On the Pirenne Thesis

On the Pirenne Thesis

By Conrad Jalowski

According to the scholar Henri Pirenne, the dissolution of the period of Antiquity did not occur with the deposition of the last de facto Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476 CE but with the Islamic invasions in the seventh and eighth centuries. The transition from the highly urban societies of Classical Antiquity that were centered in the Mediterranean basin to the prominence of the Septentrion [North] or in particular the prominence of the centers of authority in the territories between the Seine and Elbe Rivers with the disruption of the well regulated trade in the Mediterranean Sea that marked the Medieval Period occurred with the Islamic subjugation of Egypt, the Levant, Cyrenaica, North Africa, the majority of Iberia and Mesopotamia in the seventh and eighth centuries. The transfer of power from the Mediterranean basin to Northern Europe with the restriction of orderly, regulated trade in the Mediterranean occurred due to incessant warfare and rampant chaos and resulted from the pressure of the encroaching powers of the Islamic caliphates [Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid] and the Islamic empires of the Almoravids and Almohads.

Henri Pirenne maintained that the massive migrations of the barbarian horde did not result in the overthrow of the Roman Empire but merely in the transfer of power and in the destruction of the political sovereignty of the Western Roman Emperor and the overthrow of the imperial institution or system of the Caesars. Examples of this theme of "continuity" in the Occident as opposed to the traditional viewpoint of utter collapse, contraction and disruption would be the barbarian kingdoms that arose after the partitioning and fragmentation of the Western Roman Empire such as the Visigothic Kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula, the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy and the Merovingian monarchy in Gaul. After the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 CE, the barbarian chieftain Odoacer of the Heruli tribe nominally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno and even minted coins bearing the effigy of the de jure Western Roman Emperor Julius Nepos who maintained his sovereignty in Dalmatia until the year of his death in 480 CE. The founder of the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy [The Valagoths] Theodoric I 'the Great' maintained a delicate balance between the native Romans and the foreign Ostrogoths. Also, the Merovingian monarchy [500-751 CE] maintained a secular state that did not disrupt its ties to Roman Gaul as opposed to the burgeoning power of the Papacy and the immense authority of the ecclesiastical over the secular that was evident in the succeeding dynasty of the Carolingian monarchy [751-987 CE]. Also, the eastern portion of the Imperium Romanum safeguarded Graeco-Roman civilization and served as the direct successor or the continuation of the old Roman Empire.

Due to the shift or the transfer of power from the Mediterranean basin to mainland Europe resulting from the Muslim invasions, overall trade in the Mediterranean was neglected. The two striking contrasts to this stagnation in Mediterranean commerce were the Italian city-states in the northern portion of the Italian Peninsula and the Venetian oligarchy in particular with its mastery of the Adriatic Sea and its key maritime provinces in Dalmatia as well as the superior maritime power of the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire with its powerful fleets protecting the Aegean Sea and the Sea of Marmara from Muslim incursions. The Venetian state was known as the "Mistress of the Adriatic" due to its status as the premier maritime power of the Italian Peninsula [The Norman Kingdom of Sicily briefly ascended to the premier Italian maritime power in the twelfth century] while the metropolis of Constantinople was the commerical hub or the economic center of the Mediterranean world acting as the vital link or gateway between Europe and Asia. The city of Constantinople connected the Occident to the Orient and maintained its Roman legacy despite repeated assaults from the Abbasid Caliphate, the Seljuk Turks of Iconium, the Turkic Pechenegs, the Cumans and the Uzes due to its mastery of the Aegean Sea, the Sea of Marmara [Propontis Sea] and the Black Sea [Euxine Sea] and the strength of the themata system or the military provinces located in Anatolia as organized by Basileus Heraclius and reorganized during the reign of Nikephorus II Phocas. Also, during the resurgence of the Roman Empire under the benevolent and moderate reign of Basil II Bulgaroctonus of the Macedonian Dynasty [867-1059 CE], the ducates of Chaldia, Vaspurakan, Mesopotamia and Antioch were established with the four ducates acting as a bulwark from the depredations of the Muslims. Although the themata system collapsed with the agonizing defeat at the battle of Manzikert [1071 CE] during the Doukid Dynasty [1059-1081 CE], the succeeding dynasty of the Komnenians [1081-1185 CE] led to a general recovery of the Empire and a restoration of Roman hegemony.

I would argue that although the Western barbarian kingdoms maintained a delicate balance or a mixture of Roman and Germanic cultural values and traditions, the theme is generally one of disruption, civil chaos and disorder with the contraction of urban centers, the dissolution of the imperial office, the dismemberment of the Empire to marauding barbarians and the receding hegemony of Rome. While the Western Roman Empire was already rotten at its core with the prodigality and decadence of the imperial court at Ravenna, the depredations of the Germanic barbarians such as the Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Alemanni, Vandals and Saxons resulted in the pessundation or the complete overthrow/collapse of the Western Roman Empire. However, I do agree with Henri Pirenne that the last phase of Antiquity stretched beyond the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE to the quick succession of Muslim invasions in the seventh and eighth centuries. In the affairs of the Oriental portion of the Roman Empire, the reign of Emperor Justinian I 'the Great' [527-565 CE] marked an ephemeral revival of Roman hegemony in the Occident. The succeeding Eastern Roman emperors Justin II [565-578 CE], Tiberius II Constantine [578-582 CE] and Maurice [582-602 CE] attempted to maintain their conquests in Occidental Europe. To slow down the tide of decay and to strengthen the Roman possessions in the Italian Peninsula, North Africa and southern Iberia, the Exarchate of Ravenna [The narrow strip of land connecting the city of Ravenna to the city of Rome, Naples, Salerno, Calabria, Langobardia and Sicily] and the Exarchate of Carthage [North Africa, Corsica, Sardinia, Ibiza, Mallorca, Menorca and Spania] were formed by the Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice. However, with the usurpation of Phocas, the process of Hellenization undertaken by Basileus Heraclius [610-641 CE] and the subjugation of the Sassanid Persian Empire in 651 CE by the invading Muslims, the period of Antiquity with the immortal glories of the Grecians and the Romans can be said to have ended amidst the relentless advance and overwhelming flow of Islam.


My original essay can be found in this location:

http://hierophantphilosophy.blogspot...ne-thesis.html

And what should we be discussing in this topic?

I mean no slight against you, Conrad. I am mearly lost as to what we should be discussing.

Following the Marien reforms, Rome Began its' gradual (or at times, not so gradual, such as the period of the Three Emperors, if memory serves) decent into chaos. The splitting of the empire into two parts, was only further proof of this. The seeds having long since been sown (literally, centuries before).
I quite agree, both empires were corrupt. And I assurt (further more) that the empires would have been doomed to failure. The assimilation of them into a more Islamic centered state, is only a transitionary period. No more, no less. The final product being that with the core values being Islamic, not Roman, Greek, or Germanic (though the Germanic, again, is a transitionary period, in my view, to the "finished, or final product of an Islamic State").

This happened (the finally assimilation of the Roman Empire) during the second age of Islamic spread (or the Golden Age of Islam), correct?

~John

The stated topic of this thread is of the approximate date of the termination of the period of Antiquity. There are numerous dates to the end of Antiquity and the collapse of Rome such as the years 395 CE, 410 CE and 455 CE; however, I have provided the two most substantial dates regarding the end of Antiquity.

Did Classical Antiquity terminate in the year 476 CE with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus and the barbarian migrations of the fifth century CE or did the moment of historical disruption occur with the Muslim invasions during the seventh and eighth centuries? The year 476 CE is the traditional date of the collapse of Rome and the end of Classical Antiquity used by the Enlightenment historian Edward Gibbon in his monumental work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire while Late Antiquity theorists and the scholar Henri Pirenne have maintained that the end of Antiquity occurred with the disruption of Mediterranean trade, the collapse of the Sassanid Persian Empire in 651 CE, the loss of Roman hegemony in Egypt, the Levant and North Africa, and the rise of the Islamic caliphates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

The stated topic of this thread is of the approximate date of the termination of the period of Antiquity. There are numerous dates to the end of Antiquity and the collapse of Rome such as the years 395 CE, 410 CE and 455 CE; however, I have provided the two most substantial dates regarding the end of Antiquity.

Did Classical Antiquity terminate in the year 476 CE with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus and the barbarian migrations of the fifth century CE or did moment of historical disruption occur with the Muslim invasions during the seventh and eighth centuries? The year 476 CE is the traditional date of the collapse of Rome and the end of Classical Antiquity used by the Enlightenment historian Edward Gibbon while Late Antiquity theorists and the scholar Henri Pirenne have maintained that the end of Antiquity occurred with the disruption of Mediterranean trade, the collapse of the Sassanid Empire, the loss of Roman hegemon in Egypt, the Levant and North Africa, and the rise of the Islamic caliphates.

---

Very well, to answer that question point blank.

The Roman Classical age of Antiquity ended, in part, with the barbarian migrations of the fifth century CE.

It ended fully with the Muslim invasion during the seventh and eighth centuries.

During the Barbarian invasions (and/ or migrations), the culture of Rome was transformed (or rather, what was left of the culture of Rome, was transformed. The culture itself, having been on a downwards slide since the Marian reforms passed.). The Muslim Invasions were eventually to become to dominate force of what was left of the Roman Empires' values. Through overtaking the Roman/ Germanic values possed by the Western Roman empire, and placing at their core the Muslim views.

~John

I agree with Pirenne. The roman empire did not fall from barbarian invasions but rather the muslims Conquer of North africa. or its a combination of both.

Interesting. I'm going to wait and see what people say before I decide my vote; my opinion has always been that Antiquity ended before Rome reached her zenith - Rome would therefore be an early Modern - but I'm willing to listen.

I still think it was mostly because of their military weakening. The muslim invasions look to me to be more a nail in the coffin then anything else.

I believe that Antituity ended with the reign of Constantine, emperor of the Eastern half of the Roman Empire.

It was not only at the beginning of his reign that the Roman Empire fragmented, but also Christianity as a religion became one of the chief dominating forces of the Roman Empire.

It was also shortly after his reign that a decline in the power of the Empire, to maintain and hold its own without outside help, took its place. Mercenaries began to take the place of Roman soldiers on the field, and the only thing that even they did was protect the borders, which were slowly failing.

Also, there was a general lack of innovation and expansion which characterized the earlier years of the Roman Empire...Lack of advancement leads to complacency. Complaceny leads to ultimate failure.

To give a specific time, I would mark the end of Constantine's reign as the end of Antiquity, as the end of the Roman Empire had already been set in motion, and at that time Christianity became the Roman Empire's state religion...

...and so the bronze giant has feet of clay, eh?

Hmm... Constantine's accession as a turning point. I rather like that as a marker. It was at that moment that Rome stopped conquering, stopped turning the tribes against one another, and gained the luxury of morality.

However, it could be said (and was, if I'm reading Conrad correctly) that the age ended with the dying of the light that was Rome. Some would argue that Rome continued as long as the Eastern Empire stood, and so logically Antiquity would then have continued until at least the time of the Fourth Crusade or perhaps even later, to the final collapse of Constantinople. This seems unreasonable; there must be a transition between Antique and the early Modern, and the line ought to be drawn earlier - before or after Ravenna.

While I personally sneer at the accomplishments of Ravenna, it cannot be denied that the endeavour was a noble one, worthy of the great empire that (in my mind) preceded it. That it ultimately failed in no way makes it unworthy of connection; in a sense, it was a bridge between the eras.

Looked at in this metaphoric light - a bridge spanning the river of time between the country of Antiquity and that of the following Dark - what we're really doing is deciding where one ends and the other begins. Where would the "Welcome To The Dark Ages" sign be placed: on the bridge? before it? after?

Antiquity, it seems to me, ends before the bridge. That time between, that of the Exarchate, is neither fish nor fowl, neither metapor nor mix, and neither territory can make good any claim to it.

So... given a lack of precise options, I choose the earlier date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

...and so the bronze giant has feet of clay, eh?

Hmm... Constantine's accession as a turning point. I rather like that as a marker. It was at that moment that Rome stopped conquering, stopped turning the tribes against one another, and gained the luxury of morality.

However, it could be said (and was, if I'm reading Conrad correctly) that the age ended with the dying of the light that was Rome. Some would argue that Rome continued as long as the Eastern Empire stood, and so logically Antiquity would then have continued until at least the time of the Fourth Crusade or perhaps even later, to the final collapse of Constantinople. This seems unreasonable; there must be a transition between Antique and the early Modern, and the line ought to be drawn earlier - before or after Ravenna.

While I personally sneer at the accomplishments of Ravenna, it cannot be denied that the endeavour was a noble one, worthy of the great empire that (in my mind) preceded it. That it ultimately failed in no way makes it unworthy of connection; in a sense, it was a bridge between the eras.

Looked at in this metaphoric light - a bridge spanning the river of time between the country of Antiquity and that of the following Dark - what we're really doing is deciding where one ends and the other begins. Where would the "Welcome To The Dark Ages" sign be placed: on the bridge? before it? after?

Antiquity, it seems to me, ends before the bridge. That time between, that of the Exarchate, is neither fish nor fowl, neither metapor nor mix, and neither territory can make good any claim to it.

So... given a lack of precise options, I choose the earlier date.

---

I respectfully must disagree with your assessment.

I believe, that, for the moment, dealing with the sole issue of the barbarian incursions and mass-immigration, as well as the eventual occuring and subjection of the Islamic soldiers, in reguards to the Roman Empire: That the bridge must be placed starting at the barbarian occursions, and their subsequent mass-migrations, and eventual conquests, in reguards to the Roman Empire.

This can be reguarded as the transitionary stage of Rome, where Roman ideals began to be corrupted, or atleast, perhaps, changed is a better word, by the new swamp of ideals it found itself to be in.

I would do away with the "Dark Ages sign" entirely, and, instead, simply put a "Roman ideals, for the most part, end here" sign, at the end of that bridge. And place that bridge ending at the Islamic invasion, an subsequent conquest of rome.

~John

I believe it ended once the Western Roman Empire fell and land was divided between many local lords (the middle ages). It makes no sense to say the Eastern Roman Empire continued to carry the torch, considering it survived to 1453, which is sometimes considered the beginning of Renaissance.

I think the best way to describe period of Antiquity is simple. One civilized world versus barbarians. It ended when that civilized world collapsed and barbarians became the civilized. Even though the Eastern Roman Empire still existed, it lived along side the Kingdom of France, The Holy Roman empire, etc, during the Middle Ages. So in the end, I conclude that it ended when the Western Roman Empire fell to it's knees.

The answer to this question depends on how one defines antiquity.

I disagree, Bole. The answer to this question determines how one defines antiquity.