One of the lesser "might have beens" of history was the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy.
The Ostrogoths, like their cousins the Visigoths, eventually showed up at the Roman Empires door but in a different way instead of directly moving to invasion in 378 A.D.: co-opted by Attila The Hun, they served in his confederation of troops until around 454 A.D., when the Hun confederation fell apart and they moved to Pannonia (now Hungary). Conflict ensued again, and in 473-474 A.D. they rolled into the Balkan peninsula, where, after 14 years of moving from place to place and trying to go East, they turned and went West - and successfully invaded the Italian Peninsula in 488 A.D., creating the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy (493-554 A.D.).
Thomas Burns, in his book A History of the Ostrogoths, makes the following statement:
"In Italy, Theodoric (454 A.D. - 526 A.D., King of the Ostrogoths 471-526 A.D.) sought to stabilize his new established kingdom and to device a program where the indigenous Romans and the Ostrogoths could coexist peacefully and productively under the aegis of the Amalfian dynasty. His efforts produced the most successful symbiosis of barbarians and Romans in contemporary Europe" (p. xiv)
Theodoric and the Ostrogoths attempted to forge a new government system on the basis of the old Roman System.
Under the Ostrogoths, the King functioned as the head of state (keep in mind that the Western Empire had fallen in 476 A.D.) under the authority of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. The Roman Imperial Senate continued to function. Romans provided the administrators for the Kingdom (although the Ostrogoths, of course, held all the military posts). The King of the Ostrogoths never "created" laws; he "clarified" them - largely to ensure the Ostrogoths remained in power, of course. The Romans lived under the Roman laws of the Empire and the Ostrogoths under Ostrogothic Law.
The center could not hold, of course. The Ostrogoths still in some events acted like Ostrogoths (Theoderic is rather well known for painfully executing Boethius, author of The Consolation of Philosophy, on a suspected treason charge) and the invasions of the Byzantine Empire starting in 535 A.D. until the end of the kingdom in 554 A.D. ensured that the last years of the Kingdom were spent fighting instead of building. Add to that the fact that no leader after Theodoric had his vision for a merging of Ostrogothic and Roman interests, and the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy becomes nothing more than an interesting footnote of history for professional and amateur historians.
That is great, I hear you say. Thanks for the rather obscure historical lesson. And your point is...?
Three thoughts, really.
1) Trying to cling to the norms of an old governmental system while making it something "different' does not mean you will have a viable governmental system.
2) There is no really thing such as "fusion" of two system. They with the most power control the system, no matter how much they pretend they do/will not.
3) Taking over a political (and cultural) system which has existed for centuries is no guarantee it will continue to exist.
A historical note: The Byzantines did not get to enjoy their newly conquered province for long. The 20 year war of reconquest had destroyed and demoralized Italy; in 568 A.D. the Lombards, another Germanic tribe, poured over the Alps to conquer Italy for themselves and driving the Byzantines first to the coastal cities and then eventually out of Italy altogether. The Lombardic Kingdom lasted until 768 A.D, and parts of it continued to exist until the final conquest by the Normans in 1078 A.D.
Conquest is no guarantee of actual success.
Gothic Language (Bonus Round!)
Lack of a common cultural viewpoint and set of accepted common laws makes any group unstable. Force is not a long-term substitute for an accepted set of behavioral norms.
ReplyDeleteWe can see it in real time here and now in America, where different groups are treated differently from other folks. Crime becomes a plague both street and governmental crime prospers.
The Second Coming
W. B. Yeats
1865 –
1939
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Yeats saw the brownshirts and other earlier versions of Antifa and such. "The worst are full of passionate intensity" is the paydirt here.
Michael, I am convinced that Theoderic (if no-one else) thought it possible. And I will note that at some point, parts of the Roman inhabitants joined with the Goths in fighting the Byzantines (more of a "the devil you know" situation perhaps, but life was perhaps not too terrible by 5th century standards prior to the invasion). Still, it is interesting to me that throughout history, there is no true example I can think of a multi-cultural multi-ethnic society that did not have a dominant cultural paradigm in control. Even the Romans, who arguably had one of the largest of such empires, still insisted things be done the Roman way - and tolerated deviation only in things that did not really matter.
DeleteYep, Theodric thought He could hold together a multicultural society BUT he failed to establish ONE set of Laws for all.
DeleteCommon law for everyone was the Roman way until they started that debasing the currency and bread for votes (aka bread and circuses) stuff.
Empires fail for often the same set of idiocies that the previous ones did, almost like it's a Human Hubris thing?
Theoderic actually probably would have been in a better position to simply accept rule of the Western Empire (or what he could hold of it) rather than deferring to the Byzantines. That way he could have truly set his own policy instead of trying to defer to Constantinople while trying to manage under the Western Empire rules (with Gothic law thrown in for fun).
DeleteExcellent points too, as it seems we are currently in the middle of a concerted effort to change our culture and government. Lessons from history ought to be heeded, but the curious thing about humans is the innate assumption that Self can do what others have previously failed to do.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, as many have said - those who ignore history are condemned to repeat the mistakes. Likewise, attributed to Einstein - those who do the same thing over and over expecting different results are fools.
DeleteLeigh - History is full of such lessons, if we would only read them.
DeleteThose that would "improve" things are always convinced they are doing it for the correct and moral reasons. Because it correct, there is no way it could fail, right?
Interestingly, I think the lesson as well is that engaging in one struggle means you are often weaker for the next and will be overtaken.
Will - One reason you eliminate history as a course of study is so that no-one can remember, and the only thing is the current. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
DeleteInterestingly, my first job after graduating was with Procter & Gamble, and amongst other problems they had at that time a policy of disposing of all product development files five years after the project either went live or was canned. Not surprisingly they were doomed to a cycle of repeating the same failed project ideas on a five year cycle!
DeleteWill, I had no idea. That seems like the most short sighted plan ever.
DeleteThree good take aways TB. This generation's Brownshirts are the black-clad Antifa per Michael.
ReplyDeleteThanks Nylon12. It really was a fascinating little study. History is full of such things.
DeleteI am neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet, but I foresee a great day of crisis when all we hear is calls for unity - and the only return will be silence.
If a country or culture does not change with the times, it will go extinct. As you have pointed out, too much change can also cause longevity problems. So there is a middle area in there somewhere where change is good and healthy.
ReplyDeleteEd, I think (and I am no anthropologist or sociologist) the difference is organic versus inorganic change. Inorganic or enforced change is far more fragile than organic.
Delete