the fall of the roman empire is such a fascinating, and surprisingly divisive, topic. enjoy the read and then pick up other works and it will feel like hearing the same story through a brand new lens. this may be part of the enduring curiosity with the roman republic and subsequent empire - it's so complicated and nuanced that you cannot simply distill it down to a single factor.
As great as that would be, it's well out of Devereaux's area of specialization; I don't think he'd feel like he could do that topic justice. If you look up his older series on farming, he notes in the introduction and in his addendum on rice farming that he's not as familiar with Chinese history.
He's referenced Andrade's work in the past, so that's actually a possibility, though I think he'd focus more on their military due to his focus and background.
E.g. I thought there were a lot of flaws in his early-war "NATO can't supply X, because Russia will threaten nukes" positions, as he completed ignored the obvious opposite "Russia can't escalate, because NATO will threaten nukes"
110% love his Roman-period deep dives though.
There's probably a smarter quip than me out there to the effect of "Great people share their brilliance on many matters, while the greatest speak on but a few."
Wasn't the standard model for how a nuclear war would start basically "if you escalate, the reasonable expectation is that the other side will escalate as well"? If you escalate despite the nukes on the other side, it would be risky to assume that the other side is unwilling to do the same.
If you escalate, you signal your intent to start a nuclear war if the other side does not back down. But if you are willing to do that, you should assume that the other side is equally willing. Otherwise why would they waste money on nuclear weapons if they are not prepared to use them?
Much of the cold war was basically figuring out what you are allowed to do in a proxy war, so that the other side still interprets your actions as a legitimate proxy war rather than escalation.
Inasmuch as I've read, and that's mostly 60s/70s stuff, most stable escalation theory is based on messaging and red lines.
I.e. identifying a future possibility and loudly proclaiming that if (and only if) it happens, then this nuclear action will take place (and stop there)
Essentially, trying to avoid surprise and uncertainty by tying specific actions to reactions, with the hope of avoiding runaway escalation-begats-escalation scenarios.
Which is notably the opposite of what Russia has been doing, which is more along the lines of "If the West pushes us too far... they're in for it", which is more the kind of bluff you'd make if you never intended to actually escalate (because you create the fear without establishing any requirements to escalate on yourself).
While the Cold War was still raging, Thomas Schelling, of 'Strategy of Conflict' fame, pointed out that while the war stays cold thanks to the 'mutually assured destruction' consensus, it would be an optimal strategy in terms of bang-for-your-buck to pretend to have many more nukes than you actually have.
Concretely, since no one ever wants to call your bluff and test your nuclear arsenal, it's natural to expect that unless there are strong countervailing pressures, one can expect that many nukes will be badly maintained and turn out to be duds.
Given what we learned about the state of the Russian armed forces since February 2022, it would not surprise me, if Russia barely had any working nuclear capabilities in practice.
(However they would still be dangerous enough. Even a nuclear payload that doesn't explode properly would still be a very dirty bomb.)
Without wanting to do any speculation how the current situation will ever end, but I always assumed that the first stage of nuclear escalation would be weapons tests - to exactly call this kind of bluff of the other side and to signal that the own side would be actually capable of performing a nuclear strike.
From what I know this was also what happened in the cold war - the nuclear threat back then was a lot more "palpable" than it is now, possibly because both blocks were already constantly launching nukes - they just weren't launching nukes at each other:
Yes. Though the test would only tell you that the other side has at least a few working nukes, not the proportion of working nukes.
(If a side could credibly commit to testing an unbiased (pseudo-) random sample of nukes, they would be able to convince the world that a large portion of their nukes work.
But I am not sure how you would do that without revealing all of your nukes?)
Spies exist. You never are sure how many the enemy has or what they are leaking - even if you do learn, that is a snapshot in time: tomorrow they may get another spy and then you are back. As such you are risking the enemy learns the nukes don't exist and then the whole thing fails.
We now have treaties to inspect each other's nukes. So unlike other things we have a good idea of what how many exist and are working - or at least a floor on the number (that is either side may decide to risk the treaty with secret nukes elsewhere. Between the potential of the program being discovered and the costs I doubt it, but I must allow this for completeness). As such it is generally believed that Russia's Nukes are in mostly in good shape - those who should know all seem to be acting like they are.
Official inspections can peek and poke the nukes a bit. But they can't really tell exactly how good the maintenance is. Similarly for a spy.
You are right that wholly non-existent nukes would be harder to fake. But covering up bad maintenance isn't quite so hard.
In your point's favour: Looking at the Russian military budget, they do seem to spend a lot on those nukes. Of course, funds could still be siphoned off. But having a big budget is at least necessary, even if not sufficient.
To be fair, it took a while for people to figure out how much MAD was still in play, since before the invasion most punditry thought Russia was bluffing and would never try to invade Kyiv with tanks, so what else had they gotten wrong?
If a shoe fits on one foot, it fits on the other too. Aka the "M".
The "Russia is a madman, but we're not" is... difficult to square logically and historically.
Beneath all the political and PR charades, during the Cold War the Soviet Union was generally as terrified of the West pre-emptively nuking them as vice versus.
Just speculating: I'm fairly sure Putin knows that the West won't do any nuclear first strikes.
But if he tries anything even remotely nuclear, the West would just annihilate his empire. And the West wouldn't even need to go nuclear.
(Especially if the West got serious and opened the money floodgates. I suspect even in the current state of the Ukrainian war, if they offered any Russian defector 100k USD and a new identity under a EU passport, they could meld away the Russian army fairly quickly.)
Russia would most likely also lose the tacit support of India and China, if the bear were to use nukes first.
Those who had access to classified information did not think Russia was bluffing. They are acting like they think MAD is still in play - while they are not talking and may have other reasons for acting like this, I think it is safe to assume MAD is in play.
Can you explain further? I see on his Wikipedia page:
"Since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the bombing of its energy infrastructure, Snyder has spoken and written widely on the history of Ukraine and its worldwide importance for democracy, on the disastrous geopolitical effects of the invasion, and on the need for other nations and individuals to stand for the protection of territory belonging to that state."
It seems like there's a ridiculous amount of time to sink into a single blog post.
So you're probably looking at mostly historians to be able to do something like what Devereaux puts out. The closest I could think of would be:
Derek Lowe
Neil deGrasse Tyson (when not playing for camera)
Adam Savage
Nigel Braun (NileRed)
Salman Khan
Dianna Cowern (Physics Girl)
Grant Sanderson (3Blue1Brown)
I think I’m almost out of this illness. Still sweating the fever but no migraines
Ive been reading a lot because that’s about the only thing I can do so I read the original Gallic wars from Julius Cesar and its funny because he’s painted like a bad guy today for becoming a dictator but the Senate was at that point so corrupt and inefficient and everyone hated it so he wasn’t the only one trying to get rid of democracy. Julius Caesar had actually been involved in four attempted coups before he got it done. And he was popular with the public even after his death so that makes sense
I’m sure a lot of here think of the Roman Empire almost obsessively. How bad is this turn toward extrémeme censorship and surveillance? At what point do people say to hell with it and bring back kingship?
I recently read Rubicon by Tom Holland, and honestly I came away from that book feeling like it's Sulla, not Caesar, who truly deserves the blame for the downfall of the Republic. Like yeah, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but that seal was broken decades earlier by Sulla. If Caesar hadn't done it, someone else would have because it was clear that there would be no real consequences as long as you could win the war. And then Sulla painted the town red with blood to get rid of his enemies. All the reforms in the world can't undo that kind of damage to the social fabric, or so I would think. I am admittedly not the most knowledgeable about this topic, but it really does seem like Sulla should get the blame that Caesar does.
Also, one thing that struck me about the Republic is that it worked right up until people stopped upholding the social norms that made it work. And while one might say the lesson is "make your system of government work without social norms", I wonder if such a thing is possible. Looking at the US government it seems damaged (not broken yet, at least) precisely because we have stopped upholding the social norms that made it work. This being despite the fact that the US constitution seems to be more robust than what the Romans had! It really makes me wonder if any form of government, no matter what, absolutely relies on social norms to work well (and breaks down when those norms do).
This is the conclusion I've come to. Societal decay causes nations with even the most solid foundations to topple. There's really no way around it.
A phrase to summarize the phenomenon is: "Politics is downstream from culture."
We focus too much on slapping bandaids on society through increasing bloat of government and adding more laws to the pile, when the real root of the problem is our culture is falling apart. No amount of laws is going to fix that.
I parallel it to medications. You get one illness, so you get prescribed a medication. But then that medication causes an unusual reaction with your body, so you're given another medication to fix that one. But that medication has adverse effects when taken in conjunction with the first one, so now you need to take another medication to fix that... and it continues until you have a daily ritual of popping 20 pills to solve a trivial health condition.
The US is taking way too many medications, and not going on the proper diet to solve its health issues. That can be said both literally, and in the metaphorical sense.
Heart disease fits the best. Your heart is dying, it can't pump blood properly. To compensate it tries to grow larger, it swells and you get a giant heart. At some point it collapses since the problem was that the heart was leaky or the arteries got clogged or the muscles has some issue etc, growing larger can compensate in the short term but eventually you die anyway.
So it is similar to how a government that tries to grab more power and become larger is a red flag for corruption or inefficiency. The problem isn't that it tries to grow, the problem is that it is corrupt and inefficient in the first place, the country is then dying no matter what.
Countries can be replaced however, and small governments are easier to replace than large ones, so ideally should fix the government before it grows too large and powerful to easily be replaced.
This is very poignant. I have come to similar conclusions w.r.t societal systems only last as long as the social norms continue - the actual legal framework and structure is secondary to the larger cultural imperatives that brought it about in the first place.
And as you say, history directly plays into the shift of possible actions by social elites/leaders. Once change starts, change itself can become as social norm and seen as acceptable by society at large (at least to a point in a given time period).
People, historically, have often had successful lives with social norms but no government (as we think of it), but never with a government and no social norms.
The entire civil war and times surrounding Marius and Sulla would make an amazing movie. Its a real shocker that Hollywood hasn't picked it up yet. Not that I trust Hollywood to make anything good anymore. I think Caesar gets alot of attention due to the way he was murdered. And it was the "end" of the Republic. You also have Marc Antony and Cleopatra in there, which is a good story.
"Time was when men could (so to speak) of a given man, by nourishing and decorating him with fit appliances, to the due pitch, make themselves a King, almost as the Bees do ... How such Ideals do realise themselves; and grow, wondrously, from amid the incongruous ever-fluctuating chaos of the Actual ... How they grow; and, after long stormy growth, bloom out mature, supreme; then quickly (for the blossom is brief) fall into decay; sorrowfully dwindle; and crumble down, or rush down, noisily or noiselessly disappearing."
Sulla often gets the opposite treatment because he retired from dictatorship, but it's important to keep in mind exactly the problems you raise. Mass murder causes stress to a society, regardless of intent.
My understanding was that Caesar represented the populares who championed the poor like the Gracchi brothers. By Caesar's time, the poor believed not only the Senate was beyond repair but were the primary reason for their poverty. Several attempted land reforms were blocked by the Senate who lived off their latifundium.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/latifundium
The populares welcomed Caesar and Augustus because they saw no other alternative. Sulla had effectively ended the office of the tribunes who represented the poor. From the essay below, A tribune couldn’t even guarantee his personal safety: the murder of the Gracchi brothers is the best example. This office itself was an outcome of the political compromise in the early Republic. Its seemingly supreme and sacrosanct power was based on the compromise, or to say, tolerance of the Senate. When the symbiotic relationship between the nobles and the commoners on the political stage of the early Republic collapsed after drastic economic changes, the compromise of the Senate automatically vanished, so it was only a matter of time to weaken the power of the tribunate. Thus, the Roman commoners must find new strength for their political struggles.https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125967046.pdf
In other words, the people will rise up if they believe the political class no longer represents them and are actually opposed to them. I see a parallel between the enslaved Carthaginians working the latifundium and all the immigrants our politicians want to bring in to "fix our economy." I believe this is playing with fire.
