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

No states are morally legitimate; all any state ever has is its effective control over a territory.

What was, or rather, what is the Roman Empire? — Gus Lamarch

I think the simplest answer would be the empire founded by and containing Rome. When the empire founded by Rome was no longer centered on Rome, it was still the same empire; but when that empire no longer contained Rome, it was no longer the Roman Empire, but something else. Any other empire centered on or founded by Rome later would not be that Roman Empire, but instead some other Roman Empire, requiring we number or otherwise distinguish Roman Empires from each other, none of them deserving the definite article.

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).

Rome is still around, in a way. But I don't think the influence of a state beyond its borders is a question of legitimacy. Legitimacy maybe denied or disputed. Maybe the Latin word imperium best describes what creates it. Authority, or perceived authority, in the creation and imposition of standards governing various aspects of our lives.

No states are morally legitimate — Pfhorrest

Please, clarify your position,

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

One of the most striking features, which made Roman civilization so great and productive, was that it had emerged from a culture that had been evolving over time, without needing any cultural reference - diferent from the post-roman Europe -. 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.

I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire. — Ciceronianus the White

Perhaps this is the cause of the cyclical secularism and nihilism that afflicts the West from time to time? 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...

No states are morally legitimate — Pfhorrest

Please, clarify your position, — Gus Lamarch

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism — Pfhorrest

Quote from the page:

"Philosophical anarchism is an anarchist school of thought, which holds that the state lacks moral legitimacy whilst not supporting violence to eliminate it."

"philosophical anarchists do not believe thatthey have an obligation or duty to obey the state, or conversely that the state has a right to command"

What will you do when te state uses his force against you - let's suppose this happen -? Will you stop him to say that it doesn't have the right? Then what? Do you expect it to simply respect your individual property?

Philosophical anarchism is as useless as political anarchism.

You asked about moral legitimacy, not what to do in practice about people doing morally illegitimate things.

not what to do in practice about people doing morally illegitimate things. — Pfhorrest

Why then, in your view, the State is illegitimate? And why would you not support its overthrow?

It seems as a contradiction to me.

The burden of proof is on the state to prove its legitimacy, and it has not done so.

And that wikipedia article is a little unclear. Philosophical anarchism is a view just about the moral legitimacy of a state, without any specific commitments to any particular plan of action. Philosophical anarchists do not categorically oppose the overthrow of states, they just don't categorically push for it to happen right now. 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.

(I personally think that the elimination of the state is the "limit", in a calculus sense, of increasing perfection of government: if we make existing governments do fewer bad things and more good things, we eventually, in principle, make them stop being states, and achieve stateless governance; or at least, that is the condition that continued improvement to the government approaches, even if we're not ever able to actually reach it).

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

Yes. It must have been galling for them to consider themselves compared to what had been, ruling over provinces or parts of provinces of an Empire which fell. And Latin of course survived and was considered the language of the educated and the elite, not to mention that of the ubiquitous Church. Rome's shadow covered them all. 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.

When one thinks that we only began to rival Rome in such things as plumbing and hygiene in the 19th century, it's a bit humbling.

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

Interesting. But I think we can claim to have surpassed the ancients in some ways, at least, since the development of the sciences. Technologically, certainly. But those achievements are secular.

The burden of proof is on the state to prove its legitimacy, and it has not done so. — Pfhorrest

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. You could say that morally it was legitimized from the moment that we - humanity - subjected ourselves to its mode of governance - it was this or endless chaos -.

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

In my view, the concept of "State" as understood today, is not the same as that of the medieval, nor of the ancients, nor of the prehistoric ones, therefore, could they consider our concept as a "post-state" mode of governance?

I do not believe that the root of the order that the abstraction of the State brings, will dissappear, but that it will change together with humanity; and thinking in this way, we enhance all possibilities of different governance modes. I, for example, believe that there is a way of government not yet discovered by humanity, where the individual wills of each person would be represented completely by the functions of the "State" - whatever term would be used to define this type of order - in an atomized structure and which would become the political community established without needing a means of force.

Can my concept of governance be considered "post-state" to? Anarchism is just a difference type of governance.

State means order;
Government means how will you establish this order.

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

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.

(They have still their job positions. The Pope, the bishop of Rome with Partiarch Bartholomew I, the archbishop of Constantinople. 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.)

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

So you're claiming that might makes right?

That's tantamount to saying "there's no such thing as 'right', only might". And I already said that the only thing a state has is its might; no states are right.

State means order; — Gus Lamarch

No, a state is a monopoly on the use of violence. That's the textbook political science definition.

