https://nationalinterest.in/volcanic-activity-and-the-fall-of-the-gupta-empire-8c9b463d1663
How does one explain the collapse of polities that have been around for hundreds of years?
When Edward Gibbon tried to answer this in relation to the Roman Empire in his astounding 18th century History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he put it in starkly anthropocentric terms. To Gibbon (that great proponent of English stereotypes of what “Roman-ness” meant) a debauched or pusillanimous emperor could set into motion events that bring the whole edifice tumbling down.
Recent historical scholarship, however, has called into question many of Gibbon’s stereotypes of “good” and “bad” emperors. Especially in the late 20th century, new archaeological studies began to question the assumption that Rome was some sort of beneficial monolith that depended solely on the emperor, and explored the complex inter-elite accommodations that kept the empire going. More recently, studies of Alpine ice cores and a plethora of other non-textual sources have revealed even deeper causes of the empire’s success and collapse (on which more soon).
When we (meaning us Indians) consider the collapse of Indian empires, it is common to assign the blame to political infighting, barbarian invasions, or poor rulership. This is a rather Gibbonesque (or 300+ years out of date) way of looking at things. Compared to some of the work being done on European history, our over-reliance on textual sources and the paucity of empirical data makes the study of Indian history hopelessly dreary and excessively subjective.
Think about the Guptas, for example. Why were the Guptas so successful, as compared to their predecessors and successors in North India?
Common explanations: (a) The Guptas were just way more brilliant than every other Indian ruler (b) They represented “Hindu civilisation” at its peak.
(a) seems untenable, because nothing the Guptas did was markedly different from their successors or predecessors. So does (b), because India before and after them continued to be a religious melting-pot. The fact that the Guptas professed reverence to Hindu deities did not stop them from also patronising other religions, nor did it mean that their successors were all Hindus. In fact, Harshavardhana, who conquered North India soon after their collapse, was a great patron of Buddhism. The Kushanas who ruled before the Guptas were also patrons of Buddhism, building possibly the world’s largest-ever stupa at their capital of Purushapura (modern Peshawar). The explanation we are looking for, therefore, must run deeper than that.
The Importance of Climate
InThe Fate of Rome, a 2017 book which explores some of the most interesting recent studies of the Roman Empire, Kyle Harper argues that the high imperial period — roughly 200 BCE to 150 CE — was made possible thanks to an unprecedented period of calm climatic conditions, what he calls the “Roman Climate Optimum”. He also points out that while rainfall levels might vary widely over geography, temperature levels, which depend on the amount of sunlight the earth receives, stay relatively constant (this corresponds to Level 2 of my framework).
It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that the Roman Climate Optimum had similar effects on the rest of the world, leading to increasing agricultural productivity as well as population growth. In China, a Malthusian population constraint meant that wages remained low (too many people, too little surplus).
Rome managed to escape the Malthusian trap since the unprecedented geographic spread of the empire connected so many once-disparate markets that trade-augmented economic growth outpaced population growth, leading to a shocking (for the ancient world) 1–2% annual GDP growth. Over a century, this is a stunning achievement.
The consolidation of Mediterranean markets under Roman rule meant that maritime, monsoon-fuelled trade with India boomed. Persia, stable under the rule of the Parthians, and Central Asia, under the control of nomadic confederations such as the Sakas and Indo-Parthians, channelled the wealth of the Silk Road into North India. It is logical to assume that increased agricultural productivity, in addition to trade-augmented economic growth, led to population and wage growth (and thus urbanisation) in India over this period. It is not coincidental that the first kingdoms of the South stem from the turn of the millennium.
In the North, however, we must take into account the fact that India was subject to periodic invasions which might have disrupted trade, though this had generally reduced by the time the Kushana hegemony was established by the 1st century CE. Population and wage growth would have led to increased monetisation and urbanisation in the North over a sustained period.
The Roman Climate Optimum ended in the 2nd century CE, and this is where, I suspect, the paths of Rome and India diverge. The Roman Empire, which had established tight interconnections between many markets and ecologies around the Mediterranean, was also an ideal breeding ground for new pathogens (helped along by atrocious Roman toilet hygiene) (Level 3 of my World Theory Framework).
The Roman “golden age” of the last couple of centuries came to a crashing end with the Antonine Plague, which killed hundreds of thousands in Italy alone. The weakened imperial center was now left to cope with plummeting agricultural yields as the climate cooled.
North India, relatively decentralised and without comparable road networks, was not as ecologically suitable for new epidemics, and would only have had to contend with reduced agricultural yields. (It is also possible that hygiene was somewhat better than in ancient Rome, which is admittedly a low bar. Romans were given to using the same stick to clean up in public toilets.)
Yet, at the same time, the Kushana rule was weakening, possibly allowing local centres to retain most of their surplus and weather the worst effects of the changing climate. (Note that this is purely conjectural, as reliable data on these variables simply do not exist thanks to the state of Indian archaeological research, which is more concerned with excavating supposed mythological sites than actually studying and preserving the wealth of historical material available. I would very much appreciate any leads on this subject).
It is in this context — with well-established agricultural and trade practices, an urban population, and a nomadic power gradually losing its grip — that we should see the Guptas. By conquering their neighbours and gradually integrating them into a pan-Gangetic empire, connected by the rivers of North India, the Guptas would have accomplished what the Romans did on a smaller geographical but possibly equivalent population scale.
Individual rulers, such as Samudragupta, do deserve credit for their success in incorporating established elites across their conquered territory, but it is important to recognise the deeper factors at play. Newly-integrated markets, deeply connected to global trade, would have roared into massive economic growth, fuelling the cultural juggernaut and wealth that are still synonymous with the Gupta Empire. This explanation is ultimately deeper (covering every level of the World Theory Framework) and more suited to the evidence than the generally-accepted narratives of the rise of the Guptas.
Why did the Guptas collapse?
The general explanations are: (a) Hunnic invasions (b) Weak rulers (c) Currency devaluations and decline of economic activity due to the Hunnic invasions. These would correspond to levels 5 and 6 of my framework.
But can we dig deeper — and ask what caused these “barbarian” invasions in the first place?
In 450 and then 540 CE, massive volcanic eruptions in Central America and Southeast Asia respectively would have flung massive amounts of ash into the air, reducing the amount of solar energy reaching Earth, and causing a dip in agricultural productivity within a few years. It is not surprising, therefore, that nomadic populations around the region no longer found agriculture sustainable, and pressed harder on the borders of sedentary societies.
These societies would, of course, be struggling with their own drops in surplus, making it harder to sustain states. (Levels 3,4, and 5). The two-sided pressure on resources — larger surpluses were needed to field armies that could defeat raiders, precisely when the population was already large and agricultural productivity was low — proved to be a lethal combination for the late Gupta Empire.
Inflation would certainly have played a role, but it would have been caused not only by currency devaluation but also reduced crop yields, meaning there was too much currency chasing after too little resources, drastically reducing the value of money.
It is not surprising, therefore, that North India relapsed into smaller, more sustainable principalities in the aftermath of the Empire. Not for lack of brilliant leaders, but simply because, unlike the Guptas, the tremendous forces of nature were arrayed against them. A view of human history without humans at the centre does not make our agency irrelevant. On the contrary, it makes our little triumphs against massive forces all the more important. And it is this view that needs to be applied to the study of our past in general, and that of India in particular.
Comments
You wrote it very well, but can you give any good information about Maldives Honeymoon Package for 5 Days what to take before going to the Maldives. Dharamshala Tour Package