Chapter Ten - Our Friends the Barbarians

We have to remember that the annals of this conflict between 'civilization' and 'barbarism' have been written almost exclusively by the scribes of the 'civilized' camp. -- Arnold Toynbee

When the Visigoths sacked Rome in a.d. 410, it was viewed by much of the 'civilized' world as a momentous step backwards. Indeed, the barbarian invasions of Europe signaled the beginning of the 'Dark Ages', which took centuries to move past. What if the barbarian destruction had been more complete? Could it be that we narrowly escaped a permanent reversal of history's course?

Common Misconceptions About Barbarians

It helps the discussion to first look at what we mean by 'barbarian'. In the old classification, 'barbarian' was the stage between savage and civilized man -- what we would now call a chiefdom. This tends to be a fairly good description, but is often not what is meant when the term 'barbarian' is used. The implication is of marauders pilliaging from settled societies. A few misconceptions should be cleared up:

Misconception #1: Barbarians are less civilized than their neighbors in a moral sense -- less decent, less humane

Comparing the barbarians who sacked Rome to the Romans themselves might yield surprising results. Romans were brutal to enemies, often slaughtering the captured. They also held great entertainment events during which slaves and prisoners were forced to fight to the death, or simply executed in interesting and utterly inhumane ways. The barbarians, on the other hand, were surprisingly accomodating after sacking Rome.

Misconception #2: Barbarians lack culture

Barbarians may have lacked writing or fine art, but they contributed a good deal to practical knowledge. The European barbarians invented the deep plow, and the Asian barbarians invented the stirrup.

Misconception #3: Barbarian cultures cannot learn new ideas

Barbarians, like any other human group, accept, reject, and pass on memes. They adopt ideas and technologies they find useful, and as a highly mobile and traveling culture, do a great deal to spread ideas across cultures (often while 'plundering').

Misconception #4: Barbarians are by nature transient and chaotic

Many barbarian cultures have been nomadic, and frequently pilliaged more sedentary cultures. When the opportunity presented itsself, however, they usually seem more than happy to settle down and make a peaceable living. They also adopt ideas from the civilizations they conquer, and usually become more formidable enemies in the process. Eventually, the barbarians that sacked Rome integrated and evolved into the European culture we know today.

Misconception #5: Barbarians were a peculiar affliction of Roman times, with the exception of a few recurrences in the Middle Ages

Barbarians, when used to describe marauding nomads, occur simply because cultural evolution occurs unevenly. Whenever a civilization advances compared to surrounding cultures, these cultures are viewed as 'barbarians'. As humans are wont to do, these surrounding cultures prey on the more 'civilized' ones whenever possible. There are a few reasons why there is a dearth of accounts of barbarians, given that this type of predation has always existed. For one, the further back in time we look, the fewer accounts of any sort exist. In particular, accounts of losing a war would be hard to find, since the documentation of a war is almost always done by the victors. If the barbarians are the victors, they probably wouldn't go out of their way to document the fact that they had been marauding invaders -- if they even had writing to document it with, which is unlikely. Also, victorious barbarians tend to become the next stable civilization. The Aztecs, Greeks, and others started out as invaders, and later became great civilizations -- who touted their distinguished lineage to the peoples they conquered, not to their own tribal past. The Germaic tribes of Europe did the same, claiming the heritage of the 'Holy Roman Empire', which they destroyed.

Misconception #6: Barbarian eruptions, in their chaos and destruction, are ironic punctuation to the supposedly progressive flow of cultural evolution

While barbarian invasions seem destructive and counterproductive, they often actually help the flow of progress. A dominant society is usually dominant due to some advanced technology or idea. In order to keep that dominance, the society tries to keep the idea from spreading, but eventually it does -- it empowers other groups (the surrounding 'barbarians'), and is often put to good use by them, to the dismay of the dominant society. This turbulance keeps innovation moving forward by preventing stagnation. A culture can't rest on it's laurels, or the surrounding societies will catch up with it and eventually surpass it.

Misconception #7: Barbarians prey on innocent victims

To take Rome as an example, it is clear that the Romans were not 'innocent'. They had brutally conquered vast teritorries themselves, and were not what we would consider a 'kind' society. They held slaves, heavily taxed subjugated peoples, and used blood sports as entertainment. Aside from a moral critique, though, many of the possible causes given for the downfall of Rome are poor applications of NZSness. Slavery is an inefficient labor system, and keeps the slaves from being major consumers. Heavy taxation and tight government control stifle innovation. In the end, it may have been Rome's inability to harness NZS possibilities that gave the Barbarians an opportunity.

The Verdict of History

So the function of barbarians throughout history has been to push past a stagnation point in cultural evolution. Instead of being a counterforce to NZSness, they are actually an enabler in the long run. When a culture doesn't keep up with the possible NZS interactions availble to it, it falls victim to inter-society zero-sum conflicts. Of course, in the short term this may indeed be a backwards step -- but in the long run it is a step out of a dead-end alley and back onto the path forward.