Very much. The idea is vehiculated in late republican philosophy, so it´s nothing strange, Roman realpolitik just never moved in that direction. Given Confucian influences and emperors pushing them, meritocracy should find better conditions in the Roman Empire than it had encountered in the China of antiquity or the early middle ages, so if it became a thing there, I totally don`t see why it wouldn`t in Rome.
An important problem with the Confucian meritocracy is that people were rewarded for memorizations skill rather than leadership or management abilities, will and how will the Romans avoid it?
I hope G. Washington_Fuckyeah doesn`t find a way for the Romans to avoid it because that would be rather un-Roman and anachronistic. From our modern didactical and cognitive perspective, rote learning and memorization are rightfully branded as bad predictors for good administration and governance. But given the (virtually non-existing) knowledge that these societies had about the nature of learning, competencies, flexible skills, attitudes etc., I would say memorization skills are not soooo bad. They correlate strongly with general cognitive abilities, and good general cognitive abilities are certainly better predictors for good administrative work than familial descent, amount of property or size of client network.
Having the Romans adopt something that`s a better predictor is asking too much. Given Roman emphasis on rhetorical and grammatical skills and their new-found fondness of Confucius and Buddhism, a canon of texts and skills which should be applied to them seems to suggest itself...
An important problem with the Confucian meritocracy is that people were rewarded for memorizations skill rather than leadership or management abilities, will and how will the Romans avoid it?
Having the Romans adopt something that`s a better predictor is asking too much. Given Roman emphasis on rhetorical and grammatical skills and their new-found fondness of Confucius and Buddhism, a canon of texts and skills which should be applied to them seems to suggest itself...
I'm not yet sure how the Roman meritocratic system will look like. What was implemented until now (Xiaolian, Marcus Lollius) is a system of recommendation letters. The emperors asks his officials/members of the local elite for appropriate candidates, and they'll name them. In this system, personal relationships are still very important (more important than individual skill), and corruption is possible at every level.
Later on, the emperors will try to find good candidates without having to trust the corrupt elites. Examinations are one possibility - and has Salvador explained it, memorization isn't strange to the Romans and not the worst method to find persons with intellectual skills. Also, a good memory is much harder to buy than a recommendation letter written by an underpaid public servant. However, I don't think that Buddhist texts would be included in the imperial examinations - Confucianism, Stoicism and neo-Platonism are better candidates.
Another possibility is a distinc ministry of inspection/ministry of control, supervising officials and their administration. On the basis of the report of its inspectors, the ministry (or Censorate as the Chinese called it) will then recommend to promote, demote, dismiss or prosecute an official. But such an inspection can be combined with the Examinations - each official has to pass an examen to start his career, and after that, the ministry will decide if he'll be promoted.
=====
Caput Quartus Decimus: Matters Of Trade
After a decade of fighting, peace had returned to the empire. The short, but violent period, which was later called Crisis of the Ten Years, was over. Victories on the borders had repulsed Germanic tribes and Parthian armies; in Hibernia and Sarmatia, new provinces were formed for the glory of the Roman Empire; the government's flaws were cured by the Lollian Reforms, though in fact a work of his successor.
In these times, Didius Julianus was corrector of Mesene. His tasks was to give new heart to the region, and his means were mediocre. With few money, he had to revive the trade with Asia, essential for the Roman economy; he had to reimburse the merchants gone bankrupt during the war; he had to provide funds to the others, since everybody feared to loose everything in the case of a sinking.
Most importantly, he had to rebuild the Roman fleet in the Persian Gulf, the Classis Persica, to protect the vanishing trade against further attacks. Indeed, piracy raged in the Indian Ocean, threatening both the trade from Mesopotamia and from Egypt, even if Egypt hadn't been affected by the Parthian war.
In this situation, the financial expert Julianus developed a scheme to rebuild the eastern fleet and enlarge his own fortune, following Cato the Elder's example. Like this ancient censor, he required shipowners in need of funds (to finance mercantile expeditions or fearing financial ruin in case of a shipwreck) to form a company of merchants (sodalitas mercatorum): The so-called Indian Company.
