4 ms·

If anyone here is interested in this kind of thing then I highly, highly recommend "The history of Rome" podcast by Mike Duncan[1]. It's a fantastic look at the

by orf 8y ago

If anyone here is interested in this kind of thing then I highly, highly recommend "The history of Rome" podcast by Mike Duncan[1]. It's a fantastic look at the history of Rome, from before the republic to the fall of the western empire. I haven't read the paper, in the 100s-200s there was a vicious cycle where the Emperor would keep his armies close for fear of a mutiny and because that is how his legitimacy was based. This would weaken the defenses of the empire, somewhere else some general would win a victory due to an attack on the weakened empire and his troops would declare him Emperor. Civil war ensued, rinse and repeat. If I remember correctly Constantine saw an amazingly clever way out of this by basing the legitimacy of the emperor not on the army, but on divine right, so it's not the armies who declare an emperor but God. This set the stage for all that followed in Europe. The Romans where freaking crazy. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast...

thaumasiotes 8y ago
> If I remember correctly Constantine saw an amazingly clever way out of this by basing the legitimacy of the emperor not on the army, but on divine right, so it's not the armies who declare an emperor but God. This set the stage for all that followed in Europe. This may have been innovative for Rome, which hated the idea of kings since before it started recording history, but it is totally normal everywhere else beginning many centuries before Rome. China, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia are all quite explicit about the ruler deriving authority from heaven. Constantine was the formal ruler of Egypt and controlled Mesopotamia; it seems vanishingly unlikely that he wasn't aware of this.
- orf 8y ago
  Of course it was not a novel idea but the application of it to break a centuries long death spiral of civil war was pretty inspired. I didn't mean to imply he had the idea first! He also switched the entire persona of the Emperor from someone of the people to someone inaccessible to the common person. Again, not a unique idea, but the application came at a great time. From what I have read the Romans where pretty dismissive of so-called barbarians (anyone not within the Empire), so I'm sure some people where aware of these ideas but turned their noses up at them, so to speak.
  - hutzlibu 8y ago
    Hm, you make it sound like it is a good idea, to establish a theokratie? Order for the empire, but death to the nonbelievers? I mean, for him as a emperor it surely paid out, but for freedom of thought, which was a thing at that time ... not so much. Dark ages followed ...
    - orf 8y ago
      At the time it was the perfect anecdote to the problems facing the empire. I don't think you can judge an idea like that based on what happened after, sure it was not great after the western empire fell but that is a separate issue. That was not exactly the plan! It surely caused a much softer landing for the Empire when it did fall. And to be clear, there was no 'death to the nonbelievers'. Sure, there where sporadic religious purges as the empire transitioned to Christianity but I don't believe the empire became what we call a theokratie at any point. It was an empire spanning a huge huge area with a lot of different conflicting religions. In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought. It stopped a hundred year death spiral, brought stability and did a lot of good. What really did no good was the consolidation of wealth to huge estate owners who had perverse insentives to withhold men from the armies, not pay taxes and retreat into their own little semi-kingdoms. There lies a greater blame for what happened than this decision. That and ridiculous, ridiculous amounts of corruption.
      - hutzlibu 8y ago
        "In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought." I would never say that, neither that the empire under Constantin was a full theocracy with death to the nonbelievers - yet. But he set the base to it and yes, you can judge a idea to the consequences. Because he could have also went back to republic ideas to stabilize the state. Distribute power, justice system, etc. But no, they were all obsessed by the idea of becoming the ultimate ruler. And if you want to be that, than sure, the best thing is to declare yourself a god, or chosen by the allmighty god to rule. All the little semi kingdoms had the same ideas, but were just weaker, not worse nor better than the big emperor.
- vondur 8y ago
  It actually was started by a predecessor, Diocletian, who actually put an end to the crisis of the 3rd century. Diocletian styled himself after Jupiter and adopted a colleague, whom was styled after Hercules.
  - orf 8y ago
    You're right, it was Diocletian!
duxup 8y ago
It does seem like the concept of divine right does at least provide some structure for everyone to work around / with and set some level of expectations.
agumonkey 8y ago
Not long ago there was an article about the impact of trains in ww2 (eastern front). I like these quantitative perspectives on historical events. If you have other links, don't hesitate to shoot.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
The Praetorians became the 'deciders' during power vacuum moments and would have the weight of the authority in anointing the new leader because without there support the new nominee could not be viewed as legit ... and though it seems there was less of political motivation early on, over time, they basically sold out and just used their authority for political purposes to gain money and power. Though it would rather seem there was a lot of civic corruption during that time on all levels.
- orf 8y ago
  This was somewhat early in the empire though and had some ridiculous heights. At one point the Praetorian guard (the emperors personal army within Rome) auctioned off their support and caused absolute havok in what is called 'the year of the 4 emperors' (I think this is the same point in time, it's been a while since I've read about it). However their power diminished a lot as the empire grew and Rome became less relevant. Eventually emperors began to not even visit Rome at all during their lives, and the power of the guard faded to nothing. At the time I was commenting about they had next to no influence, much like the senate.

