Feelings at the Fall of the Republic, Ancient and Medieval Living Standards(acoup.blog)
acoup.blog
Feelings at the Fall of the Republic, Ancient and Medieval Living Standards
https://acoup.blog/2021/08/06/referenda-ad-senatum-august-6-2021-feelings-at-the-fall-of-the-republic-ancient-and-medieval-living-standards-and-zombies/
5 comments
Good article. When it comes to living standards, it is worth mentioning that there was a more equal wealth distribution after the fall of Rome which made it impossible for medieval nobles to finance large armies. This meant that wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then before and after. Also slavery disappeared from Europe, except for Spain. For an everyday normal person in western Europe living around the year 800-1300 was probably better then during antiquity. Early modernity was pretty bad compared to that period too. (witch trials, 30 year war…)
Yes, somehow when it comes to slave states, people tend to focus on the lifestyle of the slave masters rather than the great heap of humanity living in squalor to support them.
In context though, I wonder if serfs really had it better. They still had no freedom to move, and in the early Middle Ages there was no appeal granted to serfs under a tyrannical lord.
In context though, I wonder if serfs really had it better. They still had no freedom to move, and in the early Middle Ages there was no appeal granted to serfs under a tyrannical lord.
Serfs were essentially slaves but because Christianity technically forbade slavery the church side-stepped the issue by narrowly defining slavery as only when someone is bought or sold. Serfs were bound to the land and lord they 'served' under and had no rights. Lords couldn't buy and sell serfs but they could lease them to other lords. So it wasn't slavery as long as you gave the serf back to the lord you got them from at some point.
There is a dead sibling comment to my comment that seems inflammatory but is correct historically.
Many societies continued to have slaves after the introduction of Christianity, including Britain before the Norman conquest.
There was a religious reform movement around the time of the conquest that if I understand correctly gradually eliminated slavery over a few generations to a few centuries.
Many societies continued to have slaves after the introduction of Christianity, including Britain before the Norman conquest.
There was a religious reform movement around the time of the conquest that if I understand correctly gradually eliminated slavery over a few generations to a few centuries.
The main distinction here is that Christianity was much more open to the slavery of non Christians than the slavery of Christians.
The Catholic Church was very particular about this in making sure to only ban the enslavement of Christians while explicitly condoning the slavery of non Christians.
It's a classic example of ingroup vs outgroup bias.
The Catholic Church was very particular about this in making sure to only ban the enslavement of Christians while explicitly condoning the slavery of non Christians.
It's a classic example of ingroup vs outgroup bias.
I would say that’s not exclusive to Christianity or even Abrahamic religions.
Someone can correct me but I think the difference is the Church wasn't down with taking a Christian as a slave. That would have resulted in the number of slaves dwindling.
I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property.
Might be that Romans would have considered the difference between their slaves and medieval surfs as a distinction without a difference. And possibly be horrified by the US variant. Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF?
I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property.
Might be that Romans would have considered the difference between their slaves and medieval surfs as a distinction without a difference. And possibly be horrified by the US variant. Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF?
> I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property.
There was nothing especially virulent about slavery in the US compared to slavery in other places.
> Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF?
It's actually true that American slaves were generally legally forbidden from marrying. This didn't matter, though; marriage was not just not suppressed but actively encouraged by slaveholders.
It's not true that American slaves didn't have the right to own property. They did.
There was nothing especially virulent about slavery in the US compared to slavery in other places.
> Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF?
It's actually true that American slaves were generally legally forbidden from marrying. This didn't matter, though; marriage was not just not suppressed but actively encouraged by slaveholders.
It's not true that American slaves didn't have the right to own property. They did.
> I wonder if serfs really had it better. They still had no freedom to move, and in the early Middle Ages there was no appeal granted to serfs under a tyrannical lord.
In Poland, peasants actually were freer in the Middle Ages then they were in later centuries. Serfdom became more of a thing with the rise of the wealthy landed magnates whose greed increasingly bound the peasants to production. Poland was, among other things, the breadbasket of Europe, and in the preindustrial era, agriculture was a major source of wealth, and so among its exports to Western Europe, grain was a major source of revenue. The nobility in Poland was quite large (around 10%, as opposed to the ~2% in a country like France), but over time, a part of that nobility managed to become fabulously wealthy and maintained private armies that I believe could rival the army of the Polish Crown in size, and owned hundreds of villages, towns, and even cities. Eventually, Poland's last king, Stanislaus II Augustus, placed the peasants under the protection of the State.
