Most of Europeans in the 21st century are trying to get over the concepts of “nation” and “state”, in order to be able to cooperate together in the frame of the much larger frame of the European Union. Apparently it seems this is something new. In fact in the past our ancestors have lived during long periods of our history in one single political and legal unit. Concretely since the appearance of the first Western Empire: The Roman Empire.
Its history is really interesting because despite the fact that it disappeared more than 1500 years ago, we still live to a large extent from its legacy.
The Roman Empire is not the oldest one. In Teaching Guide 2 we spoke about how Sargon created the oldest Empire the Akkadian, 4.300 years ago. But it was an Oriental Empire. In the West the pioneers were the Romans. Because the Greeks were far more disorganized in political terms. The first power who aimed at becoming “Universal” was the Roman Empire. And it did not appear overnight.
The origins of Western Political “Universalism”
The first organized Western society were the Greek Polis, limited to the area of the different Greek cities: Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc…Greeks were only united for participating in the Olympic Games founded in 776 BC, for fighting the Persians in the medic Wars at the beginning of the 5th century, and under the ephemeral rule of Alexander the Great (336-323). But the Greek Polis were for the rest of the time independent city-states that fought each other when the had the occasion as they demonstrated during the Peloponnesian Wars that first destroyed Athens, then Sparta and finally Thebes. The regime of the Polis could not conceive government away from the city walls. It is significant that when there was an excess of population in a Polis, the surplus of citizens were sent abroad in order to create a new colony that immediately became an independent Polis. This is why Greece was so easily conquered by Rome and became a Roman Province in 146 B.C. Half a century after Spain became a Roman Province (Well in fact two: Hispania Citerior and Ulterior in 197 B.C.).
Why Rome became an Empire? It started as a polis at the end of the 6th century B.C. but 500 years later it was a great power that controlled the whole Mediterranean area. What did the Romans do right? Why they succeeded where Greek Polis failed? First because they were far more organized and they soon developed the idea that they could govern and administrate territories far away from the City of Rome itself. Greek founded independent colonies, Romans founded also colonies (that is cities integrated by Roman citizens) in distant lands, but these Roman colonies were not independent, they were controlled by Roman central Power. First the Republic and after Augustus (27 B.C. – 14 A.D.).
Napoleon Imperial Eagle
Hitler's Third Reich Eagles
Roman extraordinary territorial expansion provoked a brutal crisis of the Republican regime and brought half a century of dreadful civil wars (86-31 B.C), that only ended with the victory of Octavius Caesar Augustus who was a fine politician that convinced that the only way of preserving the peace was to give the power to one man (monarchy). It was first the Prince (First citizen), then the Emperor (as he had full “imperium”) and finally at the end of the 3d century BC the Dominate, because the emperor had become the owner and master of the empire (Dominus).
The Roman empire was a universal empire because it reigned all over the known antique world. Since 212 AD all inhabitants of the empire became overnight Roman citizens, subject to the same political leader and under the same Law. And it was so until in the year 476 the Western Roman Empire disappears and its territory –more or less today’s Europe- is occupied by different Germanic Nations that create independent kingdoms. But was this the end of “Universalism”? No because during the 4th century the Roman Empire was penetrated by a new religion Cristianism, that started being prosecuted by the Roman emperors, before being first tolerated, and finally being declared the Official cult of the Empire.
From political to religious universalism: Cristianism vs. Catholicism
When Rome became a great Empire, the Romans grew rich and powerful, making them disbelieving materialists. They could not really give a damn about religious diversity, as long as it did not affect the integrity of the Empire. In fact, the Roman emperors tolerated all kinds of faiths; apart from the traditional veneration of ancestors, the only genuinely Roman religion was emperor worship, a political cult pragmatically aimed at glorifying the public authority wielding power over all the inhabitants of the Empire. But it went no further than that.
