Kaldellis distinguishes the Byzantine state from a military dictatorship: although armies could make and unmake emperors through civil war, they were essentially never turned inward to suppress civilians, because rulers relied on consensus rather than repression to stay in power. ✦ AI generated
Anthony Kaldellis · Lex Fridman · 2026-06-30 · original ↗
starts at this moment · 146:58
“Is there at all a degree to which it's a military dictatorship? ... So to what degree is it a military dictatorship, as is sometimes talked about when you talk about the Roman Empire?”
Here's why I don't think the Eastern Roman Empire is a military dictatorship. Even though, again, the emperors control the armies, and the armies themselves will often have a say in who becomes emperor... The reason why I don't think it's a military dictatorship is because they almost never, very, very, very rarely use the army as an instrument of social control.
verbatim transcript · starts at 146:58
146:58yes, there's a republic, yes, there's political discussion, but the army has a lot of power. So to what degree is it a military dictatorship, as is sometimes talked about when you talk about the Roman Empire? - Yeah, so Augustus' position, for example, and that of his successors is, is talked about as a military dictatorship. In other words, when push comes to shove— ... and the basis of political power is the army,
147:25then I suppose it's legitimate for historians to talk about a military dictatorship. But here's why I don't think the Eastern Roman Empire is a military dictatorship. Even though, again, the emperors control the armies, and the armies themselves will often have a say in who becomes emperor, like through the civil wars that we mentioned. Okay. The reason why I don't think it's a military dictatorship is because they almost never, very, very, very rarely use the army as an instrument of social
148:01control. - Is that, isn't that strange to you? Because you see that being done through so much of human history. And the fact they don't resort to that, I mean, they, for 1,000 years, that's just not a thing. - As a way of keeping down the population, you just don't see it. And part of the reason for that is I don't think the population needs to be kept down.
148:26Like, this gets back to the consensus that we were talking about. The understanding is that the army is there to protect the Roman people. And is often recruited among them. And for most of the period that I study, is like lives among them. So when the emperors have to call up the army, they're literally calling up soldiers from local villages. - It's just incredible that this worked. I guess the civil war thing
148:52is, as a mechanism, is effective. 'Cause you just, throughout human history, I mean, you look at even recent history, it's just a very common thing for a authoritarian figure to use the army to suppress people. - Yeah, but isn't that dangerous, though? Look at how many modern regimes tried to use their own armies against their people who are in a moment of rising up. - It doesn't last.