How did they manage ancient Empires?

[scy12]

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.

Indeed. Another method they used in Greece and Cyprus was the miliet system as they called it. The miliet system stated that taxes where given from the population to the orthodox church , which was also responsible for the education of the Greeks and general representation of them to the Ottomans. The Ottomans then would get the taxes from the Church. And so the Church would grow more and more powerful. You could say it backfired on the Ottomans but there is also the other side. In fact when the war of Independence was becoming a reality the Church issued an anathema for it. (Anathema = condemning it) . Yet there where Clerics that where part of the independence for national reasons and so as battles where won the church had to change it's stance.

But in Cyprus being far than Mainland Greece the rebellion was swept in blood and the church was not so treachurous. The result was that the religous leaders where hanged immediately which might be another reason why those clerics in mainland Greece acted differently.

The Turkish population that was moved in Ottoman years around 17% is the reason for even today's problems of the islands.

 

[Mirc]

And apart from that, Ottomans would also request a certain percent of the male native population as slaves from most surrounding countries (even if not vassals, sometimes), people that would be grown from a very young age with the Ottoman ideas/traditions so they would be more likely to remain culturally Ottoman rather than whatever their original country was. That usually worked very well too, with some notable exceptions of course (like Vlad Dracula).

 

[BCLG100]

Do you mean the Devshirme system that ottoman central government put on every village in the outer part of the empire and these children would then grow into the janissaries core or the bearucracy. So they were infact generally loyal to the state rather than the Sultan of the period, probably why the Empire was able to undergoe the numerous civil wars yet still remain.

 

[Sharwood]

Exactly. You could have rival claimants for the throne, but there was no feudal base, which meant; no organised opposition; people loyal to the state, not individuals, and; strong central government, the kind Western Europe wouldn't see until the French Kings started destroying the nobles' power bases.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

On a related note, I've always wondered how the Incans managed to administer their empire with no knowledge of writing. Although having said that, I can't even remember how I used to get by without my mobile phone.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Well, they had quipu.

 

[Jerrymander]

Assyria was managed with the whip.

whapssh

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

Assyria also used a strategy of mass deportation of conquered peoples, which broke many of their cultural identities (along with quite a few of the people involved)

 

[RalofTyr]

Assyria also had the "Always at War" tactic. In which they were always fighting somebody.

The Romans found it rather easy to conquer the mediterranean region as they were used to paying taxes to foreign conquerors already. Paying tribute to Caeser is no different than paying tribute to a Persian or Greek ruler.

The Roman conquest of Europe was more difficult, as they were unfamililar with their form of conquest and over time, a sort of Romanization had to be implimented, which worked, almost too good as this idea that Rome was the light, attracted not only conquered Gauls to be loyal roman citizens, but also conquering Germans who wanted the good Roman life as well. So in a sense, Rome's success was its down fall.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

On a related note, I've always wondered how the Incans managed to administer their empire with no knowledge of writing. Although having said that, I can't even remember how I used to get by without my mobile phone.

This is a good question. And perhaps a better one than the Roman/Egyptian/Persian/etc examples. Those groups had alot of advantages that the Mezo-America/Andes empires simply lacked. The fricken wheel for one. Minimal draft animals. (The lowly llama) The Incans as you say had no writing at all. (taking your word for it) Only the Mayans had an actual alphabet.

Yet they all administered quite large, socially complex empires for an extended period of time. Quite impressive.

I'm less familiar with the Andes empires, but the Aztecs of course didn't directly rule all of these places. It took on a 'defeat and pay us' vassal style for most of the regions.

Still, the Inca's seemed quite well organized. They could literally field armies of 80-100k with their limited technology. Quite a feat.

 

[scy12]

This is a good question. And perhaps a better one than the Roman/Egyptian/Persian/etc examples. Those groups had alot of advantages that the Mezo-America/Andes empires simply lacked. The fricken wheel for one. Minimal draft animals. (The lowly llama) The Incans as you say had no writing at all. (taking your word for it) Only the Mayans had an actual alphabet.

Yet they all administered quite large, socially complex empires for an extended period of time. Quite impressive.

I'm less familiar with the Andes empires, but the Aztecs of course didn't directly rule all of these places. It took on a 'defeat and pay us' vassal style for most of the regions.

Still, the Inca's seemed quite well organized. They could literally field armies of 80-100k with their limited technology. Quite a feat.

Maybe it's all the Pop culture but how important do you think religion was at making their empire more stable ?

 

[innonimatu]

Still, the Inca's seemed quite well organized. They could literally field armies of 80-100k with their limited technology. Quite a feat.

But they also suffered from the plague of rebellions and civil war that wrecked other empires. In fact they had just gone through one when the spanish showed up, so we can say that was their downfall.
And their empire was reasonably recent, having succeeded older, smaller states of which we don't know much about.

 

[Sharwood]

Well, they had quipu.

Everyone wondering how the Inca ran their empire without writing, read Julian's link. Absolutely correct, they even "wrote" literature using that quipu.

Incidentally, a very hot girl at my uni just told me she has Inca blood. I'm even more attracted to her than before. Must be the connoisseur in me.

The Inca also had their own version of the Pony Express, using people. A lot like what the Greeks did when the Persians came, which is how the marathon got its name. Except obviously, these guys didn't run themselves to death, they just ran until they arrived at the next station, then the next guy grabbed the quipu and took over.

