Roman Succession

[Razgovory]

Going by Raz's definition, I'd say the US Civil War significantly modified the government by violence.  The federal / state balance is radically changed.

I dunno, the Federal government did expand at the expense of the states, but not as much as sometimes supposed and it was already an ongoing trend.  It did for the Southern States, of course, but they went back to their dickish ways soon enough.  The real big changes happened in 20th century I think.


I think comparing medieval England and the Roman empire is apt (being similar in levels of technology, or at least closer then Rome and 18th century Britain).  There was constant rebellion and disorder in medieval England.  The Barons would regularly test the King for any sign of weakness.  Often there wouldn't be much bloodshed, but it's still disruptive as all hell.  Medieval Kings in general would often face a powerful magnate rebelling several times during their reign.

[Josquius]

Let just use Old English.  It's even closer to the modern era and it's still completely unintelligible to the modern reader.  It may as well by written in Brythonic.  We can't understand either, and I doubt they can understand Parthian.

You'd be surprised. If by chance you meet the only Dutchman in the world who doesn't speak English you would be able to get a fair bit of communication across nonetheless.
And that is in spite of English's sheer weirdness and the unusually huge amount of latin we had forced upon us.

Their empire has totally collapsed to the point they are really no longer a major power. And the standard of civil war you are using excludes the colonial conflicts that they had.

That said, I think it is much easier for a modern state to establish stability, for a lot of reasons.

Collapse is a very bad word to use for the British empire. It didn't collapse, it was far more of an organised disbandment for Britain's own benefit/a drifting apart.

[alfred russel]

Exactly -- succession in England during the period BEFORE the one I was discussing was a ragged affair. It is the combination of parliamentary power with a quasi-constitutional monarch that provided the legitimacy for stability - leading to a lengthy period of stability in England.

There is nothing that absolutely prevented Rome from evolving in a similar manner, with the Senate playing the foil like Parliament--except of course that it did not. There are lots of reasons it did not, naturally.

But I think there is. In the 18th century and beyond, access to modern military equipment and trained personnel were central to success on the battlefield, badly stacking the odds against anyone challenging the government without the support of the bureaucracy. I think that this is what neutered the barons and ushered in the age of stability.

In a large Roman empire, I don't think you could hope to maintain a powerful senate for the long term. Eventually military commanders were going to realize they controlled the real power in the empire and translate that into political power. Until military commanders were made dependant on the purse of the centralized bureaucracy, they were going to sieze power when it was available.

[alfred russel]

I think France is an interesting example during the same period (mid 17th - 18th century). The changes in warfare and technology also neutered the military ability of the nobility to challenge the government. However, unlike England, the government was unwilling to make the changes to support the greater funding needs of the military. The result was that the government could not effectively raise funds, and defaulted on numerous occasions. Finally it collapsed under popular pressure when searching for a solution to the funding crisis.