![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SF has a notable anti-democratic trend, with Future! Space! Empires! with hereditary rulers and nobles. Asimov's Galactic Empires, Pournelle's CoDominium and Empire, Poul Anderson's empire. Often an empire falls, to be replaced by a second empire.
This hasn't been without rationalization. The usual line is that with poor communications, a feudal structure is good for long-range government. This never felt right, but I was thinking about it in the past day. Really... what? Europe's feudal realms were in rather smaller areas than the Roman Republic at its pre-Imperial height. Roman used pro-consuls and pro-praetors, so there was local autocracy, but appointed by the Senate, not hereditary. And why couldn't a democratic/republican federation handle the needed decentralization? Local governance, representatives sent to the capital. A bit like the early US, or the Commonwealth (though that has a weak Crown still, and had steamships and telegraphs relatively early.)
This hasn't been without rationalization. The usual line is that with poor communications, a feudal structure is good for long-range government. This never felt right, but I was thinking about it in the past day. Really... what? Europe's feudal realms were in rather smaller areas than the Roman Republic at its pre-Imperial height. Roman used pro-consuls and pro-praetors, so there was local autocracy, but appointed by the Senate, not hereditary. And why couldn't a democratic/republican federation handle the needed decentralization? Local governance, representatives sent to the capital. A bit like the early US, or the Commonwealth (though that has a weak Crown still, and had steamships and telegraphs relatively early.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 16:42 (UTC)From:The Republic never had any such system in practice. Every time anyone (e.g. the brothers Gracchus) tried to use representative leverage against the elite they were beaten down violently.
To be stable, the Empire had to progressively gain greater and greater control over a population increasingly disarmed and psychologically unable to take the initiative.
In reality, the development went more or less the other way.
... the potential Hellenstic scientific and industrial revolution was aborted.
...or at least, historians during the 19th and early 20th century used to think so. Take some time to read up on current research.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 17:23 (UTC)From:The Republic never had any such system in practice. Every time anyone (e.g. the brothers Gracchus) tried to use representative leverage against the elite they were beaten down violently.
Actually, both the radicalism and the murder of the Gracchi brothers were symptoms that the Republic was breaking down. Not so much that one brother was radical, and was murdered for it, but that both were, demonstrated the increasing inflexibility of the Republican system. Things would only get worse until they climaxed in the Civil Wars, with Augustus and Empire the denounement.
To be stable, the Empire had to progressively gain greater and greater control over a population increasingly disarmed and psychologically unable to take the initiative.
In reality, the development went more or less the other way.
No, that's untrue. Under the Republic and even the early Empire, there was a constant potential for Roman citizens, particularly senators, to take the initiative and attempt some reform or revolt. Under the Empire, the initiative moved to the army, and the army was increasingly professionalized and composed of non-Romans in part because the Emperor feared the political implications of large bodies of armed citizens. The fear was, of course, quite justified under the Imperial system.
... the potential Hellenstic scientific and industrial revolution was aborted.
...or at least, historians during the 19th and early 20th century used to think so. Take some time to read up on current research.
Recent research only emphasizes the degree of advancement of Hellenistic technology, and shows that they were even closer technologically to an industrial revolution than we previously assumed. The barriers were cultural, political and economic rather than technological.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 20:37 (UTC)From:More to the point, this was the Republican system.
constant potential for Roman citizens, particularly senators, to take the initiative and attempt some reform or revolt. Under the Empire, the initiative moved to the army
Which was under the leadership of the same class of aristocrats as before. For someone to revolt under the Republic, they had to have a combination of political, economic, and military leverage. This didn't change during the Empire.
army was increasingly professionalized and composed of non-Romans in part because the Emperor feared the political implications of large bodies of armed citizens.
Actually, during the early centuries of the Empire the army was largely professionalized, but from the 4th century on, the proportion of professional soldiers steadily decreased and the citizens of the provinces were expected to contribute to their own defense to a larger extent.
Throughout the history of the Roman legion, non-romans were a significant part of the military (nominally there were about the same number of non-roman auxiliaries as roman legionaries). The major changes of the late (Western) Empire was the switch to cavalry and that able non-roman officers were given better career opportunities. Both of these changes favored germanic citizens.
Recent research only emphasizes the degree of advancement of Hellenistic technology
And also highlights how the Empire carried on those traditions, and how the 'Dark Ages' weren't nearly as dark as previous generations of historians would have us believe.