The capital of the Indian Company was permanent, so that members of the company (i. e. shareholders) wanting to leave it had to sell their share to do so. Roman law allowed sodalitates to make for themselves any rule that they wished, provided that they impaired no part of the public law [1].
The statutes of the company provided that the central institution was the general assembly of shareholders (conventus); the minimal share was of 200 sesterces, those with a share of nominal value of less than 1000 sesterces were non-managing members, only receivig dividends; however, those with a deposit of 1000 sesterces and more could take part in the conventus and had one vote for thousand sesterces.
The conventus meat regularly to elect the quinquennales (the leading committee acting for five years), to modify the statutes of the company and to decide everything else proposed to the conventus by the officials of the company. [2] Julianus himself took a share in the company, using his own fortune, and, illegally, public money. He became sponsor (patronus) of the company, connecting it to the Roman authorities; later on, the governor of Babylonia was patronus of the company by virtue of his office.
The company not only owned merchantmen, but also hired mercenaries (archers and marines) and maintained squadrons of triremes patrolling on the coasts and major trade routes. The whole operation proved to be well conceived, the mercantile expeditions being an instant success. The profits of the shareholders, and most importantly, of Julianus were large. He could pay back the public money and had reconstructed an efficient Classis Persica, even though it was under the control of the company.
The company should be a benediction for the empire's economy, since it concentrated the traders' capital and avoided competition between Romans. The formation of the Indian Company revitalized the eastern trade, because financial security of the shareholders was not imperiled, but only a small part of it.
The permanent capital rule ensured that the company would stay united; in former times, Roman merchants joined their capital to fund mercantile expeditions, but the associations dissolved after the voyage and had their capital liquidated. However, this time, a real joint-stock company was formed and soon dominated the Mesopotamian trade with India, forcing individual merchants either to join the company or go bankrupt.
On the now protected trade routes, maritime traffic intensified, as did cultural and technological transfer between the east and the west. After five years as corrector of Mesene, integrated in the province of Babylon, Didius Julianus returned to Rome as a wealthy man and was rewarded for his obvious achievements with the consulship of 928 AUC [3].
[1] Law of the Twelve Tables (449 BCE), Table VIII, 27: “These members of a sodalitas shall have the power to make for themselves any rule that they may wish provided that they impair no part of the public law.”
[2] Roman collegia and sodalitates, most of them with a religious purpose, worked this way.
[3] 175 CE
I notice that the reference to "crisis of the second century," presumably from the historiography of centuries far in the future, implies that at some point the Empire will adopt a new Common Era superseding the Roman "since the founding of the City" and any other eras. OTL this was an eventual consequence of the near-universal dominance of Christianity, of just a few specific cults of it at that, in the west. The (miscalculated) date of the birth of Jesus serves as the datum.
It would seem then that the widespread institution of Buddhism would explain a parallel development--although again I point to fundamental issues of doctrine. In OTL Christian orthodoxy, the coming of Christ represents a profound and universal transformation of the human condition, a veritable new age, and dating from it seems compelling to Christian believers. But Buddhism does not hold that the universe was transformed by the incarnation of Jesus nor even of Gautama; the Buddha merely discovered and taught truths that had been true all along.
So, Buddhism does not particularly compel the adoption of a new common era based on its own cult. It may allow such a thing, but the time of Gautama was long before the time of Christ by some centuries. Our dialogs seem to have established that the phenomenon of Christian-Buddhist syncretism was a fleeting and regional thing, and the big transformation of the Empire as a whole is the adoption of Buddhism as such, not a Christo-Buddhist synthesis.
In short, the Empire is not plausibly going to adopt the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, however calculated, as its year One. If they went with some estimate of the birth, or more likely Enlightenment, of Gautama they'd be starting Roman Imperial history with a century much later than the First or even Second. By the time the new calendar is developed and adopted it would be retroactively entering a much later than second century.
The most plausible reconciliation I can see is that the new calendar seeks to commemorate the foundation of the Roman Empire, under Augustus Caesar; that puts its datum year somewhere near the OTL estimate of the birth of Christ, by coincidence.
