4 ms·

It so happens I’m reading The New Roman Empire by the first historian in the article, so I can talk about this a bit: If we compare with the Roman Republic, no

It so happens I’m reading The New Roman Empire by the first historian in the article, so I can talk about this a bit: If we compare with the Roman Republic, not being centered on Rome is a big change. However, many emperors spent little time in Rome, and when there was a civil war it was apparently common to declare some other city a “New Rome,” so that idea was going around. Roman citizenship was considerably more flexible than other ancient empires, including people of many ethnicities, and was eventually extended to every free inhabitant in the empire. They didn’t just call themselves Roman, they legally were citizens, despite not living in and never going to Rome. We could instead focus on the similarities, like not having a monarchy. Anyone could be chosen emperor if they were in the right place at the right time. (Originally by being a popular and effective general, but later acclaimed by the crowds in Constantinople after political maneuvering.) So I agree that there’s a “Ship of Theseus” aspect to it, but it seems like a consequence of Roman flexibility, allowing the empire to evolve into something rather different over the centuries. (Apparently Christianity resulted in far more religious strife, though, compared to polytheism. As a state religion, it seems like it was a turn for the worse, and the history of the many schisms over nonsense is rather tedious.)

cam_l 3y ago
So, in your game of philosophical roshambo, no-true-Scotsman beats Ship-of-Theseus?
- labster 3y ago
  Yes, and argumentam ad hominem beats a true Scotsman, but loses to a Ship of Theseus.
mistrial9 3y ago
> the history of the many schisms over nonsense is rather tedious You might be missing something from the early Christian Church (after Nicea). The Church design is hierarchical, with one presiding Bishop with legal jurisdiction over all the activity in their bishopric; hence, fighting over authority. The tedious philosophical differences are the vestige now because the books and writing remain while the people are long gone. At the time, there was much more at stake. Secondly, Church creed was carefully and thoroughly unified at Nicea in a formal process. Heresy was well-identified and definitely resolved, but sometimes through in-fights or at worst excommunications.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Yes, I have the impression that it was really more about politics than theology and they would be quick to disagree about anything. Often, misconstruing the opinions of others. (Sound familiar?) But apparently these disputes were often with bishops of other cities, so I don't really see what it had to do with power?
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    (edit above) Church authority was codified in writing. That was basic to the construct of Christianity, directly evolving from the extensive system of Jewish Law. Authority over the written scripture was a closed system. Authority as a general thing? lots of reasons to fight about authority -- this might need some specific examples to get more context.
    - skybrian 3y ago
      Hmm, so the real problem was writing down what they supposedly agree on in detail and trying to make it law? I wonder if an emperor ever tried to get them to stop doing that, leaving it between each person and God?
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        slavery and warfare imposed itself by force on every random group of people that could be found in the ancient Middle East and along huge trade routes from there. Large areas of fertile Earth had nowhere to hide from the attacks of neighbors. Where in your example, would a mother be able to have children and raise them? In some times in India, it was actually a problem for tribes that young and old men would go find some secluded place to find themselves and god. Actual tasks of daily life, medicine and comfort were neglected for the other eighty percent of the population that were not young or old men. In some sense it is selfish to insist on seclusion by individuals. The lesson is not at all obvious to the person who is thinking that way.
  - elcritch 3y ago
imbnwa 3y ago
>Roman citizenship was considerably more flexible than other ancient empires, including people of many ethnicities, and was eventually extended to every free inhabitant in the empire. They didn’t just call themselves Roman, they legally were citizens. Rather important example: Paul of Tarsus.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Roman citizenship was considerably more flexible than other ancient empires, including people of many ethnicities, and was eventually extended to every free inhabitant in the empire This practice predated the Empire by decades. In the Roman Republic following the Social War various peoples on the Italian peninsula, many of whom might never step foot in Rome, were granted citizenship [1]. Caesar himself gave Roman citizenship--all the way up to Senate membership--to Gallic aristocrats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91–87_BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91–87_BC)

cam_l 3y ago

So, in your game of philosophical roshambo, no-true-Scotsman beats Ship-of-Theseus?

labster 3y ago
Yes, and argumentam ad hominem beats a true Scotsman, but loses to a Ship of Theseus.

mistrial9 3y ago

> the history of the many schisms over nonsense is rather tedious You might be missing something from the early Christian Church (after Nicea). The Church design is hierarchical, with one presiding Bishop with legal jurisdiction over all the activity in their bishopric; hence, fighting over authority. The tedious philosophical differences are the vestige now because the books and writing remain while the people are long gone. At the time, there was much more at stake. Secondly, Church creed was carefully and thoroughly unified at Nicea in a formal process. Heresy was well-identified and definitely resolved, but sometimes through in-fights or at worst excommunications.

skybrian 3y ago
Yes, I have the impression that it was really more about politics than theology and they would be quick to disagree about anything. Often, misconstruing the opinions of others. (Sound familiar?) But apparently these disputes were often with bishops of other cities, so I don't really see what it had to do with power?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  (edit above) Church authority was codified in writing. That was basic to the construct of Christianity, directly evolving from the extensive system of Jewish Law. Authority over the written scripture was a closed system. Authority as a general thing? lots of reasons to fight about authority -- this might need some specific examples to get more context.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    Hmm, so the real problem was writing down what they supposedly agree on in detail and trying to make it law? I wonder if an emperor ever tried to get them to stop doing that, leaving it between each person and God?
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      slavery and warfare imposed itself by force on every random group of people that could be found in the ancient Middle East and along huge trade routes from there. Large areas of fertile Earth had nowhere to hide from the attacks of neighbors. Where in your example, would a mother be able to have children and raise them? In some times in India, it was actually a problem for tribes that young and old men would go find some secluded place to find themselves and god. Actual tasks of daily life, medicine and comfort were neglected for the other eighty percent of the population that were not young or old men. In some sense it is selfish to insist on seclusion by individuals. The lesson is not at all obvious to the person who is thinking that way.
- elcritch 3y ago

imbnwa 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Roman citizenship was considerably more flexible than other ancient empires, including people of many ethnicities, and was eventually extended to every free inhabitant in the empire This practice predated the Empire by decades. In the Roman Republic following the Social War various peoples on the Italian peninsula, many of whom might never step foot in Rome, were granted citizenship [1]. Caesar himself gave Roman citizenship--all the way up to Senate membership--to Gallic aristocrats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91–87_BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91–87_BC)