In the previous part, we looked at the betrayal of Mettius Fufetius.

Tullus Hostilius, the third king of Rome, changed the direction of Rome.

Numa had tried to move Rome toward peace and sacred order.

Tullus moved Rome toward war and expansion.

The starting point was a dispute between Roman and Alban farmers.

Both sides had plundered the land of the other side.

Normally, this could have been solved through compensation.

However, Tullus used this dispute as a reason for war.

Rome and Alba moved toward conflict.

When the two armies faced each other, they did not fight a full battle.

Instead, Rome and Alba agreed to decide the result through a duel between triplets.

The Roman Horatii fought the Alban Curiatii.

The side that won would rule the other side.

The duel ended in Roman victory.

As a result, Alba became subject to Rome.

However, the Alban people were not satisfied.

They were angry that the fate of their state had been decided by the victory or defeat of three men.

Their anger was directed at Mettius.

Mettius could not persuade them.

So he pretended to remain subject to Rome while secretly bringing Fidenae and Veii into an anti-Roman plan.

However, on the actual battlefield, Mettius withdrew at the last moment.

Tullus used this movement through quick judgment.

He shouted that the movement of the Alban army was part of his own plan.

He said that the Alban army was moving to attack Fidenae from the rear.

This statement shook the army of Fidenae.

As a result, Rome won the battle.

After the battle, Tullus executed Mettius as a traitor.

But the response of Tullus did not end there.

This article looks at what he did next to Alba itself.

2. Tullus Did Not Leave Alba as a Separate City

After executing Mettius, Tullus turned to the Alban army and the city of Alba itself.

The Alban soldiers had moved under the command of Mettius.

Tullus made it clear that he would not punish all Alban soldiers.

They had only obeyed their commander.

The real problem was Mettius, who had ordered the betrayal.

However, Tullus did not intend to keep Alba as a separate city-state.

He said that Rome and Alba had once been one people.

They had been divided into two.

Now the time had come for them to become one again.

All the people of Alba would be taken to Rome.

The common people would receive citizenship.

The leading families would be received into the Roman nobility.

This was the policy of Tullus.

The Alban soldiers soon realized that they were surrounded by armed Roman soldiers.

They had no room to resist.

They were taken to Rome.

At the same time, Roman cavalry had already been sent ahead to Alba.

The people of Alba were also forced to leave their city and move to Rome.

Then the empty city of Alba was destroyed.

Its gates were broken.

Its walls were smashed by battering rams.

Alba was the city founded by Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, at the foot of the Alban mountain.

According to Livy, what Alba had built over about four hundred years was destroyed in a very short time.

The city became ruins.

This was not only the destruction of a city.

It was the physical removal of an old city OS connected to the origin of Rome.

3. Rome Destroyed Alba, but Absorbed Its People

Tullus destroyed the city of Alba.

However, he did not simply enslave the Alban people.

The number of Roman citizens greatly increased through the people moved from Alba.

Rome expanded the Caelian Hill, located southeast of the Palatine Hill.

The people brought from Alba were settled on that hill.

Tullus also built his royal residence on the Caelian Hill and lived there.

This point is important.

Tullus did not leave the Albans at the edge of Rome.

He placed them inside the city structure of Rome.

The leading Alban families were also received into the Roman nobility.

According to Livy, these families included the Julii, Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curiatii, and Cloelii.

This was not only a policy of conciliation.

It was also a policy to strengthen the leadership layer of the state.

In other words, Tullus destroyed Alba as a city.

But he absorbed its population, military power, and leading families into Rome.

The external OS called Alba disappeared.

But its resources were integrated into the Roman OS.

4. After Absorbing Alba, Rome Expanded Further

After absorbing the people of Alba and strengthening the state structure, Tullus reorganized the army with the newly added citizens.

Then he declared war on the Sabines, who were located to the northeast of Rome.

The Sabines had been deeply connected with Rome since the time of Romulus.

In the time of King Titus Tatius, part of the Sabines had already been joined to Rome.

Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, had also come from the Sabine town of Cures.

However, only part of the Sabines had been joined to Rome.

Not all Sabines had been absorbed.

The Sabines understood that Rome had become stronger by absorbing the Albans.

So they thought they could not resist Rome alone.

They looked for outside support.

They turned their eyes to Veii.

However, Veii did not send support.

Veii respected the truce made with Rome in the time of Romulus.

While the Sabines were slow in preparing for war, Tullus moved first.

He invaded Sabine territory.

The Roman army fought the Sabine army.

The battle went in Rome’s favor from beginning to end.

The Sabines fled.

In this way, Tullus made a major contribution to the expansion of Roman power.

The absorption of Alba was not merely revenge.

It was also a policy to strengthen the state for the next war.

5. The Structure Seen Through OS Organizational Design Theory

Why did Tullus destroy Alba instead of leaving it as a subject city?

If Alba could be fully incorporated into Rome, Rome would no longer need to fear betrayal like that of Mettius.

However, destroying a city with about four hundred years of history and forcing its people to move was a policy with serious risks.

From the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory, Tullus seems to have compared two options.

The important point is that both choices had risks.

If Alba was left standing, Rome would leave a possible center of rebellion outside the city.

Alba was not an ordinary conquered city.

It was an old city connected to Rome’s origin.

The people of Alba could think in this way:

Was Rome not originally born from the Alban line?

Why should Alba obey Rome?

If this awareness remained, the subordinate relationship would be unstable.

On the other hand, if Alba was destroyed and its people were moved into Rome, the external base of rebellion would disappear.

But Rome would bring the resentment of the Alban people inside itself.

Tullus compared these two risks.

He judged that the danger of leaving an independent Alban OS outside Rome was greater.

6. What Was the Structural Problem?

The structural problem was that Alba was not a simple subject city.

Alba was connected to the origin of Rome.

It had been founded by Ascanius, the son of Aeneas.

It was deeply connected to the legendary line of Rome’s foundation.

For this reason, if Alba was left as a subject city, a latent rivalry would always remain.

Alba could obey Rome on the surface.

But in its heart, it could look down on Rome.

It could follow Roman orders while thinking that it was the older and more legitimate line.

It could submit outwardly while waiting for a chance to recover independence.

In this way, a small OS would remain outside Rome.

A small OS means a partial decision-making unit that appears to obey the higher OS, but still has its own purpose, its own decision criteria, and its own survival strategy.

If Alba remained as a city, the Alban OS would remain.

And that Alban OS could again become hostile to Rome.

The betrayal of Mettius had already shown this danger.

Therefore, Tullus did not try to manage Alba as a subject city.

He tried to dissolve the Alban OS itself.

He destroyed the city.

He moved the people.

He added the leading families to the Roman nobility.

He gave citizenship to the common people.

He settled them on the Caelian Hill.

This was a policy that changed an external OS into internal resources.

However, this method also had a serious danger.

The memory of a destroyed city does not disappear.

The resentment of people forced to move does not disappear.

Even if they become Roman citizens in law, they do not immediately become Roman in feeling.

In other words, Tullus reduced the risk of external rebellion.

But in exchange, he brought the risk of internal dissatisfaction into Rome.

7. Why Did Tullus Make This Decision?

The reason Tullus made this decision lies in his style of rule.

Tullus was not a king like Numa.

Numa tried to stabilize the state through peace and sacred rites.

Tullus tried to strengthen Rome through war and expansion.

For this reason, the treatment of Alba was not done as peaceful reconciliation.

It was done as military and institutional integration.

What mattered to Tullus was not to calm Alba.

What mattered was to make Alba unable to betray Rome again.

Tullus was also looking toward the next war.

If he absorbed Alba, Rome’s population would increase.

Its military power would increase.

Its leadership layer would become thicker.

The city itself could expand.

In fact, after absorbing the Albans, Tullus moved toward war with the Sabines.

This shows that the absorption of Alba was a state-strengthening policy for the next war.

In other words, the judgment of Tullus was harsh.

But from the viewpoint of a Roman OS guided by war and expansion, it had a certain rationality.

He chose to absorb Alba and use it rather than leave it outside and monitor it.

Through this decision, Rome became stronger.

But that strength was gained in exchange for the loss of Alba.

8. What Does the Death of Tullus Show?

Tullus was a king who achieved brilliant results on the battlefield.

He subdued Alba.

He destroyed the city of Alba.

He moved its people to Rome.

He increased the population of Rome.

He strengthened the leadership layer.

He reorganized the army.

He defeated the Sabines.

If we look only at military results, Tullus greatly expanded Roman power.

However, he also died.

In his later years, Tullus is said to have studied the records of Numa.

He tried to perform a secret rite for Jupiter Elicius.

But Jupiter did not give him protection.

According to Livy, Jupiter gave him lightning.

Tullus was burned together with his house.

This is a symbolic end.

Tullus had moved away from the peace and sacred order of Numa.

He had chosen war and expansion.

Late in life, he tried to approach the sacred rites of Numa.

But he could not handle them properly.

He was destroyed.

Livy describes this as divine punishment.

However, from a structural viewpoint, another reading is also possible.

Tullus destroyed the city of Alba and forced its people to move to Rome.

As a result, Rome became stronger.

But Rome also carried deep resentment inside itself.

For this reason, it is possible to read the death of Tullus symbolically as something connected to the anger and dissatisfaction of the Alban people.

Of course, this cannot be stated as historical fact.

But it is clear that the rule of Tullus contained both glory and danger.

He strengthened Rome.

But that strength was also gained by erasing another city and wounding the memory of another people.

9. What Would Have Happened If Alba Had Not Been Destroyed?

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Mettius betrays Rome.

Tullus defeats Fidenae and Veii.

Tullus executes Mettius.

Tullus does not punish all Alban soldiers.

He treats the betrayal as the responsibility of the commander.

However, he decides not to leave Alba as a city-state.

He moves all the people of Alba to Rome.

Alban commoners receive citizenship.

Alban leaders are received into the Roman nobility.

The empty city of Alba is destroyed.

Rome gains population and military power.

Rome moves toward war with the Sabines.

Tullus contributes greatly to Roman expansion.

But his rule also leaves deep resentment and danger.

If Alba had not been destroyed, what would have happened?

Most likely, Alba could have become a center of anti-Roman resistance again.

Alba was not a simple subject city.

It was an old city connected to Rome’s origin.

Its people had already been dissatisfied that the fate of their state had been decided by the duel of the triplets.

If the city had remained, dissatisfaction could have gathered there.

If another figure like Mettius appeared, Alba could again have become the center of rebellion against Rome.

That is why Tullus did not leave Alba standing.

He destroyed the city.

He moved the people.

He absorbed the leading families into the nobility.

He gave citizenship to the common people.

This policy removed the external risk of rebellion.

But forced integration is not a complete solution.

The memory of a destroyed city remains.

The pain of forced migration remains.

Even if people become Roman citizens by law, they do not immediately become Roman in feeling.

Here lies the dual nature of Tullus’ policy.

If Alba remained, it could become an external center of rebellion.

If Alba was destroyed, Rome would bring resentment inside itself.

Tullus judged the first risk to be greater.

So he accepted the second risk.

From the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory, this was the dissolution of an external OS and its conversion into internal resources.

However, even if an external OS is dissolved, the memories and feelings of the people who belonged to it do not disappear.

In a state or organization, integration is not completed only by legal incorporation.

People must be given roles, rights, places, and dignity.

Tullus did part of this.

He gave citizenship to commoners.

He received the leading families into the nobility.

But the wound caused by destroying the city itself remained.

Rome became stronger.

Alba disappeared.

This was both the result and the cost of the integration policy of Tullus.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at the duel of the triplets that decided the fate of Rome and Alba.

Tullus Hostilius, the third king of Rome, changed the direction of Rome from the peace built by Numa to war and expansion.

The starting point was a dispute between Roman and Alban farmers.

Both sides had plundered the land of the other side.

Normally, this could have been solved through compensation.

However, Tullus used this dispute as a reason for war.

Rome and Alba moved toward war.

But when the two armies faced each other, Mettius Fufetius, the Alban commander, proposed a way to avoid full battle.

Rome and Alba were connected by blood and origin.

If both armies fought fully, both states would suffer heavy losses.

Then nearby powers might use that weakness.

So Mettius proposed that the war should be decided not by the whole armies, but by a small number of chosen fighters.

In this way, the Roman Horatii and the Alban Curiatii fought.

The rule was clear.

The side whose brothers won would rule the other side.

The duel ended in Roman victory.

As a result, Alba became subject to Rome.

However, the Alban people were not satisfied.

They could not accept that the fate of their state had been decided by the victory or defeat of three men.

Their anger was directed at Mettius.

Mettius could not persuade his own people.

So he did not try to honor the treaty with Rome.

Instead, he tried to change the situation through betrayal.

This article looks at the structure of that betrayal.

