How did they manage ancient Empires?

[Masquerouge]

So there are some questions that have always bugged me about ancient empires, like say the Romans, or Alexander the Great.
They conquered huge landmasses, say like Gaul or Babylonia, with armies of 10,000 people at most. How did they manage to administrate such a huge territory after that? How could they gain total control over all the inhabitants of that region, making sure that taxes were levied everywhere and properly routed back home? What was preventing a random village in a remote place to completely ignore the new rulers? When it took literally weeks to go from one end of the territory to the other, how can you effectively enforce your control?

I often see "Caesar crushed Vercingetorix at Alesia, and Gaul was his". Really? I'm pretty sure it took a huge chunk of time after that battle for Gaul to be truly a Roman province. Unless you killed all males of a given territory, I don't see how winning one battle gives you complete control of that territory. You can be the de facto strongest military power, yes, but that's not at all the same as effectively running the province.

Anyway, any experts here could explain that to me?

 

[Mirc]

I've asked myself exactly the same question, over and over again. I have no idea.

 

[gangleri2001]

The answer is: there were less population and cities to manage, what makes everything easier.

Romans also enslaved the warriors and their families who had been defeated, so the only inhabitants of Gaul after Alesia were:

1. Those who were loyal to Caesar (southern tribes)
2. Those who didn't fought against Caesar (and who, after Alesia, supposed any thread for the roman rule of Gaul)

The romans also settled the provinces with their war veterans who were too old for the active service, that's to say, extremelly loyal and dangerous people (don't forget they were war veterans) living in the just conquered province = no rebellions or rebellions crushed while they still were in the womb.

Romans also build roads (that was one of the first things they did after conquer any province) in order to allow their armies to arrive there in case of rebellion or foreign thread. These roads were also useful for activate the commerce and allow Rome to have a closer controll of the provinces.

Romans also used the divide et impera politics, that's to say, they seek the loyalty of any significant native inhabitants by bringing them the profits of commerce with the rest of the empire or any other politic / economic adventatge, that's to say, everywhere were loyal people to Rome (see pharisees).

And the last thing they did was put a MILITARY governor in the newest provinces of the empire. The first thing that these military rulers did was build up permanent legion camps and stationated permanentlly two or three legions there. Then they waited till the romans & loyal inhabitants were majority in that province and, once the loyalists were majority, there was a transition to the civilian rule of the province.

The only exception to this is the failed province of Germania Magna. And it failed because:

1. They didn't attain the loyalty of any of the most significant tribes (see Arminius)
2. The settlers were not war veterans, but civilians.
3. Due to corruption, there was a civilian ruler in the newest province of the empire and he had no idea of the military.
4. There was no investment in roads and bridges over the Rhine just after the Germanic Wars. That made impossible to get reinforcements from Gaul when they were necessary.
5. Germania was, at that time, extremelly poor and lacked any interest. In fact, the Germanic Wars were only a way to keep the armies used in the last civil war distracted instead of having them screwing around in the richest provinces of the empire, that's to say, there was NO REAL ROMAN INTEREST in getting that province.

 

[Drewcifer]

I would guess they had communication systems similar to what you had in America and large European countries prior to the invention of the locomotive: a supply of fresh horses every 15 to 20 miles along the roads with government employed riders. If you leave a garrison in every province they can use this dispatch system to communicate with a central authority pretty quickly. IIRC the Romans also encouraged legonaires to marry into the local population.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

So there are some questions that have always bugged me about ancient empires, like say the Romans, or Alexander the Great.
They conquered huge landmasses, say like Gaul or Babylonia, with armies of 10,000 people at most. How did they manage to administrate such a huge territory after that? How could they gain total control over all the inhabitants of that region, making sure that taxes were levied everywhere and properly routed back home? What was preventing a random village in a remote place to completely ignore the new rulers? When it took literally weeks to go from one end of the territory to the other, how can you effectively enforce your control?

