Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 14:34:16 CDT
From: "Daniel A. Foss" <U17043@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Subject: third and sixth century crises east and west seriousŁ
To: World Systems Network <wsn@CSF.COLORADO.EDU>
A thousand pardons for the two posts last week. I was distracted by
extraneous matters, told obscure jokes some of which I forgot to finish,
etc. This time, I took the precaution of writing a first draft.
I believe that China built up a substantial technical and commercial
lead over Europe as a result, in large part, of having been spared by
the
first Bubonic Plague pandemic, that of the sixth century et seq. I also
believe that this lead was lost after the second Bubonic Plague
pandemic,
in the fourteenth century, precipitated a Luddite-anticommercial social
revolution whose rank-and-file soldiers were inspired by the White Lotus
religion.
Both of these propositions are guarenteed to be implausible or
offensive
to many people. Still, they may be useful in communicating the idea that
the world-system is more than the movement of goods. It is highly
complex
human interaction.
Smallpox and measles, whose ravages caused third-century crises in
the
Roman and Chinese empires, are viral diseases whose infections are
transmitted
directly. Bubonic Plague is caused thy the bacillus Y. pestis,
transmitted
from one infected person to another by the bites of fleas from infected
rodents, unless potential victims are, as in large cities, close enough
to each other to contract the pneumonic and septicaemic forms of the
disease (which are always fatal for the former and nearly always for
the latter). The greater the varieties in ecosystems through which the
bacillus is transmitted, the greater the adaptations required of
bacilli,
fleas, and rodents.
The comparatively rapid transmission through the Mongol Empire,
between
1331 in Beijing to 1347 at Caffa, a Genoese port on the Black Sea
(besieged
by a Mongol army), was not possible in the sixth century. Yet the
interval
of seventeen years from the first outbreak in China in 1331 to its
arrival
in Genoa itself in 1348 was sufficient to witness a decline by half in
the
value of goods arriving at the port of Genoa in the 1330s (Harry
Miskimin,
Economic History of Early Renaissance Europe, 1973?), the difference
representing the cutoff of raw silk imported via Caffa. When Giovanni
Bocaccio told us, in the opening pages of the Decameron, where the
Plague came from, he had the best possible source of information: his
father was Naples branch manager of the Bardi Bank, largest in Europe,
until its failure in 1334; what the Bardi did not know about
international
trade at that time was unknown.
By contrast, it took 140 years, from 542 (in Constantinople and
Antioch),
to 682 in Changan (eastern terminus of the Silk Route, capital of China,
population 2 million) and 683 in Loyang (secondary capital but in use as
imperial residence at this time, population a half million), for the
disease to travel the Silk Route across Asia to China, if these
localized
outbreaks were in fact Bubonic Plague. North China grows millet, which
requires conditions not too dissimilar from the cultivation of wheat,
rye,
barley, etc. From the Huai river valley southward, the staple crop is
wet
rice, which requires a sea of mud. Even in the fourteenth century, when
the
wet rice region was very densely populated, it took from 1331 till 1344
for
the disease to reach the Huai River, and a further two years, to 1346,
then
again in 1351, for the Plague to reach the Yangzi where, in the latter
year,
it destroyed a Mongol army suppressing a peasant war. Nothing of the
sort
happened in the sixth century. If the first Bubonic Plague pandemic
reached
China at all, therefore, it was confined to the two largest cities, both
in
North China.
Peripheries and Cores
The smallpox-measles pandemics of the second-third centuries (with
later
recurrences) debilitated both the Chinese and Roman empires. Therefore,
Central Asians were drawn east *and* west. The Bubonic Plague which
struck
Europe and the Near East, beginning in 542-549, but *spared East Asia*,
*therefore* drew Central Asians only westward, even if some of them had
previously reached China.
The pattern of the Chinese Dark Ages (220-589) differs from the
European
in that, in the Chinese version, the incoming Five Barbarians conquered
the
densely-populated politico-military and economic core regions of the
North
China plain, that is, the North China and Northwest China
"Macroregions,"
to use the terminology of G.W. Skinner (because I took his courses in
school).
Coevally, the Germanic invaders of the Roman Empire conquered the
economically
and politico-militarily peripheralized West, leaving the more
economically
and politically viable East, largely unscathed and continuing the
recovery
from demographic catastrope which commenced in the late third century
and
continued until the Plague of Justinian in the 540s: Zeno even managed,
in
489, to dump the Ostrogoths onto hapless Italy. Even earlier, Attila had
led the Huns against the Western Empire, in Gaul (451) and Italy (453),
possibly knowing what he was doing.