That said, I don't see why they would not instead simply continue to use AUC. I gather that in the early Imperial centuries OTL, they only sometimes made reference to this rather esoteric date. But with the rising desire to establish a universal and permanent calendar I don't see any major ideological reason not to just emphasize AUC more and more.
I suppose appealing to the old Republic might perhaps pose some sort of ideological threat to the despotism of the Emperors, but certainly part of Rome's claims to legitimacy involved invoking continuity with the old Republic, and I don't think Republicanism will form the basis of effective opposition to Imperial order by anybody.
Unfortunately not. Perhaps I shouldn´t have brought it up with such sweeping convcition. It´s just something I remember from my Latin classes, which were really long ago, and I know our teacher named the authors, but I don`t know them anymore. A few quick attempts of mine to dig it up on the web maybe were fruitless. So I guess I should take back that statement, sorry.
A very interesting and well done timeline. Just a few major questions or comments form my side.
The Map of Mesopotamia
Why do you believe, that your map is close to Trajans borders? Actually we got no clue about Trajans borders. All maps you find in the internet are drawn by modern historians based on the few very vague sources we got. All known maps are more speculation than evidence. As far as I know:
1. There was a province of Mesopotamia. Most probably North Mesopotamia pretty much the area of the later provinces Osroene and Mesopotamia implemented by Septimus Severus.
2. Southeast of it, we have the syrian desert with the city of Hatra, which was never conquered by any roman. Just leave Hatra alone. They will cut a deal sooner or later.
3. Central Mesopotamia is the area south of the desert with the capital Ctesiphon. Trajan implemented a parthian client king over there.
4. In the very south we got Characene / Mesene. Pretty much like you have drawn it.
5. There is just one short mention of a province named Assyria. And this from a rather unreliable source of the 6th century. Probably such a province never existed. Of course Trajan marched from Armenia to Ctesiphon an therefore he had to cross Media; at least Media Adiabadene. Perhaps this became a province. But in this case it does not reach that far south.
Rivers do not make good borders as already mentioned. And this general wisdom is very true in Mesopotamia. I would draw the borders of Mesopotamia as follows:
Northwest: the border of the province Syria
Southwest: the arabian desert beyond the Euphrat
Northeast: the Zhagros Mountains beyond the Tigris
South: Your border of Mesene looks very reasonable
Now I would look for a reasonable border south of Hatra to cut Mesopotamia into two pieces. I would call them Mesopotamia inferior and superior. But Mesopotamia and Babylonia sounds reasonable too.
Roman taxes
Why do you believe, that roman dealers should not pay taxes? Roman dealers payed a lot of taxes, all over the empire. Romans were just exempt of the head tax, which was anyways next to nothing for a wealthy trader. Traders mainly paid sales tax (2-5%) at regional borders and the 25% import tax at the borders of the empire. So the roman traders dealing with India have to pay this 25% plus harbor fees and other local taxes of the local cities as usual. Like they already did in the egyptian harbours. And they pay of course land tax, if they buy land, which is not ager quiritus (Italy and a few colonies with ius italicum). And don't forget the inheritance tax which is for romans only.
There is no reason for a roman emperor to privilege roman traders. But every reason to milk them as usual since centuries. You have to tax the dealers onsite via sales tax. If not they perhaps pay no tax at all, because there is no income tax in roman times. And the officials of Mesene are a kind of "dealer aristocracy" and very experienced in milking dealers. I expect, that the romans just let these guys do their job as usual and enjoy the huge annual tribute.
Media, Susiana and Persis
I fully agree, that it does not make sense to provincialize the entire former empire of Alexander. Mesopotamia plus Armenia is perhaps already more than the romans can manage without overstretching.
But it is not enough to break the power of the parthian King of Kings. To get rid of this threat you have to desintegrate his empire. Therefore a campaign into Media, Susiana and Persis is needed in order to implement multiple independent client kings over there. In the future the diplomatic challenge is, to avoid, that one of these kings, plus the parthian king in Parthia ever becomes too strong and re-unites the eastern empire. This strategy is very obvious for every roman. It is called: divide et impera.
Britannia and its legions
I never understood, why this small island, with a very short border (Hadrians Wall) had that many legions plus an overproportional number of auxilia. The few Picts are not reason enough. German piracy was no problem until the 3rd century. Piracy was the responsibility of the governor of Germanria Inferior anyways. And I can't believe in serious irish piracy these days.
So there are just 2 logical reasons for that many units: The Brits themselves were not that peaceful and romanized as the imperial propaganda told us. Or the emperor thought, that it is a good idea to park some reserve units, far away from Rome. Too far to usurp. Man he was soo wrong.
So conquering and romanizing both islands once and forever is the right way. But as you already mentioned, I would not expect less troops onsite soon.
Meritocracy
I like this idea. I guess the imperial romans acted already somewhat meritocratic. They could have developed it further even without the influnce of Confucianism.
Actually, it does not make a huge difference, if you are born in an equestrian or senatorial family. The education /preparation in terms of experience in military and governement was lousy for both careers.
I like the idea Constantine implemented, where you can easily move up the social ladder by experience, loyality and performance in military and/or civil administrateion. Of course the rise of rather uneducated high officers ex caliga was a bit too much and rather detriemental.
Governabilty
I still have doubts, that such a huge empire is governable. I like the idea of centralism, because I am convinced, that centralism was one of the key success factors of the roman empire. So division leads to nothing than civil wars and long term separation.
But I still have no good idea, how to manage such a huge empire, without a lot of usurpation and civil wars.
I notice that the reference to "crisis of the second century," presumably from the historiography of centuries far in the future, implies that at some point the Empire will adopt a new Common Era superseding the Roman "since the founding of the City" and any other eras. OTL this was an eventual consequence of the near-universal dominance of Christianity, of just a few specific cults of it at that, in the west. The (miscalculated) date of the birth of Jesus serves as the datum.
Changed that - it was a mistake. The Romans will continue to use the names of their consuls for some time, then maybe the years of the reign of the current emperor, and for historical purposes AUC. Without Christianity, AD and CE will never rise to prominence.
I suppose appealing to the old Republic might perhaps pose some sort of ideological threat to the despotism of the Emperors, but certainly part of Rome's claims to legitimacy involved invoking continuity with the old Republic, and I don't think Republicanism will form the basis of effective opposition to Imperial order by anybody.
The old Republic was invoked by every emperor, even by Justinian's code. The Roman Emperors liked to put emphasis on people's sovereignty - in the sense that the Roman people has conferred on the emperor all its power, which was a pretty good legitimization for Roman absolutism, legitimization that could be used to overrule votes of the Senate for example.
Unfortunately not. Perhaps I shouldn´t have brought it up with such sweeping convcition. It´s just something I remember from my Latin classes, which were really long ago, and I know our teacher named the authors, but I don`t know them anymore. A few quick attempts of mine to dig it up on the web maybe were fruitless. So I guess I should take back that statement, sorry.
Luckily, good old GW has a book about political thought of the Romans. I suppose that by "late republic", your memory meant M. Tullius Cicero. So I checked the chapters about him, but found nothing that is really "meritocratic" in the sense modern people understand it.
Cicero was an aristocrat (he claimed to support a mixed constitution, but even in his writings he admits that aristocracy should be more important than monarchy or ... democracy). Aristocrats thought that only a few citizens were able to govern (the others having not the needed intellectual capabilities), and that, additionally, only a few citizen were able to distinguish the capable ones. This looks like meritocracy, but I doubt that Cicero would've changed much in the designation of Roman leaders.
However, he defended the rights of the people (like the tribunes of the plebs) because he was convinced that aristocracy as to be tempered by democracy - but only a bit.
Why do you believe, that your map is close to Trajans borders? Actually we got no clue about Trajans borders. All maps you find in the internet are drawn by modern historians based on the few very vague sources we got. All known maps are more speculation than evidence.
1. There was a province of Mesopotamia. Most probably North Mesopotamia pretty much the area of the later provinces Osroene and Mesopotamia implemented by Septimus Severus.
2. Southeast of it, we have the syrian desert with the city of Hatra, which was never conquered by any roman. Just leave Hatra alone. They will cut a deal sooner or later.
The year is 170 AD. The Orient is entireley occupied by the Romans. Well, not entirely... One small village of indomitable Mesopotamians still holds out against the invaders. And life is not easy for the Roman legionaries who garrrison the fortified camps of Totorum, Aquarium, Laudanum and Compendium.....
You know what I mean? Sooner or later they will be integrated, and I'll not draw a new map for every "Marktflecken" submitting to the Empire. Just assume that in the first map, Hatra is still independent and was conquered later on.
Good old Partha...somewhat. The Parthians didn't support him in OTL, maybe because of his awful name I my TL, they aren't supporting him either - instead, they directly get Roman rule.
5. There is just one short mention of a province named Assyria. And this from a rather unreliable source of the 6th century. Probably such a province never existed. Of course Trajan marched from Armenia to Ctesiphon an therefore he had to cross Media; at least Media Adiabadene. Perhaps this became a province. But in this case it does not reach that far south.
I think you already mentionned that one year ago when I wrote Optimus Princeps. You have an advantage, since no Roman author mentions the province of Assyria. But Trajan's biographer, Cassius Dio, doesn't seem to mention Mesopotamia either (I quickly checked his chapter on Trajan's life).
So why did I include a province named Assyria?
Because I think a Roman emperor would've established one. In Gaul, the Roman provinces followed the three cultural areas named by Caesar: Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica. And the borders of these areas were the Garonne, the Loire and the Seine. So if the Romans used a river as a border once, why shouldn't they do it a second time?
Another argument: Klaudius Ptolemaios, who lived in the 2nd century CE (just after Trajan) wrote a book about geography - the world's first atlas. The cities mentionned in the atlas are ordered by regions, and the regions are drawn on the maps with their names and their borders. Within the Roman Empire, these regions and their borders follow the Roman provinces and their borders. Outside of the Roman Empire, Ptolemaios divided Mesopotamia into three regions: Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Assyria. This means that ancient people regarded these regions as the main divions of Mesopotamia, and maybe Ptolemaios followed the borders of Trajan's provinces.
So when I drew the map of Roman Mesopotamia, I did what the Roman usually did and followed cultural areas. Furthermore, I used geographic knowledge available to them. You can argue that my provinces aren't optimal administrative divisions, but Gallia Lugdunensis or Creta and Cyrenaica weren't ideal either.
I don't see why a Roman Emperor wouldn't follow this pattern. But feel free to criticize me. If you want I get the edition of Ptolemy' geography I used, just if you want to control that I followed his borders.
But, interesting enough, ancient (Gaulish rivers etc.) and modern people (the Rhine: border between France and Germany, the Oder: border between Germany and Poland etc.) love to use rivers as borders. Maybe because it looks better on maps. And I understand them.
Why do you believe, that roman dealers should not pay taxes? Roman dealers payed a lot of taxes, all over the empire. Romans were just exempt of the head tax, which was anyways next to nothing for a wealthy trader. Traders mainly paid sales tax (2-5%) at regional borders and the 25% import tax at the borders of the empire. So the roman traders dealing with India have to pay this 25% plus harbor fees and other local taxes of the local cities as usual. Like they already did in the egyptian harbours. And they pay of course land tax, if they buy land, which is not ager quiritus (Italy and a few colonies with ius italicum). And don't forget the inheritance tax which is for romans only.
Were did I write that traders pay no taxes? As you mentionned it, Mesene (and now the Roman province of Babylonia, since Mesene was integrated by Didius Julianus) is tariffing the trade.
But it's true that Roman citizens paid no direct taxes. They paid indirect ones, like the inheritance tax.
I fully agree, that it does not make sense to provincialize the entire former empire of Alexander. Mesopotamia plus Armenia is perhaps already more than the romans can manage without overstretching.
But it is not enough to break the power of the parthian King of Kings. To get rid of this threat you have to desintegrate his empire. Therefore a campaign into Media, Susiana and Persis is needed in order to implement multiple independent client kings over there. In the future the diplomatic challenge is, to avoid, that one of these kings, plus the parthian king in Parthia ever becomes too strong and re-unites the eastern empire. This strategy is very obvious for every roman. It is called: divide et impera.
