Was the Roman Empire a military dictatorship? | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses why the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire is better understood as a 'monarchic republic' rather than a military dictatorship, despite emperors controlling armies. He argues the term 'empire' is conventionally misapplied, and explains that the Eastern Roman state was fundamentally a polity governed by a monarch who served the republic, with armies rarely used for internal social control.
Summary
Kaldellis explains that the East Roman Empire requires careful terminological precision. The conventional term 'Byzantine Empire' is problematic because the Greeks had no equivalent term for 'empire' in their vocabulary. Instead, they used 'basileia' (monarchy), 'politeia' (polity), or 'Romania' (the proper name of the state). The Latin 'res publica' does not mean republic in the modern sense but rather refers to the common affairs and interests of a political community, regardless of regime type—even Cicero could envision it under a king. This understanding persisted under the Eastern Roman emperors.
The term 'empire' itself is problematic when applied to the Eastern Roman state because it conventionally denotes a state created through conquest where one group rules over others. The Eastern Roman Empire was instead constituted as a polity of Roman citizens ruling themselves through their own government. While the Romans occasionally conquered neighboring peoples (Slavs, Bulgarians, Muslims), these imperial relationships never reached a point where the entire polity should be classified as an empire. Kaldellis notes that even modern states like the United Kingdom have conquered territories (Wales) but aren't typically called empires.
'Monarchic republic' is proposed as the superior term because it captures the dual nature of the system: executive power concentrated in an emperor (monarchical) combined with a baseline republican ideology where the emperor was expected to serve the polity. This combination is unique among dynastic empires and emerged specifically from the Roman republican tradition. Regarding the military dictatorship question, Kaldellis argues the Eastern Roman Empire does not qualify as one because, despite emperors controlling armies and armies influencing succession through civil wars, the army was almost never used as an instrument of internal social control. For a thousand-year period, the population was not kept down through military force. This was possible because the army was recruited from and lived among the Roman people, understood as protecting them rather than oppressing them. Kaldellis notes that using armies to suppress one's own population is actually dangerous—it can backfire, as seen in modern examples like Egypt during the Arab Spring when regimes couldn't guarantee army loyalty. He identifies Justinian as one rare exception to this pattern.
Key Insights
- The Greeks had no term in their language equivalent to the modern concept of 'empire,' using instead 'basileia' (monarchy), 'politeia' (polity), or 'Romania' as the proper name of the state
- Latin 'res publica' means the common affairs and interests of a political community regardless of regime type, not republic in the modern non-monarchical sense; even under emperors, Romans continued using this term
- The Eastern Roman Empire was not technically an empire because it was constituted as a polity of Roman citizens ruling themselves through their own government, not as one group conquering and ruling over others
- The Eastern Roman Empire rarely used its armies as instruments of internal social control for a thousand-year period, which is extraordinary compared to most of human history and modern authoritarian regimes
- Using armies to suppress one's own civilian population is inherently dangerous because the army may refuse to fire on civilians, potentially causing regime collapse, as demonstrated in modern examples like Egypt during the Arab Spring
Topics
Transcript
[0:02] One of the things I briefly mentioned just would be nice to um elaborate on is this term of monarchic republic. So, we've been throwing around words like kingdom and republic and empire and uh monarchy. So, what what is the actual what's a good applicable term to what this thing is to East Roman Empire? >> That's an excellent question. And I'm glad you um you you you you flagged that. Because we call it conventionally [0:33] Byzantine Empire and it's neither of those things really. Um we've talked about Byzantine. >> Yeah. >> Now, empire is a bit of a problem because um first of all, uh there's no term in Greek um in the Greek that…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Lex Clips
The greatest emperor of the Byzantine Empire | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis explains why Constantine I ranks as the greatest Byzantine Emperor despite his ruthlessness and murderous nature. His ranking is based on the consequential, world-history-changing decisions he made—particularly founding Constantinople and converting the empire to Christianity—rather than on personal likability or even competent administration alone.
The rise of the Roman Empire in the East | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis explains how Constantinople grew from 25,000 to 500,000 people in two centuries through mass migration from Greek-speaking provinces, driven by senatorial relocation and a grain dole program. Constantine systematically redirected resources from Rome to establish Constantinople as the new center of the Roman Empire in the East.
Why Christianity succeeded and spread throughout the world | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses why Christianity successfully spread throughout the Roman Empire after Constantine, highlighting its adaptability across intellectual, ritual, military, and political spheres. He explores the paradox that while Christianity's exclusive truth claims make it divisive, they also create powerful community consolidation and identity, with theological doctrines actually evolving through conflict despite the religion's narrative of defending unchanging truth.
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.
Taxation in the Roman Empire - historian explains | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Historian Anthony Kaldellis discusses how Diocletian's administrative reforms, particularly his universal taxation system, fundamentally transformed the Roman Empire. Rather than creating a sinister 'deep state,' Diocletian established bureaucratic structures that unified taxation across all territories, including Italy, and created mechanisms to track taxable assets—establishing a framework that lasted over three centuries.