The question is not whether or not to bring in more immigrants. The agricultural industry already does so in large numbers, legality be damned, and the parallels to the latifundium are way stronger than, say, Facebook/Meta wanting to hire more people from India.
Ironically if we radically legalized immigration it'd make it harder for Big Ag to exploit migrant workers, since they'd have access to legal immigration and the protections therein. But that's assuming Big Ag doesn't do to that program what they did to the Bracero program back in the 70s.
I had a ton of time to kill in an airport recently, so for a little while I hung out at the end of the TSA line to let the confused passerby know that yes... this is the end of the line for peasants. Nobility goes over there. I think I did a much better job than the existing signage--branding sort of confuses the matter.
Had a lot of fun conversations with other peasants about whether this is the kind of privilege that the french revolution was fought over. The nobility didn't have as much time to stand around and water the seeds of revolution. Seemed fitting.
While being a King would be a lucrative profession, I have very few qualities that would be mandatory for success in that position.
I would still 100% support a more lean, highly qualified leadership versus a large pool of untalented career-driven nitwits which is what most western governments have to offer.
Point to Charlie Munger, whom I was critical of a few days ago, how is so much written on how the Roman Republic worked, without talking about the most basic of incentive structures that drove its citizens to work like no others in the first place - The Law of Twelve Tables? It gave every citizen property rights that were protected by the State. The system was _the_ get rich game for the common man (after Alexander replaced ancient Greece's Solonian Constitution with his Royal authority). Roman soldiers were citizens looking to make money, it was a so called army of merchants. Joining the empire was an attractive proposition because people saw an opportunity to break out of their own opportunity-poor regimes, so the model spread like wildfire, though obviously resisted by hereditary rulers who stood to lose their cozy positions.
And look! The problems started when the wealthy Senators started hoarding land in the aftermath of the Punic and Greek conquests. The Gracchi - land reform issues! Marius - land reform issues! Caesar - land reform issues!
Rhymes indeed. Caesar rode a popular wave of resentment to a system that was increasingly gamed by the powerful few, and it ultimately lead to power being captured by an even more concentrated body, the office of an emperor, Augustus, Caesar’s heir.
Isn’t this the exact thing we see in the USA where the economically disadvantaged seek solutions from the right whose policies aim to further concentrate wealth and opportunity?
This has the be the funniest trend to come out of Tiktok. My SO point blank asked me how many times I thought about the roman empire and I replied "I don't know, once or twice a week".
Little does she know we get a post from acoup every week!
my wife asked me and i said once per week. then she and my daughter cackled and asked me to repeat my answer and i knew i was about to become part of a trend so i refused. but isn't it fascinating how truly interested in the roman republic and emopire we are? people are coming up with theories about why this is the case but i'm not sure any of them resonate with me. i was always more of a greece person until i visited italy 7 years ago and i was thoroughly smitten.
> but isn't it fascinating how truly interested in the roman republic and emopire we are?
If you're in the US, how can you not be? It's everywhere! The fledgling US was desperately in need of authority and gravitas, so they essentially cosplayed as the inheritors of the ideals of Rome, and put that shit everywhere.
Why does Washington DC look the way it does? Why are there pillars and obelisks and domes and white marble everywhere? Why is there Latin on the money? Why does every US courthouse look like a Roman temple, and why is there a Roman goddess on it?
The trend is popular because it's laughing at men for being "nerdy", but I think it's sad how ignorant a lot of people in the US are for not knowing about or recognizing the absolutely enormous amounts of references to Rome that exists in modern US.
Europeans also have Latin on our money too. Our alphabet is the Latin alphabet.
They were still teaching primarily IN Latin at universities around the war of independence. Yes, you read that right, you spoke and read Latin as your primary learning language. The American universities copied the practice from their home countries.
Until the 1960s in the UK you had to know Latin to learn Medicine or Law. It was still taught in many schools, and I think has been having a resurgence.
I was taught Latin at school.
The Americans didn't cunningly adopt it to lend themselves legitimacy. It's as simple as the European settlers brought it with them. It was the culture of European intellectuals.