The question of the legitimacy of states is whether anyone morally deserves such a monopoly on the use of violence, rather than the legitimacy of violence being regardless of who commits it: if it's wrong for anyone in some context then it's wrong for everyone in that context.

But did you really want this thread to derail into one about anarchism? I thought you were asking about Rome. I gave the anarchist answer to one of your questions about Rome.

Latin of course survived and was considered the language of the educated and the elite — Ciceronianus the White

Reflect on that sentence for a moment. The common language of the ancient Roman civilization, which was standard until the end of the 2nd century, was eventually to be considered the scholarly and elite language, while the masses and even the barbarian elites who settled in the ancient Roman provinces, spoke a mixture of Germanic dialect, with the "vulgare" of Latin - which would eventually change and establish the languages ​​currently known as "Romance" - Portuguese - My language here in Brazil, and in Portugal; Abraço à todos! -, Spanish, Italian, French, and Romenian - - which from the 4th century to the end of Rome, was just a pile of slangs and abbreviations of the ancient language. What level of individual and cultural degradation does a society have to be in for this to occur? And in that moment, I stop and think:

Young people in the West increasingly "cool" and diverse, speaking in slang terms and abbreviations for "practicality". How long until this contribute to the end of our civilization?

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

And then Luther was a thing.

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

True.

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 they do not compare in any way to a concept of "State" that is the premise of the discussion - Good point nonetheless -.

But now, ask both of them who they consider the rightfully "Apostolic Roman Church" to see what happens.

But did you really want this thread to derail into one about anarchism? — Pfhorrest

Yep, discussing anarchism makes any sane mind go crazy for its meaninglessness.

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?

And what brings discipline to the world when it has been totally forgotten? — Gus Lamarch

The presence of a state is the absence of discipline, if by discipline you mean something like governance.

You've probably heard the adage "a government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned". That describes a state very well: it's the ungoverned monopoly on violence sitting at the top of a power hierarchy. Stateless governance (anarchy) is when nobody gets to sit at the top ungoverned, where all govern and are governed equally.

But they do not compare in any way to a concept of "State" that is the premise of the discussion — 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 now, ask both of them who they consider the rightfully "Apostolic Roman Church" to see what happens. — 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.

where all govern and are governed equally. — Pfhorrest

This is way all kinds of Anarchism will never work. There an utopian ideal, some kind of metaphysical purpose for the godless politics and philosophers of the post-modern era. If we see this as a political straight line, both Anarchism and Totalitarianism are the extremes. And we have already reached totalitarianism to see that it is evil. Anarchism is to be expected to be as bad as totalitarianism.

The presence of a state is the absence of discipline, — Pfhorrest

I mean order. State is how we project order unto the larger comunity.

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

True enough.

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

Yeah, "Suomi", or as the whole world knows, "Finland".

Likely they will have a cordial diplomatic response to the question and will avoid being confrontational. — ssu

The point is that in the end, both will consider themselves as the rightfully representative of God on Earth - both will be the legitimate "Roman Church" -.

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

There is some truth there, but these churches are also what doomed the empire, what caused its fall. The Alaric sack of Rome is only some 40 years after a Christian emperor (Gratian) removed the victory statue and altar in the senate, and a mere 13 years after the cult of idols was forbidden. This is the thesis of Edward Gibbon, and I think he is right. Religious division and internecine hatreds between pagans and christians is what brought them down.

Not that the sack of Alaric was the end of it mind you: it took three sacks of Rome in the 5th century to bring this story to a close, and as the OP pointed out, they were still trying to imitate or replicate it centuries later.

The European Union can be understood as a reconstruction of the Charlemagne empire, which itself was a sort of revival of the Roman empire.

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

I would disagree.

The empire of Charlemagne needed Charlemagne, just as the Roman empire needed all the victorious Roman generals to create the Roman Empire, from Scipio Africanus to Ceasar and so on. The EU was created after a huge pile of millions of dead after WW1 and WW2, which created a collective thought of "well that didn't work, perhaps we should try something else". Last time similar unification of Europe through force was tried was during WW2.

(Postcard from Vichy-France. One kind of European integration back then...)


Peaceful integration like the EU is something quite rare in history. Perhaps the Kalmar Union in Northern Europe is a similar "accident" which came into existence due to luck and lack of opposition, just like Charles V evidently inheriting a vast number of separate countries thanks to inheriting various crowns. There are example of states forming a union of some sort peacefully, but usually it happens through wars and violence.

Religious division and internecine hatreds between pagans and christians is what brought them down. — Olivier5

This was only one of the causes of the fall of Rome. Other causes would be:

The Crisis of the Third Century- 234–284 -, a period of political instability.

