quiet. I guess someone talked about the whole idea of Roman virtue.
>> Student: But still, it wasn't so much of a bigger--I think they also, but in the Roman experience but, you know, there's a point different from Pius and so the merchants would donate a lot of their money to the various people in Italy and eventually that money would sort of come into the hands of the pope.
>> That's true, but we're too early for that. The reason your chapter is using this awful term that I really hate, the Dark Ages, is because we're not yet up to the point of revival of trade that supports the world you're talking about. The world you're talking about, 9th, 10th, 11th centuries, we see it starting to form. The revival of towns is not until the 11th and 12th centuries. So if we're still back in the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries, we're seeing the rudiments of that so we're not seeing public piety as being something you'd be willing to pay for and we're not yet seeing the mercantile tourist detraction. These are just starting, just starting to emerge. We're still in the tribal organizations. I don't wanna get too ahead of ourselves here. And this is an important year to keep in mind in that transition because what you have with Charlemagne is a combination of the kingly secular political power with the churches authority to run all of Europe. Charlemagne was a Frankish king who wanted to control all of the Frankish tribe, not just his own. And what he decided to do was he wanted sanctification for that power. He wanted a Christian authority to bestow that power but never be able to take it back. He wants authorization after the fact. So having taken over all the tribal areas, he goes to the pope and says I want you to crown me Emperor, and that would cement--is the contract that would cement the deal between the Catholic church and its orthodox programs and its definition of heresy and the trajection of Arianism and all that, and its network that would solidify the control of that network and give the church a king that supports it and give the king the support of the church and it's a really great deal. And it's such an easy year to remember, 800. I mean that's really easy to remember. So remember that, in 800, think of it as these Germanic barbarians hooking up with the church and tying their destinies together because following that, any tribe that doesn't is an outsider. And Charlemagne creates an empire that it may look small to us because we've been studying the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Alexandrian Empire, so they're huge and this may be small 'cause it's just like half of Western Europe, but it was big at the time. It's an effort at recentralizing. And what Charlemagne wants to be called, the title he wants, the title he'd get--
[ Writing on Board ]
>> --is holy, sanctified by the church and therefore, of course, by god, yes? Who can tell him he's not the emperor now? God said that he was. The Holy Roman, so like Andrew was saying, the idea that you're rebuilding, taking over Rome, that Rome is yours in the very large sense, Roman Emperor over king, the big guy, and sanctified by the church. He's the first Holy Roman Emperor and he accepted that connection in a way that is not going to be broken.
>> Student: Would you refer to that during--when he was crowned during his reign?
>> Yeah. Holy Roman Emperor, that's the title he wanted and the title the church agreed to give him. And they both got a great deal, a great deal.
>> Student: So that's where the Holy Roman Empire came from?
>> That's where it comes from. It's from the Frankish tribes. It constitutes a great deal of modern day France and all of Germany.
>> Student: And parts of Italy.
>> And parts of Italy and little bits of Eastern Europe.
>> Student: What--this was like a look in the map you have the kingdom of Sicily or two kingdoms of Sicily?
>> Yeah, that's later when they become the two kingdoms. They're gonna--that's much later, much later. They are under barbarian--separate barbarian control.
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> So this is a picture. Here's the Pope crowning Charlemagne. This picture appears all over this place. Briefly, these are the Germanic values. Some of them aligned with Roman values like the importance of family, the importance of justice, although I think we've seen that Germanic barbarian culture interprets that differently from the way that the Romans did. And courage and loyalty are way up there. Really, it's a redefinition of virtue. Not just personal integrity, personal strength, and group integrity. It's a different way of thinking. And you'll see this in every--
[ Pause ]
>> The cultures that they create is so different from the culture of the Rome. Once they settled down, once they start producing agricultural surplus for trade, the towns are going to start forming, some of them along the old Roman road, most of them not along the old Roman road, and this culture will create all of the things that we're gonna look at in the Middle Ages. The towns that Andrew had mentioned, the merchant town, new agricultural systems that are gonna be the extraordinary number of people. If you like tales of knights in shining armor, chivalric culture, derived from Germanic particularly Frankish culture. We're gonna look at technology, medieval technology. They go way beyond the Romans with water power and instead of just using it to produce food, they're gonna use it to produce industrial power energy for the production of goods, much more modern concept. We have town banking structures beginning to be set up, money lending opportunities. The church is gonna forbid Christians to lend money to each other at interest. You can lend somebody money but you can't have interest coming back, so that's gonna give the Jews an extraordinary opportunity to lend money at interest so that people can get the loans that they need. And, of course, we'll see architecture and structures built of a kind that we haven't seen since the Roman, an engineering marvel. All of this comes out of Germanic culture. So now do you see why I like them? The Romans are fine. The Romans are good, whatever. But if these--these are energy dudes, these are the people who have the power to reform Europe in the image that they wanted and recreate it and create ultimately something entirely new and that's why the next several chapters we're gonna be studying together are all on that world that they created, the Middle Ages. And it's a time, whatever you've heard, it's the time of extraordinary change and development and a lot of the stuff we have now is Medieval not Roman and comes out of that culture. Yeah.
[ Inaudible Question ]
>> They're pretty good because they've got local--here's where you got an advantage of a local economy, right. Famine is very difficult, but if you've got a local economy that's self-sufficient, it's a lot less of a problem than if you've got a network where you've got areas that cannot produce their own food.
>> Student: So they kind of did better than the Romans.
>> Yes, they do. They did better than the Romans. Famine has less likely--of course they have better weather conditions, too. I mean, if you look at climate history, this is a good time especially if you've heard the 10th and 11th century, the climate was just fabulous for doing new stuff with agriculture and increasing food production. The weather was on your side. Alright, let's go on with our group. Oh, I wanna mention just read--
==== Transcribed by Automatic Sync Technologies ====