The Romans waged to wars so far against Parthia. The first one under Trajan and Quietus, ending with the conquest of Mesopotamia, Assyria, Babylonia, Armenia, Mesene. The second one under Lollius to defend the provinces against a Parthian aggression. Until now, they simply had no opportunity to divide Persia into little states like you suggest it.
In the future, when they have adopted meritocracy and fixed their administration, they will maybe conduct a third Parthian War to destroy Parthia completly.
But if Parthia is destroyed, the empires east of Parthia (like the Guptas) will maybe expand to the west.
Britannia and its legions
So conquering and romanizing both islands once and forever is the right way. But as you already mentioned, I would not expect less troops onsite soon.
Yup. It's about pacifying and assimilating the Celts of Britannia, Caledonia and Hibernia and it will take one additional century. It will free up three legions after 300 CE, though. That isn't nothing.
I like this idea. I guess the imperial romans acted already somewhat meritocratic. They could have developed it further even without the influnce of Confucianism.
Actually, it does not make a huge difference, if you are born in an equestrian or senatorial family. The education /preparation in terms of experience in military and governement was lousy for both careers.
I like the idea Constantine implemented, where you can easily move up the social ladder by experience, loyality and performance in military and/or civil administrateion. Of course the rise of rather uneducated high officers ex caliga was a bit too much and rather detriemental.
I still have doubts, that such a huge empire is governable. I like the idea of centralism, because I am convinced, that centralism was one of the key success factors of the roman empire. So division leads to nothing than civil wars and long term separation.
But I still have no good idea, how to manage such a huge empire, without a lot of usurpation and civil wars.
And I'll try to get some elements of Tang (and Han) government adapted to Roman politics.
=====
Synopsis: The Adoptive Emperors Nerva: 96 – 98 CE
Marcus Cocceius Nerva was already an important politician under Nero, Vespasian and Domitian and was elected emperor by the Senate because of his age and his childlessness. During his short reign, Nerva had to fight against the opposition of the Praetorian Guard and against the financial problems of the empire. Nerva is remembered for his generosity, his liberalism and the system of the alimenta.
Trajan: 98 – 117 CE
After a dynasty of Roman aristocrats and a family of Italic ones, Trajan was the first emperor of Hispanic origin. He was adopted by Nerva to prevent further turmoil within the army, and became emperor after the latter's death. Trajan, proclaimed Best Emperor (optimus Princeps), extended Nerva's social welfare program and respected the republican liberties of the senators. As for the rest, he was a very belligerent emperor, laying down the foundation of Roman power in the east. Trajan slightly favored centralization by appointing curatores civitates to oversee the finances of some cities. The reign of Trajan saw the provinces of Arabia Petraea and Dacia gained.
Lusius Quietus: 117 CE – 136 CE
Surprisingly appointed emperor instead of Trajan's favorite Hadrian, Lusius Quietus, a Moorish general and former consul lead the war in the east, ending with the conquest of Mesopotamia. In his last years he directed the offensives in northern Europe against Celtic tribes. Lollius somewhat favored Meritocracy. The reign of Lusius Quietus saw the provinces of Armenia, Assyria, Babylonia, Caledonia, Hibernia and Mesopotamia gained.
Quintus: 136 CE – 163 CE
A Berber like Quietus, Quintus was married first to Quietus' daughter, then to Faustina Maior, a relative of Trajan. Quintus' reign is remembered for the growing influence of Buddhism and Chinese philosophy of the Roman culture, as well as for the cultural golden age sometimes characterized as decadence. Hibernia and Judea were lost to rebels, and the borders attacked on many places. Quintus mercilessly favored Aristocracy.
Marcus Lollius: 163 CE – 193 CE
Marcus Lollius, born as Marcus Annius Verus and raised as a proud senator, had the wish to become philosopher. However, his destiny was to reign over the Roman Empire; he complied with his fate after having been adopted by Quintus and did his best to understand how Roman politics worked.
Lollius' reign was marked by the first major crisis since the Year of the Four Emperors (69 CE), as attacks of Germanic tribes occurred in the north, and the Parthians attacked and temporarily took back Mesopotamia. The struggling empire was then hit by the Lollian Plague, which could luckily be confined thanks to the work of Lollius' family physician Galen.
Lollius somewhat favored plutocracy and allowed the formation of the Indian Company. Lollius strongly favored Meritocracy by appointing officials recommended by local officials because of their skill. Lollius mercilessly favored centralization by establishing the first nationwide gendarmery, the frumentarii. The reign of Marcus Lollius saw the province of Sarmatia gained.
Publius Verus: 163 CE – 195 CE
Of African origin, he bore the name of Publius Septimius Geta until his adoption by the emperor Quintus. He was somewhat of a tribute to African influence on Roman politics, but had no real talent for politics. He is remembered for his victory in the Parthian war, achieved by generals appointed by Lollius, and for his two sons who became emperors of a new dynasty.
Note: I used Common Era here to make the chapter easier to read.
During the late 3rd century, the senatorial class more or less disappeared from military and civil administration. The empire was ruled by the equestrian class. Just a few decades after the triumph of the equestrians the senatorial class was back suddenly, and the influence of the equestrian class greatly diminished again.
Well, even if this sounds like a revolution, it was just a redefinition of the terms senatorial and equestrian. Vir egregius was the first grade of equestrian rank iirc. And with vir clarissimus iirc you became a senator automatically. So no distinct careers by classes anymore. Senator was just the upper part of one career everybody even a centurio ex caliga could reach.
That's not my approach. I read books of historians like Alexander Demandt, and think that Rome's fall was mainly due to the barbarian invasions coming at the wrong moment.
That's not my approach. I read books of historians like Alexander Demandt, and think that Rome's fall was mainly due to the barbarian invasions coming at the wrong moment.
Another follower of Peter Heathers shock theory, who saw the state of the empire 400 AD with somewhat rose-tinted glasses.
I prefer the other faction of historians who believe, that the roman empire had already weakened itself to a degree, that the barbarian invasions could be succesful at all.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. But I dont think that the romans had a chance to manage their huge empire, just because the chinese did it. Or reuinited China always again.
I prefer the other faction of historians who believe, that the roman empire had already weakened itself to a degree, that the barbarian invasions could be succesful at all.
The Empire wasn't weak, it was just governed by idiots. That's a big difference. There was one emperor who basically allowed the Goths to invade the empire, even if it would have been possible to disarm them and simply settle them in some quiet corner of the empire. There was a certain emperor who devided the empire without taking into account that the east was much stronger when the west. A third one exhausted the empire's ressources by trying to conquer the west, without caring about the Persian and Slavic threat.
I know there is a new book (actually 2 volumes plus CDs) about the geography of Ptolemaios, with some new revolutionary analysis about the location of the cities mentioned. Did you read it? Me not.
Afaik from secondary literature, there was a mix of babylonian and assyrian culture, tradition and population in Mesopotamia. More assyrian in the Northeast and more babylonian in the Southwest. But no clear borders. Plus median tribes, syrian tribes and others. And some greek colonies.
I doubt, that the Assyrian settlements reached that far south like in your map. Media Adiabadene which was there beyond the Tigris also never reached that far south. Central Mesopotamia was the crownland of the King of Kings in Ctesiphon.
Just because an ancient geographer calls a region Assyria and Babylonia, does not mean, that a roman emperor implements the borders accordingly. But I got your point.
Heather against Gibbons is a bit unfair. Compare Heather with Adrian Goldsworthy, the other great british historian of these days. His newest book about the Fall of Rome is contrary to Heather's approach.
I know there is a new book (actually 2 volumes plus CDs) about the geography of Ptolemaios, with some new revolutionary analysis about the location of the cities mentioned. Did you read it? Me not.
Yup I have a German 2 volumes edition, but I never used the CD.
"Read" is the wrong term - I searched the index for the places I needed. But the maps are helpful, and it's quite impressive how accurate Ptolemaios was even without modern instruments. But his knowledge of everything outside the Roman Empire, Arabia, Nubia, Persia and India is... well he speculated a lot
Just because an ancient geographer calls a region Assyria and Babylonia, does not mean, that a roman emperor implements the borders accordingly. But I got your point.
Because China was united for so long as one culture that people all saw themselves as one people. That, and they had a very different style of dynastic succession.