2. What Happened This Time?

After Tullus made Alba subject to Rome, his next target was Veii.

Veii was a city-state that had fought against Rome in the time of Romulus.

Roman forces had once advanced close to its walls.

But Veii had a strong position.

So Rome withdrew after making a truce.

For Rome, Veii remained an unfinished enemy.

However, before Tullus attacked Veii, Fidenae rebelled.

Fidenae was located just north of Rome.

It had also fought against Rome in the time of Romulus.

After its defeat, it had become a Roman colony.

Tullus ordered Mettius to join the war according to the treaty between Rome and Alba.

The Roman army crossed the Anio River and took position south of Fidenae.

The army of Veii also crossed the Tiber River and took position against the Roman army.

Tullus ordered the Roman army to face the army of Veii.

He ordered the Alban army under Mettius to face the army of Fidenae.

Then the battle began.

At this moment, Mettius took the worst possible action.

Livy says that the Alban man had neither loyalty nor resolution.

Mettius did not bring the Alban army into battle.

Instead, he moved the Alban army toward nearby hills and watched the battle from there.

This left the side of the Roman army open.

A cavalry messenger told Tullus what had happened.

Tullus was shocked.

He understood that Mettius had betrayed him.

But Tullus reacted with quick judgment.

As unrest spread through the Roman army, Tullus shouted in a loud voice.

He said that he himself had ordered the Alban army to move toward the hills.

He said that the purpose was to attack Fidenae from the rear.

The soldiers of Fidenae heard this.

Some of them were Roman colonists.

So they understood the Latin words of Tullus.

They believed that the Alban army was about to attack them from behind.

This was the worst situation for Fidenae.

If the Alban army attacked from the rear, the retreat route would be cut off.

Fear spread through the army of Fidenae.

They fled.

Then Tullus attacked the army of Veii.

The army of Veii also could not withstand the Roman attack.

They fled as well.

In this way, the battle ended in a complete Roman victory.

3. Mettius Tried to Hide His Betrayal Even After the Battle

After the battle, Mettius came down from the hills as if nothing had happened.

He went to the Roman camp and congratulated Tullus on the victory.

Tullus accepted the congratulations politely.

But he had already seen through the betrayal of Mettius.

That day, Tullus ordered the Alban army to camp next to the Roman army.

The next day, he gathered the whole army.

Then he spoke in front of them.

He took up the fact that the Alban army had suddenly left its position during the battle and moved to the hills.

He made it clear that this had not been his order.

In other words, the movement of the Alban army had been an act of betrayal.

However, Tullus did not try to punish all the Alban soldiers.

They had only obeyed the order of their commander.

The real problem was Mettius, who had given the order to betray.

Tullus organized the issue in this way.

Then he had Mettius surrounded by Roman soldiers and executed.

Mettius had betrayed Rome.

But that was not all.

He had also promised cooperation to Fidenae and Veii.

Yet on the actual battlefield, he did not help them either.

He only watched the battle from the hills.

In other words, Mettius betrayed not only Rome, but also his co-conspirators, Veii and Fidenae.

4. The Personal OS of Mettius Seen Through OS Organizational Design Theory

This situation can be understood through OS Organizational Design Theory.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, an OS is an operating body with decision-making power.

A state has an OS.

An organization has an OS.

A person also has an OS.

A personal OS is the inner decision-making structure that decides what a person aims for, what he judges to be right, and what action he chooses.

The personal OS of Mettius can be organized as follows.

The important point is that Mettius had two applications.

The first application was to cooperate with Fiden

ae and Veii, defeat Rome, and restore the independence of Alba.

This was also a way to answer the dissatisfaction of the Alban people.

However, when Mettius actually stood on the battlefield, he saw the strength of the Roman army.

He also knew that Fidenae and Veii had already been defeated by Rome in the past.

For this reason, he could not complete the first application.

Then, at the last moment, a second application was activated.

This second application was to avoid being held responsible no matter which side won.

To do that, he did not join the battle.

He moved the Alban army to the hills and watched the situation.

In other words, Mettius had planned an application to betray Rome.

But on the battlefield, he saw that this application might fail.

So he switched applications at the last moment.

He moved from betrayal to waiting.

He tried to gain profit no matter which side won.

5. Why Did Mettius Help Neither Side?

The action of Mettius was not mere hesitation.

He had not intended to do nothing from the beginning.

His first application was to cooperate with Fidenae and Veii and defeat Rome.

But when he saw the strength of the Roman army, he realized that this application might fail.

So another application was activated at the last moment.

This was the application of waiting.

He did not join the battle.

He watched the battle from the hills.

At first glance, this may look like a safe choice.

If he did not know which side would win, he could stand outside the battle.

Then he could join the winning side later.

In this way, he might survive.

But this judgment had a fatal defect.

Waiting on the battlefield looks like betrayal from both sides.

From the Roman side, Mettius was a traitor who had abandoned his assigned position.

From the side of Fidenae and Veii, he was also a traitor who had failed to provide the promised support.

From the Alban side, he was an unreliable commander who placed the army in danger and left the result to others.

Mettius tried to avoid responsibility.

But by doing so, he gathered all responsibility onto himself.

6. What Was the Structural Problem?

The problem of Mettius was not simply that he was cowardly.

The structural problem was that, in his personal OS, avoiding responsibility had become the highest priority.

Because of this, even loyalty could be placed behind it.

Here was the distortion in his decision criteria.

He tried to avoid blame from the Alban people.

He tried to avoid responsibility for Alba’s subjection to Rome.

He tried to avoid responsibility if he betrayed Rome.

He also tried to avoid responsibility if he fully committed to Fidenae and Veii.

In other words, his actions always centered on avoiding responsibility.

At that time, loyalty was not an important decision criterion for him.

But loyalty is not merely a moral idea.

In politics and organizations, loyalty is an infrastructure that supports future cooperation.

Without loyalty, alliances cannot stand.

Without loyalty, commands cannot be trusted.

Without loyalty, the execution environment cannot continue to follow the OS.

Mettius did not understand the meaning of loyalty.

For this reason, when he chose the application of waiting, he could not see its failure risk.

Here lies the collapse of Mettius.

He made avoiding responsibility his highest priority.

But his attempt to avoid responsibility finally concentrated the greatest responsibility on himself.

7. Why Did Mettius Betray Not Only Rome, but Also His Co-Conspirators?

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Rome wins the duel of the triplets.

Alba becomes subject to Rome.

The Alban people are dissatisfied with that result.

Mettius cannot persuade the people.

Mettius tries to break Alba’s subjection to Rome by force.

He brings Veii and Fidenae into an anti-Roman plan.

Tullus orders the Alban army to join the battle according to the treaty.

The Roman army, Alban army, Fidenaean army, and Veientine army gather on the battlefield.

Mettius intends to betray Rome.

But when he sees the strength of the Roman army, he cannot fully commit to Fidenae and Veii.

Mettius activates a second application.

This application is to avoid responsibility no matter which side wins.

He moves the Alban army to the hills.

The Alban army does not join the battle.

Tullus uses this action through quick judgment.

The army of Fidenae misunderstands the movement and believes it will be attacked from behind.

The army of Fidenae flees.

The army of Veii also flees.

Mettius appears at the Roman camp as if nothing happened and congratulates Tullus.

Tullus exposes the betrayal of Mettius in front of the whole army.

Mettius is executed.

From this flow, we can see that the betrayal of Mettius happened more than once.

First, he betrayed Rome.

He pretended to obey the treaty with Rome while using Fidenae and Veii to attack Rome.

But on the battlefield, he did not help Fidenae and Veii either.

In this sense, he betrayed his co-conspirators as well.

Why did this happen?

The answer lies in his decision criteria.

He did not place the survival of Alba first.

He did not place loyalty first.

He did not place the victory of the anti-Roman alliance first.

What he placed first was avoidance of responsibility.

Therefore, he always tried to follow the stronger side.

But he could not decide which side was stronger until the result became clear.

As a result, he belonged to no side.

From the Roman side, he was a traitor.

From the side of Fidenae and Veii, he was also a traitor.

From the Alban side, he was an unreliable commander.

This was the collapse of Mettius.

The reason he could not see this failure risk was, ironically, that his own decision criteria did not value loyalty.

In a state or organization, neutrality used to avoid responsibility often stops being neutrality.

It becomes betrayal.

Especially when promises, treaties, or alliances already exist, waiting is not a safe choice.

It is an action that destroys loyalty.

From the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory, the personal OS of Mettius tried to protect his own survival by ignoring loyalty as social infrastructure.

As a result, no OS trusted him.

Finally, he lost even the survival he had tried to protect.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at why Tullus Hostilius, the third king of Rome, broke the peace built by Numa and sought war.

Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, tried to move Rome away from war.

He introduced sacred rites and religious institutions.

He tried to implant self-restraint in the warlike Roman people.

Numa was a king who tried to move Rome from the founding phase to the consolidation phase.

However, after Numa’s death, Rome again had no king.

The people chose Tullus Hostilius as the next king.

Tullus strongly remembered the honor of his grandfather, Hostius Hostilius.

Hostius had fought bravely under Romulus and had died in battle.

For this reason, Tullus tried to prove his value as king not by maintaining peace, but by gaining military achievement.

At that time, a dispute arose between Rome and Alba.

Farmers on both sides had plundered the land of the other side.

Tullus used this incident as a reason for war.

Thus, the doors of the Temple of Janus, which Numa had closed, were opened again.

Rome moved toward war with Alba.

This article looks at the next stage.

Rome and Alba did not decide the war through full battle.

Instead, they decided the fate of both states through a duel between triplet brothers.

Why was such a decision made?

2. Alba Moved First, but Its King Died

According to Livy, Alba moved first.

The Alban army invaded Roman territory with a large force.

It dug a trench and built a camp.

However, at this point, Gaius Cluilius, the king of Alba, died in the camp.

Tullus did not miss this chance.

He passed by the Alban camp and invaded Alban territory.

After the death of Cluilius, the Alban army chose Mettius Fufetius as its commander.

Mettius led the Alban army out and moved close to the Roman army.

Both armies prepared for battle.

Then the commanders came forward.

From the Alban side came Mettius.

From the Roman side came Tullus.

Several leading men stood behind each commander.

At this moment, Mettius made an important proposal.

He said that the cause of the war was plunder and the failure to pay compensation.

But both sides had their own claims.

Rome and Alba were also connected by blood and by origin.

Moreover, there was a powerful force around them: Etruria.

If Rome and Alba fought a full battle, both sides would become exhausted.

Then Etruria might attack the weakened side.

Therefore, Mettius proposed that the two states should find a way to decide the issue without causing heavy losses to both armies.

This was the beginning of the duel of the triplets.

3. The Fate of Two States Was Entrusted to Triplets

At that time, both armies had sets of triplet brothers.

They were the Horatii and the Curiatii.

According to Livy, there were different traditions about which family belonged to which side.

Livy follows the tradition that the Horatii were on the Roman side and the Curiatii were on the Alban side.

Rome and Alba then made an agreement.

The three Roman brothers would fight the three Alban brothers.

The state whose brothers won would rule the other state.

In other words, the fate of Rome and Alba would not be decided by a battle between both armies.

It would be decided by a duel between six men.

This agreement was made as a sacred treaty under the name of Jupiter.

Both states swore to obey the result of the duel.

Then the duel began.

At first, Alba seemed to have the advantage.

The three Alban brothers killed two of the Roman brothers.

The Alban side believed that victory was near.

However, the last surviving Roman brother was unwounded.

The three Alban brothers were all wounded.

So the surviving Roman did not fight the three at the same time.

He kept his distance.

He separated the wounded Alban brothers one by one.

Then he killed them one after another.

In this way, the duel that seemed to favor Alba ended in Roman victory.

According to the treaty, Alba became subject to Rome.

4. Tullus Looked Beyond Alba

After the duel, Mettius asked Tullus what should be done.

Tullus told the Alban army to remain armed and wait.

This was important.

Tullus was already looking at the next war.

His next target was the people of Veii.

They had attacked Rome during the time of Romulus.

Tullus wanted to use the Alban army as a supporting force in that future war.

Therefore, Rome did not simply defeat Alba.

Rome absorbed Alba’s military power.

For Tullus, the duel was not only a way to end the war with Alba.

It was also a way to preserve Alban military power and use it for Rome’s next action.

Alba, however, was in a different position.

The Alban people were not satisfied.

They could not accept that the fate of their state had been decided by the victory or defeat of three men.

Their criticism was directed at Mettius.

Mettius did not have a strong enough reason to persuade them.

So he did not remain loyal to Rome.

Instead, he began to plan betrayal.

He invited the people of Veii into his plan.

He also involved Fidenae, which had been defeated and colonized by Rome in the time of Romulus.

In this way, the decision made through the duel led to the next conflict.

5. The Structure Seen Through OS Organizational Design Theory

This situation can be organized through OS Organizational Design Theory.

In this theory, a state or organization is seen as an operating body with decision-making power.

The center of that operating body is the OS.

The OS decides the purpose.

It decides what is right.

It decides which application, or policy, should be executed.

In this case, Rome and Alba each functioned as a state OS.

The important point is that the duel had different meanings for Rome and Alba.

For Rome, this duel was a useful option.

If Rome won, Alba would submit.

Then Rome could use the Alban army in the next war.

Even if Rome lost, Rome would not necessarily be destroyed.

Rome could still move toward the next war within a new relationship with Alba.

For this reason, the duel was not a complete gamble for Rome.

It was a way to avoid heavy losses and still preserve Alban military power as a future resource.

For Alba, however, the decision was much heavier.

If Alba won, it could rule Rome.

But if Alba lost, it would lose its independence.

Moreover, this fate was not decided by the whole Alban army.

It was decided by three fighters.

Was this decision truly aligned with the survival purpose of the Alban OS?

This was the central problem.

6. What Was the Structural Problem?

Machiavelli gives an important lesson about this duel in Discourses on Livy, Book I, Chapter 22.

His lesson is that a state should never risk its whole fate by fighting with only a part of its army.

This is a sharp observation.

A state should not entrust its survival to the victory or defeat of a small number of fighters.

However, from the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory, the problem is even deeper.

The issue is not only that the fate of the state was entrusted to a part of the army.

The deeper issue is whether that decision matched the survival purpose of the OS.

The basic purpose of an OS is survival.

For a state, this means the survival of the city, protection of the people, maintenance of military power, response to external threats, and preservation of legitimacy.

From this viewpoint, Rome and Alba were not in the same position.

For Rome, the duel was not a total gamble.

If Rome won, Alba would submit.

If Rome lost, Rome could still remain within a new relationship with Alba and move toward the next war.

In other words, the decision of Tullus was risky, but it was not completely outside the survival purpose of the Roman OS.

The Alban decision was more unstable.

Mettius wanted to avoid the heavy losses of full battle.

He also wanted to avoid a situation in which Rome and Alba exhausted each other and opened the way for Etruria.

If we look only at this point, his judgment had a certain logic.

But the threat of Etruria was not the same for Rome and Alba.

For Rome, the Etruscan threat was large.

Rome was closer to Etruria and was more directly exposed to its pressure.

For Alba, the Etruscan threat was smaller.

Alba did not directly border Etruria in the same way.

Therefore, the threat was not as immediate for Alba as it was for Rome.

Here lies the structural problem.

The survival purpose of the Alban OS was to preserve Alba.

However, Mettius used the Etruscan threat, which was not an immediate crisis for Alba, as a reason to avoid losses.

Then he entrusted the fate of Alba to the victory or defeat of three brothers.

This was a mismatch in decision criteria.

Avoiding losses was not wrong in itself.

The problem was that the reason behind the decision did not have enough validity for Alba.

As a result, the Alban citizens did not accept the result of the duel.

Mettius could not persuade them.

To cover the failure of his own judgment, he moved toward betrayal against Rome.

7. Why Was the Fate of a State Entrusted to the Victory or Defeat of Three Men?

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

The Alban army invades Roman territory.

Gaius Cluilius, the king of Alba, dies in the camp.

Mettius Fufetius takes command of the Alban army.

Tullus passes by the Alban camp and invades Alban territory.

The two armies face each other.

Mettius tries to avoid heavy losses from full battle and points to the threat of Etruria.

Rome and Alba agree to settle the war through a duel between triplets.

A sacred treaty is made under the name of Jupiter.

The result of the duel will decide which state rules the other.

The Roman Horatii and the Alban Curiatii fight.

At first, Alba seems to have the advantage.

The last surviving Roman defeats the wounded Alban brothers one by one.

Rome wins.

Alba submits to Rome according to the treaty.

Tullus does not disarm the Alban army.

He plans to use it in the next war.

The Alban citizens become dissatisfied.

They cannot accept that the fate of their state was decided by the victory or defeat of three men.

Mettius cannot persuade them.

Mettius plans betrayal against Rome.

This leads to the next conflict involving Fidenae and Veii.

From this flow, we can see that the duel of the triplets was not merely a heroic episode.

