11 Comments

Most of these involved some combination of technological and organizational innovation wrapped in a cultural capsule. The former enabled the conquest but the latter maintained the ruling culture well past its golden age of plentiful resources. Those conquests were followed by cultural and technological shifts, new systems of law, new ways of justifying the ruling class and a payoff for adopting the ruling culture even if you yourself were an outsider.

(Judaism shows the signs of repeated cultural shifts as new empires arose. Literacy came from the Egyptians. The Persians got good press in the Bible for their multicultural state and its opportunities. The Greeks provided the model for the annual Passover symposium, and the Romans detached the religion from its land.)

You might throw in the Bantu expansion in Africa which is poorly documented, if documented at all, but likely involved the introduction of iron working. Indian history and genetics indicate a conquest that culturally unified India and spread its religion at least as far as Indonesia. There is evidence in the New World of expansions like this in Central America and in the northwest of South America.

Also, another means of controlling population growth is a celibate clergy. Joining a religious order as a monk or nun meant regular meals, a safe place to live and not having children. Even in cultures where such commitments are temporary, it defers reproduction.

Expand full comment

It may be worth pointing out that non-procreative sex was well-known to the Romans, at least, as perhaps was contraception. Infanticide, virginity and celibacy were not the only options. Could the uniquely Christian horror of non-procreative sex explain some things about European demography? (The book to read is John Noonan's "Contraception." Noonan was an interesting fellow--a devout RC law professor learned in canon law. Reagan put him on the Ninth Circuit for his opposition to abortion, and then discovered that he was a flaming liberal. Republicans vet better these days.)

Expand full comment

Very true...

Expand full comment

This note reminds me of a point you have made before in similar contexts, that it was always difficult or impossible in ancient times for the ruler to have “visibility” into what was going on in distant corners of the realm. Perhaps the Persians had better visibility in that sense than most of their contemporaries, and that deepened their ruling capacity.

Expand full comment

Certainly their focus on swift communications and on bureaucracy—lots of scribes and lists—would strongly suggest you are right here...

Expand full comment

I've always wondered about the utility of the bread subsidies in Rome and Byzantium. How did that contribute to the power of the state or of its rulers?

Expand full comment

That was how the Romans provided a healthy source of Roman soldiers, and, of course, healthy soldiers required healthy mothers. If you have an urban society, you have to feed people if you want them to fight for you. Even now, a lot of countries and their leaders rely on food and often fuel subsidies to maintain the polity.

Expand full comment

The urban masses who were subsidized were not soldiers in reserve.

Expand full comment

They were definitely not reserves in that sense, but they were Roman citizens more suitable for military service. We do that with our school lunch program which was started, ostensibly, to provide better nourished recruits and draftees.

Expand full comment

Maybe I am wrong, but the way I read these stories, they were NOT used as soldiers. Maybe the were useful for defense in a siege, but they were also mouths to feed in a siege. They just seem valueless.

Expand full comment

Maybe you are right. No citizens of Rome who received food from the government were ever recruited as Roman soldiers. What do I know? Those who do know for a fact are probably long dead.

Expand full comment