Fernand Braudel in correct in his assertion that the 'barbarians' are responsible for the defeat of civilizations ... because, as he explains, the barbarians are not much different than the civilized societies which fall to them. The Roman Empire did not really fall ... it simply changed form after the invasion of Odoacer's Vandals in 476 A.D. The conquerors did not so much change the nature of the Empire as they themselves were changed by it, which in turn molded the future destiny and face of Europe. The very word 'barbarian' brings to mind hordes of pillaging, bearded wildmen, slovenly dressed, berserk in battle. We have a very different model when we really take the barbarian cultures and put them next to our definition of a civilized one. I have divided the two cultures into four major sections which will distinguish between the opposing forms:

A) Forms of Government

Within any refined, organized structure of civilization. a common language based on codes and doctrines forms the body of written law. Without this commonly and uniformly applied law, no culture can exist for long. In addition to a common language, a framework of bureaucracy is needed to implement the various functions of government. For example, the Greek city-states, though initially of one mind and tribe, had to so function to effectively sustain a continuity from generation to generation. This form of government, of necessity. makes the individual subservient to the system. The governing body has to have the power to outlast and triumph over a given, single personality, be it an emperor, king or military commander.

The barbarian society need only concern itself with it's local heath or village. The shared language need only be spoken, not written and, because ties are by blood and kin, laws can be based on custom, myth, tradition and oral interpretation. Leaders have a profound effect on the direction of tribal fortunes. Whether to uproot, go to war, make peace, self-destruct, etc., were prerogatives of a ruling chieftain. Without codes and doctrines, the tribal head, not the tribe, was usually the motive power behind decisions.

Religion

Usually, recognized religions in the civilized state were closely allied with government. The religions were loosely monitored by the central authorities; some would, as with Islam and Judaism, later evolve into state structures themselves, based on religious belief. Not only did the religions' maintain state policy by preaching acceptance of one's lot in life but they also contributed, in times of national emergency, to defense in an effort, of course, to save their temples from the desecrations of a ravaging attacker. Because the religious hierarchy tended to be wealthy, many fine temples were built and statues of gods were enshrined in marble... as untouchable to the common man an the gold which maintained the priests.

The lowly barbarian, on the other hand, had but to walk into the forests to be with his gods. The religious experience viewed nature as God. Any and all people were welcome to join these nature religions as all it took was a desire to believe. Religion was personal; without organization, there was no consolidated wealth, no temple to defend. Tolerance was fairly widespread.

C) Art

The civilized world valued artistry. Groups of working craftsmen formed into guilds to build such monuments as Trajan;s column, the vast arenas of Rome, the statue of Constantine and other grandiose artifacts. Art applauded the state and proved lucrative for the free craftsman; as a result it developed into a refined discipline.

In contrast, barbarian art was very personal. The torques, bracelets and brooches shown in the presentation of the series Civilization show us the barbarian grace and beauty in the sheer joy of creating. However this was an art which could not be produced by group effort -- they could not work as civilized artisan# in the guilds had learned to do.

D) Commerce

Civilizations have urban centers to centralize trade and government. Growing out of far-flung empires and commercial activities between their towns, mediums of metal and paper exchange became necessary. A monied, credit based economy thus grew, and many individuals were 'freed' from the toil of working their own land and growing their own food ... and so moved to town.

As a result, a regular standing army was very important -- the citizens wanted less and less to take a chance on war in a remote part of the Empire as their creature comforts improved. The full- time warriors gave little allegiance to the state, but increasingly owed loyalty to their commander; and paymaster.

The barbarians, of course, had no vast centers of urban commerce but were decentralized and dispersed. They usually were dependent on no one but themselves for food and welfare. They used simple barter as a means of exchange until various civilized towns grew up on the border areas and coins crept into their cultural econony. The barbarian was a warrior as well - albeit not a trained one, but enthusiastic nonetheless, especially when defending one's home and family, fighting was ample reward.

From the above comparisons, it can be seen that if a civilized empire falls to the barbarian, the entire structure of that society will decline. Yet, insofar as Western Europe was concerned, this was not the case, for neither business nor agriculture were greatly obstructed. With the barbarian infusion, the society exchanged ruling houses and slowly but inexorably a new, powerful and very resilient hierarchy evolved in its place, but the basic structure remained.

The heart of Rome was bankrupt, both economically and morally by the 5th century A.D. Alaric's sacking of the city in 410 set the stage for the course of events which followed as wandering tribes would plunder virtually at will. The Roman power structure was all but powerless to stop them.. What was the difference between Roman and barbarian at this point? "he total fragmentation of the various invaders allowed the likes of Aetius to play one tribe or leader against another as at Chalons in 451 A.D. Yet, what was left of the Roman army itself at this date? It was commanded, run and made UP of the same barbarians as it fought against and its generals had no qualms about fighting among themselves. Only the training, the uniforms and banners remained from the past. The troops were usually paid but otherwise, they were prone to revolt on command, The Byzantine Empire, by contrast. had retained its farmer-soldiers (citizens) who fought for not only the state, but their own land as well (Peters pg. 124). In this respect, they were loyal to not only their religion, but to their structure of government which granted them their rights. Without this sense of integrity. loyalty fell to being leader inspired, as in the West for both barbarian and Roman.

One cannot underestimate Christianity's role in maintaining a structural continuum in Western Europe. As R.H.C. Davis states , Christians put loyalty toward religion above that of state. This religious structure was essential to the preservation of law. Without some continuous and encompassing lawful order, anarchy and petty warfare would have totally destroyed the very fabric of Western culture, Jaques LeGoff's thesis stressed the fact that Christianity prevailed because of its resilience to incorporate, as well as to be intolerant toward, other religions. It united under one God, one church, one law.

The barbarians focused their "superstitious" nature beliefs on the resurrection and virgin birth and, in turn, Christianity made full use of pagan rituals and holy days, intertwining with pagan belief, a powerful belief in the hereafter. In the absense of any other central authority, the Christians, an protectors of the word (quite literally in the case of literacy at this point in history) superimposed their traditions onto older religions, encouraging conversions. Without the cultural order of Christianity which crossed tribal and geographical borders, there would have been very little commonality among the barbarian groups which flocked toward the Tiber.

Economically speaking, affairs in Britain after 407, when the Imperial legions were all but removed, serve as an example of the vacuum that was left on the continent and the result was similar. Vestiges of civilized commerce continued regardless of leadership, trade remained essential with Constantinople filling the gap left by Rome with a monetary system which was retained in part. Large landowners who had grown wealthy could still afford to hire troops and even gather enough together in the few cities to withstand virtually any outside military threat.

Thus, some cities, as civilized structures, survived the 'fall of Rome' as well.

As for the barbarians, simply looking at Alaric's list of ransom to spare Rome shows how influenced they had become at this point by the commercial aspects of hard cash versus simple trade goods. Gold and silver, in fact, do not result in food or clothing except in relation to the purchase price of commodities -- a civilized structure if ever there was one.

The invaders wanted nothing more than to be considered 'Roman.' To that end, they clothed themselves in the trappings of their idea of civilization, trying to comfortably live as they lerceived the Romans as living. Many apparently did, but others maintained that intrinsic artistic individuality as evidenced in the beautifully done illuminated manuscripts of the early Middle Ages. The knights and warriors also maintained a flair for creativity in their adornment, heraldry, shield designs and jewelry. Only when the barbarian artist attempted to copy or adapt his style to the Roman one, did the art deteriorate. As long as he/she remained an individual, the merits of the art were retained.

The structure of Christianity enabled the barbarian invaders to be amalgamated within a formulized system which, while certainly not preventing armed conflicts, at least allowed alliances, negotiations, art and commerce to continue to exist within a framework, fragile though it sometimes appeared to be of civilization. Life was not much different for the ex-Roman soldier Flavius in 374 A.D. than it was for Eileen Power's peasant Bodo because the structure was much the game. True, a new system evolved out of a dormant one, yet to call 'feudalism' new is interpretive at best.

The Roman citizen-soldier was abstractly bound to the emperor (lord) as was the later feudal serf. They were 'landed' as long as they were under the protection of a military system. If this was lost, they were defenseless. The feudal peasant owed part of his labor and produce (taxes for the Roman) to his lord who, in return, gave protection to the serf. How little things really had changed for the common man.

As I have attempted to show, the invader was little different from the defender of the Roman Empire in the 5th century A,D. In fact, most of the dynamics displayed during the later so-called Dark Age were religiously motivated by the Moslem invasions (note-the Pirenne thesis) as well as the upheavals and schisms within the Christian church. The barbarian invaders seemed content enough to be looked upon as simply holding the reins and title of power, even though doing so in name only. Charlemagne, a king in all respects, still desired to be legitimized as emperor even though the empire had supposedly fallen almost four centurier before his coronation. The barbarian and the Roman had become one.