The reason for the Incas downfall was because the Huayna Capac, (I think) father of Atahualpa, the last Inca emperor, split his dominions in two; Peru, and Ecuador. Atahualpa, the most able son, received Ecuador, as he apparently was born of a liason with a lower class Inca woman, and therefore was not acceptable to the nobles of the empire. Peru went to Capac's oldest son. This son attacked Atahualpa - or so Atahualpa's people said - and they fought, with Atahualpa winning. Afterwards, he had all the Peruvian nobles who had not supported him killed, meaning we have to take his people's word as to who attacked who. By the time Atahualpa was slaughtering his enemies in Cuzco, Pizarro had already landed on the coast. Weakened by internal strife, and with Pizarro using Cortez's old tactic of promising to help every discontented group in the empire at the same time, the empire fell.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

It's a shame that most of the quipus were destroyed, one more reason to be at Spaniards.

 

[Sharwood]

It's a shame that most of the quipus were destroyed, one more reason to be at Spaniards.

Actually, there's evidence that the Incas may have had blonde and red hair, and fair skin - something I'm shocked the Nazis never picked up on and used for propaganda purposes. And blood tests on now destroyed Inca mummies showed very interesting and unique combinations, before DNA testing became available. The fact that the Spaniards essentially wiped out what appears to be unique race of people, along with the numerous other "white" and "black" Indians they wrote about and destroyed, angers me more than the (admittedly priceless) literature they eliminated. Modern genetic testing could have shed a lot of light on many theories claiming that Negroid and Caucasian people once lived in South America, but not when all the ethnic groups described as having these traits are gone.

 

[Verbose]

Actually, there's evidence that the Incas may have had blonde and red hair, and fair skin - something I'm shocked the Nazis never picked up on and used for propaganda purposes. And blood tests on now destroyed Inca mummies showed very interesting and unique combinations, before DNA testing became available. The fact that the Spaniards essentially wiped out what appears to be unique race of people, along with the numerous other "white" and "black" Indians they wrote about and destroyed, angers me more than the (admittedly priceless) literature they eliminated. Modern genetic testing could have shed a lot of light on many theories claiming that Negroid and Caucasian people once lived in South America, but not when all the ethnic groups described as having these traits are gone.

You'll have to pardon me for saying so, but that sounds very unlikely.

Anywhere you can direct me to find out more?
(I'm going to sound dismissive from now on, can't help myself, but I'd be curious to see where this is coming from.)

The reason I'm sceptical is that in Peru for several centuries the new Spanish upper crust coexisted rather well, and intermarried, with the descendants of the Incan upper crust, still very much a social elite.

That is until towards the middle of the 18th c. when the native elite decided to make a very serious bid for getting rid of the Spaniards; the rebellion of Tupac Amaru. Then this mixed native-Spanish elite was utterly crushed by Madrid.

In the linguistic and cultural sense, Andean, "Incan", is alive and kicking to this day. As for the Incas, the Great Ears, as a ruling elite, they might be gone. But they were alive and living in style, a mixed European-native one, for at least 200 years after the conquest. Genetically it seems very unlikely they would just be gone, or that they were in fact very different from Andean peoples in general to start with.

As for DNA-testing, there are graves, there are bodies around. The pre-Columbian period only ended some 600 years ago. There should be enough material in many parts of South America to allow the kind of testing you're suggesting. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's being done.

 

[Mirc]

Actually, Verbose, there are quite a few interesting things about the color of the hair and skin of the Incas.

I read in a book that the Spaniards were easily permitted entrance in some of the areas in which the Indians wouldn't have allowed foreigners because they were considered "relatives of the Incas", and some writing from a Spanish officer mentions "the Incas have whiter skin than us", and talks about them having either long smooth and curly brown-red hair or dark blond and beards.

That even led some Austrian historian to conclude the (rather unlikely) possibility that the rulers of the Incas were Vikings that migrated from the north, especially since some of the Incan names don't resemble at all any names from any surrounding people.


Sorry, but these are all very blurry memories. I can't back it up with any facts or links.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

All very interesting, but none of it likely to "shed a lot of light on many theories claiming that Negroid and Caucasian people once lived in South America", since such racial theories are more than a little outdated. Such matters would attract more inquiry if they weren't wrapped in crude obsolete language.

 

[RedRalph]

I would imagine a lot of the 'control' excersized over most territory in ancient times was nominal. where nowadays you have a massive say in what goes on in every square inch of your territory, I think the Roman, Persian or Chinese control over far-flung territories actually meant they could collect taxes, would have a theoritical monopoly on force and could, if they chose, attempt to enforce religious edicts etc. In practice I would guess that most people in rural France, Syria or Britain's lives probably changed very little when Rome took over. whereas nowadays, if Italy suddenly invaded Syria, the effects would be immediate and extreme to all Syrians (assuming Italy won). Its just a matter of how much control was actually excersized, even if theoretically the empire owned the lands in question.

 

[Mirc]

All very interesting, but none of it likely to "shed a lot of light on many theories claiming that Negroid and Caucasian people once lived in South America", since such racial theories are more than a little outdated. Such matters would attract more inquiry if they weren't wrapped in crude obsolete language.

I totally agree with that.