This milieu of worldliness and spiritual disinterest was, undoubtedly, what fuelled the rise of Christianity, a faith rooted in Judaic monotheism and based on an alluring and effective narrative, among other things, because it upheld equality between all people, and argued that the wealthy were spiritually bankrupt, and likely doomed to damnation. In a sceptical Roman Empire, one sustained by hordes of slaves, Christianity spread like wildfire in the years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which occurred under the rule of Augustus's successor, Tiberius. Although, historically, the emperors couldn't care less about their subjects' religious beliefs, Christianity was different because it posed a threat to power by placing man's relationship with God above loyalty to the emperor. This menace spurred Rome's leaders, beginning with Nero (54-68), who detected the danger the Christians constituted, to persecute and even martyrize them. By doing so, however, they only fanned the flames of the new religion and fomented its spread throughout the Empire.
Despite its repression –or, perhaps because of it– Christianity grew so strong that the emperors had no choice but to, first, tolerate the new religion, and then legalize it, through the Edict of Serdica, in 311, issued by Emperor Galerius; and the Edict of Milan, promulgated by Constantine, just two years later.
Christianity proved a powerful social movement, so unstoppable that emperor Theodosius I, in 380, made it the official religion of the Empire, with the momentous consequence that all other religions were rendered illegal. As a result, Christianity became a religion as "universal" as the imperial power itself, which is why its name changed, and it came to be called "Catholicism", from the Greek katholikós; meaning "universal" or "general". Does the word “universal” seems familiar to you?
The secret to Catholicism's stunning success was that the Christians were very well organized, managing to develop, in a short period of time, a powerful structure, the Church, effectively established thanks to a highly hierarchical territorial network starting at the local level of the parish, and extending all the way up to the Pope in Rome, after passing through the heads of the "ecclesiastical provinces": the bishops.
Percentage of catholics by country in the world
As a result, the Church, initially a clandestine group of ragtag rebels, became, after its officialization, a veritable "state" within the Roman state. Over time the emperors began to lock horns with the bishops who, soon wielding great power themselves, often proved unruly. And this is where the stormy history of relations between Church and State begins, which received the name "Caesaropapism", as the conflict involved the heads of these two "states": the Caesars (emperors) and the popes. Today, two millennia after its appearance, the Catholic Church continues to be headquartered in an independent state: the Vatican, which rules over an impressive territorial network spanning the entire world. Its institutional longevity and effectiveness are truly impressive.
The Church, thus, became a very powerful force, one that would prove able to exert pressure not only on the Roman emperors, but also on their successors, the Germanic kings, whose subjects, mostly "Roman", shared a common creed, Christianity, which placed them under the bishops' authority. Thus, the German monarchs converted to Catholicism, embracing the old adage that "if you can't beat them, join them". In fact, not only did they become Catholics, but they also reached an agreement with the bishops of their kingdom whereby the Church consecrated the king, rendering him a sacred and indisputable figure. In return, the ecclesiastical structure was integrated into the kingdom's government.
The important thing for you to understand is that in the Europe of the High Middle Ages (8th to 11th centuries) Catholicism had been established as a universal religion extending throughout all of "Christendom". Thus, even though there was no longer an emperor in Rome, there did rule in the Eternal City a pope, who served as the head of the Catholic, apostolic (because its objectives included spreading the faith, through "evangelization" among non-believers, or pagans) and "Roman" church. When the feudal system spread across Europe its people were, then, already devout Christians, not only fully integrated into the structure of the Church, but also entirely convinced that the world ought to be governed by the Law of God. They were no longer united by a common political structure, since the old Western Empire had crumbled into a diverse set of kingdoms, but they did share a "theocratic" conception of the world and of society. Everyone firmly believed that the only legitimate power was that granted by God, "Creator of heaven and earth", and, of course, the legal order.
