Blue Empires

I've been grading a lot of papers recently about the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and it seems to me that the empire was not on the brink of social, moral, or spiritual collapse. Edward Gibbon had argued that Christianity had contributed to an otherworldliness that made the Romans militarily and economically absentminded.

The Christian Emperor Constantine however had been a life long soldier and was anything but lax militarily. He brought in a pax Romana of prosperity that rivaled that of Caesar Augustus. Peter Heather points out that the Eastern side was even more permeated with Christianity, and Constantinople thrived until the Ottoman conquest in 1453. If anything, Christianity prolonged the existence of the Western empire and then resurrected it in 800 under Charlemagne. Blood-sports did continue despite Constantine's ban. But at least such spectacle was disapproved of by the leader and the growing Christian population, who made up only about 10% of the empire at the beginning of Constantine's reign in 406.

Rome and the Western Empire fell for a myriad of reasons, which all led to a weakening of the military in the face of ever more powerful barbarian tribes who had Attila the Hun breathing down their necks. While Christianity counter-acted social factors the damage had been done and the Barbarians would not be stopped.

Romans had become self-absorbed and were no longer replacing themselves with children. Rodney Stark, in The Rise of Christianity and The Victory of Reason, documents how large families came to be seen as too costly to people's careers of political advancement and self-indulgent lifestyles (See also Peter Leithart's Defending Constantine). This despite Caesar Augustus giving tax breaks to those who made the sacrifice of bringing more than two natural born Roman citizens into the world.

Depopulation, while again counter-acted by large Christian families, left a void that the Barbarians began to fill in the fourth century, when they were hired to fight in the Roman military. This created a conflict of interest however, because barbarians sometimes found themselves fighting against their own tribes who were trying to migrate into Roman territory. Heather says that the Romans created their own conquerors by enriching them through trade and equipping them with military knowledge. It doesn't take long for the enemy to notice the hand your playing and learn to play at the same game. The weakened Romans didn't know how to counter their own military strategies and weapons when used against them.

Rome had expanded through a plunder economy which eventually ran out once the empire was so bloated it was about to pop. When they needed more money they started minting more coins. When the gold and silver started running out, they coated cheaper metals which led to hyper-inflation. The now near-sighted Romans, instead of investing in finding more mines, started hyper-taxing the provinces. When the provincials couldn't pay, the empire forced the wealthy provincials to make up the short-fall.

All this led to disgruntled population defended by an under-funded military trying to protect an over-expanded empire. Once the contractions started, the barbarians gained momentum and the rest is history: Alaric in 410, Vandals in 455, and the Foederati in 476. By the end, there was no more Western empire to occupy, and so the new barbarian ruler was given a title under the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople.    

Makes one wonder what will happen to the American Empire? At least the blue sections.

Mosaic

I've been grading a lot of position papers recently on the authorship of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament). It seems that the argument for Mosaic authorship runs thus:

The "giving" of the contents of the Pentateuch is associated with Moses, who is also described as writing specific sections. It seems likely that he would have written all of it given his education in Egypt, previous access to ancient sources, his being an eye-witness of most of the events, and a prophet who received special revelation from God. This is supported by testimony from the rest of the Old Testament and New Testament that attributes "the law," the traditional way of referring to the Pentateuch, to Moses.

Perilous Navigation

David McCullough:

History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are.

All I Want For Xmas Is These Books

Just in case you were racking your brain about what to get your favorite blogger of Christmas, here's my wish list:

Why Mutants Will Never Change by Gene Poole (co-written by the Swirling Eddies)

How to Grow a Brain by Sarah Bellum (Preface by Garrison Keillor)

Don't Eat Yellow Snow by I. P. Freely (now in its 50th printing)

Under the Bleachers by Seymour Butts (now in 100 the anniversary edition)

Writing a Bestseller without Selling Out by Page Turner (Epilogue by Garrison Keillor)

Who Goosed the Moose by Antler's in the Treetops (a true classic)

Hollywood Meets Holy Wood

There's a great article by Steven Boyer called "Narnia Invaded" over at Touchstone on the problem with the first two Narnia movies. Find it here.

Here are a few comments of my own. In Hollywood and the culture at large there can be no such thing as what Anthony Esolen calls "blessed hierarchies." When Hollywood tries to translate C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia it significantly warps the message and changes the characters. Instead a young man ready to lead, Peter is little better than Edmund at the beginning of the cinematic version of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. 

If you didn't know the book, I think the movie might lead you to believe that Edmund was first a victim of Peter and then the witch, instead of a kid who needed a new heart. The Peter of the movies is more conflicted than noble, and is a far cry from the chivalric knight of Lewis' imagination. 

Boyer points out that the movies have so far perverted Lewis' message to modernity into the message of modernity. Instead of the ennobling effects of duty to God-given authority, we have Edmund learning to not "do as he was told" and saving the day at the end of The Lion. Instead of his reign in Narnia teaching him to be a better leader in this world, Peter picks fights at the beginning of Prince Caspian and even with Prince Caspian, once he gets back to Narnia. The High King is anything but noble through most of the movies, because, as we post moderns know, kings by definition are self-centered tyrants. So Peter must learn to not be so kingly in the movies.

Aslan also becomes more like the god of Deism than the untame Lion who ruled at the top of the "blessed hierarchy." Mr. Beaver says, "Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." When will we learn that we need royal priests and servant kings who know how to take orders from the King of Kings in the government, church, and families?

I'm still hoping against all odds for better from Friday's release of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. When Hollywood meets Holy Wood the result usually leaves a lot to be desired. We shall see....

States' Wrongs

The 150th anniversary of secession is coming up (Dec. 20), and there's a good New York Times article here about the festivities being planned. The following excerpt sums up my view of the cause of war and why, I think, the anniversary should not be celebrated:

Most historians say it is impossible to carve out slavery from the context of the war. As James W. Loewen, a liberal sociologist and author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” put it: “The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to hold the country together and only gradually did it become anti-slavery — but slavery is why the South seceded.”