One of the best things that happened to me at the end of December was taken up a recommendation by Borepatch to listen to a podcast called The Fall of Rome. It is an informative, well done podcast by Patrick Wyman (who at one point makes gentle fun of himself for making "the bad life decision" to study Rome) who discusses the fall of the Roman Empire in a very approachable and interesting way. The episodes run about 35-45 minutes and make for an excellent sort of background for a workout session, allowing just enough attention that I can do what I am doing and still get the information from the podcast.
In one episode - I believe it was "Just How Screwed Up Was The Roman Empire" - he makes a note about the transition of the political process which, in his opinion, was a factor - perhaps a major one - in the political portion of the breakup of the Empire.
Prior to the beginning of the Fourth Century and the reign of Diocletian (reigned 284-305), the Emperor clung to the appearance of the being the First Citizen, not a ruler. Any citizen, in theory, had the right to appeal to the emperor (for those of you that are Christian, you will remember the Apostle Paul did this very thing). But with the advent of Diocletian and for a number of issues that had little to do inherently with personal aggrandizement, the relationship changed. The Emperor became a Lord, not an equal citizen, and was to be served unquestioningly. The bureaucracy expanded as well, from the relatively small group which comprised the Emperor's household to a much larger, full scale bureaucracy.
One of the senatorial classes that, in the older periods and through the early parts of the Empire that had contributed to the operation of it was the decuriones.. These were a local senatorial class which managed things such as public contracts and collected taxes. They also served to provide public entertainment and city improvements. At the initiation of the Republic and even the early Principate (early Empire) these were coveted positions and the decuriones would strive to outdo each other in constructions and celebrations. There was pride - great pride -in being recognized for one's contributions to one's city and thus, the Empire
This all changed under the aforementioned reign of Diocletian, where the role became primarily that of a tax collector instead of a civic administrator- and when the taxes fell short, the decuriones were expected to make up the difference. Suddenly being civically minded and serving was not a blessing but a curse.
Wyman's assertion is that this change in the role of the decuriones was one of the factors that broke the Empire. Previously they served to bind the Empire together both by their administrative functions as well as their civic support; they justified the Empire's rule by providing civic support to the local inhabitants. In a meaningful way, they were the Empire: the Emperor was far away, the decuriones were nearby and responsive. When the decuriones gave up, the pretense of civic attachment and pride of Romana failed as it was replaced by a strict and increasing Master/Servant relationship.
(This is a very cursory overview. Wyman does a much more thorough and better job.)
So why does this matter?
States (an administrative unit having territory and the power to direct their own destiny through policies and laws) exist as long as the people that live in them believe in them and build them up. The fact that people support the state through things like civic pride, patriotism, or ready and willing assent to its policies and procedures are the things that continue to allow the state to exist. Yes, states can and do exist by threat of force or the actual exercise thereof, but at best that makes for a state that will eventually collapse (although not, perhaps, in one's lifetime). States, like religion, philosophy, or lots of other things, are as much a construct of the mind as they are of the physical reality the exist in and if people stop believing in them, stopping believing that it is better to actively build them up and serve them, then the clock is starting to run down on them.
When groups of people no longer see the value in the state, nor the value of building the state up - not even the concept of tearing it down, just not the value of perpetuating - this is a sign that state has fundamental questions to consider about its need and purpose in existing.
When the state no longer supports you, and it actively engages against you, it is doomed to fail. The Chinese call it the "mandate of heaven", and I firmly believe that our state has failed to maintain the favor of the Gods. Which course does one now run, passive or active defiance? Is withdrawing from official civic life enough? How does one build around and outside the system, a system that is attempting to control every purchase, movement, communication, and even thought? I have a plan that can shield me from the gaze of the eye of Sauron, but it matters less than the collective response to the affront to liberty that must take place. Will western civilization be sacrificed on the alter of Molloch? Is western civilization worth saving? Is there a way to build an unofficial civil involvement that can withstand the snares of the enemies? This is a period of transition... for good or ill.
ReplyDeleteJust So - I am more familiar with The Mandate of Heaven in the Japanese setting than the Chinese, but the principal (as I understand it) was the same: the ruler was ultimately responsible for appeasing Heaven and thus setting the tone of its success or failure - and if a failure, then Heaven needed to be propitiated.
DeleteYou ask good questions that I need to ponder more, as they are questions that need to be discussed and answered. As an initial thrust, I would merely say that societies only work when all sides buy into them: those that benefit from the current regime or system and those that do not. When you have reached the point where either side only supports the society when they are in power and benefitting or that major groups see that solutions outside of the current paradigm than the current one, that society or state is doomed for failure. It is just a question of when.
In my view, there is no longer a left v right split, instead there is an elite v dirt people rift that can never be hemmed back together. The left and right populace may believe they are in an ideological tussle with the "other" but they are only being managed by the state which doesn't appreciate anything about the average American. They don't need us for votes, or money, or power. They do enjoy rubbing our noses in it.
DeleteJS, I do find it somewhat amusing that the Reds and Blues wane and wax in their support of the state based on if their party is in power rather than in the principles these parties espouse.
DeleteI would note that while they do not need us for votes (except periodically, of course), money (except to fund their projects), or power, they do need us because elites need someone to be elite over.
I'm sure there is lots of useful knowledge to be had by studying the Romans but that is one area of my history knowledge that is pretty weak. I think mostly that stems back from high school where every history class covered a section on the Romans, or so it seemed. I spend more time these days reading history of eras and populations that we didn't formally study in school.
ReplyDeleteEd, The Romans are fascinating but probably not presented as such to make them interesting - more of a "Hey, there was this big empire, had a lot of territory, expanded Christianity, fell apart, etc.". (The Byzantine Empire maybe gets a footnote). That is all true as a large swath, of course, and it probably also often suffers from the fact it is pointed to as the classic "End of Empires" scenario (plenty of other empires fell apart too, it is just the best known in the West). That said, the interest of Rome is its many different historical periods (no better to say it was a monolithic history than the US), its geographic reach, its technology (there are still concrete techniques we have not rediscovered), and the fact its language, its culture, and its ways are in so many ways built into all Western culture that we do not even really think about them.
DeleteIf you are the kind of person that likes something in the background when you work that you can pay a certain amount of attention to and still do something, I highly recommend the podcast. It is quite engaging.