This is a thread just on why the Roman Empire HAD to be slow to innovate and incrasingly closed socially, and slowly lose both turf and cred, as it was OTL. It's partly a continuation of an earlier argument on this Archimedes Invents Gumpowder thread here, and partly a response to this new thread that throws down a gauntlet on the subject.
Most people don't know what a different records Republican Rome and Imperial Rome stacked up.
Let's start with the borders. I have Penguin's Atlases of Ancient and Medieval History, a series of maps by increasing date. While Republican Rome has its low points, like when Hannibal showed up, they don't last long overall, and you mostly see continued conquest, bwaha, and growth. The Empire, after a century or two of growth, begins to shrink, and stays that way except occasional temporary regainings of turf like in Justinian's time and moving around of the borders; it keeps shrinking until it's just Constantinople for awhile, then it's Istanbul, part of the Ottoman Empire, and bye-bye Roman Empire.
When it started, the Empire was tolerant as empires go, and at the top of the military game. At the end, it was as tolerant as the Taliban, and the city was lost by being ouinnovated getting cannon. That's no accident - smart conquerors and military innovators under the Republic were welcomed, and allowed to become powerful if successful, while pretty much every Kings and Emperor there's been and their high officials lived in fear of innovators overshadowing them and rarely let it happen. Virtually all Imperial novelty was started by Emperors, while Republican Rome gave alot of freedom to elite thinkers and innovators.
Though, even the early Empire already wasn't as good conquering things as the Republic. The Varus who lost Germany for the Empah seems to've won first his consulship too early, by being an Imperial crony rather than good; and gotten his governorship of Germany the same way. Not so many Republican-era proconsuls were stupid enough to lead their forces into forces into traps, where the opponents had so much advantage, like Varus in Germany. And, the Republic persisted and kept retrying almost indefinitely (MUST CONQUER WORLD!) even when it made these mistakes, especially in putting down rebellions from already-conquered turf like Varus was doing. Those inferiorities persisted to Empire's end.
So, where were we in our arguments from Archimedes? Ah, here:
Cornelius wrote:
Like so many other aspects of innovation, of course, you have to have alot of freedom of speech to have real historians. Most period historians ARE hopeless, as you say - either they've been courtiers who praised their subjects to the sky or were careful to praise every aristocrat living, and avoid any awkward truths. And, there've always been those who mostly wanted to sell books.
There's also a series of examples, including Archimides' catapults, the Wermacht's blitzkriegs, and, of course, the Early Roman Empire under argument here, which involve innovation while free, and then major use of those technologies by dictators. Then the innovation slows dramatically until some freedom returns.
Beyond those concessions, let's see anybody name three counterexamples.
Most people don't know what a different records Republican Rome and Imperial Rome stacked up.
Let's start with the borders. I have Penguin's Atlases of Ancient and Medieval History, a series of maps by increasing date. While Republican Rome has its low points, like when Hannibal showed up, they don't last long overall, and you mostly see continued conquest, bwaha, and growth. The Empire, after a century or two of growth, begins to shrink, and stays that way except occasional temporary regainings of turf like in Justinian's time and moving around of the borders; it keeps shrinking until it's just Constantinople for awhile, then it's Istanbul, part of the Ottoman Empire, and bye-bye Roman Empire.
When it started, the Empire was tolerant as empires go, and at the top of the military game. At the end, it was as tolerant as the Taliban, and the city was lost by being ouinnovated getting cannon. That's no accident - smart conquerors and military innovators under the Republic were welcomed, and allowed to become powerful if successful, while pretty much every Kings and Emperor there's been and their high officials lived in fear of innovators overshadowing them and rarely let it happen. Virtually all Imperial novelty was started by Emperors, while Republican Rome gave alot of freedom to elite thinkers and innovators.
Though, even the early Empire already wasn't as good conquering things as the Republic. The Varus who lost Germany for the Empah seems to've won first his consulship too early, by being an Imperial crony rather than good; and gotten his governorship of Germany the same way. Not so many Republican-era proconsuls were stupid enough to lead their forces into forces into traps, where the opponents had so much advantage, like Varus in Germany. And, the Republic persisted and kept retrying almost indefinitely (MUST CONQUER WORLD!) even when it made these mistakes, especially in putting down rebellions from already-conquered turf like Varus was doing. Those inferiorities persisted to Empire's end.
So, where were we in our arguments from Archimedes? Ah, here:
Cornelius wrote:
Not all classical ones did. The modern notion of evidence-driven history, in which participants in action are listened to or interviewed for evidence and point of view, seems to've been started by one Thucidydes of Athens in his famous and still-selling Peloponnesian War history. He had many intellectual successors who looked upon history similarly and were similarly disciplined about evidence, including this Polybius dude I brought up. Certainly, everybody's biased - Thucydides' was a Pericles supporter, Polybius' supported several Roman elites of his day, just as I'm an Obama supporter. That said, each of them was trying to pay attention to the best evidence available as a route to get closer to the truth, just as the better modern historians do.
Like so many other aspects of innovation, of course, you have to have alot of freedom of speech to have real historians. Most period historians ARE hopeless, as you say - either they've been courtiers who praised their subjects to the sky or were careful to praise every aristocrat living, and avoid any awkward truths. And, there've always been those who mostly wanted to sell books.
I concede that history shows multipolar balance is more important than freedom. The balanced-oligarchic Sparta beat the freer and more innovative, but politically unbalanced Athens. BUT, there's nothing balanced about monarchy or the Roman Empire.
There's also a series of examples, including Archimides' catapults, the Wermacht's blitzkriegs, and, of course, the Early Roman Empire under argument here, which involve innovation while free, and then major use of those technologies by dictators. Then the innovation slows dramatically until some freedom returns.
Beyond those concessions, let's see anybody name three counterexamples.
) and you don't consider the roman empire that free...