3 ms·

Wow, that’s actually really interesting. I knew of other empires in this shape (to me the Kushan empire is the most obvious syncretic example) but I didn’t know

by arjie 3mo ago

Wow, that’s actually really interesting. I knew of other empires in this shape (to me the Kushan empire is the most obvious syncretic example) but I didn’t know they were all shaped this way. I suppose I always imagined empire being a bigger thing than kingdom but this definition seems more useful. It seems that other definitions don’t involve resource extraction necessarily but power over multiple nations. Still, it’s a useful frame. In practice I suppose this must have been the case because you can’t easily impose monocultures especially when information travels slowly. That makes me curious if military tactics of the time also had regional variation and if the relative strengths of various regions came from their awareness of certain tools being effective. Bringing in a foreign army with its foreign techniques might have been like bringing small pox to a population- they’d have no defense the first time around so if you’re fast you get them all. Altogether an enjoyable read. Thanks.

cwmma 3mo ago
> That makes me curious if military tactics of the time also had regional variation and if the relative strengths of various regions came from their awareness of certain tools being effective. Bringing in a foreign army with its foreign techniques might have been like bringing small pox to a population- they’d have no defense the first time around so if you’re fast you get them all. I highly recommend...the author's blog for very in depth articles about this subject including - this one on mounted warrior cultures and how they often dominated https://acoup.blog/2020/02/28/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-iv-desert-power/ https://acoup.blog/2020/02/28/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... - this long series on why the legion ended up dominating the phalanx https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/ https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-...
- arjie 3mo ago
  Thank you for the links. Much appreciated!
constantius 3mo ago
Yes, the idea of empire as being something bigger than a kingdom is a popular misunderstanding. However, Rome (and Byzantium) were actually very good at integrating conquered populations into their culture. Very early in the empire, a law made all conquered people officially Roman, with all the benefits and protections it entailed. After 2-3 generations, there was not much difference between a Roman from Gaul and a Roman from Rome: they spoke the same language, worshipped the same gods, had the same education, and viewed themselves as Roman. And critically, the Romans from Rome didn't see their compatriots from elsewhere as different. The Senate was composed entirely of men, but apart from that it was a DEI dream. Some of the emperors were dark-skinned, originating from current Syria: we only know because of their genealogy, their portraits, but otherwise no one cared enough to mention their skin colour, especially in a negative way. To such an extent that, for most of their existence, Rome and Byzantium did not actually fit the definition of empire.
- cherryteastain 3mo ago
  > Very early in the empire, a law made all conquered people officially Roman Wouldn't call this "early" in the empire. Caracalla [1] did this in 212AD by granting Roman citizenship to free noncitizens, well after the beginning of the empire in 27BC. W Roman Empire fell in the late 470s so about half of the empire's lifetime had severe legal stratification between citizens, free noncitizens (peregrini) and slaves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
  - constantius 3mo ago
    Fair. I believe the Empire only ended with Byzantium, and as far as I know the edict was never repealed, but I do differentiate between Rome and Byzantium elsewhere, so I see the point.
  - jcranmer 3mo ago
    The Roman Republic notably granted citizenship status to most of the socii during the Social War in the early first century BC. Even discounting one-off mass citizenship grants, Roman citizenship was much easier to obtain than pretty much every other Mediterranean polity (in large part by dint of it being even possible in the first place).

by arjie 3mo ago

cwmma 3mo ago

> That makes me curious if military tactics of the time also had regional variation and if the relative strengths of various regions came from their awareness of certain tools being effective. Bringing in a foreign army with its foreign techniques might have been like bringing small pox to a population- they’d have no defense the first time around so if you’re fast you get them all. I highly recommend...the author's blog for very in depth articles about this subject including - this one on mounted warrior cultures and how they often dominated https://acoup.blog/2020/02/28/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-iv-desert-power/ https://acoup.blog/2020/02/28/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... - this long series on why the legion ended up dominating the phalanx https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/ https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-...

arjie 3mo ago
Thank you for the links. Much appreciated!

constantius 3mo ago

Yes, the idea of empire as being something bigger than a kingdom is a popular misunderstanding. However, Rome (and Byzantium) were actually very good at integrating conquered populations into their culture. Very early in the empire, a law made all conquered people officially Roman, with all the benefits and protections it entailed. After 2-3 generations, there was not much difference between a Roman from Gaul and a Roman from Rome: they spoke the same language, worshipped the same gods, had the same education, and viewed themselves as Roman. And critically, the Romans from Rome didn't see their compatriots from elsewhere as different. The Senate was composed entirely of men, but apart from that it was a DEI dream. Some of the emperors were dark-skinned, originating from current Syria: we only know because of their genealogy, their portraits, but otherwise no one cared enough to mention their skin colour, especially in a negative way. To such an extent that, for most of their existence, Rome and Byzantium did not actually fit the definition of empire.

cherryteastain 3mo ago
> Very early in the empire, a law made all conquered people officially Roman Wouldn't call this "early" in the empire. Caracalla [1] did this in 212AD by granting Roman citizenship to free noncitizens, well after the beginning of the empire in 27BC. W Roman Empire fell in the late 470s so about half of the empire's lifetime had severe legal stratification between citizens, free noncitizens (peregrini) and slaves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
- constantius 3mo ago
  Fair. I believe the Empire only ended with Byzantium, and as far as I know the edict was never repealed, but I do differentiate between Rome and Byzantium elsewhere, so I see the point.
- jcranmer 3mo ago
  The Roman Republic notably granted citizenship status to most of the socii during the Social War in the early first century BC. Even discounting one-off mass citizenship grants, Roman citizenship was much easier to obtain than pretty much every other Mediterranean polity (in large part by dint of it being even possible in the first place).