"A house divided against itself" is pretty much the method the empires here are using, isn't it? The key seems to be maintaining the unity of the top layer while keeping the lower layers divided. Establishing too much standardization weakens the top layer because it strengthens connections between the bottom and top and creates a nucleus for larger grouping in the bottom, instead of letting the top float around mostly separate and coherent on top of a self-disorganizing bottom layer.
Eleanor, I enjoyed this essay quite a bit. The breadth of examples and the willingness to think aloud rather than overstate certainty made it unusually engaging. Your central point — that successful empires often preserved or even reinforced local differences rather than flattening them — struck me as genuinely illuminating.
Reading it, I found myself wondering whether there is another economic or public-choice way of framing the same phenomenon. In your telling, “divide and rule” sometimes sounds like a deliberate imperial strategy, but I wonder whether part of what you are observing may emerge more organically from incentive problems and state capacity constraints. I was trained as an economist so I speak and think this way.
A ruler governing a vast territory with limited reach may simply discover that preserving local elites, customs, laws, and identities is the most workable way to govern. People who already have standing in a community — religious leaders, nobles, local officials — know the place, are trusted (or at least accepted), and can keep things functioning without constant force from the center. In that sense, preserving difference may not only have discouraged unified resistance, but also reflected a practical reality: empires often worked best when they governed lightly, through people already rooted in local life.
This perspective doesn’t really undermine your argument. If anything, I think it complements it. Preserving differences may have served more than one purpose at once: making unified resistance harder, while also making a large and complicated empire easier to govern.
In any case, thank you for a piece that genuinely made me think. I’ll keep turning it over for a while.
I definitely suspect that sometimes it was more "path of resistance" than anything! When it comes to Empire, lots of people end up groping in the dark, sometimes at cross-purposes, to get things done, and even guys like Augustus don't have the capacity to make their vision happen all on their own.
Thanks for commenting! I was really nervous about this one but the reception was better than I hoped.
I just searched and didn't see references to Austria-Hungary/Hapsburgs. To me, they feel like an interesting case study of (1) how they successfully spanning some groups that could barely tolerate each other and (2) how the unusual balance between Hungarian privileges and ambitions from other national groups helped end the empire.
Annie mentioned the Balkans in one of her recent notes, and that region definitely applies to this concept, I'm just a lot shakier on it in terms of history and this article was already pretty long 🙈 thanks for mentioning it though, I really need to learn more about Hungarian history.
It's interesting that your knowledge of the French comes from Honor Harrington. I'd suggest getting one fictional step closer by reading the Horatio Hornblower books, which were Weber's model and inspiration. If you have time, of course...
Thanks! I was super nervous about writing it but I really wanted to think through it, and then once the article is already written I try to bias toward sharing <3
I was familiar with the Assyrian practice of moving people to new locations to disrupt potential for rebellion, but it was fascinating to see how different empires have used this dislocation and other techniques to assert control. An excellent piece.
"A house divided against itself" is pretty much the method the empires here are using, isn't it? The key seems to be maintaining the unity of the top layer while keeping the lower layers divided. Establishing too much standardization weakens the top layer because it strengthens connections between the bottom and top and creates a nucleus for larger grouping in the bottom, instead of letting the top float around mostly separate and coherent on top of a self-disorganizing bottom layer.
Eleanor, I enjoyed this essay quite a bit. The breadth of examples and the willingness to think aloud rather than overstate certainty made it unusually engaging. Your central point — that successful empires often preserved or even reinforced local differences rather than flattening them — struck me as genuinely illuminating.
Reading it, I found myself wondering whether there is another economic or public-choice way of framing the same phenomenon. In your telling, “divide and rule” sometimes sounds like a deliberate imperial strategy, but I wonder whether part of what you are observing may emerge more organically from incentive problems and state capacity constraints. I was trained as an economist so I speak and think this way.
A ruler governing a vast territory with limited reach may simply discover that preserving local elites, customs, laws, and identities is the most workable way to govern. People who already have standing in a community — religious leaders, nobles, local officials — know the place, are trusted (or at least accepted), and can keep things functioning without constant force from the center. In that sense, preserving difference may not only have discouraged unified resistance, but also reflected a practical reality: empires often worked best when they governed lightly, through people already rooted in local life.
This perspective doesn’t really undermine your argument. If anything, I think it complements it. Preserving differences may have served more than one purpose at once: making unified resistance harder, while also making a large and complicated empire easier to govern.
In any case, thank you for a piece that genuinely made me think. I’ll keep turning it over for a while.
I definitely suspect that sometimes it was more "path of resistance" than anything! When it comes to Empire, lots of people end up groping in the dark, sometimes at cross-purposes, to get things done, and even guys like Augustus don't have the capacity to make their vision happen all on their own.
Thanks for commenting! I was really nervous about this one but the reception was better than I hoped.
I just searched and didn't see references to Austria-Hungary/Hapsburgs. To me, they feel like an interesting case study of (1) how they successfully spanning some groups that could barely tolerate each other and (2) how the unusual balance between Hungarian privileges and ambitions from other national groups helped end the empire.
Annie mentioned the Balkans in one of her recent notes, and that region definitely applies to this concept, I'm just a lot shakier on it in terms of history and this article was already pretty long 🙈 thanks for mentioning it though, I really need to learn more about Hungarian history.
Good work, Eleanor!
It's interesting that your knowledge of the French comes from Honor Harrington. I'd suggest getting one fictional step closer by reading the Horatio Hornblower books, which were Weber's model and inspiration. If you have time, of course...
I definitely intend to, but I'm hoping to read them with my son, and he's a little young yet.
Fabulous post! Thanks for taking the time to wade through all this material~
Thanks! I was super nervous about writing it but I really wanted to think through it, and then once the article is already written I try to bias toward sharing <3
I was familiar with the Assyrian practice of moving people to new locations to disrupt potential for rebellion, but it was fascinating to see how different empires have used this dislocation and other techniques to assert control. An excellent piece.