4 ms·

If I understand it, Brett's central point is that early states lacked free capital to actually "pay" anyone and so levee-en-mass was compulsion for food, or for

by ggm 4mo ago

If I understand it, Brett's central point is that early states lacked free capital to actually "pay" anyone and so levee-en-mass was compulsion for food, or forage/pillage and obligations driven not cash driven. England was an early progenitor of paid soldiers and had an effect on the conduct 0f European wars, not entirely beneficial. But that's long after ancient times. My point is that history records ancient states with surplus, paying off invaders. Success is highly conditional to time. Most people here think if in 10 years they own you it failed. I tend to think if you held power for 10 years you won.

constantius 4mo ago
10 years of respite is nothing on the scale of countries. History is littered with examples of states choosing to pay off their would-be attackers, and seeing it as success or failure depends on your priors. Byzantium was especially adept at this, for centuries, and they did fine for a millenium, but more often than not it was seen as a temporary, last resort measure, with large downsides, and generally to avoid creating a new front while a more critical war was being waged elsewhere. By paying off your enemies, you strengthen their armies, you give them an incentive to ask for more and more each year (because they know you wouldn't have paid if you weren't weak), as a rule they will regularly pillage your countryside to encourage you to pay, and they will mostly use the money you pay them as investment to launch attacks against you at the first opportunity. For Byzantium, this was the case with Arabs, Bulgarians, Crusaders, etc., and over time it led to ruin. Though it also led to overall great outcomes with Armenians and Iberians, who became vassal states.
jjk166 4mo ago
There is a wide gulf between arguing something happened on occasion and arguing it was a sound idea. History records ancient states performing human sacrifice to make the sun rise again. It's likely these people saw it as a good idea, and hey the sun kept rising for years, but you'd have a hard time convincing me it was economical compared to alternative options.
- fragmede 4mo ago
  Only if you frame it as an attempt to keep the sun rising via blood sacrifice. If instead the priesthood is a power faction within the civilization's various power brokers, and it's all political, then blood sacrificing your "randomly" selected rival's daughter is going to be much more economical than not sacrificing her, and having your political rival be stronger than you.
  - jjk166 4mo ago
    Which is exactly the point I was making. For a particular emperor in Constantinople, paying tribute to an army outside the wall may have been, or appeared to have been, an economical option for achieving their personal goals, which may not have been aligned with the empire's, and thus the fact the action occurred can not be taken as evidence that it was a rational choice which served the interest of the Roman Empire. People in the past weren't dumb, but they weren't hyper-competent nor devoid of ulterior motives either. We should expect most past decisions to have been sub-optimal.

by ggm 4mo ago

constantius 4mo ago

10 years of respite is nothing on the scale of countries. History is littered with examples of states choosing to pay off their would-be attackers, and seeing it as success or failure depends on your priors. Byzantium was especially adept at this, for centuries, and they did fine for a millenium, but more often than not it was seen as a temporary, last resort measure, with large downsides, and generally to avoid creating a new front while a more critical war was being waged elsewhere. By paying off your enemies, you strengthen their armies, you give them an incentive to ask for more and more each year (because they know you wouldn't have paid if you weren't weak), as a rule they will regularly pillage your countryside to encourage you to pay, and they will mostly use the money you pay them as investment to launch attacks against you at the first opportunity. For Byzantium, this was the case with Arabs, Bulgarians, Crusaders, etc., and over time it led to ruin. Though it also led to overall great outcomes with Armenians and Iberians, who became vassal states.

jjk166 4mo ago

There is a wide gulf between arguing something happened on occasion and arguing it was a sound idea. History records ancient states performing human sacrifice to make the sun rise again. It's likely these people saw it as a good idea, and hey the sun kept rising for years, but you'd have a hard time convincing me it was economical compared to alternative options.

fragmede 4mo ago
Only if you frame it as an attempt to keep the sun rising via blood sacrifice. If instead the priesthood is a power faction within the civilization's various power brokers, and it's all political, then blood sacrificing your "randomly" selected rival's daughter is going to be much more economical than not sacrificing her, and having your political rival be stronger than you.
- jjk166 4mo ago
  Which is exactly the point I was making. For a particular emperor in Constantinople, paying tribute to an army outside the wall may have been, or appeared to have been, an economical option for achieving their personal goals, which may not have been aligned with the empire's, and thus the fact the action occurred can not be taken as evidence that it was a rational choice which served the interest of the Roman Empire. People in the past weren't dumb, but they weren't hyper-competent nor devoid of ulterior motives either. We should expect most past decisions to have been sub-optimal.