by orf 8y ago

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> If I remember correctly Constantine saw an amazingly clever way out of this by basing the legitimacy of the emperor not on the army, but on divine right, so it's not the armies who declare an emperor but God. This set the stage for all that followed in Europe. This may have been innovative for Rome, which hated the idea of kings since before it started recording history, but it is totally normal everywhere else beginning many centuries before Rome. China, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia are all quite explicit about the ruler deriving authority from heaven. Constantine was the formal ruler of Egypt and controlled Mesopotamia; it seems vanishingly unlikely that he wasn't aware of this.

orf 8y ago
Of course it was not a novel idea but the application of it to break a centuries long death spiral of civil war was pretty inspired. I didn't mean to imply he had the idea first! He also switched the entire persona of the Emperor from someone of the people to someone inaccessible to the common person. Again, not a unique idea, but the application came at a great time. From what I have read the Romans where pretty dismissive of so-called barbarians (anyone not within the Empire), so I'm sure some people where aware of these ideas but turned their noses up at them, so to speak.
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  Hm, you make it sound like it is a good idea, to establish a theokratie? Order for the empire, but death to the nonbelievers? I mean, for him as a emperor it surely paid out, but for freedom of thought, which was a thing at that time ... not so much. Dark ages followed ...
  - orf 8y ago
    At the time it was the perfect anecdote to the problems facing the empire. I don't think you can judge an idea like that based on what happened after, sure it was not great after the western empire fell but that is a separate issue. That was not exactly the plan! It surely caused a much softer landing for the Empire when it did fall. And to be clear, there was no 'death to the nonbelievers'. Sure, there where sporadic religious purges as the empire transitioned to Christianity but I don't believe the empire became what we call a theokratie at any point. It was an empire spanning a huge huge area with a lot of different conflicting religions. In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought. It stopped a hundred year death spiral, brought stability and did a lot of good. What really did no good was the consolidation of wealth to huge estate owners who had perverse insentives to withhold men from the armies, not pay taxes and retreat into their own little semi-kingdoms. There lies a greater blame for what happened than this decision. That and ridiculous, ridiculous amounts of corruption.
    - hutzlibu 8y ago
      "In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought." I would never say that, neither that the empire under Constantin was a full theocracy with death to the nonbelievers - yet. But he set the base to it and yes, you can judge a idea to the consequences. Because he could have also went back to republic ideas to stabilize the state. Distribute power, justice system, etc. But no, they were all obsessed by the idea of becoming the ultimate ruler. And if you want to be that, than sure, the best thing is to declare yourself a god, or chosen by the allmighty god to rule. All the little semi kingdoms had the same ideas, but were just weaker, not worse nor better than the big emperor.
vondur 8y ago
It actually was started by a predecessor, Diocletian, who actually put an end to the crisis of the 3rd century. Diocletian styled himself after Jupiter and adopted a colleague, whom was styled after Hercules.
- orf 8y ago
  You're right, it was Diocletian!

duxup 8y ago

It does seem like the concept of divine right does at least provide some structure for everyone to work around / with and set some level of expectations.

agumonkey 8y ago

Not long ago there was an article about the impact of trains in ww2 (eastern front). I like these quantitative perspectives on historical events. If you have other links, don't hesitate to shoot.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

The Praetorians became the 'deciders' during power vacuum moments and would have the weight of the authority in anointing the new leader because without there support the new nominee could not be viewed as legit ... and though it seems there was less of political motivation early on, over time, they basically sold out and just used their authority for political purposes to gain money and power. Though it would rather seem there was a lot of civic corruption during that time on all levels.

orf 8y ago
This was somewhat early in the empire though and had some ridiculous heights. At one point the Praetorian guard (the emperors personal army within Rome) auctioned off their support and caused absolute havok in what is called 'the year of the 4 emperors' (I think this is the same point in time, it's been a while since I've read about it). However their power diminished a lot as the empire grew and Rome became less relevant. Eventually emperors began to not even visit Rome at all during their lives, and the power of the guard faded to nothing. At the time I was commenting about they had next to no influence, much like the senate.