I think most people here would agree that it was the internal weakness of the Empire, principally the inability to establish a stable method of Imperial succession that doomed the Empire.
Was there ever any real chance that this flaw could have been fixed?
I actually do not buy that premise. I mean Caracalla was the obvious successor to Septimus Severus and was his reign a fantastic boon to the Empire? Was Nero a big source of strength and Vespasian a big source of weakness? I mean coups and Civil Wars were practically the only check on the power of the Emperors and practically the only way to remove a bad one and get a more worthy man in there. However I guess it did get a bit ridiculous after Diocletian's Tetrarchy and the idea of multiple Emperors. But by that time the more serious problems that were eroding the Empire's strength had really taken root: reduced population from plague and war, economic disruption from various Imperial policies and so forth.
I mean the thing did last for almost 500 years and the Romans had been bashing each other over the head for a good while before they even got the Empire started up.
The problem still persists.
After all, Berlusconi's reign was one big, Roman Suck Session.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2011, 01:33:37 AM
I actually do not buy that premise. I mean Caracalla was the obvious successor to Septimus Severus and was his reign a fantastic boon to the Empire? Was Nero a big source of strength and Vespasian a big source of weakness? I mean coups and Civil Wars were practically the only check on the power of the Emperors and practically the only way to remove a bad one and get a more worthy man in there. However I guess it did get a bit ridiculous after Diocletian's Tetrarchy and the idea of multiple Emperors. But by that time the more serious problems that were eroding the Empire's strength had really taken root: reduced population from plague and war, economic disruption from various Imperial policies and so forth.
The crisis of the 3rd century crippled the Empire and it never really recovered from the devastation and the instability it generated.
Their lack of mass army had serious consequences, maybe not so much for the Romans (as it luckily turned out in the end) but certainly for Gaul and Scythia.
If anything the Roman lack of a sensible succession system meant that cruel and cowardly emperors were replaced by the best men availible. Coup as a means of social mobility you might say. After the crisis of the 3rd century constant civil wars probably resulted in dead barbarian auxilliarys more than anything else as well as the less competent being replaced by the more competent.
I'll agree that there was a problem however. Being soldiers the emperors merely saw the rest of the empire as a source of funding for the army and relied on the support of that army for their legitimacy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:26:36 AM
The crisis of the 3rd century crippled the Empire and it never really recovered from the devastation and the instability it generated.
Many of the children who got in through inheritance after the 3rd century didn't help matters.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2011, 10:48:20 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:26:36 AM
The crisis of the 3rd century crippled the Empire and it never really recovered from the devastation and the instability it generated.
Many of the children who got in through inheritance after the 3rd century didn't help matters.
Puppets of Stilicho and Odacer shouldn't count as Emperors. The clean dynastic succession suggests a lack of power rather than order. Or in terms Timmy understands, Stilicho was Shogun whatshisname was Tennoheika. Once the roles separated that was when the empire was in trouble. Odoacer could be king of Italy in his own right, but he could never convince the barbarian generals or the roman population that he was Emperor.
My alt-hist contribution would be, if Odoacer (and none of his successors) had decided to be the big fish in a small pond rather than a small fish in a big pond then Bellisarius could have reunified the entire empire under Justinian.
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 09:21:09 AM
If anything the Roman lack of a sensible succession system meant that cruel and cowardly emperors were replaced by the best men availible. Coup as a means of social mobility you might say. After the crisis of the 3rd century constant civil wars probably resulted in dead barbarian auxilliarys more than anything else as well as the less competent being replaced by the more competent.
Cruel and cowardly emperors were often the best at arranging assassins to kill the previous emperor.
While sometimes the more competent would gain the purple at the expense of the incompetent, it seemed that it just as often happened the other way around. Either way it happened all too frequently, there were 45 Emperors in the 3rd century IIRC.
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 11:02:15 AM
Puppets of Stilicho and Odacer shouldn't count as Emperors.
When children of non-emperors, sure as they really fail on the inheritance angle but individuals like Arcadius, Honorious and Theodosius II who gained the throne by clear dynastic succession? That's a clear example of how it didn't really help matters.
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 11:02:15 AM
My alt-hist contribution would be, if Odoacer (and none of his successors) had decided to be the big fish in a small pond rather than a small fish in a big pond then Bellisarius could have reunified the entire empire under Justinian.
Justinian already was concerned about B's power in our timeline where his victories were smaller than you propose. :huh:
I don't think the East was in any shape to rule the West, the expenses of the expedition were enormous as it was.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 11:03:03 AM
While sometimes the more competent would gain the purple at the expense of the incompetent, it seemed that it just as often happened the other way around. Either way it happened all too frequently, there were 45 Emperors in the 3rd century IIRC.
Yes, and then there was Aurelian, who cleaned up the messes of the bulk of those emperors in five years.
The other issue is that there is no alternative which provides for a better system. In the 1000 years following the roman empire the barbarian successor states were constantly at war with themselves and others. I fail to see how succession by means other than that of granting the imperial title to the man with the biggest army would solve the problem? This point applies to garbon as well, what was the alternative and how would it give better results? Civil wars or barbarian wars happened to pretty much every emperor, even the ones that didn't want them. Caligula, Nero, Elgabalus etc. were dynastic heirs
The nature of power was what it was at that time and that power was the army. It doesn't matter if the emperor is made dynastically or by right of conquest. What matters is that the true nature of power would remain unchanged. Again the Japan analogy works here, the Emperor could have ended up as the Tennoheika locked in a Kyoto castle monumentally irrellevant.
I also don't accept the apparent premise that Rome >>> Barbarian Successors.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 12:47:52 AM
I think most people here would agree that it was the internal weakness of the Empire, principally the inability to establish a stable method of Imperial succession that doomed the Empire.
Was there ever any real chance that this flaw could have been fixed?
If they had stayed true to ancient Roman virtues as displayed in the early republic then everything would have been awesome. No Empire plz.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 03, 2011, 11:11:20 AM
I don't think the East was in any shape to rule the West, the expenses of the expedition were enormous as it was.
I'm suggesting that a continued emperorship would have made the west governable since the new barbarian "kings" would remain Generals in name but kings in practice. Bellisarius would thus not be replacing the former leadership, but getting it to accept in practice what they accepted on paper, Roman overlordship.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 12:47:52 AM
I think most people here would agree that it was the internal weakness of the Empire, principally the inability to establish a stable method of Imperial succession that doomed the Empire.
Was there ever any real chance that this flaw could have been fixed?
The real problem with Roman succession, at least before the Late Roman Empire, was the "constitutional convention" that they had to boon off the Legions or the Pretorians with increasingly higher bonuses, otherwise they'd be "replaced". It definitely reached a new low when Pertinax was killed and Didius Julianus won his Imperial robe by winning the following auction.
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 11:27:05 AM
This point applies to garbon as well, what was the alternative and how would it give better results?
I agree with that. I was calling out the dynastic child emperors as further examples that a clear succession (as suggested by Tim) wouldn't have really helped matters.
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2011, 12:38:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 11:27:05 AM
This point applies to garbon as well, what was the alternative and how would it give better results?
I agree with that. I was calling out the dynastic child emperors as further examples that a clear succession (as suggested by Tim) wouldn't have really helped matters.
The internecine warfare of the 3rd century devastated the West, caused the economy to collapse and lead to a decrease in urbanization.
If much of that fighting had been avoided, Rome would have been in much better shape to ward of the pressure coming from the East.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:23:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2011, 12:38:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 11:27:05 AM
This point applies to garbon as well, what was the alternative and how would it give better results?
I agree with that. I was calling out the dynastic child emperors as further examples that a clear succession (as suggested by Tim) wouldn't have really helped matters.
The internecine warfare of the 3rd century devastated the West, caused the economy to collapse and lead to a decrease in urbanization.
If much of that fighting had been avoided, Rome would have been in much better shape to ward of the pressure coming from the East.
I thought it was established Languish Fact that the wars with persia which brought back plagues from the east caused the depopulation?
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 11:27:05 AM
The nature of power was what it was at that time and that power was the army. It doesn't matter if the emperor is made dynastically or by right of conquest. What matters is that the true nature of power would remain unchanged. Again the Japan analogy works here, the Emperor could have ended up as the Tennoheika locked in a Kyoto castle monumentally irrellevant.
This.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:26:36 AM
The crisis of the 3rd century crippled the Empire and it never really recovered from the devastation and the instability it generated.
Yeah and one Emperor, Gallienus, ruled in Rome for practically the entire period.
Quote from: Viking on December 03, 2011, 09:21:09 AM
I'll agree that there was a problem however. Being soldiers the emperors merely saw the rest of the empire as a source of funding for the army and relied on the support of that army for their legitimacy.
This. Eventually the civilian elites just saw they could never win so they checked out.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:23:20 PM
The internecine warfare of the 3rd century devastated the West, caused the economy to collapse and lead to a decrease in urbanization.
If much of that fighting had been avoided, Rome would have been in much better shape to ward of the pressure coming from the East.
Pretty sure the constant flow of Barbarians flowing over the border, which was mainly a result of Decius' crushing defeat than anything else, was a big part of the problem. And that is, after all, why the West seceded: not as a bid to overthrow Gallienus but as a bid to do something to finally stop the bleeding.
You cannot downplay the massive gamechanger of the Germans uniting into confederations. That completely changed the balance of power and the political calculus in the West.
Rome suffered from an excess of people who believed that civil disobedience was a legitimate method of affecting the political process. :whistle:
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:26:36 AM
The crisis of the 3rd century crippled the Empire and it never really recovered from the devastation and the instability it generated.
Yeah and one Emperor, Gallienus, ruled in Rome for practically the entire period.
Fuck him. Claudius Gothicus was cooler.
Theodosius I (379-395 A.D.)
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:23:20 PM
The internecine warfare of the 3rd century devastated the West, caused the economy to collapse and lead to a decrease in urbanization.
If much of that fighting had been avoided, Rome would have been in much better shape to ward of the pressure coming from the East.
Pretty sure the constant flow of Barbarians flowing over the border, which was mainly a result of Decius' crushing defeat than anything else, was a big part of the problem. And that is, after all, why the West seceded: not as a bid to overthrow Gallienus but as a bid to do something to finally stop the bleeding.
You cannot downplay the massive gamechanger of the Germans uniting into confederations. That completely changed the balance of power and the political calculus in the West.
If there wasn't constant infighting between forty wannabe emperors they wouldn't have been able to do much.
There were 7 Emperors between 98 and 192. If the next century had a similar number of Emperors the barbarians would have been thrown back into the Rhine.
Hell, if Commodus had gotten his reckless ass killed before his father died the good times would have continued to roll. (Dude had 8 sons and that freakshow was the only one to survive, what bad luck!) Marcus Aurelius would have picked someone competent to succeed him and they would have completed the establishment of the provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia. Pushing the border to the Elbe may have even been possible. The praetorian prefect Tarutenius Paternus crushed the Quadi deep in Germania, but Commodus pissed it all away.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 10:43:04 PM
Hell, if Commodus had gotten his reckless ass killed before his father died the good times would have continued to roll. (Dude had 8 sons and that freakshow was the only one to survive, what bad luck!) Marcus Aurelius would have picked someone competent to succeed him and they would have completed the establishment of the provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia. Pushing the border to the Elbe may have even been possible. The praetorian prefect Tarutenius Paternus crushed the Quadi deep in Germania, but Commodus pissed it all away.
I've been working on a theory that Commodus wasn't a bad Emperor, and gets a lot of his bad rap for his hatred of the Senate and elites and attempts to curtail their power and influence and place it firmly in the Imperial hands. He tried to follow the precedent of Augustus, Titus, Domitian, Nero, and more in his self deification in sculpture and his imagery. Being prior examples of people born to the purple or the founder of the Emperor position, they were naturals to look at for inspiration. He also tries to move the focus away from Rome as the only important area and make all areas of the empire on par with each other in terms of rights and obligations. He did this with a renaming policy and also with building projects and other efforts. He settled with the Germans and stabilized the borders in the north, something his father failed to do via war. He was actually loved by a lot of the non-Italian Romans who saw him as a champion of their cause. So much so, that when Semtimius Severus in particular came to power he made claims at being related to Commodus in his coinage for many areas outside of Italy. Roman history is dominated by the elites and those who benefited from the old Roman territory benefits of citizenship in terms of whose writings we have on the era. Obviously they would have been opposed to Commodus' policies on personal, economic, political fronts due to the ensuing decrease in power, prestige, and more his policies were bringing about.
I wonder how a secure dynastic emperor and a shogun would work out for rome. Could it lead to more of a Rome cant be permanently broken way of thinking?
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 04:28:38 AM
I wonder how a secure dynastic emperor and a shogun would work out for rome. Could it lead to more of a Rome cant be permanently broken way of thinking?
Isn't that more or less what happened in the end in the west?
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 04, 2011, 03:49:18 AM
He settled with the Germans and stabilized the borders in the north, something his father failed to do via war.
His father had made great progress by the time he died.
Marcus Aurelius is my favorite emperor. -_-
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 04, 2011, 03:49:18 AM
I've been working on a theory that Commodus wasn't a bad Emperor, and gets a lot of his bad rap for his hatred of the Senate and elites and attempts to curtail their power and influence and place it firmly in the Imperial hands. He tried to follow the precedent of Augustus, Titus, Domitian, Nero, and more in his self deification in sculpture and his imagery. Being prior examples of people born to the purple or the founder of the Emperor position, they were naturals to look at for inspiration.
IIRC Commodus was the first (and only?) man truly "born into the purple (true natural son born while the father was Emperor)." Titus was 30 and Domitian was 18 when Vespasian became Emperor, and Nero was almost a non-entity until Claudius adopted him at the age of 13, 9 years after becoming Emperor. I'm also not sure how you can compare him to Augustus. Didn't Augustus make himself "First Citizen" and at least nominally got all of his titles and powers from an adoring Senate?
I think there may be something to the rest of your point, the histories were written by people that hated Commodus, and he may not be quite as bad as he is made out to be, but I still think he did a pretty good job of greasing the skids into the Crisis of the 3rd Century.
Quote from: sbr on December 04, 2011, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 04, 2011, 03:49:18 AM
I've been working on a theory that Commodus wasn't a bad Emperor, and gets a lot of his bad rap for his hatred of the Senate and elites and attempts to curtail their power and influence and place it firmly in the Imperial hands. He tried to follow the precedent of Augustus, Titus, Domitian, Nero, and more in his self deification in sculpture and his imagery. Being prior examples of people born to the purple or the founder of the Emperor position, they were naturals to look at for inspiration.
IIRC Commodus was the first (and only?) man truly "born into the purple (true natural son born while the father was Emperor)." Titus was 30 and Domitian was 18 when Vespasian became Emperor, and Nero was almost a non-entity until Claudius adopted him at the age of 13, 9 years after becoming Emperor. I'm also not sure how you can compare him to Augustus. Didn't Augustus make himself "First Citizen" and at least nominally got all of his titles and powers from an adoring Senate?
I think there may be something to the rest of your point, the histories were written by people that hated Commodus, and he may not be quite as bad as he is made out to be, but I still think he did a pretty good job of greasing the skids into the Crisis of the 3rd Century.
Augustus got some rep for being Julius' heir, but I more meant the similarities in terms of their coinage and state sponsored statuary. Both went for Olympian level ideals and portrayed themselves as various Gods and heroes of legend, Augustus more so toward his later years when he was solidifying the idea and place of the princeps in society. Who better to look toward than Augustus for ideas on how to be the ideal pater familias of the Roman people and how to enact policy. I think if Commodus had gotten a chance to see those policies through, it would have been a different story. Instead, with his assassination he left chaos and the void which helped cause the crisis you mention.
Quote from: Threviel on December 04, 2011, 08:00:06 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 04:28:38 AM
I wonder how a secure dynastic emperor and a shogun would work out for rome. Could it lead to more of a Rome cant be permanently broken way of thinking?
Isn't that more or less what happened in the end in the west?
Howso?
With the pope you mean?
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 04, 2011, 03:49:18 AM
I've been working on a theory that Commodus wasn't a bad Emperor, and gets a lot of his bad rap for his hatred of the Senate and elites and attempts to curtail their power and influence and place it firmly in the Imperial hands.
I think that works pretty well for Domitian, and even Nero was well educated and was at least competent he just wasn't that interested, but Commodus allowed himself to be controlled by palace cliques way too frequently which generally is a sign of being a poor ruler even if the stories of his megalomania have been overblown.
And um, in my opinion, the constant humiliations and screwing over of the Civilian elites was one of the worst and most destructive policies the Empire persisted in. Of course the nature of the Empire probably made that ineviteable.
I disagree with the premise, but also that it was possible to prevent the civil wars through another inheritance mechanism. At any transition of political power, if the political power is given to someone without military power, there is a risk of civil war. In modern times and during the republic, this could be prevented by keeping the military loyal to the bureaucracy. But the Roman Empire became too large for this to work in a premodern state, and it is tough to see a system where distant generals didn't have some autonomous power that they could use in internal politics.
Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.
Well the Ottoman's had a Civil War with every generation until they locked all the princes away in the Seraglio and the result was horrible leadership and stagnation. Fortunately they were not being constantly attacked like the Romans.
The primary reason for the Roman's problems in the third century was not the military rebellions and coups anyway, the coups and rebellions were a result of the fact that they were losing and other guys thought they could do a better job. Coups and rebellions are very common in any Empire that is being defeated and seems on the verge of collapse.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:17:41 PM
Howso?
With the pope you mean?
I think he is talking about the shadow Emperors controlled by German Generals.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.
You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.
You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.
China seemed to work.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 07:43:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.
You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.
China seemed to work.
Maybe in your alternate histories.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 07:52:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 07:43:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.
You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.
China seemed to work.
Maybe in your alternate histories.
Fell apart a few times, but managed to be pulled back together. Rome, not so much.
Persia also still exists.
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, Tim, that's like saying Italy exists.
Tautologies are tautological.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 08:18:46 PM
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, Tim, that's like saying Italy exists.
The Romans are rolling over in their graves at that insult.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 08:08:10 PM
Persia also still exists.
I looked all over the map. I can't find Persia anywhere Interestingly it's hard to find
any any state with continuous government that lasts to long. By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means. For instance I would consider Britain to have continuous government since King William III. Despite changing royal houses and slowly evolving into a democratic state there was no revolutionary violence that radically altered the government. While Japan has only had continuous government since the 1950's even though it technically is still an empire and head of state reigned before the current constitution (and before it was conquered).
Curiously that means the US which is a fairly new nation has one of the oldest continuous governments in the world.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2011, 08:44:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 08:18:46 PM
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, Tim, that's like saying Italy exists.
The Romans are rolling over in their graves at that insult.
Oh I don't think that would be that bothered by it. They crucified the man after all.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2011, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:17:41 PM
Howso?
With the pope you mean?
I think he is talking about the shadow Emperors controlled by German Generals.
Only good one in the bunch was Majorian, and Ricimer likely had him killed.
I have to say I agree with Tim.
China is, and pretty much always has been, still there. Even on occasions where it was divided it was just a case of there being multiple claimants to being the true China. Even when foreigners invaded, they simply placed themselves at the head of China.
Continuous government doesn't really matter, interludes and revolutions which keep the same basic nation are fine.,
Quote from: sbr on December 04, 2011, 01:32:25 PM
Didn't Augustus make himself "First Citizen" and at least nominally got all of his titles and powers from an adoring Senate?
IIRC that was true for a long time after Augustus--the Emperor was in theory appointed by the Senate.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 09:06:59 PM
I have to say I agree with Tim.
China is, and pretty much always has been, still there. Even on occasions where it was divided it was just a case of there being multiple claimants to being the true China. Even when foreigners invaded, they simply placed themselves at the head of China.
Continuous government doesn't really matter, interludes and revolutions which keep the same basic nation are fine.,
So basically to reach you and Tim's standard for an empire or nation "not working", it has to be eliminated from the face of the Earth? I think you've set the bar a little too low.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 09:51:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 09:06:59 PM
I have to say I agree with Tim.
China is, and pretty much always has been, still there. Even on occasions where it was divided it was just a case of there being multiple claimants to being the true China. Even when foreigners invaded, they simply placed themselves at the head of China.
Continuous government doesn't really matter, interludes and revolutions which keep the same basic nation are fine.,
So basically to reach you and Tim's standard for an empire or nation "not working", it has to be eliminated from the face of the Earth? I think you've set the bar a little too low.
I suppose any country that hasn't physically sunken into the ocean is still there then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:26:36 AM
The crisis of the 3rd century crippled the Empire and it never really recovered from the devastation and the instability it generated.
There wasn't that much "devastation" and it did recover quite nicely.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2011, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 09:51:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 09:06:59 PM
I have to say I agree with Tim.
China is, and pretty much always has been, still there. Even on occasions where it was divided it was just a case of there being multiple claimants to being the true China. Even when foreigners invaded, they simply placed themselves at the head of China.
Continuous government doesn't really matter, interludes and revolutions which keep the same basic nation are fine.,
So basically to reach you and Tim's standard for an empire or nation "not working", it has to be eliminated from the face of the Earth? I think you've set the bar a little too low.
I suppose any country that hasn't physically sunken into the ocean is still there then.
Bangladesh: FAILURE.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2011, 10:01:07 PM
I suppose any country that hasn't physically sunken into the ocean is still there then.
For several hundred years? There are a lot of them yes.
Since year 0? You're looking at a pretty short list. China and Persia are all that immediately stand out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2011, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2011, 02:26:36 AM
The crisis of the 3rd century crippled the Empire and it never really recovered from the devastation and the instability it generated.
There wasn't that much "devastation" and it did recover quite nicely.
It's a bit like the War of the Roses. Chaos and trouble and taxes, but little or no wasting of the land. The peasants wouldn't have noticed anything other than increased taxes to pay soldiers.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2011, 10:01:07 PM
I suppose any country that hasn't physically sunken into the ocean is still there then.
For several hundred years? There are a lot of them yes.
Since year 0? You're looking at a pretty short list. China and Persia are all that immediately stand out.
I don't think there was a "year 0". I would hardly think that the Parthian Empire or the territory of the Han dynasty could really be call an early form of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the People's Republic of China. By that metric we could the UK is an extension of Arthurian Briton.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 05, 2011, 05:20:41 AM
I don't think there was a "year 0". I would hardly think that the Parthian Empire or the territory of the Han dynasty could really be call an early form of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the People's Republic of China. By that metric we could the UK is an extension of Arthurian Briton.
Year 0: :rolleyes:
Persia/China/Britain: Persia and China were basically the same people, there's a continuity of civilization there. In Britain meanwhile the English hadn't even shown up yet.
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 06:29:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 05, 2011, 05:20:41 AM
I don't think there was a "year 0". I would hardly think that the Parthian Empire or the territory of the Han dynasty could really be call an early form of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the People's Republic of China. By that metric we could the UK is an extension of Arthurian Briton.
Year 0: :rolleyes:
Persia/China/Britain: Persia and China were basically the same people, there's a continuity of civilization there. In Britain meanwhile the English hadn't even shown up yet.
Are they? Is there really a continuity of civilization? I imagine that a person living in the PRC would have difficulty talking to someone from the Han empire. I doubt that a modern Iranian could make much sense of the Parthian language anymore then you or I could make sense of Mercian English.
And don't roll your eyes at me, you were the one who said "Year 0".
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2011, 11:48:40 PM
It's a bit like the War of the Roses. Chaos and trouble and taxes, but little or no wasting of the land. The peasants wouldn't have noticed anything other than increased taxes to pay soldiers.
The crisis was hardly a civil war between noble dynasties, didn't all those German Hordes pouring across the border take any loot and kill anybody? Certain places like North Africa, Egypt, Hispania, and Anatolia got away pretty cleanly though.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
For several hundred years? There are a lot of them yes.
Since year 0? You're looking at a pretty short list. China and Persia are all that immediately stand out.
Since year zero? Like when the clock went from BC to AD? Like when China is a large collection of warring "feudal" states and Persia is being run by Turkish horsemen?
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 09:00:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2011, 11:48:40 PM
It's a bit like the War of the Roses. Chaos and trouble and taxes, but little or no wasting of the land. The peasants wouldn't have noticed anything other than increased taxes to pay soldiers.
The crisis was hardly a civil war between noble dynasties, didn't all those German Hordes pouring across the border take any loot and kill anybody? Certain places like North Africa, Egypt, Hispania, and Anatolia got away pretty cleanly though.
Plus wasn't the internal trade network severely fucked? Currency devaluation, degradation of the road network, and the retreat of civilization due to plagues, local governmental collapse, etc must have made a lot of areas chancy.
QuoteI doubt that a modern Iranian could make much sense of the Parthian language anymore then you or I could make sense of Mercian English.
They would have a much easier time of it then we would trying to speak ancient Brythonic, it isn't even an ancestor of English.
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 09:03:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
For several hundred years? There are a lot of them yes.
Since year 0? You're looking at a pretty short list. China and Persia are all that immediately stand out.
Since year zero? Like when the clock went from BC to AD? Like when China is a large collection of warring "feudal" states and Persia is being run by Turkish horsemen?
Year zero like roughly around that time, not on any particular date.
Checking up it seems China was having a bit of a civil war exactly around year 1. But still, it doesn't change anything. China was still there, the fighting was about who will rule China.
Parthian was Iranian wasn't it?
Parthia may have ruled Iran. But is present day Iran Parthian?
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 09:24:22 AM
Year zero like roughly around that time, not on any particular date.
Well obviously not a particular date. Our calendar doesn't record that a year 0 existed.
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 09:24:22 AM
Checking up it seems China was having a bit of a civil war exactly around year 1. But still, it doesn't change anything. China was still there, the fighting was about who will rule China.
But in what sense? Chinese today refer to themselves as the 'Children of the Han' yes? Before the unification in the 3rd century are we really talking about the same place?
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 09:24:22 AM
Parthian was Iranian wasn't it?
I don't know. We do not know that much about Parthia since pretty much all that was written down about them was done by the Romans and the by the succeeding Sassanids.
A society without a literate elite does not sound like Persia to me.
QuoteI don't know. We do not know that much about Parthia since pretty much all that was written down about them was done by the Romans and the by the succeeding Sassanids.
A society without a literate elite does not sound like Persia to me.
Yet before them you have yet more Persians (well, Greeks then Persians) and in their empire you have Persians. Parthians themselves were Iranians too.
QuoteBut in what sense? Chinese today refer to themselves as the 'Children of the Han' yes? Before the unification in the 3rd century are we really talking about the same place?
China was unified quite a while back into BC. The three kingdoms were an interlude and IIRC all claimed to be China.
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 09:29:52 AM
Well obviously not a particular date. Our calendar doesn't record that a year 0 existed.
Indeed, that's why I said it. I felt my meaning was obvious but I guess not- unless it was just the temptation to smart alec which brought on the statements of the obvious.
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 09:34:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 09:24:22 AM
Checking up it seems China was having a bit of a civil war exactly around year 1. But still, it doesn't change anything. China was still there, the fighting was about who will rule China.
But in what sense? Chinese today refer to themselves as the 'Children of the Han' yes? Before the unification in the 3rd century are we really talking about the same place?
The Han were in power between 200bc and 200ad weren't they?
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 09:46:07 AM
Indeed, that's why I said it. I felt my meaning was obvious but I guess not- unless it was just the temptation to smart alec which brought on the statements of the obvious.
You and Tim have an idiotic position so why shouldn't I?
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 09:24:22 AM
Parthian was Iranian wasn't it?
I don't know. We do not know that much about Parthia since pretty much all that was written down about them was done by the Romans and the by the succeeding Sassanids.
A society without a literate elite does not sound like Persia to me.
Wikipedia says that the Parthians are still there and the language they spoke was an Iranian one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 10:04:52 AM
Wikipedia says that the Parthians are still there and the language they spoke was an Iranian one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia
I am tallking about the Parthian Empire of antiquity not the Parthian ethnic group of today.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
The Han were in power between 200bc and 200ad weren't they?
Oh you are right. I wiffed on that for some reason I got my BCs and ADs mixed up on the Qin dynasty.
I thought the Parthians were a nomadic group coming from the north of Seleucid regions who moved in during that degenerate kingdom's decline. Probably Scythians who came in, put their boots on the furniture, and pretended they were always there.
Quote from: PDH on December 05, 2011, 10:16:32 AM
I thought the Parthians were a nomadic group coming from the north of Seleucid regions who moved in during that degenerate kingdom's decline. Probably Scythians who came in, put their boots on the furniture, and pretended they were always there.
Yes that is exactly who they were.
Quote from: Tyr on December 05, 2011, 09:24:22 AM
They would have a much easier time of it then we would trying to speak ancient Brythonic, it isn't even an ancestor of English.
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.
The present-day EU has about as much connection if not more to the Roman Empire, as the Islamic Republic to the Arsacid Confederacy, or the PRC to the Han polity.
But anyway comparisons to China and Rome do not work because China was in a much richer agricultural area with far fewer hostile neighbors. They could afford to fund a massive civilian beaucracy and make the military a poor relation to the civilian paper pushers, which is just a ridiculous fantasy in the world the Romans lived. Obviously if the Romans could have done such a thing it would have been far more stable but I do not see how that could have happened.
But hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
The Han were in power between 200bc and 200ad weren't they?
Only if you put "in power" in scare quotes. The imperial regime was plagued by regular civil wars, schisms, succession crises, and independent monarchs breaking off. And when the imperial system finally collapsed for good, an enduring imperial structure didn't reconstitute until the Tang period, and even then not for long. Until the Mongol period, division rather than unity was a more common experience in what is now China.
Go back to what Raz said: "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long. By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means". That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree. Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era. The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China; the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.
Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US. Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.
Quote from: dps on December 05, 2011, 11:14:57 AM
Go back to what Raz said: "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long. By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means". That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree. Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era. The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China; the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.
Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US. Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.
Sweden had a military coup in 1809. :smarty:
In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.
Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.
Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.
Except in Britain itself you are only allowed to say how rubbish the country is. That has to get annoying.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.
Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Quote from: dps on December 05, 2011, 11:14:57 AM
Go back to what Raz said: "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long. By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means". That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree. Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era. The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China; the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.
Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US. Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.
Sweden had a military coup in 1809. :smarty:
An unbloody coup that toppled the king and gave us a new constitution, yes (until the revision in the 70s the oldest in the world after the American). But the vast majority of laws remained unchanged and it is the legal revision of 1734 that is the current one in both Finland and Sweden, in the sense that this was the last major revision of laws (the previous one was under Kristoffer in 1442). Some parts of the original 1734 laws are applied even today; for example Handelsbalken (Act of Trade) of 1734 is still law in both Sweden and Finland. Byggningabalken is another law from 1734 still applied in both Sweden and Finland; it in turn stems from Magnus Erikssons laws of the 1300s.
edit: to clarify, by Raz's definition of "altered fundamentally by violent means", no such thing has occured in Sweden; there has been a continuous history of gradual change since the formation of the state shortly after the Viking era.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 12:59:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.
Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.
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.
Colonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. :lol:
The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 10:24:22 AMBut hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
YES--from then till
1912.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:32:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 12:59:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.
Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.
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.
Colonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. :lol:
The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.
Still the collapse, as it were, of their empire hardly makes them a great choice.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Que?
I said fewer. They had one border to worry about, and no additional giant civilized hostile Empires like the Persians close by draining their strength away. It was one bear of a border though.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
YES--from then till 1912.
I meant their Empire pretty much collapsed as a result of said Barbarian attacks around that period. And last I checked following the wars against Dsungar Horde they were pretty much ok in that sphere, it was the darn Russians and Westerners who gave them crap after that.
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 01:35:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Que?
I said fewer. They had one border to worry about, and no additional giant civilized hostile Empires like the Persians close by draining their strength away. It was one bear of a border though.
I guess that depends on what you are calling China/Chinese. The Northern portion of the country spent a good amount of time under non-Han rule.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:32:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 12:59:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.
Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.
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.
Colonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. :lol:
The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.
Certainly the Roman Empire wasn't internally stable for most of its history. But I don't know how interesting a model the UK would be consideirng they suffered a major decline during the period in question.
Also, I think you are forgetting the Jacobites.
Quote from: Pat on December 05, 2011, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Quote from: dps on December 05, 2011, 11:14:57 AM
Go back to what Raz said: "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long. By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means". That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree. Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era. The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China; the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.
Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US. Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.
Sweden had a military coup in 1809. :smarty:
An unbloody coup that toppled the king and gave us a new constitution, yes (until the revision in the 70s the oldest in the world after the American). But the vast majority of laws remained unchanged and it is the legal revision of 1734 that is the current one in both Finland and Sweden, in the sense that this was the last major revision of laws (the previous one was under Kristoffer in 1442). Some parts of the original 1734 laws are applied even today; for example Handelsbalken (Act of Trade) of 1734 is still law in both Sweden and Finland. Byggningabalken is another law from 1734 still applied in both Sweden and Finland; it in turn stems from Magnus Erikssons laws of the 1300s.
edit: to clarify, by Raz's definition of "altered fundamentally by violent means", no such thing has occured in Sweden; there has been a continuous history of gradual change since the formation of the state shortly after the Viking era.
