Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
  • entries
    3
  • comments
    6
  • views
    29,021

About this blog

mostly history

Entries in this blog

 

Ode to the EU - part 1

I have 2 main objections to all political systems. First when a political movement gets power over state institutions it brings it's own people in the bureaucracy and they are often incompetent, corrupt or biased but they are untouchable because they have political support. Second, most political organizations have an ideology, a set of simplistic tenets that can not deal with the amazing diversity of reality, but regardless of how useless all ideologies are for dealing with real problems the action of the bureaucracy have to reflect the official political dogma. When modern European political systems appeared the appointment of politicians to directly control the bureaucracy was not in the plan. The administrative apparatus was to be appointed by the king and placed under the supervision of the Parliament. The birth of political parties and the eventual victory of elected politicians over royalty meant that a party could control both the bureaucracy and the institutions meant to check it and keep it efficient. In rare occasions a meritocratic system was allowed to work without much political interference, like the Civil Service of the British Raj, with excellent results. Now, for the first time, we have these European institutions that the national political movements can not take over and that have clear, public, competitive and merit based employment and promotions. Why this is a blow to politicians is clear, they can't use this bureaucracy to reward themselves and their friends and they can't turn it into an ideological tool. For these reasons they are always critical and hostile to European institutions. The main accuse they make is a nebulous deficit of democracy but if by democracy they mean a politicized bureaucracy I trade democracy for efficiency any day.

Kosmo

Kosmo

 

How Did Latin Survived In Dacia? Paradox

This is a question that aroused many hot debates and because of this question romanian and hungarian history science was born. Roman rule in Dacia was brief and difficult. In other areas they had a much longer time and better conditions, but latin did not survive. The area of Dacia was for more then a 1000 years after the roman retreat roamed by migrators and still the language was preserved. Hungarians said that romanians are migrators from the Balkan peninsula that setlled today Romania during the Middle Ages. There are some serious proofs that this is not the case, but the question still remain. Here is my view of the things. Dacia was a rough country covered by forests, with mountains and rivers and this provide good cover against steppe nomads for a small population. It had a strong ruling aristocracy that is atested by arheological finds and ancient writers. During the roman conquest some aristocrats surrendered to the romans as depicted on Trajan's column. There was some romanization even before roman conquest. This is what we know. I believe that because of the continous problems that the romans had with the neighbours the dacian aristcracy kept some power in distant areas while romans controlled cities, roads, forts and mines. This aristocracy became latinized, but unlike the aristocracy in other areas of the empire kept local power and real authority.Because of the state of war local levies, fortifications and survival tactics were kept. When the romans were forced out, or left they had no reason to abandon their status and remained as intermediaries between the peasantry and the various migrators keeping their latin language (maybe a sign of status) and spreading it to the peasants. Maybe they also spread the language to the aristocracy of the free dacians that were surrounded from most parts by romans and were to some varying degree under roman authority. This theory it's different from the mainstream romanian theory by placing the accent on the aristocracy in stead of peasantry that I dont think had the time to became latinized and by considering as the main agent of latinzation dacian aristocracy and not roman colonists. So, the brief and weak control kept some local structures in power and this aloud for the survival of a latinized aristocracy. In turn, this arstocracy was able to use local resources to defend the popoulation. In areas were Rome had a long, strong control local structures were destoyed and the population became more reliant on public authority. When this collapsed thay were not able to do much against invaders. By aristocracy I don't mean large landowners but a ruling class that had rights to lavy taxes on trade, to a quota of all production and that held leadership of local armed force made from all able villagers and also had judicial authority. Romanian historians places the beginings of romanian aristocracy with this powers in the period of medieval state formation (X-XIV centuries) but I believe that it was continuous from dacian times.

Kosmo

Kosmo

 

From Roman Politics To Romanian Politics

Between the imperial instititution of Rome and romanian political institution of "domnie" of Middle Ages and Modern Era it's continuity of content. The romans were never able to maintain dinastic continuity and usurpers used what was the fragility of imperial rule and the reduce loyalty of the army to start new dinasties that faced the same problems. The empire was divided in three large areas were succesor states ruled. The West adopted the political forms of the victorious germans based on election of the kings, dinastic succesion or division of the state. The areas under muslim rule used islamic theories. Only the East directly continued the roman imperial tradition. This presented problems that played a great role in the gradual decline of the byzantine state. The inability to secure the legitimacy of any dinasty it's an explanation for the contniuous intrigue and distrust copled with frecvent rebellions and civil wars that plagued the byzantine empire until his fall. Romanian "domnie" was an original institution specific to the two romanian states of Moldova and Valachia (also named Muntenia or Tara Romaneasca) The name it's from the latin "dominus" (eng. master) transformed in romanian "domn" and in itself (togather with "jude" from latin "judex" eng.judge) it's a curios statement of continuos political continuity throut the millenia of migrator rule. Slavic political teminology it's proven by the use by domn of the title of great voivod in parallel and for the title of "cneaz" of the ruler of small teritories. Byzantine political tradition reached the emerging romanian states thru two ways. The first was thru the bulgarian emperors that adopted along with orthodoxy byzantine institutions (and spreaded thru out Eastern Europe after changing it) and thru the direct inflence of byzantine church and byzantine legal codes. So, in the romanian states any member of the ruling dinasty could claim the right to rule and later this was expaned to any aristocrat (boyar). The internal conflicts that this type of goverment made possible had many effects and not all negative. The first was that only able rulers could hold the title as the weak ones were overthrown or did not get to it. Another one was the use of foreign support in internal conflicts. This led to formation of aristocrat parties that had outside alliances. A positive aspect was the fact that foreign powers did not need to conquer the country to controll it, but just to place an everpresent contender on the throne. This made possible indirect rule and tribute gathering so the ottomans kept this tradition in place first by supporting claims and later by naming the rulers. The romanian countries enjoied during ottoman rule a large degree of authomomy and the title of "domn" was only affected by the constitutional reforms of the second half of the 19 century. Romanian states kept their rulers thru out the 4 centuries of ottoman rule and were never turned in ottoman adminstrative units (pasalic, sangiac, raia etc) colonized, or even had turkish land owners or mosques.   Many features of "domnie' are direct continuations of roman imperial tradition. Unlike other european rulers the "domn" had almost absolute power and owned the entire land of the country (at least in theory). They had also control over the church.

Kosmo

Kosmo

×