In Poland, peasants actually were freer in the Middle Ages then they were in later centuries. Serfdom became more of a thing with the rise of the wealthy landed magnates whose greed increasingly bound the peasants to production. Poland was, among other things, the breadbasket of Europe, and in the preindustrial era, agriculture was a major source of wealth, and so among its exports to Western Europe, grain was a major source of revenue. The nobility in Poland was quite large (around 10%, as opposed to the ~2% in a country like France), but over time, a part of that nobility managed to become fabulously wealthy and maintained private armies that I believe could rival the army of the Polish Crown in size, and owned hundreds of villages, towns, and even cities. Eventually, Poland's last king, Stanislaus II Augustus, placed the peasants under the protection of the State.
Yes although there where also some free farmers. As I understand it, the serfs had more power in the high middle ages than before and after, because the lords also lacked the resources for strong police forces. There was not a lot of metal around, so most soldiers did not have shields or armor. You and your serf buddies could realistically resist the local lord with some forks and knives. Plus the catholic church was also protecting serf's rights to an extend.
Also keep in mind that during that period the Black Plague killed 30-60% of the population. Serfs had more power because there were dramatically fewer of them.
On the other hand if it took a plague to improve the standards of living it is fair to agree the baseline was quite abysmal.
I don't think that argument makes sense. What's the country with the highest standard of living today? This says it's Canada: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-r.... If a plague wiped out 50% of the population of Canada, and wages went up afterwards, would that mean that the current standard of living in Canada is quite abysmal?
If a plague wiped out 50% of the population of the First World countries, wages wouldn't go up, they'd disappear entirely.
The just-in-time supply chains that keep the lights on and food and other goods in the stores would fall apart within a couple of weeks.
Medieval starvation was local. Areas were largely self-sufficient in the bare essentials - except in bad years, which happened regularly enough to keep a lid on population growth, but not so regularly they caused widespread depopulation.
Trade was mostly for useful extras.
That's very much not true today. Everything is specialised and interdependent, and not even farming areas are truly self-sufficient.
This was - and possibly still is - the biggest risk from a pandemic. It's hard to calculate the exact tipping point, but when you have a certain percentage of the population unable to work for a couple of weeks or so, essential systems start breaking down.
The just-in-time supply chains that keep the lights on and food and other goods in the stores would fall apart within a couple of weeks.
Medieval starvation was local. Areas were largely self-sufficient in the bare essentials - except in bad years, which happened regularly enough to keep a lid on population growth, but not so regularly they caused widespread depopulation.
Trade was mostly for useful extras.
That's very much not true today. Everything is specialised and interdependent, and not even farming areas are truly self-sufficient.
This was - and possibly still is - the biggest risk from a pandemic. It's hard to calculate the exact tipping point, but when you have a certain percentage of the population unable to work for a couple of weeks or so, essential systems start breaking down.
The "essential" system that broke down during the Black Plague was serfdom.
If 50% of Canadians died next week, you think what, Canada would cease to exist?
If 50% of Canadians died next week, you think what, Canada would cease to exist?
> If 50% of Canadians died next week, you think what, Canada would cease to exist?
It’s possible. Canada’s nearly broken up* in recent memory over regional differences. 50% of a population dying is a massively destabilizing event that could undo even a comparatively wealthy nation.
* or at least its second largest province narrowly decided to stay in Confederation.
It’s possible. Canada’s nearly broken up* in recent memory over regional differences. 50% of a population dying is a massively destabilizing event that could undo even a comparatively wealthy nation.
* or at least its second largest province narrowly decided to stay in Confederation.
Maybe it would? I mean if yyou're smart tell us how 50 percent of Canucks getting wiped out would play out. You act as if plenty of political entities didn't cease to exist because of the plague.
We have seen the shock to the supply chain that happened during the early months of this pandemic.
Yes, this is the real problem with the modern world, and I'm afraid it's only getting worse. We're becoming hyper-efficient and scaling things up enormously at the cost of being extremely fragile.
Eventually, some black swan event will happen and we'll have a systems collapse it will be very hard to recover from - because so little of the population will have baseline skills. Thankfully this pandemic wasn't it, but it doesn't seem to have woke up TPTB to the problem.
Eventually, some black swan event will happen and we'll have a systems collapse it will be very hard to recover from - because so little of the population will have baseline skills. Thankfully this pandemic wasn't it, but it doesn't seem to have woke up TPTB to the problem.
The pandemic was not a black swan event.
However i agree with you and i think even the US govt agrees with you. Thats the reason farming subsidies exist
However i agree with you and i think even the US govt agrees with you. Thats the reason farming subsidies exist
Unfortunately, the farming subsidies will not help our massively scaled, centralized, and industrialized farming sector when something like this happens.
Oh no doubt!
The black plague started 1350. 1310 was the big famine. Late middle ages where no joke.
What does metal have to do with shields? Metal shields were never popular in medieval Europe. And I also really doubt your assertion that shields were rare.
I hadn't heard of a metal shortage during the middle ages ( only seen examples of heavy metal armor worn by nights ). Do you have a link to a resource to learn more about this?
I think shortage of metal was a problem during the bronze age. Because bronze is easily recyclable, my theory is that the Late Bronze Age collapse happened when everyone had a sword.
In the Iron age, it's not a question of availability, but of technology, how quickly can you provision a sword and a chainmail for everyone?
Swords have always been a fairly rare weapon. Spears and pole-arms offer longer range at much lower cost, particularly in the context of massed infantry battles.
Swords are terribly effective weapons for infantry with enough protective gear to close in with spearmen, for armies who could not only afford the sword, but also the shield and armor needed for that.
The Romans learned this from the celts early on, and went on to conquer the Mediterranian.
Against the heavy knights of the Medieval period, swords were pretty useless for infantry, though. And at the end of the Middle Ages, when pikes had regained the dominant position for the infantry, armor had become so effective that regular swords would have trouble penetrating. During the 14th anc 15th century, halberds and poleaxes and specialist greatswords would would fill the role that the gladius had 1500 years before, ie that of being able to decisively defeat the pikes after closing in. (Although, until gunpowder weapons took over, pikes were still the most frequent weapon, as the defence against cavalry was still necessary).
The Romans learned this from the celts early on, and went on to conquer the Mediterranian.
Against the heavy knights of the Medieval period, swords were pretty useless for infantry, though. And at the end of the Middle Ages, when pikes had regained the dominant position for the infantry, armor had become so effective that regular swords would have trouble penetrating. During the 14th anc 15th century, halberds and poleaxes and specialist greatswords would would fill the role that the gladius had 1500 years before, ie that of being able to decisively defeat the pikes after closing in. (Although, until gunpowder weapons took over, pikes were still the most frequent weapon, as the defence against cavalry was still necessary).
The Romans conquered the Mediterranean in 146 BC (end of the third Punic War). They didn't face the Celts in battle until 55 BC when Julius Caesar first invaded Britain.
Celtic cultures were once predominant in Western Europe. If I understand correctly, the person you were replying to most likely meant the Iberian Celts in modern day Spain.
The Romans came into contact with Gauls and other Celts around 400BC [1]. At the time, various tribes of Celts occupied large territories from Anatolia in the East to Britain and Iberia in the west. [2]
At the time, the Romans were basically using the same weapons and tactics as the Greeks, but they had trouble when fighting the Celts when the Celts managed to breech their lines.
In 390 BC, the celts sacked Rome [3]. In response, Rome was fortified and the the Romans would be training and organizing in ways intended to withstand the Celtic charge. Most importantly, that meant improving cohesion and discipline to the point where they could hold the line.
Gradually, though, the Romans would also incorporate Celtic arms and armor, both from Gaulic Celts and Iberian Celts, perhaps most famously the Gladius [4].
Eventually, Rome started to push the Celts back, but there were setbacks, such as when Hannibal employed large numbers of Celtic soldiers during the Punic Wars [5].
Eventually, the Roman military came out if these conflict as a much stronger force when it had started, and ended up as a force that was even able to match the Macedonian phalanxes (partly because the Macedonians did not employ cavalry with the skill that Alexander had).
While Rome was busy conquering the Mediterranean, Germanic tribes were pressuring the Celtic tribes that had occupied modern day Germany, partly replacing them and partly subjugating them.
The Cimbrian war started in 113BC (the Cimbrians themselves may have been Germanic or Celtic, but the Teutons supporting them were definitely Germanic, and the German name for Germany (Deutschland) is taken from them).
Initially, the barbarians were on the offensive, but in the end the Romans under the leadership of Gaius Marius were able to push them back.
In response to the weakness against the Germanics, Marius would institute his "Marius Reforms", replacing the citizen army with a much more capable professional army. [7]. These soldiers are the most famous incarnation of the Roman Legions, armed with Pila, Scuta and and Gladii.
Those reforms, incidentally, paved they way for the Fall of the Republic.
[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisalpine_Gaul [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts [3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia#Aftermath,... [4]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius [5]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War [6]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbrian_War [7]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms
At the time, the Romans were basically using the same weapons and tactics as the Greeks, but they had trouble when fighting the Celts when the Celts managed to breech their lines.
In 390 BC, the celts sacked Rome [3]. In response, Rome was fortified and the the Romans would be training and organizing in ways intended to withstand the Celtic charge. Most importantly, that meant improving cohesion and discipline to the point where they could hold the line.
Gradually, though, the Romans would also incorporate Celtic arms and armor, both from Gaulic Celts and Iberian Celts, perhaps most famously the Gladius [4].
Eventually, Rome started to push the Celts back, but there were setbacks, such as when Hannibal employed large numbers of Celtic soldiers during the Punic Wars [5].
Eventually, the Roman military came out if these conflict as a much stronger force when it had started, and ended up as a force that was even able to match the Macedonian phalanxes (partly because the Macedonians did not employ cavalry with the skill that Alexander had).
While Rome was busy conquering the Mediterranean, Germanic tribes were pressuring the Celtic tribes that had occupied modern day Germany, partly replacing them and partly subjugating them.
The Cimbrian war started in 113BC (the Cimbrians themselves may have been Germanic or Celtic, but the Teutons supporting them were definitely Germanic, and the German name for Germany (Deutschland) is taken from them).
Initially, the barbarians were on the offensive, but in the end the Romans under the leadership of Gaius Marius were able to push them back.
In response to the weakness against the Germanics, Marius would institute his "Marius Reforms", replacing the citizen army with a much more capable professional army. [7]. These soldiers are the most famous incarnation of the Roman Legions, armed with Pila, Scuta and and Gladii.
Those reforms, incidentally, paved they way for the Fall of the Republic.
[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisalpine_Gaul [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts [3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia#Aftermath,... [4]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius [5]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War [6]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbrian_War [7]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms
What about armor?
Armor is hard. It slows you down, and you can't hear or see as well as the guy coming up behind you.
If you are trained well enough to be effective with metal armor, you're probably trained well enough to be effective without it in close quarters.
Heavy plate requires mounted cavalry, but largely negates the maneuverability of horse, and can be brought down with foot trained with pikes or heavy spears.
Maybe the metal was best used elsewhere.
If you are trained well enough to be effective with metal armor, you're probably trained well enough to be effective without it in close quarters.
Heavy plate requires mounted cavalry, but largely negates the maneuverability of horse, and can be brought down with foot trained with pikes or heavy spears.
Maybe the metal was best used elsewhere.
Medieval warriors who could afford it wore plate armour, because it was (despite some drawbacks) incredibly effective protection. Many modern tropes (they had to be be winched on to horses, they couldn't get up if they fell over etc) are just plain wrong. The medieval warriors were less educated than us, but they weren't stupid.
Here is a good German source: https://www2.ufg.uni-freiburg.de/d/publ/zimm1.html
And here a different one in English: https://web.archive.org/web/20180401081044/http://mygeologyp...
And here a different one in English: https://web.archive.org/web/20180401081044/http://mygeologyp...
> Also slavery disappeared from Europe, except for Spain
Slavery was unfortunately very much a thing in Anglo Saxon England.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#2
Pre the migration of the Saxons into England (not long after the Romans left leaving the inhabitants unprotected) they would raid coastal areas and carry off slaves back across the sea. Later, Viking raiders would do the same…
Slavery was unfortunately very much a thing in Anglo Saxon England.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#2
Pre the migration of the Saxons into England (not long after the Romans left leaving the inhabitants unprotected) they would raid coastal areas and carry off slaves back across the sea. Later, Viking raiders would do the same…
> wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then before and after
Each individual war was shorter and less bloody but there were many more of them as the barons were feuding constantly in the absence of central authority. Also roving bands would periodically loot and burn while passing by. If you look at the time and effort invested into castles and city walls in the period it tells you all you need to know about how safe people felt at the time.
