Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2887539" data-attributes="member: 7240">But, from my understanding of Roman slavery, the empire's courts functioned as arbitrators of master-slave disputes and dealt with such questions as disputed ownership, self-purchase, etc. This seems like a pretty major modification of the Roman system. I see three things arising from this: (1) De facto chattel status: If it is always in the imperial interest to maintain an individual's status as a slave (as opposed to supporting self-purchase in order to pad the tax rolls and undermine patrician power), wouldn't slaves just be permanently consigned to this state? Why would it ever be in the interests of a magistrate to permit self-purchase? Furthermore, if masters cannot grant manumission, there would exist no other way for slaves to be freed.(2) Lower standards of treatment: If patricians have no financial incentive to keep slaves alive, given that they don't actually belong to them, wouldn't treatment of slaves be much worse?(3) Reduced patrician power: If patricians can have all their slaves seized by the state at any time, they would be even more like a service gentry class, their status contingent upon maintaining good relations with the army.On another matter, your use of elections is obviously beyond what most pre-modern societies engaged in. Having so many decisions made by simple majority rather than general acclamation would likely destabilize society at the local level as small shifts in support could result in significant realignments of power.What do you mean by "own land" -- I'm assuming we're not dealing with fee simple title here. What does this entail?A big problem in Rome is that tax farming was often a money-loser. Is this the case here? Do people try to avoid election for fear of their net worth declining?If I were you, I would strongly resist the use of such categories in an imperial despotism.You might want to deploy different words here for a more ancient feel. Also, remember that representative democracy was really not an operating idea until the 18th century. The idea of an elected assembly was non-existent until modern times. Elections were for single offices with absolute power. Assemblies tended to be populated by people who were there by birthright. I think you would be more likely to see a local magistrate being elected and then selecting councillors of his own choosing.Wouldn't the governor be appointed by the emperor? If the emperor's authority is as absolute as you say, why would he not choose who governed the province?You're getting way too modern here. Power flowing upwards from the bottom with clear areas of jurisdiction -- too clean in my opinion. One of the ways that imperial systems survive is they create areas of concurrent, contested jurisdiction so that different groups fight with, and thereby undermine eachother at the local level, thereby maintaining imperial authority.The idea of religion and branch of government as distinct and separate categories is a very modern way of looking at the world. Surely it is both.Wrong. Go and read my stuff in the Politics in D&D thread.There is nothing exceptional about this. If you want to look at church-state relations in Byzantium and Imperial Russia (ie. the states that descended from the Roman order) you will see very much the situation you are describing. A religion that sanctifies and emperor thereby subordinates itself to imperial authority.Anyway, I'm short of time so I'm going to stop there and pick up the rest of your post when I get back from my holiday. Happy world building.</blockquote>

Verification