"'I think they lack leadership here, En Jaime, and a reason to fight, rather than true manhood. What is this Empire that anyone should die for it? Should even live for it? How can there be courage without devotion, or loyalty to masters who offer nothing but oppression?'" (p. 120)
This Empire has made itself illegitimate. See Sean's article on political legitimacy here.
When there was an Iron Curtain, people tried to cross it from East to West, not vice versa. That fact alone was a sufficient indictment of the Eastern regimes.
In the UK this week, popular revulsion has driven a Prince from his royal position.
Addendum: Vox populi vox Dei.
2 comments:
The Roman Empire and its Byzantine successor had terrible legitimacy problems because they lacked a powerful legitimizing myth. The Germanic pagans had one: the royal line was descended from the Gods. The Japanese have the same myth, and very useful it has been -- the Yamato dynasty has been on the throne since the 600's AD, probably, and certainly well over a thousand years.
Medieval Europe took the Germanic reverence for royal/divine blood and added a Christian layer, and that worked quite well. People would tolerate a bad king (and there's always going to be a bad one) rather than depose God's Annointed. That didn't keep them from, say, imposing a Council of Regents on a monarch , but it did mean that some commander couldn't just seize power the way so many in Roman and Byzantine history did.
At most, the Roman and Byzantine states could only argue that they were fulfilling the basic function of government -- keeping the peace, protecting people from arbitrary violence, encouraging trade.
That's necessary but not sufficient. For a system to be secure, people have to -believe- in it on some basis other than individual self-interest.
("Will of the people" is just as much a legitimating myth as "descent from Wotan", of course. What matters is the degree of cnsensus about it.)
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Thanks for this very interesting blog piece and linking it to my "Political Legitimacy" article. I only wish, while I was writing it, that I had remembered that very PERTINENT bit you quoted from ROGUE SWORD. Because I almost certainly would have included it in my essay. Maybe I still should, in a revised version?
Yes, foolishness, bungling, bad faith, corruption, etc., was depriving the Eastern Roman Empire of the legitimacy it once had. When Andronicus II succeeded his father Michael VIII as sole Emperor in 1282, the Empire was in a precarious condition, but it was not in the CALAMITOUS shape it was later because of Andronicus' many blunders.
I would modify the charts you chose for illustrating the Confucian theory or "myth" (to use the word Stirling chose) of legitimacy. Sometimes, even after things start going wrong as a dynasty became old, efforts would be made to correct abuses and govern more competently and wisely. This could prolong, sometimes for a long period, the lifespan of a dynasty. Also, there was a strong tradition of loyalty to a dynasty while it lasted, which also helped to lengthen its life span.
I have read of the troubles Prince Andrew has been having due to his connections with the disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. I wish no one ill, so I really hope he was not seriously involved in Esptein's depraved orgies. Also, humans being what they are, I'm sure some have been using this scandal as an opportunity for making cheap shots at the expense of the British royal family. Such persons should remember Epstein was an American and plenty of Americans were also involved in his perverted debauches. Not just Britons!
Mr. Stirling: I mostly agree with your comments about the Roman Empire and its East Roman sister. I also agree the East Romans lacked the STRONG dynastic traditions which did so much to bring some stability to the western European nations. Where I would differ partly from you is by pointing out Byzantium DID have some tradition of dynastic legitimacy. There were periods in Byzantine history when a single family held the throne for lengthy periods. Such as the Heraclian, Isaurian, Macedonian, Comnenian, and even the Palaeologian dynasties.
Also, what you said about the "will of the people" myth reminded me again of the concerns I have that the US Gov't might losing its own legitimacy. My belief is that, since at least the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, there has been so much foolishness, bungling, counterproductive policies, abuses of power, etc., that the current gov't of the US risks losing its legitimacy. And that was also a concern of Poul Anderson!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment