My main question would be about what makes a concept of state legitimate so that it has influence over territories that it does not control, and which moral arguments could claim this legitimacy — Gus Lamarch
What was, or rather, what is the Roman Empire? — Gus Lamarch
My main question would be about what makes a concept of state legitimate so that it has influence over territories that it does not control, and which moral arguments could claim this legitimacy. And last but not least: - What was, or rather, what is the Roman Empire? — Gus Lamarch
I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire. We've always looked back to it, and I think we always will. Perhaps if Alexander had lived longer, or his successors weren't so intent on fighting each other, that potential fusion of disparate nations, peoples, cultures and beliefs would have dominated West and East. As it is, Hellenistic culture was influential throughout the Mediterranean Sea and beyond.
Rome succeeded where Alexander and his successors failed. It conquered the lands assumed by his generals and more (to the West), but more importantly it lasted, for centuries in the West and more centuries in the East. The Eastern Empire was Greek in language and culture, but Roman in law, administration and militarily (the language of law remained Latin). It called itself Roman long after what is traditionally considered the fall of the Western Empire. So, for that matter, did the barbarian nations which took its place in the West, through Charlemagne to the rather absurdly named Holy Roman Empire. It survives still, in a sense, as a kind of ghost in the form of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Later empires, Spanish, French and British, imitated it; the British who ran their empire were raised on it. Even the short-lived empire of Napoleon, and Napoleon III, was influenced by it. Napoleon deserved the to be called "Emperor" (a military title, after all) more than most emperors of Rome.
Its success and lasting influence can be attributed to several things. Roads, an unmatched military for many years, tolerance for most beliefs, religions and cultures provided its imperium was acknowledged and respected and taxes paid, its law and administration, the prosperity which accompanied the Pax Romana, and finally, perhaps, and ultimately, its governments' association with and imposition of an exclusive, aggressive and intolerant religion and the ruthless suppression of all others.
Well, that certainly sums up the past few thousand years of the West (I joke). — Ciceronianus the White
I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire. — Ciceronianus the White
No states are morally legitimate — Pfhorrest
Please, clarify your position, — Gus Lamarch
not what to do in practice about people doing morally illegitimate things. — Pfhorrest
One of the issues that most concerned medieval European monarchs was the concept of legitimacy. It was an unremitting struggle to decide who could really be considered the "successor" of the Roman Empire - therefore, of all the civilization they had until then inherited -, and for that very reason that European states were so unstable and techno-culturally backward - during the Early Middle Ages -. It was an eternal discussion of do-nothing-kings about who could be considered the heir to the throne of Rome, one who was already of iron and rust. — Gus Lamarch
In the end, the thought that may arise in the mind is that we did not develop anything, nor did we build anything, we just destroyed a great civilization that was the world, and now we try to reconstruct it through the little pieces that remain... — Gus Lamarch
The burden of proof is on the state to prove its legitimacy, and it has not done so. — Pfhorrest
States should go away, somehow, eventually, because they are morally illegitimate; but philosophical anarchism has no specific commitments to when or how that should happen. Different individuals may hold different opinions about it. — Pfhorrest
Remember that day in February 27th, 380 AD, when East Roman Emperor Theodosius I with signed a decree in the presence of the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian II of being Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. And even if both the Eastern and the Western part of the empire have collapsed, the Churches lives on. And let's remember that before religion was extremely important to the state and it's legitimacy.My main question would be about what makes a concept of state legitimate so that it has influence over territories that it does not control, and which moral arguments could claim this legitimacy. — Gus Lamarch
I am pretty sure that the state's legitimacy has already been proven by it through the power it commands over the population of said state. — Gus Lamarch
State means order; — Gus Lamarch
Latin of course survived and was considered the language of the educated and the elite — Ciceronianus the White
Then, from the 13th century on, they were compelled to marvel at the knowledge and wisdom of the ancients revealed to them from the "rediscovery" of Greek and Roman thinkers, thanks in no small part to the Arabs. Very galling. — Ciceronianus the White
But I think we can claim to have surpassed the ancients in some ways, at least, since the development of the sciences. — Ciceronianus the White
The primus inter pares of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the "Western" Catholic Church are the remnants of the divided Roman Empire in our times.) — ssu
But did you really want this thread to derail into one about anarchism? — Pfhorrest
No, a state is a monopoly on the use of violence. — Pfhorrest
And what brings discipline to the world when it has been totally forgotten? — Gus Lamarch
Yet when you raise the question of legitimacy and especially the idea of a successor state, religion and religious positions are important as the secular state is a rather new concept. For example my country has a state church and religion is taught in schools and even the flag has cross in it, just like the other Nordic countries.But they do not compare in any way to a concept of "State" that is the premise of the discussion — Gus Lamarch
Likely they will have a cordial diplomatic response to the question and will avoid being confrontational. Christianity has gone a long way from the wars of religion. Still, it's likely that their flock of followers, those ordinary church goers, who might have antipathies towards the other branch of Christianity. And now there's of course the Protestants and all kinds of other sects.But now, ask both of them who they consider the rightfully "Apostolic Roman Church" to see what happens. — Gus Lamarch
where all govern and are governed equally. — Pfhorrest
The presence of a state is the absence of discipline, — Pfhorrest
Yet when you raise the question of legitimacy and especially the idea of a successor state, religion and religious positions are important as the secular state is a rather new concept. — ssu
For example my country has a state church and religion is taught in schools and even the flag has cross in it, just like the other Nordic countries. — ssu
Likely they will have a cordial diplomatic response to the question and will avoid being confrontational. — ssu
The primus inter pares of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the "Western" Catholic Church are the remnants of the divided Roman Empire in our times.) — ssu
I would disagree.The European Union can be understood as a reconstruction of the Charlemagne empire, which itself was a sort of revival of the Roman empire. — Olivier5
Religious division and internecine hatreds between pagans and christians is what brought them down. — Olivier5
The European Union can be understood as a reconstruction of the Charlemagne empire, which itself was a sort of revival of the Roman empire. — Olivier5
Charlemagne remains there in the cultural background. — Olivier5
Yaaa... it’s hard to draw a line, in a death through thousand wounds. And thanks for reminding us the general outline. My point is the empire could ill-afford to piss off all pagans within itself, often men of power, knowledge, prestige and leadership skills. Constantine knew it. He didn’t rock the boat, just helped the Church. He still would sacrifice to the gods when politically necessary. And it worked. For a while.So yes, Christianity was a factor in the fall of the Empire, but you could already see the light of Rome beginning to fade out in the early 3rd century. — Gus Lamarch
Insuspect we’re right there in 421, just a few months before the sack of Washington by hordes of MAGA hats.In comparisson to our own time. I could say that we are at the end period of the reign of Commodus - 192 AD - or at the beginning of the "Crisis of the Third Century". From my studies - if they're right - we have at least more or less a 100 to a 200 years of "Western civilization" as we know it. — Gus Lamarch
Yaaa... it’s hard to draw a line, in a death through thousand wounds. And thanks for reminding us the general outline. — Olivier5
My point is the empire could ill-afford to piss off all pagans within itself, often men of power, knowledge, prestige and leadership skills. Constantine knew it. He didn’t rock the boat, just helped the Church. He still would sacrifice to the gods when politically necessary. And it worked. For a while. — Olivier5
Then some fanatic Nicean tries to force their Holy Trinity onto the whole empire... even on to the Arian Christians, for Jesus’ sake... The destruction (or lack of onward copying) of thousands of books from the ancients ensued. That’s the original sin of the Church herself, when she became powerful and thus corrupt, almost mechanically. The rich, the ambitious, the profiteers started to have ‘faith’ and some of them became bishop in no time, just with some seed money... — Olivier5
Insuspect we’re right there in 421, just a few months before the sack of Washington by hordes of MAGA hats. — Olivier5
Well yes, by different means, but Charlemagne remains there in the cultural background. I think the EEC founding members for instance overlap well with his empire. There is also a EU Charlemagne prize, and even a Charlemagne building in Brussels. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.