The role of violence in the Roman Empire | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses how the Byzantine Empire maintained stability for a thousand years through a system of perpetual popular consultation rather than formal institutions, where emperors faced constant threats of violent overthrow but used public opinion feedback to govern effectively. The threat of civil war and public disapproval acted as checks on imperial power, incentivizing good governance and preventing despotic behavior.
Summary
The conversation explores the role of violence and popular consent in the Byzantine Empire's thousand-year survival. Kaldellis explains that approximately 120 civil wars occurred during this period, but these were swift, non-ideological conflicts solely about succession rather than fundamental disagreements. Roughly 46% of Byzantine emperors were overthrown through violence, creating constant insecurity that paradoxically incentivized competent governance.
Unlike modern democracies with fixed electoral mandates, Constantinople operated on a 'perpetual referendum' system. Emperors conducted ongoing opinion polling through public appearances at the Hippodrome—a massive stadium holding 30,000-100,000 people. Citizens would chant acclamations or boo and demonstrate disapproval, providing immediate feedback on policies. When Emperor Alexios III attempted to impose a German tax in the 1190s, popular outcry in the Hippodrome forced him to reverse the decision immediately.
The Hippodrome and other public gathering spaces (churches, military grounds, forums) served as channels for political participation beyond mere entertainment. Rival circus factions held social power, and emperors could be insulted or dragged from office by angry crowds. This system created a tension between absolute-appearing institutional authority and practical limitations on power—emperors who ignored public sentiment faced assassination, blinding, mutilation, or exile to monasteries.
Kaldellis emphasizes he is not advocating for this system but rather analyzing how and why it functioned effectively. The Byzantine Empire's resilience suggests that mechanisms of give-and-take in power exercise, even when violent, created a more durable governmental system than previously understood.
Key Insights
- Kaldellis argues that approximately 120 civil wars occurred during the thousand-year Byzantine period, but these were swift, non-ideological conflicts about succession rather than about fundamental values like slavery or political rights
- Roughly 46% of Byzantine emperors were overthrown through violence, meaning every emperor lived in constant insecurity and knew they must maintain goodwill to prevent rebellion rather than ruling through fear and executions
- The Byzantine system operated as a 'perpetual referendum' rather than periodic elections, where emperors tested public opinion through appearances in the Hippodrome where crowds would chant acclamations or boo in response to policies
- When Emperor Alexios III proposed a German tax in the 1190s, the uproar from the Hippodrome crowd was so severe he immediately reversed the decision, demonstrating that emperors could be forced to backtrack on policy through popular demonstration
- Kaldellis argues the Byzantine Empire's thousand-year survival demonstrates that a system with mechanisms of give-and-take in power exercise, even when violent, created more resilience and durability than purely institutional approaches
Topics
Transcript
[0:02] We should also say one more thing where dare I carefully say this, but it seems like riots and civil wars is a feature not a bug of the system. >> Yes. >> This is a different thing that we have to modern day. is because the threat of a civil war of violent civil war where you overthrow the government and there's just a lot of >> Yeah. >> death and struggle for power is always a threat. That's another incentive I guess [0:35] the stick not the carrot but the stick for the emperor to behave. >> Yes, it's the main one. In other words, just take the the thousand years that I study. Uh there's something…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Lex Clips
Is Islam Makhachev the greatest fighter of all time? | Khabib Nurmagomedov and Lex Fridman
Khabib Nurmagomedov discusses Islam Makhachev's potential to become the greatest MMA fighter of all time, comparing him to legendary fighters like GSP, Jon Jones, and Demetrious Johnson. While Khabib believes Islam has the capability to break records and surpass these greats, he expresses concern about the limited time remaining in his career, particularly noting how age affects performance more severely in lighter weight classes.
Why Khabib beat up Lex in training
Khabib explains his top pressure wrestling technique and fighting philosophy, emphasizing the use of Aikido principles to leverage opponent's force against them. He discusses how elite fighters identify and relentlessly pressure their opponent's weaknesses rather than engaging in their strengths.
The secret to Khabib's dominance: I hated to lose | Khabib Nurmagomedov and Lex Fridman
Khabib Nurmagomedov discusses how his hatred of losing, rather than desire to win, drove his dominance in combat sports. He emphasizes the importance of fanatical dedication to training—sometimes 3-5 hours daily across multiple sessions—and mental toughness as prerequisites for reaching the elite level in athletics.
Khabib invites Lex Fridman to Dagestan
Khabib discusses his high-altitude sports training complex in Sildi, Dagestan, built as a continuation of his late father's dream. He explains the physical benefits of mountain training and invites Lex Fridman to visit and film content at the facility, describing the journey from Makhachkala.
Lex Fridman on interviewing Fedor Emelianenko
Lex Fridman recounts a memorable moment watching Fedor Emelianenko at a 2004 Mahachkala fight, where he was impressed by Fedor's meticulous warm-up routine focusing on his face and nose, and his calm post-fight behavior of drinking tea with his team. Lex expresses interest in interviewing Fedor about this experience and asks for help reaching out to the notoriously private fighter.