This is the first part of a three-part (if I can keep it) series, examining the historical assumptions of Imperator: Rome, a historical grand strategy game by Paradox Interactive, set during the rise and collapse of the Roman Republic from 304-27 BC and covering the broader Mediterranean world and South Asia. This is also the continuation of a larger series on Paradox’s historical grand strategy games, where we have already discussed Europa Universalis IV, Crusader Kings III and Victoria II. I should note at the outset that this is not a review: we are examining Imperator‘s historical assumpti ..read more

Fireside this week! I had hoped to have the start of the Imperator Teaching Paradox series ready for this week, but it has been a bit stubborn and I do not want to derail my book writing/revising schedule in order to push it out before it is ready. So that will almost certainly come next week. Ollie is restful. Percy is watchful. For this week’s musing, I want to talk a bit about the illusion of historical stability. This was occasioned by a particularly foolish tweet that went around Twitter declaring the “feudalism was actually a pretty good system” in part because “it’s[sic] hierarchy ensur ..read more

It is once again the week of July 4th and so, as is customary here, I am going to use this week’s post to talk about the United States or more correctly this week about the political philosophy the United States was founded on: liberalism. Now an immediate clarification is necessary, because in the United States especially, the word ‘liberalism’ has come to mean more broadly the left half of the political spectrum and (with no small amount of irony) ‘big government’ solutions to problems. That is not what I mean here. Instead, what I mean when I say liberalism is its original (and broadly inte ..read more

Fireside this week! My hope in terms of the upcoming schedule is to have my usual July 4th post next week (we’re discussing political philosophy in an election year, so I am sure everyone will be very chill; regardless let me repeat you will be civil) and then after that to dive into the Teaching Paradox series on Imperator (for which I’ve been doing a Carthage and a Seleucid run). I think then there’s a good chance I’ll stick a one-month hiatus after that, either in August or perhaps September, to help me finish up the book while also dealing with start of the 2024-5 academic job season. Perc ..read more

This is the third and final part of our three-part (I, II, III) look1 at how some ‘tribal’ or more correctly, non-state agrarian peoples – particularly the Celtiberians, Gauls and also many Germanic-language speaking peoples on the Rhine and Danube- raised armies to fight the Romans (and anyone else who came knocking) in the third, second and first centuries BC. Last time, we looked at the communal governing structures these non-state polities had and discussed both how they coordinated collective military action, but also why they were too weak to really function as states, with a monopoly on ..read more

This is the second part of our (planned) three part (I) look at how some ‘tribal’ or more correctly, non-state agrarian peoples raised armies to fight the Romans (and others) in the third through first centuries BC. Last time, we looked at the subsistence basis of these societies – they’re agricultural – and the social structures that subsistence base encouraged: a society of aristocrats at the top of networks of patronage ties reaching down into the majority peasant population, with horizontal ties of hospitality, marriage and so on linking members of both groups to other members of their sam ..read more

Fireside this week! I am spinning up to write a Teaching Paradox series on Imperator later this week, but not quite ready to get started yet. I’m also thinking, perhaps before that, of doing a short post or set of posts on the organization of non-state ‘tribal’ societies in pre-Roman western Europe, looking at one set of ways people can organize themselves in the absence of states. Finally, I want to note that I haven’t decided quite yet, but I may end up pulling the trigger on taking a month off of the blog later this year (perhaps August?) to help me hit my goals in getting the book project ..read more

This is the second and final part of our look at Alexander III of Macedon (Part I), who you almost certainly know as Alexander the Great. Last week, we looked at the sources for Alexander’s life, the historiography (that is, the history-of-the-history) of his modern reception and then he abilities as a military commander, both on his own and in the context of the army and officers that Philip II, his father, had built for him. This week, we turn to Alexander the King rather than Alexander the General. After all, being a king meant more than just commanding armies in the field: it demanded the ..read more

Fireside this week! Next week, with luck, I’ll have my ‘On the Reign of Alexander III of Macedon’ up as an addendum to our discussion of Hellenistic armies. But in the meantime, it is a fireside, and I thought, since it was just recently May the Fourth, we might talk some Star Wars (and history). So this is going to be a bit silly this week. The completed Lego Star Destroyer. For this week’s musing, over the last week, as part of my May the Fourth celebration (and some enforced post-semester relaxation), I went and built the Lego Star Destroyer my better half bought for me (about a year ago ..read more

This is the fifth part of our four(ish) five part1 (Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, IIIa, IIIb, IVa, IVb, IVc) look at how the Roman legions were able to overcome the Macedonian sarisa phalanx in the third and second centuries BC. We have covered the decisive battles in the story, although after 168 it is not entirely clear if everyone understood the magnitude and implications of Rome’s astounding run of military success in the first half of the second century. Indeed, we’ll see that the Greek poleis most certainly did not, to their great misfortune. Nevertheless, while the Romans will fight in the East aft ..read more