Book Review: The Age of Discovery

[jminnis]

This weekend I read the first two books of "The Age of Discovery" series by Michael Stackpole (A Secret Atlas and Cartomancy). He's currently working on the third book in the series. I'm hoping that he's writing for the standard trilogy so that I can get the satisfaction of a completed story sooner rather than later.

The background: (not really

Comments

[torrilin]

In less than 30s: China. Rome.

See, doing the conquering does not automagically destabilized the country doing the conquering. It may destabilize the country that got conquered. Lots of places historically have been very static, even *after* they got conquered (see, most of the Fertile Crescent). *Our* culture is historically very weird for being so changeable so quickly.

[jminnis]

Rome:
Rome was a state always in dynamic tension. It conquered as much as it could during its strong stages and lost land when it was weak. The Imperial state lasted from 23 BC to 410 AD (using the sack of Rome as a VERY clear end date instead of a more subjective question of when it lost "enough" land), making it a 433 year endeavor.

During this time, it gained and lost land repeatedly in battles with the Persian empire. It conquered vast tracts of Europe and subjugated the barbarian tribes. In doing so, it 'civilized' them by using them as soldiers (thus indoctrinating them into Roman culture) and by settling their land with retired soldiers (of both Barbarian and non-Barbarian descent).

I'd hardly call that 700+ years of unchanging borders and people. :)

China:Chinese history is a tale of alternating centralization and splintering. Periodically, the rulers lost the 'Mandate of Heaven' (an idea spawned in the Zhou dynasty around 1000 BC, IIRC, which is still viewed as relevant). When they lost the Mandate, the country

[torrilin]

Admittedly, the start of the Roman republic leaned towards myth for the Romans, but the republic lasted substantially longer than the Empire, and that's what I was referring to. And if you consider that for the *people* of Rome, their culture had very minimal change throughout the entire period, Rome easily busts the 700 year mark. This line of thought clearly demonstrates my focus on cultural history as opposed to military history tho

[projecttracker]

If by "culture had minimal change" you mean "only dealt with major changes in governmental style, internal civil strife, and religion", then I totally agree with you. The Roman republic was marked by constant upheaval. There were a series of secessions which dramatically changed the government, about one every hundred years. The constant influx of foreign slaves led to changes in language and religion.

As for the Roman empire...well, there's a reason why we speak of the Pax Romana with respect even today. 200 years of internal peace. Of course, there was a constant drain of troops during it, as the empire was at war the entire time on the borders.