The reign of Emperor Diocletian - 284–305 -, who attempted substantial political and economic reforms, many of which would remain in force in the following centuries, and practically established the kind of rule that was to become the norm during the Middle Ages - Despotic Autrocracy -.

The reign of Constantine I - 306–337 -, who built the new eastern capital of Constantinople and converted to Christianity, legalizing and even favoring to some extent this religion. All Roman emperors after Constantine, except for Julian, would be Christians even if for the most part of the fall of the Empire, more than 50% of the population would still be pagan.

The first war with the Visigoths - 376–382 -, culminating in the Battle of Adrianople - August 9, 378 -, in which a large Roman army was defeated by the Visigoths, and Emperor Valens was killed. The Visigoths, fleeing a migration of the Huns, had been allowed to settle within the borders of the Empire by Valens, but were mistreated by the local Roman administrators, and rebelled.

The reign of Theodosius I - 379–395 -, last emperor to reunite under his authority the western and eastern halves of the Empire. Theodosius continued and intensified the policies against paganism of his predecessors, eventually outlawing it, and making Nicaean Christianity the state religion.

The Crossing of the Rhine: on December 31, 406 - or 405, according to some historians -, a mixed band of Vandals, Suebi and Alans crossed the frozen river Rhine at Moguntiacum - modern Mainz -, and began to ravage Gaul. Some moved on to the regions of Hispania and Africa. The Empire would never regain control over most of these lands.

The second war with the Visigoths, led by king Alaric, in which they raided Greece, and then invaded Italy, culminating in the sack of Rome - 410 -. The Visigoths eventually left Italy and founded the Visigothic Kingdom in southern Gaul and Hispania.

The rise of the Hunnic Empire under Attila and Bleda - 434–453 -, who raided the Balkans, Gaul, and Italy, threatening both Constantinople and Rome.

The second sack of Rome, this time by the Vandals - 455 -.

Failed counterstrikes against the Vandals - 461–468 -. The Western Emperor Majorian planned a naval campaign against the Vandals to reconquer northern Africa in 461, but word of the preparations got out to the Vandals, who took the Roman fleet by surprise and destroyed it. A second naval expedition against the Vandals, sent by Emperors Leo I and Anthemius, was defeated at Cape Bon in 468.

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.

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.

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.

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

In no way can they be compared. The Carolingian Empire had been forged from iron and blood, and from the ambition of a people - the Franks - led by a man of culture - Charlemage -. The European Union was forged by cowards concerned only with their economic power.

They had more courage than you can ever think of.

Charlemagne remains there in the cultural background. — Olivier5

In a way, the only legacy that Charlemagne left was the freshest memory of the ancient light of Rome - something that his people - the Franks - helped to extinguish -.

Obviously, the people who made up the European population at the time when Charlemagne lived - 8th and 9th centuries - were already completely germanic and had no real connection with the ancient Roman population, and for that reason they would call him "Pater Europae" because, for them, he had built civilization - keeping in mind that the population of the time was 85% ignorant of history and even the most basic knowledges -.

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

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.

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...

The last great war emperor was Julian, a pagan, whom the rest of the Constantines called ‘the apostate’ after they forced him to baptize at a young age and he later renounced it. When he died on the battlefield, deep in Persia, his last words were reported to be: You’ve won, Gallilean! That’s supposedly because he knew he was the last pagan emperor (but it may be apocryphal).

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

Insuspect we’re right there in 421, just a few months before the sack of Washington by hordes of MAGA hats.

Yaaa... it’s hard to draw a line, in a death through thousand wounds. And thanks for reminding us the general outline. — Olivier5

You're welcome :smile:

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

Emperor Constantine had been a natural example of how to be a populist ruler. He supported the religious movement that would bring him power, and he was pragmatic with everything else when needed - as you said, doing pagan religious events every now and then - and even worshiping "Sol Invictus" on his coins the year before he died. I can't decide whether to judge him as sly or intelligent, maybe a little bit of both.

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

I compare all this widespread Christian hysteria with - perhaps - a future time when Communists, Socialists and Islamists will do the same.

Insuspect we’re right there in 421, just a few months before the sack of Washington by hordes of MAGA hats. — Olivier5

I still think that all this current nihilism occurring in the USA is a noisy minority. Times are going to get a lot worse - that's why we have about 100 to 200 more years -. Eventually, the minority will become the majority, and then my friend, the new Rome - Washington - will fall.

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

responded with quite the same answer as I did.

The simple fact is that Charlemagne is simply so unknown and hence politically correct that the EU can name a prize after him. They wouldn't do that with a Napoleon prize and especially not with a Hitler prize.