Shocks to military support and subsequent assassinations in Ancient Rome | Hacker News Reader

Shocks to military support and subsequent assassinations in Ancient Rome

sciencedirect.com

75 pointsdiodorus46 comments

People seem to forget that the final collapse of the Han Dynasty, the collapse of the Parthian (Iranian) Empire, and the Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman Empire all happened within a fifteen year period (220-235CE).

Although the Han Dynasty started coming undone in the 180s, there was a cooling period in East Asia and North East Europe that started around 200CE and lasted for most of the century. It isn't difficult to imagine a macro linkage between cooling -> agricultural output -> instability that was exacerbated by a similar reduction in Eurasian trade due to the global transition of power (in 200CE, the land route for the Silk Road was effectively controlled by four powers - the Roman Empire, the Parthian Empire, the Kushan Empire, and the Han Dynasty... this fragmented dramatically, particularly in East and Central Asia, by the end of the century).

It's so easy with all the stories of "discovering" around the 1300s/1400s to not realize that earlier cultures were actually interconnected and had appreciable impact on each other.

It's also interesting once you realize that parts of the early modern era were shaped by the efforts of various European kingdoms to reestablish trading routes that were lost after the breakup of the Mongol Empire and, later on, the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.

True, but remember that Rome and China could trade without any Roman and Chinese person ever meeting.

My understanding of the Silk Road is that the cargo got reloaded many times and each individual leg was relatively short, at least in relation to the whole distance.

Makes a guy wonder what kind of world we have before us...

One could argue that the Roman Empire also started coming undone in the 180s.

If anyone here is interested in this kind of thing then I highly, highly recommend "The history of Rome" podcast by Mike Duncan[1]. It's a fantastic look at the history of Rome, from before the republic to the fall of the western empire.

I haven't read the paper, in the 100s-200s there was a vicious cycle where the Emperor would keep his armies close for fear of a mutiny and because that is how his legitimacy was based. This would weaken the defenses of the empire, somewhere else some general would win a victory due to an attack on the weakened empire and his troops would declare him Emperor. Civil war ensued, rinse and repeat.

If I remember correctly Constantine saw an amazingly clever way out of this by basing the legitimacy of the emperor not on the army, but on divine right, so it's not the armies who declare an emperor but God. This set the stage for all that followed in Europe.

The Romans where freaking crazy.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast...

> If I remember correctly Constantine saw an amazingly clever way out of this by basing the legitimacy of the emperor not on the army, but on divine right, so it's not the armies who declare an emperor but God. This set the stage for all that followed in Europe.

This may have been innovative for Rome, which hated the idea of kings since before it started recording history, but it is totally normal everywhere else beginning many centuries before Rome. China, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia are all quite explicit about the ruler deriving authority from heaven.

Constantine was the formal ruler of Egypt and controlled Mesopotamia; it seems vanishingly unlikely that he wasn't aware of this.

Of course it was not a novel idea but the application of it to break a centuries long death spiral of civil war was pretty inspired. I didn't mean to imply he had the idea first!

He also switched the entire persona of the Emperor from someone of the people to someone inaccessible to the common person. Again, not a unique idea, but the application came at a great time.

From what I have read the Romans where pretty dismissive of so-called barbarians (anyone not within the Empire), so I'm sure some people where aware of these ideas but turned their noses up at them, so to speak.

Hm, you make it sound like it is a good idea, to establish a theokratie?

Order for the empire, but death to the nonbelievers?

I mean, for him as a emperor it surely paid out, but for freedom of thought, which was a thing at that time ... not so much. Dark ages followed ...

At the time it was the perfect anecdote to the problems facing the empire. I don't think you can judge an idea like that based on what happened after, sure it was not great after the western empire fell but that is a separate issue. That was not exactly the plan! It surely caused a much softer landing for the Empire when it did fall.

And to be clear, there was no 'death to the nonbelievers'. Sure, there where sporadic religious purges as the empire transitioned to Christianity but I don't believe the empire became what we call a theokratie at any point. It was an empire spanning a huge huge area with a lot of different conflicting religions.

In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought. It stopped a hundred year death spiral, brought stability and did a lot of good.

What really did no good was the consolidation of wealth to huge estate owners who had perverse insentives to withhold men from the armies, not pay taxes and retreat into their own little semi-kingdoms. There lies a greater blame for what happened than this decision.

That and ridiculous, ridiculous amounts of corruption.

"In short, I don't think you can singly blame this decision on causing the dark ages and repressed freedom of thought."

I would never say that, neither that the empire under Constantin was a full theocracy with death to the nonbelievers - yet. But he set the base to it and yes, you can judge a idea to the consequences.

Because he could have also went back to republic ideas to stabilize the state. Distribute power, justice system, etc. But no, they were all obsessed by the idea of becoming the ultimate ruler. And if you want to be that, than sure, the best thing is to declare yourself a god, or chosen by the allmighty god to rule. All the little semi kingdoms had the same ideas, but were just weaker, not worse nor better than the big emperor.

As vondor pointed out above, this started with Diocletian. There was definitely a "death to the nonbelievers" in Diocletian's reign. It's just that the "nonbelievers" were Christians.

The “dark ages” never happened. It’s a myth invented in the Renaissance to boost their own ego.

Well, I would call a time where monks controled thought based on a old book, indeed pretty dark. In the Renaissance this thought control got fought back ... an progress happened

An essay to the contrary:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages/

It actually was started by a predecessor, Diocletian, who actually put an end to the crisis of the 3rd century. Diocletian styled himself after Jupiter and adopted a colleague, whom was styled after Hercules.

You're right, it was Diocletian!

It does seem like the concept of divine right does at least provide some structure for everyone to work around / with and set some level of expectations.

Not long ago there was an article about the impact of trains in ww2 (eastern front). I like these quantitative perspectives on historical events.

If you have other links, don't hesitate to shoot.

The Praetorians became the 'deciders' during power vacuum moments and would have the weight of the authority in anointing the new leader because without there support the new nominee could not be viewed as legit ... and though it seems there was less of political motivation early on, over time, they basically sold out and just used their authority for political purposes to gain money and power.

Though it would rather seem there was a lot of civic corruption during that time on all levels.

This was somewhat early in the empire though and had some ridiculous heights. At one point the Praetorian guard (the emperors personal army within Rome) auctioned off their support and caused absolute havok in what is called 'the year of the 4 emperors' (I think this is the same point in time, it's been a while since I've read about it).

However their power diminished a lot as the empire grew and Rome became less relevant. Eventually emperors began to not even visit Rome at all during their lives, and the power of the guard faded to nothing.

At the time I was commenting about they had next to no influence, much like the senate.

> These results suggest that an emperor relied on his military for support.

The is obvious to even the laziest Roman history reader. The emperors knew this well, and bankrupted the state to shower donatives on troops.

Now you know one of the reasons the army is forbidden from being deployed on US soil. The founders understood the risk of a military dynasty taking over.

Wasn't the army involved in getting the LA riots under control?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

I think the US national guard are deployed on the sourthern border now?

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1487387/nationa...

The US National Guard is not the same as the US Military as it's typically thought of. It's a state-based, part-time reserve force.

The governor of a state typically orders the deployment of its national guard. For example, a state can (several have) refuse to deploy its guard forces to the border against the wishes of the US President.

The guard is directly controlled in each state by the adjutant general:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutant_general

If the US Military attacked a state - let's say in a manner of unprovoked aggression of some terrible sort - it would be the responsibility of the the state's national guard to defend the state against the federal aggression. The US Government can attempt to federalize a state's guard forces for its own use, in this hypothetical conflict scenario it's hard to tell what the hell would happen (probably a mixed loyalty outcome, some would refuse, some would go with the Feds).

This actually came to a head at Little Rock during the Civil Rights era. Brown v Board of Education allowed black students to attend the main (white) high school. The governor called out the National Guard to block them. Eisenhower brought in the 101st Airborne (!) to tell the National Guard to sit down and shut up.

National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United...

Pretty sure those laws came after reconstruction.

This is not the case for the US, but actually is the case (constitutionally) in Germany

Also not totally forbidden. In an emergency the german army can be and has been deployed. Emergency like a flood. But also to help secure conferences, like the G20 in Hamburg.

>Now you know one of the reasons the army is forbidden from being deployed on US soil.

I don't know where people get this idea but I assume it's a charitable interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In the hypothetical, yet entirely plausible, scenario where one or several South American governments collapses and a migrant crisis reaches the Southern Border of course the military could and would be deployed. As for the Act itself, it has many exceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

During the Republic, it was forbidden for a commander (an Imperator, from which we derive the word Emperor) to bring his Legion into Rome. This is why Caesar crossing the Rubicon (with his Legion) was such a big deal.

The parallel to the fall of the Soviet Union is interesting. The state slowly ran out of money, and couldn’t pay the military complex, including the army. The army’s loyalty to the leadership essentially disappeared, and then the empire fell.

Also note that the militaries of Burma or Venezuela are always well provided for, even when the people are repressed or starving. I feel successful dictators have an instinctual grasp of this relationship.

The most 'militarily industrialized' economies are Cuba, North Korea I'd imagine ... where the Army essentially and literally is the bureaucracy.

Finland and South Korea both have more, per capita, military then Cuba. Closely followed by Mongolia, Singapore, Armenia, Taiwan, and Israel.

I think this has more to do with being within spitting distance of much larger, potentially belligerent neighbours.

I don't see how your measure is useful at all in this reference.

%GDP spending in those countries are small.

In Cuba the military literally runs the economy. Many of the hotels you stay in are operated by the Army. Any of the remaining bits of 'free' economy are all dependent on the military state.

This is not even remotely the case in any of the nations you listed.

"... In Cuba the military literally runs the economy. Many of the hotels you stay in are operated by the Army..."

???

This is just not true. The hotels are run by the party, usually in partnership with some European nation depending on which one you stay at. And believe you me, the Party ain't talking about "sharing" with ANYBODY. Army or No Army.

Now of course this is in the process of changing. Naturally the constitutional reforms will give private citizens some ownership in business, but the Party will still essentially "own" 51% of everything. (And to be perfectly frank, my own bet is that the party isn't going to allow private ownership in the big hotels by anyone else anyway. They don't care if you're the Army, the people, or even the doctors.)

Generals, are just as broke as everyone else in Cuba.

Now...

if you want to talk about where the money is...

let's talk about the jinateras. (Sorry if that offends anyone, I'm just being real about what it's like in Cuba.)

See my note above. The hotels are owned by GAESA which is a wing of the military.

Cuba? 'militarily industrialized'?

???

Have you been to Cuba? Serious question.

There's not a whole lot of military in Cuba at all.

"Cuba, renting a car, sleeping in a hotel, diving or buying in a store has one thing in common: the companies that provide these services belong to the Grupo Empresarial Empresarial S.A. (GAESA) led by the Revolutionary Armed Forces, reported dpa news.

GAESA is the largest Cuban holding company and includes a conglomerate of more than 50 companies, all directed under the laws of the market and chaired by brigadier General Luis Alberto Rodríguez " [1]

"American tourists strolling the ample squares and narrow streets of colonial Havana may not know it, (...) , they are probably patronizing businesses owned by Cuba’s military."

"Today GAESA boasts dozens of companies that control anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent of the Caribbean island’s foreign exchange earnings, " [2]

The list goes on.

[1] https://www.havanatimes.org/?p=125750

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba-military/cuban-m...

"...I'm assuming you must be a pro-Castro cuban or something..."

???

Guy? What? I'm just a farm boy from small town Wisconsin. But I have been to Cuba. A lot. And not only recently now that everything is different, I was there during the special period even. I'm only relating what I saw.

Crippling poverty. Everywhere.

"Militarily Industrialized". Give me a break. What "industry"? Don't get me wrong. No one starves in Cuba. (Even during the Special Period.) But people were hungry, and I don't think anyone would go to Cuba and conclude that they have loads of industry under the control of their army. (In fact, you'd have been hard pressed to show "loads of industry" at all.)

Again, yeah, yeah, all of this is changing. Constitution reforms, North Cuba Basin, Yada yada yada. But that place has been poverty personified for a very long time. And there was no "industry" to be found.

And what is it with you and this phantom army of yours? The Cuban Army is a joke. The only thing the Cuban military has is smart guys. That's it. They're not gonna be out repelling any invasions anytime soon. The cops on their streets are what you should really be worried about. (Don't commit a crime, because the Castros run things down there. That's free advice.)

Finally, you're the one on here talking like some propaganda minister for who knows who. Not me.

Oh yeah... also... living on 12 dollars a month SUCKS. So if I sound a little angry, it's because seeing so many good people living that experience still gets under my skin.

I've spent ~1 month tramping all over Cuba. This is absolutely spot on.

My sense is that Communist and quasi-Communist countries need the military to function and maintain themselves.

The only use of force during the fall of USSR was by reactionary, pro-soviet KGCHP.

I've read the draft[^1] of the article, and I'm not convinced. The hypothesis is simple : less rain in Germania caused more Germanic raids on the Empire Empire, which caused political instability, which caused imperators' assassinations.

When I look of some of these assassinations, I doubt the Germanic provinces had any impact on them. The Roman Senate got rid of Caligula for internal reasons. Claudius was (probably) poisoned to make place for Nero. The historical drought of 69-70 that Tacitus mentioned did not cause any assassination. The year of the 4 emperors was not following any kind of Germanic instability. Later on, many rebellions came from the East. In the later centuries, the eastern emperors had little to to with rain in western Europe.

Reading the article, the correlation doesn't seem very strong. To my untrained eyes, it looks like the years 220-300 are the main factor of correlation. It was a period of drought Gaule and Germania, and political instability in Rome, but I'm not convinced of the causality.

It's always seducing to discover a causal logic in historical events. Theories that can explain history have a high power of seduction, so I am even more cautious.

[^1]: https://brocku.ca/repec/pdf/1703.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com