Ancient Near Eastern forms of monarchy getting oversimplified every freakin' time:pic.twitter.com/W3oVTXN77K
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Just checked your post on the imperial cult explaining that only dead emperors became gods I was about to joke that Roman emperors didn't count because technically they weren't kings, but technically they weren't gods either!
There's a funny bit in Suetonius' Life of Vespasian which makes this point neatly, that Vespasian (the emperor) as he was dying, joked "Alas, I seem to be becoming a god!" (Suet. Vesp. 23.4). Vespasian was known for his sense of humor.
How much of this is just simple Orientalism at work?
Quite a lot, but not all of it. Often students express this view of kingship through equally garbled understandings of what the phrase 'Divine right of kings' signifies.
Of course not. Sometimes legitimacy is derived by declaring yourself the 4th cousin of the last guy (who was secretly a priest serving cosmic disorder the whole time). And reconquering most of the empire, but that's the boring part.
I think CGP Grey’s Rules for Rulers video is good on the dynamics. No man rules alone . . .https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
So, I'd say that video (and the book it is based on) are good for *some* of the dynamics. The main missing component there are norms - but that is a really big, important component!
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.