Oh and the legal revisions of Magnus (city laws) and Kristoffer (nation-wide laws) built on the old provincial laws that date to time immemorial.
Quote from: Pat on December 05, 2011, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Quote from: dps on December 05, 2011, 11:14:57 AM
Go back to what Raz said: "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long. By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means". That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree. Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era. The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China; the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.
Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US. Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.
Sweden had a military coup in 1809. :smarty:
An unbloody coup that toppled the king and gave us a new constitution, yes (until the revision in the 70s the oldest in the world after the American). But the vast majority of laws remained unchanged and it is the legal revision of 1734 that is the current one in both Finland and Sweden, in the sense that this was the last major revision of laws (the previous one was under Kristoffer in 1442). Some parts of the original 1734 laws are applied even today; for example Handelsbalken (Act of Trade) of 1734 is still law in both Sweden and Finland. Byggningabalken is another law from 1734 still applied in both Sweden and Finland; it in turn stems from Magnus Erikssons laws of the 1300s.
edit: to clarify, by Raz's definition of "altered fundamentally by violent means", no such thing has occured in Sweden; there has been a continuous history of gradual change since the formation of the state shortly after the Viking era.
The government was overthrown. Nothing more, nothing less. Meets the criteria.
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
Still the collapse, as it were, of their empire hardly makes them a great choice.
Care to mention a contender that has lasted longer?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 01:41:56 PM
Certainly the Roman Empire wasn't internally stable for most of its history. But I don't know how interesting a model the UK would be consideirng they suffered a major decline during the period in question.
Also, I think you are forgetting the Jacobites.
I'm not mentioning the Jacobites because they hardly did anything of note. A raid by a buncha highlanders? That all they got? :D
Anyway, same challenge: if you don't like this example, feel free to mention another that has greater longevity.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 10:24:22 AMBut hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
YES--from then till 1912.
Shouldn't that be 1945?
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:50:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
Still the collapse, as it were, of their empire hardly makes them a great choice.
Care to mention a contender that has lasted longer?
I think the point was that they there aren't really any great contenders. That said - I'd think going from The Empire where the sun never sets to a size of somewhere around Kansas (I think) is pretty obvious. :D
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:50:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
Still the collapse, as it were, of their empire hardly makes them a great choice.
Care to mention a contender that has lasted longer?
I don't think a modern state is a good comparison, for some reasons I stated before.
But Tim seemed to be searching for a different type of succession that could have made the empire more durable. I don't think the Roman Empire avoiding civil wars but shrinking to a portion of Italy is what he was looking for.
I think in terms of maintaining a large empire for an extended period, Rome is the most successful state there has been.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 10:24:22 AMBut hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
YES--from then till 1912.
Shouldn't that be 1945?
The Japanese were a civilizing influence.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:53:28 PM
I'm not mentioning the Jacobites because they hardly did anything of note. A raid by a buncha highlanders? That all they got? :D
Anyway, same challenge: if you don't like this example, feel free to mention another that has greater longevity.
You are really defining stability down: first we exclude all the colonies, which are by far the largest part of the empire, and now we are also excluding scotland. ;)
As I mentioned, I think the most successful large empire in terms of longetivity was Rome. After that, I would give the nod to the british (say 1607-1945) or spain (1492-1810).
I don't know much about the Far East, so I'm ignoring them.
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2011, 01:49:41 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 05, 2011, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Quote from: dps on December 05, 2011, 11:14:57 AM
Go back to what Raz said: "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long. By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means". That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree. Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era. The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China; the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.
Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US. Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.
Sweden had a military coup in 1809. :smarty:
An unbloody coup that toppled the king and gave us a new constitution, yes (until the revision in the 70s the oldest in the world after the American). But the vast majority of laws remained unchanged and it is the legal revision of 1734 that is the current one in both Finland and Sweden, in the sense that this was the last major revision of laws (the previous one was under Kristoffer in 1442). Some parts of the original 1734 laws are applied even today; for example Handelsbalken (Act of Trade) of 1734 is still law in both Sweden and Finland. Byggningabalken is another law from 1734 still applied in both Sweden and Finland; it in turn stems from Magnus Erikssons laws of the 1300s.
edit: to clarify, by Raz's definition of "altered fundamentally by violent means", no such thing has occured in Sweden; there has been a continuous history of gradual change since the formation of the state shortly after the Viking era.
The government was overthrown. Nothing more, nothing less. Meets the criteria.
Change wasn't all that fundamental considering a lot of it was restoring old priviliges that had previously been acquired by peaceful means and then revoked (freedom of the press act of 1766, for example, first in the world), and it was a peaceful transition seeing as no blood was shed (though certainly the threat of force was implicit and the king did receive a tackle as he tried to run away).
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:32:26 PMColonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. :lol:
The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.
How about losing Ireland due to civil unrest (civil war would be too much I guess)? Ireland was not a colony, but rather an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Quote from: Zanza on December 05, 2011, 02:15:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:32:26 PMColonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. :lol:
The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.
How about losing Ireland due to civil unrest (civil war would be too much I guess)? Ireland was not a colony, but rather an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Anglo-Saxons can never fail at anything. You know that.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:53:28 PM
I'm not mentioning the Jacobites because they hardly did anything of note. A raid by a buncha highlanders? That all they got? :D
Anyway, same challenge: if you don't like this example, feel free to mention another that has greater longevity.
You are really defining stability down: first we exclude all the colonies, which are by far the largest part of the empire, and now we are also excluding scotland. ;)
As I mentioned, I think the most successful large empire in terms of longetivity was Rome. After that, I would give the nod to the british (say 1607-1945) or spain (1492-1810).
I don't know much about the Far East, so I'm ignoring them.
The Ottoman Empire (1453-1918) and the Habsburg Empire (1526-1918) were quite long-lasting, fairly large empires too.
Side point: why 1453 as the beginning of the Ottoman Empire? Sure, that's the fall of Constantinople, but the Ottomans existed well in advance of that, and the Byzantines, for all intents and purposes, didn't.
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:50:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
Still the collapse, as it were, of their empire hardly makes them a great choice.
Care to mention a contender that has lasted longer?
I think the point was that they there aren't really any great contenders. That said - I'd think going from The Empire where the sun never sets to a size of somewhere around Kansas (I think) is pretty obvious. :D
Even if you are focused on the colonies, England has had a long run - decolonization only became an accomplished fact after WW2.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 02:23:09 PM
Side point: why 1453 as the beginning of the Ottoman Empire? Sure, that's the fall of Constantinople, but the Ottomans existed well in advance of that, and the Byzantines, for all intents and purposes, didn't.
Well, pick 1299 or whatever then. Doesn't change the fact that the Ottoman Empire lasted for several centuries.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 02:03:06 PMThe Japanese were a civilizing influence.
Are you trying to be a junior Neil?
Racist??
WTF Ide what's up with your constant editing BS? Fuck man.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 01:32:26 PM
Colonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. :lol:
The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.
I don't think Ireland was considered a colony. It was an integral part of the UK same as Scotland and Wales. It just happened to be on a different island.
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
Racist??
WTF Ide what's up with your constant editing BS? Fuck man.
Apple-ogies for ze inconwenience.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 02:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
Racist??
WTF Ide what's up with your constant editing BS? Fuck man.
Apple-ogies for ze inconwenience.
You were the sheep??
As Malthus falls victim to classic languish after making a general statement about a period of centuries and then having everyone find counterexamples, I would agree that the core territory of the UK was relatively stable from the 17th century forward.
More broadly, any empire faces a problem of how to integrate new territory. The Romans eventually granted the citizens of the new territory citizenship. The effect was a strong Roman identity, but the large size of the empire meant that there needed to be separate power bases along the frontiers that could be turned inwards during a power struggle. The result was internal instability in a period of succession.
The colonial empires restricted rights to the original core territory. This helped keep power consolidated and promoted the peaceful transfer of power, but also created disaffection in the outer territories leading to its own problems.
It occurs to me that it's possible there were lots of minor tribal rebellions that were lost to history. Perhaps even major ones. Our knowledge of Roman history is fairly incomplete.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 03:04:21 PM
As Malthus falls victim to classic languish after making a general statement about a period of centuries and then having everyone find counterexamples, I would agree that the core territory of the UK was relatively stable from the 17th century forward.
More broadly, any empire faces a problem of how to integrate new territory. The Romans eventually granted the citizens of the new territory citizenship. The effect was a strong Roman identity, but the large size of the empire meant that there needed to be separate power bases along the frontiers that could be turned inwards during a power struggle. The result was internal instability in a period of succession.
The colonial empires restricted rights to the original core territory. This helped keep power consolidated and promoted the peaceful transfer of power, but also created disaffection in the outer territories leading to its own problems.
I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...
As for the usual Languish nitpicking, I am unfussed. There is no period in the history of any empire that would do any better.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
As for the usual Languish nitpicking, I am unfussed. There is no period in the history of any empire that would do any better.
I apologize if there was confusion there. I wasn't arguing against that as the discussion had been about states that "exist" today. While the UK had a good run, I think it is hard to say that it is currently faring well as an empire. :D
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...
Well the primary basis for legitimacy was the army and its support (there was also the Senate but the Senate trying to do it without the army generally led to disaster while the army could safely ignore the civilians). That was so very basic and fundamental to the Empire it is sort of hard to wrap your head around it not being that way.
It could have worked if the Generals could have all gotten together at a meeting following the death of each Emperor and elected the new one, like a death of a Pope or something. But who would be commanding the armies while they did this or who would be ruling the Empire while this meeting was being organized and carried out?
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...
I agree to an extent but not having a clear system of succession may also have been a strength with roots going back to the Republic of creating an incentive for men of ambition to distinguish themselves.
Where the system failed imo was it became too centralized (recall that Augustus always paid at least lip service to power of the Senate) and became expressly a winner take all which increased the insentive for civil war and assassination. If the Emperors had delegated some of their authority (or at least gave the impression of doing so following the model of Augustus) so that there was room for ambitious men to satisfy their ambitions within the State structure without resorting to civil war then things might have been more stable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2011, 04:32:37 PM
Where the system failed imo was it became too centralized (recall that Augustus always paid at least lip service to power of the Senate) and became expressly a winner take all which increased the insentive for civil war and assassination. If the Emperors had delegated some of their authority (or at least gave the impression of doing so following the model of Augustus) so that there was room for ambitious men to satisfy their ambitions within the State structure without resorting to civil war then things might have been more stable.
Yeah the system functioned the best when the Senate and the civilians were at least given ceremonial powers and allowed to administrate. But it required emperors wise and skilled enough to make the charade work. Sort of like later when sometimes it worked great for some German general to be the puppet master to some emperor but it required the puppetmaster to be skilled and the emperor to play along.
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 04:19:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...
Well the primary basis for legitimacy was the army and its support (there was also the Senate but the Senate trying to do it without the army generally led to disaster while the army could safely ignore the civilians). That was so very basic and fundamental to the Empire it is sort of hard to wrap your head around it not being that way.
It could have worked if the Generals could have all gotten together at a meeting following the death of each Emperor and elected the new one, like a death of a Pope or something. But who would be commanding the armies while they did this or who would be ruling the Empire while this meeting was being organized and carried out?
Yes, I agree that it is a structural flaw inherent in the nature of that empire; but it need not have been. After all, the Empire had an institution - the Senate - that had lots of legitimacy; it is not obvious that this *had* to fail to restrain the generals.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...
As for the usual Languish nitpicking, I am unfussed. There is no period in the history of any empire that would do any better.
Lets just compare England and Rome for purposes of simplicity.
Succession in England was not a neat legal process. I would suspect that from William the Conquerer through James I there were more reigns with serious challenges to royal authority and/or disputable successions than without. Whether in Rome or in England, people who had a shot to grab power often tried to do so. Ultimate power rested in the hands of those who could call upon military forces. Succession was orderly when the king had an adult heir with a power base in his own right. Otherwise, nobles would fight to either gain the throne outright or to sideline the king and exercise de facto authority. Kings needed to keep allies in key positions, but take care not to give any ally too much power or face a challenge. Close family ties could assist with this, but even that was no guarantee (sons revolted against fathers). In some cases kings even tried to name their sons as co-king within their lifetimes to secure succession.
The Roman Empire could have established succession rules, but I don't see how they would be enforced. The size of the empire demanded multiple strong armies on the frontiers, and the distances meant that close family ties between the commanders was unlikely. A designated successor with an army was only going to be one of many.
IMO, what began to change things was the technology of war. Naval forces and trained armies with firearms were most effective, and these could not be raised through simple feudal levies or the hiring of mercenaries. A centralized army was needed, and this also required a comprehensive taxation system. The need for revenue in excess of what was available under feudal rules pulled power from the kings (and to parliament), but the nobility lost their military power base to revolt. The result was a monarch that was increasingly ceremonial, but also increasingly secure.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 10:24:22 AMBut hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
YES--from then till 1912.
Shouldn't that be 1945?
The Japanese were a civilizing influence.
The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 05:00:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 10:24:22 AMBut hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
YES--from then till 1912.
Shouldn't that be 1945?
The Japanese were a civilizing influence.
The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.
Both your sarcasm detector and your ability to read subsequent posts are broken.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 05:00:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 10:24:22 AMBut hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
YES--from then till 1912.
Shouldn't that be 1945?
The Japanese were a civilizing influence.
The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.
OF COURSE IT'S RIDICULOUS IT'S A FUCKING JOKE
I also wonder in what world the Second Sino-Japanese War qualifies as a barbarian invasion.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 05:06:19 PM
OF COURSE IT'S RIDICULOUS IT'S A FUCKING JOKE
I also wonder in what world the Second Sino-Japanese War qualifies as a barbarian invasion.
It's more akin to Germanicus' operations across the Rhine as a wasting operation against unruly barbarians. It can't be considered civilized, but it's lack of civilizedness is not so much a presence of barbarianness, but rather a lack of civilization in a normally civilized people.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 05:00:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 05, 2011, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 05, 2011, 10:24:22 AMBut hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?
YES--from then till 1912.
Shouldn't that be 1945?
The Japanese were a civilizing influence.
The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.
OF COURSE IT'S RIDICULOUS IT'S A FUCKING JOKE
I also wonder in what world the Second Sino-Japanese War qualifies as a barbarian invasion.
The Chinese consider all foreigners barbarians. -_-
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...
As for the usual Languish nitpicking, I am unfussed. There is no period in the history of any empire that would do any better.
Lets just compare England and Rome for purposes of simplicity.
Succession in England was not a neat legal process. I would suspect that from William the Conquerer through James I there were more reigns with serious challenges to royal authority and/or disputable successions than without. Whether in Rome or in England, people who had a shot to grab power often tried to do so. Ultimate power rested in the hands of those who could call upon military forces. Succession was orderly when the king had an adult heir with a power base in his own right. Otherwise, nobles would fight to either gain the throne outright or to sideline the king and exercise de facto authority. Kings needed to keep allies in key positions, but take care not to give any ally too much power or face a challenge. Close family ties could assist with this, but even that was no guarantee (sons revolted against fathers). In some cases kings even tried to name their sons as co-king within their lifetimes to secure succession.
The Roman Empire could have established succession rules, but I don't see how they would be enforced. The size of the empire demanded multiple strong armies on the frontiers, and the distances meant that close family ties between the commanders was unlikely. A designated successor with an army was only going to be one of many.
IMO, what began to change things was the technology of war. Naval forces and trained armies with firearms were most effective, and these could not be raised through simple feudal levies or the hiring of mercenaries. A centralized army was needed, and this also required a comprehensive taxation system. The need for revenue in excess of what was available under feudal rules pulled power from the kings (and to parliament), but the nobility lost their military power base to revolt. The result was a monarch that was increasingly ceremonial, but also increasingly secure.
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.
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.
Quote from: ulmont on December 05, 2011, 06:08:10 PM
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.
All hail the 2nd US Republic!
Quote from: ulmont on December 05, 2011, 06:08:10 PM
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.
But the central government won.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:45:24 PM
Yes, I agree that it is a structural flaw inherent in the nature of that empire; but it need not have been. After all, the Empire had an institution - the Senate - that had lots of legitimacy; it is not obvious that this *had* to fail to restrain the generals.
The Senate had very little legitimacy even when the Empire started. Augustus actually spent a great deal of capital building it up because he needed it. And of course there was the Year of the Six Emperors where the Senate won a huge victory but soon discovered they had little credibility even inside the walls of Rome. People only supported them because they hated Maximinus Thrax so much.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 04:45:24 PM
Yes, I agree that it is a structural flaw inherent in the nature of that empire; but it need not have been. After all, the Empire had an institution - the Senate - that had lots of legitimacy; it is not obvious that this *had* to fail to restrain the generals.
The institutional weaknesses of the Senate was what gave rise to the Imperial system in the first place; at the various points it did try to reassert itself, it rarely had any useful impact.
The original structural flaw of the Empire was that the imperial office was an improvisation created by a singular man in unusual circumstances and was a bit of a constitutional cipher that never got properly filled out. An emperor commanded power and authority because he was the kind of man who could command such power and authority. There is a certain circularity about imperial power that explains its brittleness in the hands of any particular individual. The other critical weakness, already alluded to, is the difficulty of a single man administering such far-flung territories.
In the first and second centuries, the weaknesses didn't matter so much because the Empire really functioned as an huge horizontal coalition of semi-autonomous local elites, who derived their own prestige and power from managing the affairs of their local towns and cities. Imperial succession problems didn't bother them that much as long as the succession crisis didn't involve battles fought in their fields. At the same time, this system made it easier for a single emperor to run the show, because much of the Empire pretty much governed itself and the emperors could focus on external affairs and internal display.
Around the 230s, the rise of the Sassanids intesified the pressure on Rome's eastern frontier, and it appears that Rome responded by centralizing the finances of the empire - effectively depriving local control over locally-raised revenues while building up a the size of the imperial bureaucracy. What that meant was that provincial notables wanting to make a name for themselves steered away from local office (which brought burdens without much prestige or authority) in favor of seeking imperial office. The competition for imperial patronage intensified - but this could be a big problem in a widely dispersed empire where the emperor could be only in one place. If you were a Spaniard or Gaulish notable but the emperor and his court were busy away in Syria, your opportunities for high rank and patronage were limited. But if a "usurper" suddenly sets up shop in Lyon, all of sudden all sorts of new patronage opportunities open up - creating strong incentive for the local bigwigs to support the new guy. Thus, the seemingly odd phenomenon of the "Gaulish empire" of the 3d century where the "usurpers" were pretty much content to hang around in Gaul and not try to make good on the full panoply of imperial claims - they knew once they skipped town, their raison d'etre would diminish.
While the 3d century instability was a serious political annoyance, it wasn't a serious or fatal impact, as evidenced by the fact that the Empire continued to prosper and hold its own quite effectively against external enemies. The usurpers arguably served a useful service as acting as local poles of authority to cope with military crises at times when the de jure emperor was otherwise detained.
After some decent attemtps to solve this problem with various formal arrangements of co-emperorship, the eventual solution was to formally split the empire in two (and for the western emperor to base himself further north). This worked pretty well overall but it did depend on having a situation where both "sides" of the Empire were not simultaenously heavily pressed at once (so that neither could come to each others' aid). Unfortunately that situation didn't last.
Quote from: ulmont on December 05, 2011, 06:08:10 PM
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.
QuoteLet 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2011, 12:59:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2011, 06:04:43 PM
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.
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.