In a lot of cases, (Romans excepted, but I'll get to that at the end of this) they didn't, or they did it badly. Tax systems under the Persian Empire or the Egyptians was mainly a matter of a bunch of thugs going to a town every so often and looting the place. Maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but in reality central control was a very rare thing. Most of the Greek sources claim that many of the Persian Satraps (which were kind of like regional governors of areas) were more poweful than the actual king of Persia. Indeed, most of the time you didn't have so much direct annihilation and colonization, as much as setting up a client state that would agree to provide tribute and troops every so often. That is, in large part what happened in Alexander's Empire, and it was showing a *lot* of cracks even before he died. While Alex never had more than about 50,000 men with him at any one time, some of his some generals, like Ptolemy and Antigonous had far larger forces sent to pacify the areas that they held. (How on earth they got an army like that together I don't really know)

The Romans had a secret weapon. Concrete. With it, they could quickly, cheaply, and with far more precision build cities and roads, other public works. In many of the areas they went into, they were the first who couldp rovide dependable systems of water for irrigation and drinking, and the first sewers, so your garbage didn't fester on the street. To garner these advantages, you had to move from the countryside to a big city, where it would be easier for the Roman authorities to keep an eye on you. Although, it should be pointed out that especially in the time of Ceaser and crew, the regional governors had a fair amount of independance from Rome, a problem that would be curbed somewhat in the early Imperial Era only to resurge with much greater force later.

Just a few ideas, I'm not a huge expert on this stuff.

 

[gangleri2001]

The legionaries couldn't marry with anyone after 25 years of service. And nope, there was no equivalent to the pony express in the roman empire.

 

[Maimonides]

So there are some questions that have always bugged me about ancient empires, like say the Romans, or Alexander the Great.
They conquered huge landmasses, say like Gaul or Babylonia, with armies of 10,000 people at most.

Actually, Alexander had much more than 10,000 men during the early part of his conquest of Persia. Later, in Afghanistan & India, he had fewer due to attrition & leaving garrison troops behind. His empire didn't last very long being split up after his early death.

The Romans could field many thousands & replace them annually from the Punic Wars to their heighth, but had problems later. When the Huns invaded Gaul, they needed non-Roman allies to defeat Attila because they couldn't field an army large enough on their own.

How did they manage to administrate such a huge territory after that?

Local governors were put in place. Sometimes puppet rulers were used such as the Ptolemies & Herod under Roman rule. The Romans & Incans built road networks that aided in communication among other things.

How could they gain total control over all the inhabitants of that region, making sure that taxes were levied everywhere and properly routed back home?

Governors & puppet rulers under Rome & the Mongols sent annual tribute. If they didn't, the troops returned & heads rolled. If they did, it increased their political clout.

No government, then or now, has total control.

What was preventing a random village in a remote place to completely ignore the new rulers?

Sometimes they did, but ruling empires could & would send in troops to make them wish they had behaved.

Some rulers were deified. Alexander called himself a son of Zues. Egyptian pharoahs & Japanese emporers were also considered deities. Catholic popes are condidered G-d's man on earth. They wielded considerable power during the Middle Ages & contolled allot of far-flung territory. Religion was also used to deter rebellion. The Aztecs sacrificed countless conquered people to their gods. Rebellion against a ruler also meant rebellion against a god.

When it took literally weeks to go from one end of the territory to the other, how can you effectively enforce your control?

See above.

Undoubtedly, it took some time to marshal the forces to put down a rebellion, but when they arrived on site, they were brutal. Read about what happened to the Celts in Britain or the Jews when they rebelled against Rome-very bloody stuff.

I often see "Caesar crushed Vercingetorix at Alesia, and Gaul was his". Really? I'm pretty sure it took a huge chunk of time after that battle for Gaul to be truly a Roman province. Unless you killed all males of a given territory, I don't see how winning one battle gives you complete control of that territory. You can be the de facto strongest military power, yes, but that's not at all the same as effectively running the province.

Anyway, any experts here could explain that to me?

Think of it in terms of organization. The Romans were highly organized. When they destroyed organized resistance, they were effectively in control. The Germans were in contol of non-Vichy France despite thousands of resistance fighters being present throughout WWII. The rebels were a great nuisance, but it took organized Allied ground armies to deliver France from their control.

If you control the roads, the ports, the cities, etc., you are effectively in control no matter what some disorganized rebels in the mountains have to say about it.

To use another modern example, our lack of control of these things is what clearly shows that Iraq is currently FUBAR.

 

[cybrxkhan]

In China, they simply took a bunch of people from the core area of the country and settled them in the new territories. Whoala. You got a "loyal", resource-producing, administered-by-your-system-and-not-someone-elses province ready to be culturally assimilated within a few centuries.

 

[gangleri2001]

In China, they simply took a bunch of people from the core area of the country and settled them in the new territories. Whoala. You got a "loyal", resource-producing, administered-by-your-system-and-not-someone-elses province ready to be culturally assimilated within a few centuries.

That's exactlly what romans did. But they failed.

 

[Yui108]

That's exactlly what romans did. But they failed.

First the Romans didn't force migrate people. And how did they fail?

 

[innonimatu]

So there are some questions that have always bugged me about ancient empires, like say the Romans, or Alexander the Great.
They conquered huge landmasses, say like Gaul or Babylonia, with armies of 10,000 people at most. How did they manage to administrate such a huge territory after that? How could they gain total control over all the inhabitants of that region, making sure that taxes were levied everywhere and properly routed back home? What was preventing a random village in a remote place to completely ignore the new rulers? When it took literally weeks to go from one end of the territory to the other, how can you effectively enforce your control?

That's funny, yesterday I was wondering why some ancient empires like republican Rome managed to survive crushing defeats and win all wars despite those, and later empires, such as the Byzantine, were chronically in disarray.

Armies in the ancient world could be substantially larger than 10000, but administration was surely rudimentary. Rome financed its army, during the republic and early empire, more through pillaging that through stable taxation. So did most ancient kingdoms.
There were lots of rebellions within ancient empires, and bureaucracy was nearly inexistent. The imperial government had to appoint governors it could not effectively control. If those governors were locals, they would almost surely be semi-independent (vassal states like the caucasian kingdoms were to Rome and Byzantium). If they came from outside, they would be dependent on the goodwill of the local elites, and their freedom of action would depend on the strength of those elites.

But after the expansion period of a particularly rapacious empire (such as Rome!) the conquered territories would be so weakened that there would be no regional power centers left capable of challenging the imperial capital, and that's probably what made some ancient empires much more stable than the middle ages ones: once they got done with their expansion wars they had a few decades, or even centuries, of peace until the conquered provinces recovered (or developed in the first place) enough to wish, and achieve, independence from the imperial capital.
Empires that were won with just a few big battles (Alexander's) could quickly fall. Empires that resulted from centuries of warfare, in the course of which political and commercial centers that rivaled the imperial capital were successfully destroyed, would last much longer. This is probably just a minor factor, with the form of government, level of bureaucracy, presence or absence of external enemies, natural disasters, etc, being more important.

 

[Masquerouge]

Mmmh.
A lot of interesting answers

Most of the Greek sources claim that many of the Persian Satraps (which were kind of like regional governors of areas) were more poweful than the actual king of Persia.

That makes total sense. And actually I kinda remember from my Latin days that Roman governors were not the most honest kinda guys... "O tempora, o mores" and Catilina come to mind

I would say that in general, history books do not tend to dwelve on such topics. They say "the Roman empire" as if it was one solid, centralized entity but I'm more enclined to believe it was closer to a loose federation than a monolithic block.

And sure, the Romans had roads, but how long does it take to build a road network into a newly conquered province? Until then, it seems that by "this province is ours" they meant " there is nobody in that province able to challenge our claim".

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Everyone else has covered the major bases. Alot of good material here. I'll just add a view.

Another thing you've got to remember is that for the most part, nationalism didn't exist in this time. You didn't have Franks longing to be Free Franks. If you're conquered by a Culturally equivalent (or culturally superior in terms of materials, tech, architecture, infrastructure, etc), its not necessarily gonna be an affront to your 'Greekness' or 'Egyptianness' to be ruled by foreign Romans.

Religion wasn't that big of an issue in most places since nearly all of the ancient pagan religions used their rights and deities rather interchangeably. (Jews of course were much less into this)

In light of this, one thing to remember is that half of the Barbarian marauders and most of the 'post-fall' barbarian kings of Rome considered themselves Romans. As did the Byzantines. Attilla himself wanted to emulate the power, culture, and prosperity of Rome. It was culturally dominate over most of the areas it conquered.

Rebellions were over the usual things, taxation, famines, abusive treatment...not necessarily because they were being led by a foreign power. Your peasants aren't going to particularly care one way or another.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

First the Romans didn't force migrate people. And how did they fail?

The romans rarely, and I think not at all during the Imperial period, colonised other areas, simply because they were facing a constant decline of true "Roman" peoples. (This was largely due to most of the said Romans were in the army for 20+ years away from Roman women, so any children they might have had illegitimately would be considered barbarians anyway) They simply never had the manpower to do the Chinese method, and as a result, had to come up with incentives for conquered peoples to want to be part of Rome's hegemony.

 

[BCLG100]

In light of this, one thing to remember is that half of the Barbarian marauders and most of the 'post-fall' barbarian kings of Rome considered themselves Romans. As did the Byzantines. Attilla himself wanted to emulate the power, culture, and prosperity of Rome. It was culturally dominate over most of the areas it conquered.

So did the Ottomans, following the conquest of Constantinople and the collapse of Byzantine they took Caesar of the Romans as one of their titles.

 

[scy12]

After winning the decisive battle obviously there is none there to combat you and so you enforce your rule. Now there are different ways to manage an empire , as stated the Persian often just required a tax from areas while the bureaucracy was independent .

now the romans...
How did they manage that bureaucracy ? I imagine by moving Roman governors there and a number of Roman troops.

Considering Rome's Superpower status in the ancient world and the fact that generally the history of Roman rule isn't associated with great suffering of the people but in some cases the improvement of the situation due to the better technological base of Romans or the fact that Romans where a better alternative than other dangers then we see some reasons why Pax romana was appreciated and seen as the only choice.
Cultural reasons also play a rule in that.

Regarding Alexander's campaign and the management of his empire (Which is the subject of the half book) i propose the "Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great " By A.B Bossworth. On some subjects she may not be fully objective but she always try to show her sources and if you don't enjoy the first part of the book you will enjoy the second part of it.

 

[Sharwood]

So did the Ottomans, following the conquest of Constantinople and the collapse of Byzantine they took Caesar of the Romans as one of their titles.

The Ottomans were also a big proponent of the "settle in conquered territory" method. Machiavelli devotes a whole chapter to this method in The Prince, and the Ottomans are his primary example. "The Turk," as he calls the Ottoman Emperor, conquered Greece then lived there, bringing over many of his people with him, to ensure he had a loyal force at his disposal in case of uprisings. It worked until the Greek War of Independence too.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

From what I remember about history, is that the ruler would usally appoint a man as govenor, tell him what he would send back to the capital every year (money, troops, slaves etc), give him a nice sign of office (crown/staff/ring etc) some troops and send him off. The govenor would be very free to do what he wished, as long as he paid his dues & didn't rebel. He would not have much communication with the capital, therefore he was free to do what he wished. If he wished, he could be a just and energetic govenor, spending much time overseeing construction projects and improving the tax-base, or he could just lounge around, letting his staff keep the wheels moving.

As a rule, his job would be a) Tax Collection b) recieving local notibles (like native leaders) c) providing law and d) keeping the troops supplied. Some would also have military commands. Roman leigions built the fortifcations and roads, but their upkeep was the govenor's responsablity. Most colonial cities would have self rule, and most of the natives would be under their own kings, so the govenor's job was not as heavy as we would think. This system only worked as long as the king was able enough to pick good men as govenors. A typical sign of imperial decline was taxes coming in short and/or late, and govenors ignoring orders from the capital.

Rome collaped mainly due to overstrech. As the empire grew, large amounts of gold collected at Rome as loot. Italia got accustomed to a standard of living that required fresh loot. After the conquest of Britian, there was very little loot. Taxes increased over the centuries to a level which is was shrinking the economy. The towns declined also due to this problem. Declining wealth weakened the Emperor's hold over the empire. To compensate, the Emperor made more and more coinage to pay with. This caused massive inflation. The rich withdrew from public life, to avoid taxes. The quality of govenrment decayed. Stresses from the outside (Sassnid Persia, Armenia, Goths) meant that the armies continued to grow in size when the supporting economy was growing smaller. The selling of offices gave more cash for the Emperor today, but increased corruption.

 

[BCLG100]

The Ottomans were also a big proponent of the "settle in conquered territory" method. Machiavelli devotes a whole chapter to this method in The Prince, and the Ottomans are his primary example. "The Turk," as he calls the Ottoman Emperor, conquered Greece then lived there, bringing over many of his people with him, to ensure he had a loyal force at his disposal in case of uprisings. It worked until the Greek War of Independence too.

They did the third method didnt they, 1/3 got left there, 1/3 got sold into slavery or into armed forces whilst another 1/3 was relocated for quite awhile the last third all went to Istanbul. Well that was after they realised they couldn't have Vassel Princes in Europe at least.

 

[Sharwood]

They did the third method didnt they, 1/3 got left there, 1/3 got sold into slavery or into armed forces whilst another 1/3 was relocated for quite awhile the last third all went to Istanbul. Well that was after they realised they couldn't have Vassel Princes in Europe at least.

Yep. Vassal princes worked well in Asia, where society had become used to them for thousands of years, primarily under the Persians and later Arabs, but Europe was never big on vassals, so the Ottomans had to come up with another way to keep them in line. So they came up with this method, which was likely just an extension of their former nomadic lifestyle.