Each individual war was shorter and less bloody but there were many more of them as the barons were feuding constantly in the absence of central authority. Also roving bands would periodically loot and burn while passing by. If you look at the time and effort invested into castles and city walls in the period it tells you all you need to know about how safe people felt at the time.
Lol. Slavery certainly did not disappear to everywhere but Spain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade
There were plenty of long and bloody wars during the High Middle Ages (such as the Albigensian Crusade and the Anarchy, just to name a couple).
I think a large part of the author's point that this is a long period of time (even if we restrict it to 800-1300, that's about the same length of time as between Columbus' voyage and today), covering a large area (even if we restrict it to Western Europe), and it's difficult to come up with a single criteria of comparison.
I think a large part of the author's point that this is a long period of time (even if we restrict it to 800-1300, that's about the same length of time as between Columbus' voyage and today), covering a large area (even if we restrict it to Western Europe), and it's difficult to come up with a single criteria of comparison.
Do you have any sources for either of these claims? This goes against my general intuition (which could itself be wrong)
I don’t have a source for this whole question but regarding that intuition:
> English peasants likely didn’t work more than 120-150 days a year. That’s about 215-245 days off a year.
From https://www.fodors.com/news/news/you-wont-believe-who-got-mo...
> English peasants likely didn’t work more than 120-150 days a year. That’s about 215-245 days off a year.
From https://www.fodors.com/news/news/you-wont-believe-who-got-mo...
That assumes there is no work out of season. So, no making of bed sheets, no matter king of cloth, candles, fixing tools, no animal care out of season and no work related to small children. No storage maintenance, no baking/cooking.
Peasants everywhere work full time, all through the year. For people who are just managing to survive, there is always something that needs doing.
Growing or foraging and preparing food (especially manually milling grain); making (starting from raw plant/animal fibers), patching, and cleaning clothing; building hedges, fences, walls, and thatched roofs; making pottery; making and maintaining tools; taking care of animals; .... are extremely labor intensive.
To get some idea what life was like for Stuart-period English farmers (and life was much the same in preceding centuries), see the BBC show Tales from the Green Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series
Growing or foraging and preparing food (especially manually milling grain); making (starting from raw plant/animal fibers), patching, and cleaning clothing; building hedges, fences, walls, and thatched roofs; making pottery; making and maintaining tools; taking care of animals; .... are extremely labor intensive.
To get some idea what life was like for Stuart-period English farmers (and life was much the same in preceding centuries), see the BBC show Tales from the Green Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series
Russia had serfs till late 1800s. They were tied to the land of their lord, so effectively, they were slaves.
>>This meant that wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then(sic) before and after.
My brain short circuited a bit when reading this sentence. Just to clarify, you are saying that "wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then(sic) before and after" medieval times?
My brain short circuited a bit when reading this sentence. Just to clarify, you are saying that "wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then(sic) before and after" medieval times?
Probably meant "wars in medieval times were* shorter and less bloody than* before and after"
> Overall the various Romans who contemplated reform were in a way hindered by the tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rather than the tendency of systems.
I'm not convinced the two are separable. One important virtue in a republic is self-restraint, the ability to see an opportunity to enrich or empower yourself at the cost of the republic, and refrain from exploiting it. A self-indulgent people will find it hard to preserve the systems that comprise the republic.
I'm not convinced the two are separable. One important virtue in a republic is self-restraint, the ability to see an opportunity to enrich or empower yourself at the cost of the republic, and refrain from exploiting it. A self-indulgent people will find it hard to preserve the systems that comprise the republic.
Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. So far.
A lot is changing in the US society and some not for the better - if you compare to even 80s/90s, the strength of the institutions has eroded and the trust is all but gone. The “so far” may not last much longer.
Just to put some data behind it, Monmouth found in June that 63% of Republican-identifiers and Republican-leaners believe Joe Biden only won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Seems bad, but how does it stack up to faith in institutions historically?
My first thought was that the US in particular suffers from the same disease. It's a highly individual-focused culture that tends to credit people with their successes and blame them for their failures. Criminal justice reform, or harm reduction for drug users, is fiercely opposed on the grounds that it's their fault they got into that situation. A persistent fiction is that if only the right individual becomes President, everything will be fixed. Systems level thinking is unpopular.