Pantocrator of Sant Climent de Taüll
A two head universalism: Popes and Emperors
Then the Popes became heads of a real State, since the creation in 754 of the Papal States, thanks to the alliance with the Frankish Monarchy of Pepin the Short (751-768). In return of the favour the popes helped Pepin’s son “Charlemagne” (the Great Charles) to become the first Western Medieval emperor on December 24 of the year 800. It would be renewed by Otto I who became in 962 the first head of the Holy Roman Empire that would last nominally until 1806.
The Universal model had therefore not disappeared with the fall of Western Roman Empire in 476. Though now in its medieval version it had two heads: a pope and an emperor. In a Catholic society were all men were equal under the eyes of God (Theocracy). Popes and emperors were therefore the most important figures in politics at least until the beginning of the 14th century.
The power of popes and emperors nevertheless was not enduring or strong as the Late medieval European kings had became more and more important since the 14th century, and during the Absolutist period (16th and 17th centuries) the European Monarchies would became fully independent from Popes and Emperors. Especially after the Westphalia Peace (1648).
Then the decadence of the papacy was more and more obvious because of the Avignon’s Captivity and the Western Schism, that brought a severe coup to papal prestige. Universalism of the Catholic church was done when Luther started the Protestant reform in 1520, and Henry the VIII of England created in 1534 his own Anglican church and became the head of it displacing the pope.
Of course the disappearance of Universalism obliged political thinkers to find a new narrative to justify the power of these independent kings. As the reference to traditional legitimacy of Imperial Rome disappeared required a new approach for convincing people they should blindly obey their monarchs. And thanks to Machiavel, Bodin and Hobbes, among others, the narrative of the absolute state and the full sovereignty of the king was found: the prevention of anarchy and chaos.
The persistency of the Imperial idea
The triumph of the idea of a Europe of independent States did not abolished completely the myth of an Emperor. The Imperial idea lasted a little longer after the signing of the Westphalia Peace in 1648.
Despite the fact that Charles V (1519-1558) was the last Universal emperor in the medieval way, the emperors did not disappeared from European politics. Essentially because they were ambitious leaders who wanted to become emperors. Like Napoleon, for instance who provoked the abolition of the First German Reich (962-1806).
And even Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was formally named “Empress of India”, the Jewell of the mighty British Empire.
The last European emperor would be Adolf Hitler (1933-1945) head of the Third Reich, though it had no emperor but a "Guide": The Führer
.svg.png)
Member States of the European Union
Was Adolf Hitler really the last emperor? Well some consider the US President as the head of a the “De facto” World imperial power. And despite the fact that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jiping are doing everything they can to jeopardize American superiority the White House is still a reference in the world.
HOW TO STUDY TEACHIG GUIDE 3
First read the text included in your Materials (pages 31 to 45), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions.
Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 46 to 48) the crucial dates are the following: 590-604, 754, 800, 962, 1054, 1075, 1198-1216, 1303, 1378-1417, 1527, 1534, 1618-1648, 1804-1815, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918, 1929, 1933-1945.
TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Is globalization a de facto return to an Universal Model, as States cannot act anymore on their own, isolated, in the World context?
Please consider the following aspects:
1. Why Rome became a great Power and Greek Polis disappeared.
2. How did Octavius Cesar Augustus solved the Crisis of the Roman Civil wars?
3. Why after 476 AD the idea of “Universalism” did not disappear in the West?
4. Why Universalism failed after Charles V (1519-1556) in Europe? What conflict provoked the disappearance of the idea that all westerners were under a supreme unique authority.
5. What was the main feature of European Political History after 1648?
6. How was organized Europe under the Napoleonic Empire (1804-1815)?
7. How was Europe organized under Hitler’s Third Reich (1933-1945)?
8. Why the World was so relatively stable during the period 1948-1989?
9. Are States in our global world really as independent as they appear?
10. Is the accelerated "urbanisation" of the planet (by 2050 very much likely 2/3 of the inhabitants of the Planet will live in cities) contributing to globalisation as big cities are beginning to be more important than the States?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario