4 ms·

Depends on your definition of continuity. Succession crises, revolts and changing borders have been the norm throughout history and I’d argue we still haven’t f

by thom 4y ago

Depends on your definition of continuity. Succession crises, revolts and changing borders have been the norm throughout history and I’d argue we still haven’t found political structures which are guaranteed to prevent them. Even during the Republic, you could argue (as Harriet Flower has, for example) that Rome experienced several discontinuities between the kings and Augustus.

inglor_cz 4y ago
Everyone's limit is different, but I would say that most people wouldn't consider contemporary Turkey (a republic speaking a Turkic language whose population is mostly Muslim) a continuation of the Eastern Roman empire in any but purely geographical meaning, so we have a fairly clean break around 1453, when the ruling elite in Constantinople was forcibly displaced by an entirely different group of people with other traditions, languages etc. On the other hand, mere Christianization of the Roman Empire doesn't seem as crucial (pun intended) as to create a break in its statehood. Most of the institutions went on just like before, most of the important families stayed the same, the legal system and the language of the realm didn't change at all or only very little etc. The republic period is more interesting, but I believe that the Romans considered themselves the same people and the some country in that period, without breaks in identity - which IMHO should matter more than a purely academic take from the early 21st century.
- thom 4y ago
  There definitely was tension between imperial Roman identity and Hellenic identity after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, at least, so I think even here it’s not simple. But I’m not so much arguing about that, rather that an empire with constant succession crises, revolts and civil wars isn’t really gaining much from passing down the same titles and blood-spattered regalia each time. But as you rightly say, everyone’s limit is different.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Well, the imperium does not consist of titles and regalia only. It also means established trade routes and various institutions (schools, the navy, churches, possibly parliaments, legal codes, urban development standards) that make the world of an average citizen more predictable and living standards somewhat higher. From where I live, the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian empire put a lot of economical and ethnic strain on the successor states, destabilizing the entire Central European region and making it an easy target for imperial intents of Germany and Soviet Russia. And even today, in Czechia of 2022, we have a lot of A-H legacies in our daily lives, like paying with "the crown" and using the same kilometre markings along our railway routes, beginning with 0 = Vienna. Empires tend to consist of much more than just the ruling class.
    - thom 4y ago
      Let’s imagine I’d not used the word ‘durable’. What I’m interested in is whether there was anything in the Greek or Roman constitutions (or any since) that prevented cycles of tyranny, oligarchic excess, and popular uprising. However long the ostensible empires lasted, I see very little that worked. And despite my experience being young in the 90s where we’d perhaps convinced ourselves we’d reached some post-history period in parts of the West, it’s clear we still haven’t cracked the formula.

by thom 4y ago

inglor_cz 4y ago

Everyone's limit is different, but I would say that most people wouldn't consider contemporary Turkey (a republic speaking a Turkic language whose population is mostly Muslim) a continuation of the Eastern Roman empire in any but purely geographical meaning, so we have a fairly clean break around 1453, when the ruling elite in Constantinople was forcibly displaced by an entirely different group of people with other traditions, languages etc. On the other hand, mere Christianization of the Roman Empire doesn't seem as crucial (pun intended) as to create a break in its statehood. Most of the institutions went on just like before, most of the important families stayed the same, the legal system and the language of the realm didn't change at all or only very little etc. The republic period is more interesting, but I believe that the Romans considered themselves the same people and the some country in that period, without breaks in identity - which IMHO should matter more than a purely academic take from the early 21st century.

thom 4y ago
There definitely was tension between imperial Roman identity and Hellenic identity after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, at least, so I think even here it’s not simple. But I’m not so much arguing about that, rather that an empire with constant succession crises, revolts and civil wars isn’t really gaining much from passing down the same titles and blood-spattered regalia each time. But as you rightly say, everyone’s limit is different.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Well, the imperium does not consist of titles and regalia only. It also means established trade routes and various institutions (schools, the navy, churches, possibly parliaments, legal codes, urban development standards) that make the world of an average citizen more predictable and living standards somewhat higher. From where I live, the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian empire put a lot of economical and ethnic strain on the successor states, destabilizing the entire Central European region and making it an easy target for imperial intents of Germany and Soviet Russia. And even today, in Czechia of 2022, we have a lot of A-H legacies in our daily lives, like paying with "the crown" and using the same kilometre markings along our railway routes, beginning with 0 = Vienna. Empires tend to consist of much more than just the ruling class.
  - thom 4y ago
    Let’s imagine I’d not used the word ‘durable’. What I’m interested in is whether there was anything in the Greek or Roman constitutions (or any since) that prevented cycles of tyranny, oligarchic excess, and popular uprising. However long the ostensible empires lasted, I see very little that worked. And despite my experience being young in the 90s where we’d perhaps convinced ourselves we’d reached some post-history period in parts of the West, it’s clear we still haven’t cracked the formula.