As for tyrant-resistance, I would go so far as to say that the US just had a tyranny stress test, and the results were deeply concerning.
As for tyrant-resistance, I would go so far as to say that the US just had a tyranny stress test, and the results were deeply concerning.
I think the American people have forgotten some important small-r republican principles. They have forgotten tolerance, accepting that others may have differing values and opinions, but that we need not force them to agree with us. They have forgotten that every power you let "your guy" exercise is going to be turned on you by "the other guy". They have forgotten that loyalty should be to principles, not parties or individuals, because a true principle never turns hypocrite. And they have forgotten that the responsibility for preserving liberty rests with them, not politicians, not Supreme Court justices. There are structural problems, yes, but I believe the root cause is the people's lack of education in these points.
The system is made out of people.
The system is made out of people.
>The system is made out of people.
Yes, and a people system has serious vulnerabilities. Consider marketing, or the impact of a handful of vaccine misinformation bloggers had on a huge segment of the population.
or:
>“. . .it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
Those admirable qualities you mention have been not been forgotten by accident. We've been made to forget, because people without them are easier to manipulate.
It's extremely hard to prevent this, because those who perpetrate it have much to gain directly, while those who prevent it do not. Consider any environmental protection law that is costly to a business - if you benefit financially you can put resources/lobbyists/marketing against it, than the volunteers who seek to protect it can. For strictly economic reasons, in the long run, the people lose.
You can't really rely on "people". The vulnerabilities need to be patched.
Yes, and a people system has serious vulnerabilities. Consider marketing, or the impact of a handful of vaccine misinformation bloggers had on a huge segment of the population.
or:
>“. . .it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
Those admirable qualities you mention have been not been forgotten by accident. We've been made to forget, because people without them are easier to manipulate.
It's extremely hard to prevent this, because those who perpetrate it have much to gain directly, while those who prevent it do not. Consider any environmental protection law that is costly to a business - if you benefit financially you can put resources/lobbyists/marketing against it, than the volunteers who seek to protect it can. For strictly economic reasons, in the long run, the people lose.
You can't really rely on "people". The vulnerabilities need to be patched.
> Systems level thinking is unpopular.
It is. Moreover, the most pressing problems we face are in fact systems level problems. At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous. Are there other sources than the Roman republic for more optimistic instances where this dynamic played out?
It is. Moreover, the most pressing problems we face are in fact systems level problems. At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous. Are there other sources than the Roman republic for more optimistic instances where this dynamic played out?
> Systems level thinking is unpopular.
I think it is the opposite really. Materialistic thinking is the baseline in modern society and in many ways the tendency to dismiss the unquantifiable as non-existent is one of the greatest weaknesses of modernity. It is certainly far easier to quantify the average temperature in a region using Antarctic or Greenland ice core data and use that to determine how that may affect agricultural production in a historic time period or analyze average skeleton height sizes to assess quality of life metrics than to analyze how cultural changes affected problems.
>At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous
The Romans may not have worded it correctly but it should not be surprising if we replace the word 'virtue' with 'social norms' and re-analyze how changes in social norms can affect social trust, how institutions are structured and even how families are structured(e.g. a change in norms from the religious change from paganism to Christianity meant a change from the city focused philanthropy of euergetism to the poor/sick focused ecclesiastical charity).
Social trust, for example, is very important as it greatly reduces transaction costs yet and its core much of it relies upon the concept of common shared knowledge (in the form of traditions, values and principles) that is difficult to quantify. Yet at its core, the change in social norms would be deeply related to changes in 'virtues' as virtues, in practice, are ideals that society pressures individuals to follow. So, the Romans may not have the scholarly data on material changes in the environment to be sure but they also have a better intuitive understanding of the importance of virtues than their modern successors.
I think it is the opposite really. Materialistic thinking is the baseline in modern society and in many ways the tendency to dismiss the unquantifiable as non-existent is one of the greatest weaknesses of modernity. It is certainly far easier to quantify the average temperature in a region using Antarctic or Greenland ice core data and use that to determine how that may affect agricultural production in a historic time period or analyze average skeleton height sizes to assess quality of life metrics than to analyze how cultural changes affected problems.
>At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous
The Romans may not have worded it correctly but it should not be surprising if we replace the word 'virtue' with 'social norms' and re-analyze how changes in social norms can affect social trust, how institutions are structured and even how families are structured(e.g. a change in norms from the religious change from paganism to Christianity meant a change from the city focused philanthropy of euergetism to the poor/sick focused ecclesiastical charity).
Social trust, for example, is very important as it greatly reduces transaction costs yet and its core much of it relies upon the concept of common shared knowledge (in the form of traditions, values and principles) that is difficult to quantify. Yet at its core, the change in social norms would be deeply related to changes in 'virtues' as virtues, in practice, are ideals that society pressures individuals to follow. So, the Romans may not have the scholarly data on material changes in the environment to be sure but they also have a better intuitive understanding of the importance of virtues than their modern successors.
> Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power.
The laws, etc., help a lot, but they are built by people and can be dismantled by people. The founders could have built an authoritarian government; IIRC Washington was offered much more power than he took, and his resignation after two terms was his choice to put democracy first.
The laws, etc., help a lot, but they are built by people and can be dismantled by people. The founders could have built an authoritarian government; IIRC Washington was offered much more power than he took, and his resignation after two terms was his choice to put democracy first.
Hwrein lies the problem that is at the core of our rot.
The system promotes the worst for office: as presidents , senators or house.
Washington came in to office at great risk and sacrifice to himself and his family.
For as long as US politicians are able to enrich themselves and leave high office richer than they started, we shouldnt be surprised that we attract the worst kind of people to politics.
This is easily solvable with the right laws but we need a small miracle to get another washington elected first
The system promotes the worst for office: as presidents , senators or house.
Washington came in to office at great risk and sacrifice to himself and his family.
For as long as US politicians are able to enrich themselves and leave high office richer than they started, we shouldnt be surprised that we attract the worst kind of people to politics.
This is easily solvable with the right laws but we need a small miracle to get another washington elected first
Yet the system has worked orders of magnitude better than any other system in human history.
A well-designed republic will not rely on the self-restraint of those in power. Indeed, it will assume those who seek power have little self-restraint, and it will have systems of checks and balances intended to prevent would-be tyrants from seizing the entire state.
I don't think it's realistic to expect a structure imposed by law to withstand the abuse of people who make, interpret, and enforce those laws, unless a superior force (the entire people) is opposed to it.
I think it's very realistic.
Proof is the US has outlasted and bettered most other systems by a substantial margin.
Same as switzerland
Proof is the US has outlasted and bettered most other systems by a substantial margin.
Same as switzerland
What I'm suggesting is that, insofar as the U.S. (or Swiss, or whatever) system has survived, it is due not only to its structure, but to the activity of its people in opposing governmental "mission creep" — what the U.S. founders called "usurpation". The structure has to be right, it has to be susceptible to popular control, but the people also have to be on guard, or the structure will be destroyed while they're not looking.
I'm not as confident as you are that the American system is intact. I think some important elements have been discarded, in large part because the people did not understand their value. For example, the reorganization from the state militias to the largely federalized National Guard, along with the imposition of a large standing army, removed the general population of the states from the defense and federal law enforcement roles, allowing both to get out of the people's control. There are numerous other examples.
I'm not as confident as you are that the American system is intact. I think some important elements have been discarded, in large part because the people did not understand their value. For example, the reorganization from the state militias to the largely federalized National Guard, along with the imposition of a large standing army, removed the general population of the states from the defense and federal law enforcement roles, allowing both to get out of the people's control. There are numerous other examples.
That assumes that the US system's success has been due especially to the laws and not to other factors. The question is, which factors had how much effect?
When talking about living standards, it must always be pretty nice living on the Mediterranean, drinking your wine with fresh fish, rustic bread and olive oil etc. Got to be great compared to the guys freezing their butts off in Northern Europe eating pickled turnips in the snow.
We don't eat pickled turnips. It's the herring, not the turnips we pickle. So we eat frozen turnips with pickled herring.
>it must always be pretty nice living on the Mediterranean, drinking your wine with fresh fish, rustic bread and olive oil
Well I'm not gonna lie, it is x)
Well I'm not gonna lie, it is x)
Pickled turnips are delicious, you should try them if you like pickles. But I mostly associate them with kebab and falafel places.
compare freezing your butts off to thirty percent loss of population via plague, mentioned above?
In a six hundred year period, like 590 of them would be better in the Mediterranean. One generation may have had it slightly better, but I'm pretty sure the Justinian plague still hit northern Europe.
Justinian plague didn't hit Northern Europe, it was up to Southern Germany only. Black Death did visit Sweden a bit but not Finland or Iceland.
We know it ravaged the Franks and Ireland, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_plague_pandemic and Plague of Mohill. I was using a more Roman definition of Northern Europe, but I'd be surprised if at least Denmark wasn't hit.
Super interesting. One point about living standards: at this point the world is in the Malthusian equilibrium, so living standards are rather decoupled from technology. (Whenever technology raises your living standards, you have more children, and average GDP per head returns to subsistence level.)
Malthus has had a big comeback in the theory of economic growth over the past couple of decades.
Malthus has had a big comeback in the theory of economic growth over the past couple of decades.
However, people in many countries around the globe are having fewer children and not due to reaching "subsistence level". Some of the biggest impacts in birth rates are education, particularly for women, and birth control, both things are the product of technology raising living standards. Birth rates are not declining today because of Malthusian cycles.
Right, that's correct. "At this point" was in reference to the article, i.e. in ancient and medieval Europe. I should have been clearer.
> Whenever technology raises your living standards, you have more children, and average GDP per head returns to subsistence level.
I thought it was 1. people have lots of kids because lots of them die, 2. progress in terms of stopping babies and children dying means more adults than expected survive to adulthood, 3. Those adults then adjust to the new reality and start having less kids.
I thought it was 1. people have lots of kids because lots of them die, 2. progress in terms of stopping babies and children dying means more adults than expected survive to adulthood, 3. Those adults then adjust to the new reality and start having less kids.
> a magistrate would convene the senate and pose a question
This is a good reminder of the democracy of the Republic. I had forgotten that Magistrates had powers such as these. Popular press and film concentrate on the Senators, (and Emperors for post republic stories) but the magistrates, like the tribunes, were elected by the plebs (populace) into a government with some separation of powers. In fact it might be better to consider the roman Senate more like the UN Security Council: all countries are equal but de facto some countries are more equal than others, so there is some structure for focusing and constraining them.
And do not forget that those with political ambitions (like Gaius, who came from and old but minor patrician family, the Julii, through a cadet Caesar branch) started out by being elected a Tribune by the plebs, even if the objective was Senatorial rank and a generalship.
Since the Reagan era at least the US has seemed in the thrall of the same disease that afflicted the patricians of the roman republic. It's no surprise major biographies of Cicero appeared in the late 90s and early 20th century. The philosophy (as described in the article "tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rather than the tendency of systems" afflicts the analysis today. I value my individualism and don't want government telling me what to do, but I also recognize the value and function of community (whether taxes, volunteering, speed limits, or vaccination). Rome (in all of royal, republican, and imperial times) was far more atomized and organized around families than most people realize today and that was ultimately its weakness. Though there was a doctrine of "civis romanus sum", the reality was that too much power remained in the patrician houses, enough to permit essentially continuous civil war once the republic was de facto gone.
This is a good reminder of the democracy of the Republic. I had forgotten that Magistrates had powers such as these. Popular press and film concentrate on the Senators, (and Emperors for post republic stories) but the magistrates, like the tribunes, were elected by the plebs (populace) into a government with some separation of powers. In fact it might be better to consider the roman Senate more like the UN Security Council: all countries are equal but de facto some countries are more equal than others, so there is some structure for focusing and constraining them.
And do not forget that those with political ambitions (like Gaius, who came from and old but minor patrician family, the Julii, through a cadet Caesar branch) started out by being elected a Tribune by the plebs, even if the objective was Senatorial rank and a generalship.
Since the Reagan era at least the US has seemed in the thrall of the same disease that afflicted the patricians of the roman republic. It's no surprise major biographies of Cicero appeared in the late 90s and early 20th century. The philosophy (as described in the article "tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rather than the tendency of systems" afflicts the analysis today. I value my individualism and don't want government telling me what to do, but I also recognize the value and function of community (whether taxes, volunteering, speed limits, or vaccination). Rome (in all of royal, republican, and imperial times) was far more atomized and organized around families than most people realize today and that was ultimately its weakness. Though there was a doctrine of "civis romanus sum", the reality was that too much power remained in the patrician houses, enough to permit essentially continuous civil war once the republic was de facto gone.