The State: Its History and Development Viewed SociologicallyOppenheimer, Franz
History
The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically
Oppenheimer, Franz
State, The
By these means, the powerful frontier wardens gradually attain an
ever greater, and finally a complete, _de facto_ independence, even
though the _formal_ bond of feudal suzerainty may for a long time
apparently keep together the newly developed principalities. The
reader, of course, recalls instances of these typical transitions;
all mediæval history is one chain of them; not only the Merovingian
and Carolingian Empires, not only Germany, but also France, Italy,
Spain, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, as well as Japan and China,[111]
have passed through this process of decomposition, not only once,
but repeatedly. And this is no less true of the feudal states of
Mesopotamia: great empires follow each other, acquire power, burst
asunder time after time, and again are re-united. In the case of
Persia, we are expressly told: “Separate states and provinces, by a
successful revolt, obtained freedom for a longer or shorter time, and
the ‘great king’ at Susa did not always have the power to force them
to return to their obedience; in other states, the satraps or warlike
chieftains ruled arbitrarily, carrying on the government faithlessly
and violently, either as independent rulers or tributary under-kings of
the king of kings. The Persian world-empire went to its disintegration
an agglomeration of states and lands, without any general law, without
ordered administration, without uniform judicial system, without order
and enforcement of law, and without possibility of help.”[112]
A similar fate overtook its neighbor in the valley of the Nile:
“Princes spring from the families of the usurpers, free landlords,
who pay land-taxes to nobody but to the king, and rule over certain
strips of land, or districts. These district princes govern a territory
specifically set apart as pertaining to their official position, and
separate from their family possessions.
“Later successful warlike operations, perhaps filling in the gap
between the Ancient and the Middle (Egyptian) Empire, _together with
the gathering in of captives of the wars, who could be utilized as
labor motors_, brought a more stringent exploitation of the subjects,
a definite determination of the tributes. During the Middle Empire,
the power of the princes of the clans rose to an enormous height,
they maintained great courts, imitating the splendor of the royal
establishment.”[113] “With the decline of the royal authority
during a period of decay, the higher officials use their power for
personal aims, in order to make their offices hereditary within their
families.”[R][114]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account