Gratillonius is a superman of a leader. The Governor and his Procurator hit the former Ysans, now Roman citizens, with exorbitant taxes in order to impoverish them as individuals and to atomize their colony. Gratillonius and his men commandeer Scotian booty and use it to pay the taxes. Someone sets fire to the wooden houses of the new colony. Gratillonius rebuilds in stone. He proposes to kill or scatter the pirates based on the Channel Islands and to appropriate their hoards in order to fund the rebuilding. Two birds with one stone. Can Gratillonius' enemies not realize that he is doing some good and that they should stop trying to thwart him? With leadership like this, we might start to address some current problems instead of blundering into more.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, far better for Gratillonius' enemies to realize he was trying to help, not just in Armorica but the entire Western Empire.
I discussed this in the long letter I wrote to the Andersons about THE KING OF YS. What motivated Bacca in his plots against Gratillonius was his fear that his successes and policies would help to bring about a regional separatism and warlordism that would split apart the Empire. Opposing viewpoints as Anderson said. Meaning even Gratillonius' enemies had a not completely unreasonable POV.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: also, besides what Sean said, don't underestimate the power of personal animus. It not only motivates and gives a living will to harm, it distorts people's perceptions of those they hate.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I should have mentioned that animus factor as well, albeit that was more true of Governor Glabrio than of Bacca. In fact, both Gratillonius and Bacca came to have a rueful, half friendly respect for each other. Rather like the relationship between Flandry and Aycharaych, enemies who respected each other.
One of the points I discussed in this letter to the Andersons was how Glabrio's title of "governor" was not correct, being a word that evolved later. The officials in charge of provinces in the Later Empire of Gratillonius' time had titles like "consular" or "praeses," which evolved into "president." Anderson agreed that "president" of the province of Armorica was more accurate, but believed "governor" was less confusing to modern readers.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the Roman concept of rank was different from ours in ways both overt and subtle.
It was more personalized, for starters, and less institutionally specific.
For example, the actual title of a provincial governor under the High Empire was either "Proconsul" (for a Senatorial province) or "Legatus Augustii pro praetore" -- which means, roughly, "ambassador/representative of the Augustus for the headquarters", but it doesn't specify -what- headquarters.
So a man with that title could rule a province, -or- he could command a force of more than one legion.
One of the surprising things about the Roman Imperial government was how small it was.
Even in the 4th century, the direct non-military employees of the central government numbered no more than 40,000 -- and in the 2nd century, half that or less.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I did have some idea of how the Early and High Empire was administratively organized. And there were some variants even then. E.g, the legate of Syria had parts of his province governed by prefects or procurators--the most famous example, of course, being Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judae/Samaria.
But all this changed during the Crisis of the Third Century, esp. during Diocletian's complete reorganization of the Empire. Eventually 100 provinces were created, with groups of them (called "dioceses") being overseen by a Vicar. It was then that the new units came to have governors with titles like "praeses." E.g., the diocese of Britannia was divided into four provinces.
Employee of the IRS tho I am, I only wish the US had a bureaucracy of a mere 40,000! Far better for both the US and the gov't if that could have been the case.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment