JCC Ancient / Medieval History Discussion Thread

Wocky, so it's like Orzammar in Dragon Age?

 

Well yes. Obviously principles like maintaining legitimacy are fundamental to any sort of viability. I was more trying to get at which specific systems seemed to achieve greater stability than others. What features, for instance, made the Egyptian experience of co-regency (in its period of autochthonous empire) such a successful one, while, as SkywalkerNumbers mentioned, it seemed to be decidedly more problematic for the Byzantines? Further, specifically because tradition was such an important factor, I think we can survey large enough periods of history to make judgments about systems in the abstract, free from some of the particular vicissitudes of the cultural and historical contexts in which they were most famously employed. Especially given that some level of cultural content is arbitrary to the discussion anyway (eg primogeniture endorsed by a polytheistic state religion isn't that appreciably different than primogeniture championed by Christianity).

 

Wasn't the emperor Pontifus Maximus? I understand a lot of religion in Rome was more civic than anything, at least that's what I've gathered from the Cicero novels.

By the way, has anyone read them? They're by Robert Harrus and they're fantastic.

 

Speaking of the Byzantine Empire, I found that during one seven year period from 924-931 there were five co-emperors; Constantine VII, his father-in-law Romanos I, and Romano's three sons and Constantine's brothers-in-law Christopher, Stephen and Constantine.

Constantine VII succeeded his father Leo VI, but Romanos arranged the Emperor's marriage to his daughter Helena and then used his new status to have himself crowned co-Emperor in December 920 just before Constantine VII reached his majority. Christopher was named Caesar in 921; Stephen and Constantine Lekapenos were proclaimed Caesars in 924. However, Romanos I maintained Constantine VII's rank in the hierarchy of rule over his own sons.

Christopher died in 931. Stephen and Constantine forced their father's abdication in 944, but when they tried to overthrow Constantine VII, the citzens of Constantinople rallied to the Emperor and the brothers were likewise forced to abdicate.

As far as I can tell, this group of five was the largest group of Emperors at any point in Byzantine history. I think that this is a good example of why, as GrandAdmiralJello has pointed out, the Byzantine Empire had so many problems in the highest levels of power. I would add, however, that while the army was central in putting and removing rulers from the throne in both East and West, there were still times when rulers secured the throne through other means, as demonstrated here.

 

I've read Imperium, but not Conspirata. Has the third book even been released yet? I keep hearing rumors about release dates being set, but nothing has happened.

Imperium was pretty good, especially the first part centering around Gaius Verres' trial.

 

John IV was blinded on his 11th birthday? Yikes.

 

Lustrum The real title for the second book, is worth a read. Julius Caesar has a much bigger role. Haven't heard anything about a release date for the third one, though Wikipedia would have s believe its out later the year. I think it should be called Libertias.

 

Conspirata was the title for release here in the United States. Wonder why it was changed for the US and Italy.

 

Harris writes political thrillers, and as the novels are from the POV of Cicero's private secretary Tiro they focus on these aspects, not so much the biographical details and he skims over things at times.

I loved the Verres trial, I wanted to jump up and cheer when Cicero said "Romans are free men!"

Edit: Not sure about the change, it might be because Lustrum is also an obscure English word meaning a period of five years. It's much more appropriate than Conspirata, which I think suits the third novel more as I naturally assume its going to involve the death of Julius Caesar.

Anyone care for a spinoff amph thread on Cicero trilogy?

 

Colleen MCCullough is awesome - she sets the gold standard for historical fiction research. My favourite historical author is Alison Weir who focuses primarily on 16th and 17th century England.

 

Makes sense. It's been two years since I played the game.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Lustrum?s=t
Yes, it is from Latin but the word is also English.

 

If you make that argument about loan words, you could say that about the entire English language.

 

Well, I think this may be where the confusion is. I'm not advancing a theory that political stability is entirely dependent upon the form of government. I do believe that the form of government (or more precisely, the form of succession within that government, since that's the separate issue we're actually raising) can influence political stability. That is, for a given political entity, some forms are relatively better at promoting stability, and some are relatively worse. I would also tentatively say that overall, some forms of succession trends towards promoting stability in any culture, and some tend to be less apt at this task, again regardless of the culture in question.

I would certainly agree with you that this case you've highlighted is an excellent demonstration of the problem. I'd also use it to a hazard a theory about the distinction between Byzantine and Egyptian co-regency. Because, in truth, there was minimal to no special religious justification for this system in the New Kingdom. However, the co-regencies were virtually exclusively set-up between blood relatives, and always in the style of a clearly aging and outgoing Pharoah serving as co-regent with their chosen successor. In this situation sabotaging one's co-regent was always against one's own self-interest. The combined effort led to continuity in the temperament and staffing of the royal administration. Much like the apprenticeship model of learning trades, it could work as a very conscious opportunity for supervised learning and gradual development into the role of ruler. By contrast, the later Byzantine co-regency was an opportunity to wrest political power from potential opponents.

Does this explain all of the difference between the success of the two systems? Probably not. But I find this a plausible suggestion. I also think it's a good demonstration of the way the structure of the succession can influence its results.

 

Well very good. So on that basis I think we could all agree that what might be termed "transitional co-regency" (what was used in Egypt, and pre-Caligula Rome) is a better model than ummm. . ."functional co-regency?" I'm wondering what sort of distinctions can be made between other contrasting set-ups.

 

I like to read/watch about the Crusades. They seem interesting to me.