These Huns may be one thing Europe and China had in common, possibly
originating (*socially*, not genetically) as the Northern Xiongnu,
driven
off by the Southern Xiongnu, with the connivance of the Han dynasty
court,
in 169. In 312, the *shanyu* of the Southern Xiongnu demanded from the
feeble
Jin dynsasty see belowŁ emperor the right to settle within the empire
under
the latter's nominal suzerainty, and further, a Jin princess in
marriage. With
Chinese refusal, the Xiongnu overran North China. By 317, Sima Yu of the
Jin
imperial house had established an exile regime at Jiankang (now Nanjing)
just
below the Yangzi. In a scene reminiscent of Goths fleeing across the
Danube
in 376 and Slavs crossing the same river after 565, tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of *Chinese* peasants, led or herded by
aristocrats,
moved to the Yangzi valley, ruled by the Five Barbarians (Turks,
Mongols,
proto-Tibetans). See next section.Ł
In the sixth-seventh centuries, while China was prospering and about
to
enter a period of violent expansion (discussed in posts a couple of
months
ago), the Byzantine empire lost its agricultural core, Egypt (which had
fed
Constantinople), its industrial core (Syria with Antioch), and its
Armenian
recruiting grounds to Arabs. The recruiting grounds and taxes of the
Balkans
were lost to Slavs, Avars, and Bulgars. The Sassanid empire, of course,
disappeared as a state altogether. What the Byzantines lost to the
Arabs,
of course, was not taken over in a flourishing condition, but as
depopulated
or wartorn wrecks (or both). With production at an ebb, and tending to
appear
static (as it is a commonplace of the precapitalist-preindustrial wisdom
anent
the wealth of states that the latter is fixed and may be only
redistributed
among them), unless it is palpably increasing, it is the usual thing for
heads of state in such conditions to seek to steal wealth already
produced
by somebody else. Where, of course, one does not resemble the
seventh-century
West European prince who, in destroying a Roman building, explained that
he
could not gain renown from building such an edifice, so his best hope to
become the stuff of legend was to destroy one instead. Unsurprisingly,
the
Arabs (and Avars and Bulgars) fit themselves into the Byzantine-Sassanid
pattern, prior to 629, of superpower mutual predation. By the time the
economies of both, especially the Arab empire, commenced to flourish
again
in the eighth century, and Arab bureaucracy (not to mention culture) had
developed apace with the capture of Chinese papermakers at the Battle of
the Talas River (751), mere decades separated this florescence from the
Zanj rebellion (869-888). The Byzantines revived, too, with their
Jewish-
run silk industry in reHellenized Thebes, and so on. But that was a long
way ahead.
We mustn't forget the Long Beards. Yes, the Byzantines lost Italy,
too,
for much the same reasons, another demographic sink which could neither
be defended nor defend itself with its own money. But why did they
reacquire
Italy, considering they were dead broke at the time. An interesting
problem,
to be broached elsewhere.
Characteristics of the Chinese Dark Ages
Note about Chinese dynasties: As in the Roman Empire, normally, changes
in
political regime occurred as a result of military coups, civil wars,
and, in
the Chinese case, the odd social revolution; eg, 549-552. Unlike the
Roman-
Byzantine Empire, however, this did not always, for long periods did not
ever, entail a change in the ruling family: dictators preferred to rule
through, make or break, puppet emperors, who were often infants. As the
emperor was the Son of Heaven, *tian zi*, and Yellow Thearch, *huang
di*,
deposing a dynasty required approval of Heaven. This was operationalized
as popular support combined with demonstrable absence of moral
wickedness
and or natural catastrophes wherewith imputable moral wickedness was
chastised. Or, the dictator simply waited a long time. In the Eastern
Jin dynasty, 317-420, mentioned below, military coups and civil wars -
between regional armies - were at least as frequent as in the
Roman-Byzantine
state, but dictators, even those who were military heroes, were, as a
pedigreed aristocrat called the great General Xie An, "a mere military
man,"
unfit to marry his daughter. Only the very worst of these dictators,
General
Liu Yu, dared depose the emperor; even then he had to wait sixteen
years. On
seizing power in 404, he was greeted with a manifesto by a Buddhist monk
asserting the immunity of the Buddhist Church from acts of state at
hands
as filthy as his; one supposes riots. That's what monks did in those
days,
East or West.Ł
The Chinese Third Century Crisis was far worse than the one undergone
by
the Roman Empire, as it was complicated by peasant war, from 184 to 189.
As
in Rome after Marcus Aurelius, smallpox-measles pandemics weakened the
state,
contributing to unsettled political and economic conditions. All this
together
facilitated the proselytizing of new religious sects promising salvation
(analogous to Christianity): popular Daoism; later, Mahayana Buddhism
(see
McNeill, Plagues and Peoples, 1976). The Daoists attempted overt social
revolution. Consequently, the military-thug regime of Cao Cao was
brutally
repressive, and the rising officer class presumed upon the privileges of
the
just-previously-risen aristocracy, who then lived in selfish splendour
on
Great Estates surrounded by private armies, as in the West Roman Empire
somewhat later. During Cao Cao's rule, from 189 to 220, civil wars were
incessant, involving larger armies than in the Roman Empire, and mass
beheadings of captured troops who waited too long to surrender were
perpetrated by this dictator according to the rules of war drawn up by
himself.
Though Cao Cao was the greatest military genius in Chinese history
and
a commentator on Sun Tzu's Art of War, he failed to prevent
consolidation
of breakaway states. At his death there were three states: Wei, in North
China, ruled by the Cao family; Shu, in Sichuan, ruled by the Liu's,
distant
relatives of the last Han emperor; and Wu, in South China, which
pioneered
in trade with the Roman empire by sea and was ruled by the Sun family.
In 265, a coup by the Sima family, representing the aristocracy,
overthrew
the Cao-Wei dynasty, whcih had represented the officer class, founding
the
Jin dynasty. Opposition to reunification rapidly collapsed. (The
relationship
between these events, 265-280, which surely exists, is an unresearched
and
unasked question. But the new regime was a priosner of the aristocracy,
as
egregiously self-interested, as noted, as the one in the West Roman
Empire.
No Chinese Diocletian or Constantine was possible. An ambience of
bohemian
futility permeated high society. By 317, North China was lost to
incomers
and fragmented into ten states, commencing The Sixteen Kingdoms of the
Five
Barbarians.
Recreation of a centralized state was surprisingly rapid, however. In
370,
a proto-Tibetan, Fu Jian, came to power in a state called Former Qin. A
politico-military genius, he rapidly subdued rival states, restored
centralized bureaucracy, established Mahayana Buddhism as the sole legal
religion (as Theodosius I did with Christianity at the same time, 379),
assumed control of the Buddhist Church; and, in 382, ordered an army
westward
whcih captured Kucha in Central Asia, where caravans from Persia
exchanged
goods with those from China. In short, he controlled a more powerful and
effective state than the vanished Chinese empire had been. War with the
southern empire (Eastern Jin) broke out in 383, lasting until 391. The
northern cavalry was neutralized by Yangzi valley mud at the Battle of
the
Fei River. The northern empire now quickly collapsed, at which time,
also,
Fu Jian died. The Eastern Jin counteroffensive captured and held the
northern
capital, Loyang, until 391; then retreated for lack of interest on the
part
of the government.
The very next year, the Tabgatch Turks founded a new regime, the
Toba-Wei,
which revived, and improved on, the work of the Former Qin; it lasted,
if at
first coevally with other North China states, from 386 to 535. This was,
on
the whole, a powerful, rich, and efficient state. The contrast with the
states
ruled by Germanic peoples, in Western Europe and North Africa, at this
time
is amazing (with the possible exception of Ostrogothic Italy).
Chinese, some of those who were literate, objected to this regime's
regimentation, its economic interventionism (such as granting peasants
land
in exchange for military service and taxes at the expense of landed
magnates),
and the adoration of the ruler as "living Tathagatha." The objections
were
retrospective, however. Necessarily, as no freedom of expression
existed. The
regimentation and interventionism were redolent of Legalism, abhorrent
to
Confucians. As was Buddhism, later.Ł
Before a stable ruling class could develop, the Turco-Mongol rulers
had
to undergo a crisis of cultural identity, the price of fusion with the
Chinese
Great Families who had always married their daughters. (Two months ago,
I
said that this became a problem in the social revolution which overthrew
the
aristocracy as a class, which may be associated with the year 907 that
marks
the fall of the Tang.) The same sort of thing is familiar from Gaul,
Spain,
and Italy. The crisis took political form.
The Toba-Wei split into Sinophiles (Western Wei) and re-Turkifiers
(Eastern
Wei, replaced in the 550s by the Northern Zhou and Northern Qi. It was
right
here and now, in 551, that the Ruan Ruan were expelled from North China,
ultimately becoming the Avars who beseiged Constantinople in 599.
(Apologies,
my mention of 614 as the year of the first assault was in error. On this
occasion, in 599, it took a Miracle of the Blessed Virgin to induce John
V.A.
Fine to mention the Bubonic Plague, because it "destroyed the Avar army
and
killed several sons of the khagan." Historians tend to mention the
Plague only
when it causes politico-military Events.)
The Sinophile Northern Zhou seized Sichuan from the Southern Empire
in 555,
when the latter was prostrate from social revolution. They destroyed the
Northern Qi in 577, unifying North China again, and rendering a
compositely
descended but culturally more-Chinese-than-not (with a Turkish cultural
tinge) henceforth possible. This was personified by the half-Mongol,
with a
Mongol wife, Yang Jian, who seized power in 581 and reuinified China in
589
(Sui dynasty, 581 or 589 to 618).
As the Chinese empire expanded vigorously, Europe and the Near East
were
again depopulated by epidemic disease and invaded by Turks, Arabs,
Lombards,
and whatever. If only I had baseline measurements. Meaning, "As of the
year
one, Common Era, was the Roman Empire, taking into account the vast
social
and discontinuity with the Roman Empire and its egregious alienness from
ourselves however masked by all those words of Latin origin in our
vocabulary,
Lux soap, etc, did the Roman or Chinese empire have more JNSQ? Since the
usage, "advanced," is *really stupid*.
Daniel A. Foss