Interesting to read about dynastic and military history from an anthropological instead of “heroic” perspective. Makes it easier to understand more objectively the “pathologies” now being repeated (or rhyming).
The biggest bonus was the embedded Sabatan YouTube. I went down a wormhole learning more about this Swedish metal band and their high production value retellings of significant battles through history.
Just a wonderfully comprehensive analysis! I really enjoyed it and it is about time the weaknesses of the Mongols over the long term was covered by a person with a deep knowledge of history!
I do have couple of observations/questions, however. What is the explanation for the Eastern Roman Empire’s resilience against multiple opponents (mostly pastoral but not exclusively) attacking over a period of a thousand years compared to the disintegration of the West (especially since, as you point out, the field army thst was lost at Adrianople (in the East) was the eastern one? (Also, the theme system seems a brilliant innovation that combines cantonment with a sophisticated administrative structure.) Belisarius was, after all, able to retake a lot of western Roman territory with just around 5k troops.
I would also say you’re being a bit unfair to the Byzantines when it comes to the Ottomans. By the time thry arrived on the scene, the Byzantine Empire was basically just Constantinople and some outlying areas.
The Ottomans were very much post the Fourth Crusade, so it is true that the Byzantine state was much reduced. But it also true that the Ottoman state started out considerably smaller than even the reduced Byzantine state.
Much of the resilience of the Eastern Empire comes to the placement, and defensibility, of Constantinople itself. The original Eastern Empire had most of the population, and revenue, of the pre-divided Roman Empire plus more defensible borders, hence it outlasting the West. The first real disaster was the attack from a border (Arabia) that had never before generated a serious threat AND after long, disastrous, exhausting war with the Persians.
The Empire also had considerable administrative capacity, even if the long-term trajectory of bureaucratisation is not good. Greek culture and Orthodox Christianity also provided sources of resilience.
The thematic system did work well for quite a long time, but succumbed to the tensions between provincial effectiveness and the central bureaucracy.
I always admired the Mongols for their stellar cuisine until I discovered that their signature dish was actually invented in Taiwan in the 1950s. Life has never been the same for me since I learned the true history of Mongolian Beef. Previously, every time I ate the dish, I had always fantasized about sharing this delicacy at a meal hosted by Genghis Khan himself.
I hear you. (I love the fact that Tempura comes from Tempora, Latin for times or time periods, because the Japanese took deep frying in batter from the Portuguese.)
There used to be an excellent Taiwanese-Mongolian restaurant in Melbourne. As I understand the history, KMT soldiers stationed in Inner Mongolia “adapted” their experience of actual Mongolian cooking. (So, rather like tempura then.)
I have seen YT’s doing actual Mongolian dishes. One can see the connection.
Oh the man is definitely lib coded and secular in his sensibilities, but ive only really found it to substantially color his analysis in a few sparse occasions. Otherwise, the work is excellent.
You only think that because you have no independent knowledge of the history he covers. His podcast had so many misleading statements and downright falsehoods that I wanted to metaphorically throw it against the wall.
Thanks Eugine, this is what I was worrying about! If the guy is "progressive", it is guaranteed to color his narrative. Digging out what's true and what is not becomes an impossible task.
I have a question, if I may. I assign my students Luttwak's defense-in-depth argument about the Roman Empire. Do you think something like the Habsburg strategy you describe would have been an adequate answer to the strategic difficulties Rome was confronting but failed to solve? Would such a decentralized approach even have been compatible with the Empire?
Ta and fascinating question. I have a lot of time for Luttwak—he sometimes over-reaches, but he is always worth reading.
President Clinton has a line about “respond to the headlines but keep an eye on the trendlines”. What was the trendline in the Roman Empire? It was for subordinate kingdoms to be abolished and incorporated into standard Roman administration—because that increased jobs of the people who set Roman policy. I note you can see exactly the same pattern with the Russian Empire and its tributary khanates.
The thing about the semi-autonomous border authorities of medieval and early modern Europe is that those running them were directly incorporated into the power structure. The palantine counts, bishops and marcher lords sat in the Diets and Parliaments. They were part of the same elite. No foederati chief or tributary king sat in the Senate.
The history of the Habsburg military frontier was quite revealing. The Croatian nobility resented these free peasants not subject to feudal dues or noble control. The military utility of the Grenzer meant that the Habsburg Crown held the nobles off. (Also, keeping the nobles under control was an issue for the Crown anyway.)
The Catholic Church was a different matter. There was an almost farcical pattern of Orthodox Church rights being granted wthin the Military Frontier in times of war, withdrawn when peace arrived, and then being granted again when war returned.
So, the Roman Empire would have to have been structured differently to have adopted a version of the later European mechanisms. (Note that Roman manorial colonni villas did not provide local public goods in the way medieval manors did.)
Thank you! That answer makes sense. It would certainly be difficult to imagine the Roman Senate seating chieftains among its patricians!
Also, I must say that I'm in awe of your command of the finer details of so many different periods. It's splendid to see so many telling details brought to bear on questions of such interest (and with such obvious implications for affairs today).
Interesting to read about dynastic and military history from an anthropological instead of “heroic” perspective. Makes it easier to understand more objectively the “pathologies” now being repeated (or rhyming).
The biggest bonus was the embedded Sabatan YouTube. I went down a wormhole learning more about this Swedish metal band and their high production value retellings of significant battles through history.
Sabaton are great. The rendition of “Winged Hussars” at their Warsaw concert is particularly vivid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPzCE4HmbGM&list=RDKPzCE4HmbGM&start_radio=1
An interesting post, but it begs a question: have any civilisations escaped the clutches of their own bureaucracies?
There are cases of advance and retreat, but no one has permanently solved the problem of bureaucracy.
Just a wonderfully comprehensive analysis! I really enjoyed it and it is about time the weaknesses of the Mongols over the long term was covered by a person with a deep knowledge of history!
I do have couple of observations/questions, however. What is the explanation for the Eastern Roman Empire’s resilience against multiple opponents (mostly pastoral but not exclusively) attacking over a period of a thousand years compared to the disintegration of the West (especially since, as you point out, the field army thst was lost at Adrianople (in the East) was the eastern one? (Also, the theme system seems a brilliant innovation that combines cantonment with a sophisticated administrative structure.) Belisarius was, after all, able to retake a lot of western Roman territory with just around 5k troops.
I would also say you’re being a bit unfair to the Byzantines when it comes to the Ottomans. By the time thry arrived on the scene, the Byzantine Empire was basically just Constantinople and some outlying areas.
Thank you.
The Ottomans were very much post the Fourth Crusade, so it is true that the Byzantine state was much reduced. But it also true that the Ottoman state started out considerably smaller than even the reduced Byzantine state.
Much of the resilience of the Eastern Empire comes to the placement, and defensibility, of Constantinople itself. The original Eastern Empire had most of the population, and revenue, of the pre-divided Roman Empire plus more defensible borders, hence it outlasting the West. The first real disaster was the attack from a border (Arabia) that had never before generated a serious threat AND after long, disastrous, exhausting war with the Persians.
The Empire also had considerable administrative capacity, even if the long-term trajectory of bureaucratisation is not good. Greek culture and Orthodox Christianity also provided sources of resilience.
The thematic system did work well for quite a long time, but succumbed to the tensions between provincial effectiveness and the central bureaucracy.
I always admired the Mongols for their stellar cuisine until I discovered that their signature dish was actually invented in Taiwan in the 1950s. Life has never been the same for me since I learned the true history of Mongolian Beef. Previously, every time I ate the dish, I had always fantasized about sharing this delicacy at a meal hosted by Genghis Khan himself.
I hear you. (I love the fact that Tempura comes from Tempora, Latin for times or time periods, because the Japanese took deep frying in batter from the Portuguese.)
There used to be an excellent Taiwanese-Mongolian restaurant in Melbourne. As I understand the history, KMT soldiers stationed in Inner Mongolia “adapted” their experience of actual Mongolian cooking. (So, rather like tempura then.)
I have seen YT’s doing actual Mongolian dishes. One can see the connection.
Much appreciate the Fall of Civ podcast shout out. Its an exceptional series.
Looks interesting. However, Paul switched completely from X to Bluesky long time ago.
I know many people who would excommunicate you for even looking at X, and this may be a reference point of which audience he cares about.
Oh the man is definitely lib coded and secular in his sensibilities, but ive only really found it to substantially color his analysis in a few sparse occasions. Otherwise, the work is excellent.
You only think that because you have no independent knowledge of the history he covers. His podcast had so many misleading statements and downright falsehoods that I wanted to metaphorically throw it against the wall.
Thanks Eugine, this is what I was worrying about! If the guy is "progressive", it is guaranteed to color his narrative. Digging out what's true and what is not becomes an impossible task.
I tried watching some episodes. He can't last ten seconds without saying something false or outright misleading.
I had not picked that up. Normally, I am pretty good at noticing historical over statements and falsehoods.
This was really splendid. Thank you.
I have a question, if I may. I assign my students Luttwak's defense-in-depth argument about the Roman Empire. Do you think something like the Habsburg strategy you describe would have been an adequate answer to the strategic difficulties Rome was confronting but failed to solve? Would such a decentralized approach even have been compatible with the Empire?
Ta and fascinating question. I have a lot of time for Luttwak—he sometimes over-reaches, but he is always worth reading.
President Clinton has a line about “respond to the headlines but keep an eye on the trendlines”. What was the trendline in the Roman Empire? It was for subordinate kingdoms to be abolished and incorporated into standard Roman administration—because that increased jobs of the people who set Roman policy. I note you can see exactly the same pattern with the Russian Empire and its tributary khanates.
The thing about the semi-autonomous border authorities of medieval and early modern Europe is that those running them were directly incorporated into the power structure. The palantine counts, bishops and marcher lords sat in the Diets and Parliaments. They were part of the same elite. No foederati chief or tributary king sat in the Senate.
The history of the Habsburg military frontier was quite revealing. The Croatian nobility resented these free peasants not subject to feudal dues or noble control. The military utility of the Grenzer meant that the Habsburg Crown held the nobles off. (Also, keeping the nobles under control was an issue for the Crown anyway.)
The Catholic Church was a different matter. There was an almost farcical pattern of Orthodox Church rights being granted wthin the Military Frontier in times of war, withdrawn when peace arrived, and then being granted again when war returned.
So, the Roman Empire would have to have been structured differently to have adopted a version of the later European mechanisms. (Note that Roman manorial colonni villas did not provide local public goods in the way medieval manors did.)
Thank you! That answer makes sense. It would certainly be difficult to imagine the Roman Senate seating chieftains among its patricians!
Also, I must say that I'm in awe of your command of the finer details of so many different periods. It's splendid to see so many telling details brought to bear on questions of such interest (and with such obvious implications for affairs today).
It comes from decades of reading and from habitually starting with the history. The devil is not only in the details, so is understanding.