> Why does Washington DC look the way it does? Why are there pillars and obelisks and domes and white marble everywhere? Why is there Latin on the money? Why does every US courthouse look like a Roman temple, and why is there a Roman goddess on it?
This is all true for much or most of Europe, the West, and Western-affiliated countries. (Also, the marble in Rome, and Greece from whom the Romans took much of these styles) was generally painted, so not quite the austere white of DC.)
What is sort of curious to think about is that all these monuments really shouldn’t be white. They should be painted many colors especially the friezes. There were never temples with big empty rooms with a white marble statue either. Done in proper roman tradition the Lincoln memorial would be this imposing giant, fully painted, with a pile of gold and other offerings right there in the room along with regular insence burning fronted by local patrons.
Of course by the time europeans got into the rennaisance all these temples had been pilfered and regular repainting had ceased for centuries. So because of this huge misunderstanding, neoclassical architecture is always boring and beige despite us knowing better today.
For Catholicism it wasn't a "dress up" - it was the official religion of Rome in the last couple centuries, and the Catholic Church was the only main institution of (Western) Roman Empire surviving its fall.
My answer to my girlfriend was that I think about ancient Greece more often. Rome less. Greece was ahead of its time in philosophy and science. So many household names. Rome has a lot of political analogs to today though, which is what I find interesting about it.
Difference being Rome was an entity with government, military, etc. with which we can draw a lot of parallels to today, whereas Greece was more of a loose interconnection of cities that shape shifted over time. Both extremely interesting, of course.
I've never been asked this question, but I think I'd respond similarly. In fact, when I think of Rome, I think of Greece. They are nearly inseparable for me, but that's probably because my understanding of history is the history of western philosophy. You start with the Socratics, then read about the neo-platonist in Rome.
> Greece was ahead of its time in philosophy and science
And some would say that, philosophically, while we have the potential benefit of hindsight and therefore the opportunity to exceed the Greeks (you just need to crack open the right books), our typical modern, academic philosophy, is in many ways, inferior to it.
This is a strange comment because not only is academic philosophy built from the Greek tradition, but it is formalized. Maybe one can say it stagnated for centuries but I find it difficult to say that the work in the 20th century is inferior.
I wouldn't say that about comparing Hilbert to Pythagoras, and this is not putting down history of knowledge.
Just the awareness of the scientific method makes us far superior to the ancient Greeks. Many still doesn't follow it, but basically no Greek followed it and it really shows in their works.
For problems where the scientific method doesn't help however we probably aren't that much better than the ancient Greeks, maybe we are even inferior there.
For things where the scientific process doesn't help we have no objective way to conclude anything. Thus debates about topics like Abortion or Gun control where different rights and belief system exist in conflict with each other. Typically neither side will acknowledge the others position as having any validity, but if you can find someone in a different tradition that supports (or seems to support) your position you will say they are authoritative despite there being no objective fact in the first place.
One girl learning her dad and boyfriend are both history geeks who think about the Roman Empire all the time is not funny.
Hundreds of thousands of women realizing that unbeknownst to them ALL the men in their lives secretly think about the Roman Empire all the time is hilarious.
Of course, the more specific this phenomenon is, the funnier it is: all men think about history isn't fun. All men are thinking about the Roman Empire is pretty funny. All men are thinking about Pliny the Elder and none of the women in their lives had any idea much funnier.
This is classic benign violation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor#Benign_viola... The reason I think its a hit because it scales and its totally silly/fun/harmless, relatable beyond expectations, and a welcome distraction to the usual hellscape that is the internet in 2023.
---
So the next question is why is it happening, and I have two theories for this:
1. History is stranger than fiction. There's a lot of history geeks out there and there always have been. See stereotype about dads reading WWII books.
2. The Roman Empire is a gateway drug to history for a lot of people. And why not? It's a fascinating period full of whacky characters, and there's been so many movies/shows/plays/games about it that you probably already know enough to dive in and generally know to expect some togas and a dude shouting "I'm Spartacus."
Thanks, that explains it even better! Basically many women all over the world realized this 'weird' thing now together and that shared experience creates something magical.
For me, it's because it's true. I really do think about the roman empire all the time! and my wife couldn't believe it.
Most "trends" from TikTok are made up, stupid, fake, or highly exaggerated. This one is funny because it's actually kinda true for a LOT of people, and has nothing to do with TikTok.
Is it really that strange that people think about the Roman empire when things related to it are all around us? Even the white house is built to look Roman. Not to mention all the documentaries and games that touches on Roman stuff.
If you ask men how often they think about different manufacturing processes you will probably get similar numbers, or even higher, for the same reason.
I don't think it's funny because it's "strange". It's funny because it reminds people that they can have very different inner worlds to people they share their life with.
But people already know that? Everyone knows men and women think about very different things.
But I guess it is similar to the old meme where a woman worries why the guy is so distant that day and if he doesn't like her any longer, and the guy is just thinking hard about why his motorcycle isn't starting.
But that explains it: it is funny the first time you see it, but these differences aren't funny when you already are aware of them. Everything is a first to people. So I don't find it funny since I have seen similar things many times before and have grown tired of it, while others here finds it funny since it is new to them.
I find it interesting but for the diversity of “why”
I have an Italian American friend who weirdly into the Roman Empire, kind of in a weeb kind of way but he’s a tatted up (Roman Republic full back piece!) Army veteran who would Kimura my ass if I he sees this.
I have a friend just nerdy as shit and into history. He constantly talks about this podcast or that.
I have an ex-roommate / philosophy major, so it comes up a good bit.
I have a friend into Stoicism. Oddly not a philosophy major.
I have a friend rich in small arms, ammunition, and those rice ration buckets because we’re destined for a failure of the Republic as they had.
I have a friend with the same belief, except he just wants to fiddle so I’m pretty sure I won’t bother raiding his house if either of them are correct.
One might think that an individual who thinks about an empire that has been “dead” for nearly 1500 years is a bit strange. Why would anyone care about a dead empire, after all?
The reason why it’s funny is because of how common people say they do think about the Roman empire (which for me is also quite often). It’s subverting expectations— you think no one thinks about the Empire— in reality, all of your family and neighbors do think about the Empire on a regular basis.
> Why would anyone care about a dead empire, after all?
Because it isn't dead culturally.
When you see a medieval castle you think about medieval things, when you see Roman architecture you think of Roman things, and since you see Roman architecture all the time in the news, like every time they show the white house etc, it makes sense your brain thinks about the Romans now and then.
>> would it be funny if men asked women how often they think about celebrity relationships and drama?
No, that would be completely unsurprising to most men. Not funny. It would need to be something obvious to women and surprising to men, and surprising to women that it wasn't obvious to men. Then, yes it would be funny.
The other day I was in a party with my wife and my friends. In some moment, we (all men) were in a corner talking about comics, movies, sports. My wife was sitting nearby, and she could hear us for 30 minutes straight talking about the same topics. At the end of the party, she asked me how were my friends' kids, jobs and family. I had no clue. She laughed at me and said "Typical men. We women always ask for the family, the school, the kids, the life of her friends, you boys talk for hours and know nothing new about your friends".
For at least 4000 years... there's actually an old Sumerian joke about how men and women flatulate differently (IIRC it's not based on physical differences but on cultural expectations for men vs women).
In the time since then you may have stopped thinking about sex/gender differences, but most people haven't.
I personally wouldn't find your proposal funny, but it might be more well received if you asked men vs women a question like "How often do you think about Taylor Swift's relationship with John Meyer?". That would probably get more views on your tiktoks. IMO part of the humor is that women are so surprised that men frequently think about the Roman Empire [and republic], but for the men it's a matter of course.
> Since when is making fun of sexual dimorphism a thing?
Since at least the days of the Roman Empire!
> I thought we stopped doing that.
Hollywood would love you to think so, but no, human nature is unchanging. This trend is huge exactly because it reminds us that men and women are different, and humans have derived humor from that fact since the dawn of time.
Maybe with all that sudden interest, we'll get some progress on the "Rome Sweet Rome" movie. For context, and going by my memory, circa 12 years ago somebody on Reddit asked who would win, a bunch of Marines or the army of the Roman Empire; in response, one redditor wrote a short story about Marines being thrown back through time into the Roman era - it became viral (for ~2011 levels of "viral"), and the author ended up making a movie deal with some producers. I've been waiting for over a decade now for said movie to happen...
thanks for the reference. I mean i could have websearched around for a while, but i've been asking everyone that comments in my friends group, about this topic, and i'm getting "it was a trend" but not where or why it started.
when 1/8th of the planet knows about a trend and i'm out of the loop...
I was completely out of the loop as well, until my wife shot me a completely out of the blue text this morning asking me if I thought I could help land a plane in an emergency, and how often I thought about the Roman Empire. After I begged for context, she told me about the trend, and then about three minutes later I happened upon this thread and this comment chain was at the top lol.
Our release tool is called "Roderick", as-in the Monty Python "Life of Brian" sketch. TBH I don't think about the Roman Empire much apart from that, I mean, what did they ever do for us?
It's all about the Roman Empire and World War II. The other day, while I was taking my son to school, we were talking about the Maginot Line. He knows that story better than I do, even though my son is only 8 years old. But he likes history and yes, he has a nice illustrated book about Rome.
Most people self-identifying that they think about the Roman Empire don’t seem to know the difference between the Roman Republic & Roman Empire (much less the period of Kings)…it’s all just the Roman Empire.
If you want to get technical, the Roman Republic controlled provinces and ally states. Emperor was the title of a victorious general, and a notion of a "Roman Empire" is an artifact of modern scholarship.
I don’t think there’s much difference between our concept of empire and what Polybius called “ἀρχή” in his Histories (“dominion”, perhaps). He compares Rome to Persia and yes, some smaller states like Sparta, but it’s clearly in the context of acquiring and controlling large territories. That the Roman war machine had a particularly efficient and (for the most part) inclusive manner of absorbing territories doesn’t really change the nature of the resulting entity even if we use different words.
Any abstraction on concrete concepts of public administration across millennia (especially involving translations from ancient/dead languages) is very lossy.
> I don’t think there’s much difference between our concept of empire and what Polybius called “ἀρχή” in his Histories (“dominion”, perhaps)
Yes there is. You could write a doctorate thesis on the differences.
> That the Roman war machine had a particularly efficient and (for the most part) inclusive manner of absorbing territories doesn’t really change the nature of the resulting entity even if we use different words.
What is 'the Roman war machine'? How did it absorb territories? Which territory? Are we talking italic peninsula, client kingdoms, consular provinces or imperial dominions? From which time specifically? Efficiency is an entire topic in itself. The levels of corruption, the predatory nature of the tax collection enterprises (it was typically farmed out to private investors), were all very inefficient.
Saying Roman Empire and Persian (Seleucid?) Empire is a didactic simplification and I don't think there's any grounds to equating ἀρχή (which is also the root in archaic, archaeology, archetype, among others) to the modern concept of Empire or the the ancient concepts used in ancient polities to handle the intricacies of moving around troops, collecting taxes and dispensing justice across millions of square miles in Roman, Persian, or any Hellenistic state contemporary to Polybius for that matter.
Instead of getting into the weeds, let's rewind a bit. Do you believe the Roman Republic was ever in possession of something _we_ should recognise as an empire? You seemed to imply that you don't, so I'm interested in where our definition might fall short (and how would _you_ translate Polybius?) And then beyond that, what do you think is most interesting about how the Romans (or their subjects or enemies) perceived their many conquests and the vast territories that they acquired? What's the difference between their conception and ours? Genuine questions, hoping to learn!
I wouldn’t have thought so, but apparently even here on HN people aren’t familiar with the Period of the Kings, the Roman Republic & the Roman Empire. Ancient Rome is all just the Roman Republic.
HN really needs to add "No AI generated comments" to the site rules. I'm not interested in reading AI summaries in comments here; I come for actual discussion by real people.
I don't see how a short AI summary dissuades actual discussion by real people. If anything, it can lower the barrier to entry and encourage more people to comment and participate, especially for longform pieces.
