The Education that is Empire Total War (part 1)

Rome Total war, Medieval total war, and Empire total war give a very good thumbnail sketch of European history that can stimulate any sufficiently curious person to follow up with some selective (and entertaining) reading. This is something that Americans have needed for a very long time as they could do with some knowledge of the history of other continents. The continuity of European history has become most apparent to me as I've played through the Total War series.

Rome Total War tells the story of how the government of a mere city became the government of the entire land mass surrounding the Mediterranean Sea as the offices of the city were exported to the lands Rome conquered. "Consuls" became "proconsuls," "praetors" became "pro-praetors," and the honorific of "imperator" ("commander") gradually became the title "emperor." It tells of how the government of that city consisted of aristocratic families that constantly competed for positions within it, and of how they essentially bought off the lower classes through "bread and circuses" The Rome Total War expansion, The Barbarian Invasions, goes on to tell the story of how the empire in the west was felled by having a lot of steal-ables, while having lost the economic power to support a military strong enough to protect those steal-ables. They didn't have an Adam Smith back then to tell them how nations acquire and retain wealth. One thing they they tried was freezing everybody into their father's job. That became the birth of the serfs. People who were attached to given plots of land by law. This became the foundation stone of the medieval era that came later.

The Barbarian Invasions also tell the story of how the empire in the east lasted long enough for its destruction to help kick off the Renaissance as Greek refugees from the eastern empire brought Greek culture back to the attention of Western Europe.

With Medieval Total War, we see how the collapse of the Roman Empire gave birth to the kingdoms that gradually became the nations of modern Europe. With a little reading, we can see this in the titles of what became the ranks of peerage. As the Roman military collapsed, the Roman legions became smaller detachments of soldiers lead by a "leader" (In latin, "dux"). The title "dux" became our word for "duke." (In Italian this is duce'. Hence Mussolini was "Il Duce," "the leader') These leaders had subordinate officers called "companions" (in latin, "comes.") "Comes" became "comte" in French and "Count" in English. A Count was someone who ran and protected a "county" for a "Duke" (who ran and protected the larger whole, a "duchy"). An English "viscount" was a vice-count. Counties that were on the borders of a barbarian tribe were called "marches." Hence the French title marquis and the English titles, "marquess" (male) and "marchioness (female). There are German towns with "mark" at the end of their names that thereby denote that they were once in a march of the old empire. The word "prince" is from the the Latin word "princeps." In the old Roman republic, the princeps was the first citizen of the republic. He was the senator who spoke first in a meeting of the senate. In the transition to the empire, the title of princeps was taken over by the emperor, who found it useful to be the first to speak in the senate because it let the senators know which way the win was blowing in regards to what he wanted them to do. So the latin term "princeps" came to mean "ruler." Hence, the medieval expression "a prince of the realm." So, all those Europeans with these high sounding titles are in essence descendants of the rough hewed military types who kept chaos at bay when the Roman empire fell.

In the military chaos that followed the fall of Rome, the dukes were the most powerful military men on the scene. And there was a lot of competition among them for the spoils of Europe. With a weak economy, the solution for creating large armies was a system of payments and obligations between superiors and subordinates. The man above promised to give lands and resources (serfs!) to the man below, in return for the man below providing management and protection to the serfs, and in return for providing soldiers when the man above needed to go to war. The man below was the vassal, the man above, his liege lord (the origin of the term "land lord.") . This, in essence, was the Feudal system. As groups of dukes banded together to to protect themselves from other bands of dukes or barbarian invaders, the need was felt to have one of their number speak for them all. So the dukes elected one of their number - usually the weakest - to be the nominal king of their group. Thus did the first kingdoms of Europe come into being.

And thus began the struggle of the kings to suppress their dukes and establish the primacy of their own power. In France, this process was successful and ended in the absolutism of the later French kings who ruled until the French revolution. The success of the Sun King of France resulted in much emulation in Continental Europe. In England, there were an number of detours, one of which was the Magna Charta. These detours ended with England becoming a constitutional monarchy, pretty much in opposition to the absolute sovereigns of the continent.

Between Medieval Total War and Empire Total War is the story of how the Renaissance engendered the Protestant Reformation, and how the Protestant Reformation engendered the Catholic counter-reformation. Wars of religion were fought that were so horrific that both royal hierarchy and religious hierarchy became discredited amongst the new class of "savants." This intellectual class had proceeded apace with the initial impetus of the Renaissance. Neal Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle" is about this period. Art and science flourished and a new concept of man was formed. The Enlightenment begins, and Empire Total War is about this event.

Now days, we in America give tributes to the veterans of our wars by saying "freedom is not free." In one sense that is true. At the cost of their lives or limbs, our soldiers have allowed our freedoms to continue. "Freedom is not free" because they have paid for it. But if you really believe that "freedom is not free" then you are buying into the feudal argument that freedom ultimately comes from a king (essentially a military man) who can grant or withhold it as he wills. Louis XIV used to have his cannons stamped with a Latin phrase that meant "the final argument of kings." The foundation of the Enlightenment was the realization that freedom is indeed free. Men are born free and only consent to give up some of their freedoms when those freedoms impinge on another's. The key thing the Enlightenment philosophers realized was that the Feudal system that gave rise to royalty and aristocracy was, in essence, a protection racket. The king and his vassals promised you ( at the very minimum) the protection of your life in return for everything you thought you owned. The 1700's was about the people of Europe and the Americas waking up to what feudalism really was and deciding they'd really rather try something else instead.

(To be continued)