It was a question of how a state decides its own fate.

Machiavelli said that a state should not risk its whole fate by using only a part of its army.

This is correct.

But from the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory, the more important question is whether the decision matched the survival purpose of the OS.

For Rome, the duel was risky, but it could be connected to the next strategy.

If Rome won, Alba would submit.

If Rome lost, Rome still had room to move toward the next war within the relationship with Alba.

For Alba, however, the duel meant entrusting its independence to the victory or defeat of three men.

If Alba lost, it would be difficult to make its citizens accept the result.

That is exactly what happened.

The Alban OS created internal dissatisfaction.

Mettius then moved toward betrayal.

Therefore, the fate of Rome and Alba was not divided only by the strength of the triplets.

It was divided by whether each OS made a decision that matched its survival purpose.

In a state or organization, a decision must not only look rational.

It must fit the survival purpose of the organization.

It must be accepted by the execution environment.

It must be explainable even if the result is defeat.

It must connect to the next action.

Only then can the decision function as a valid OS decision.

The duel of the triplets did not only decide Roman victory.

It revealed the difference in judgment between the Roman OS and the Alban OS.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at the rule of Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome.

After the death of Romulus, Rome entered an interregnum under the Senate.

However, the people of Rome were used to being ruled by a great king.

They did not welcome a system in which the senators ruled in turns.

So the Senate allowed the people to choose the next king.

The man chosen was Numa Pompilius.

Numa was of Sabine origin.

For this reason, some senators feared that royal power might move to the Sabine side.

However, there was no better man than Numa.

Thus, Numa was accepted as the second king of Rome.

Numa’s rule was very different from the rule of Romulus.

Romulus had created Rome through force, war, and expansion.

Numa tried to stabilize Rome through justice, law, morality, and sacred rites.

He built temples.

He created priestly offices.

He organized sacred rites.

These were not merely religious policies.

Numa tried to implant self-restraint in the Roman people through reverence for the gods.

In terms of OS Organizational Design Theory, Numa tried to strengthen the decision criteria of the Roman OS.

He tried to make Rome a state that could maintain peace.

However, peace does not continue automatically.

Even if institutions exist, the direction of a state can change when the decision criteria of the person who operates them change.

This is what we see in the rule of the next king.

The peace built by Numa was broken by Tullus Hostilius.

2. Tullus Tried to Restore Rome’s Warlike Spirit

Numa ruled Rome in peace for forty-three years.

Under Romulus, Rome had succeeded in its founding phase.

It had been created by force.

It had fought surrounding cities.

It had expanded.

Then, under Numa, Rome moved from the founding phase to the consolidation phase.

A founding state needs power.

It needs military strength.

It needs the ability to defeat enemies and establish itself.

But a consolidating state needs something different.

It needs stability.

It needs self-restraint.

It needs sustainability.

Numa gave Rome this foundation.

However, after Numa’s death, Rome again had no king.

The Senate created another interregnum.

As before, the people were allowed to choose the next king.

The man chosen was Tullus Hostilius.

Tullus was said to be the grandson of Hostius Hostilius.

Hostius had fought bravely in the war between Romulus and Titus Tatius, the Sabine king.

He had commanded Roman forces on the front line.

He had died in battle.

Tullus was brave and aggressive, like his grandfather.

He believed that the people had chosen him because they remembered the honor of his grandfather.

Therefore, he felt that he had to gain military achievements worthy of that name.

Here we can see a decision criterion very different from that of Numa.

For Numa, the role of the king was to make Rome accustomed to peace and order.

For Tullus, the role of the king was to prove royal value through military honor.

Tullus was not a king who wanted to maintain peace.

He was a king who wanted to prove himself through war.

3. Numa’s Peace Ended When the Decision Criteria of the King Changed

The important point is not simply that Tullus was warlike.

The deeper issue is that the decision criteria of the Roman OS changed.

Under Numa, Rome had been guided by peace, sacred order, and self-restraint.

Numa had tried to make the Roman people less warlike.

He used sacred rites and reverence for the gods to restrain human desire.

He understood that peace could weaken discipline.

He also understood that a people used to war might lose control when external pressure disappeared.

Therefore, he built institutions that supported inner order.

But these institutions did not operate by themselves.

An institution needs an operator.

A system needs an OS center.

In Rome at this time, the OS center was the king.

If the king valued peace, the state moved toward peace.

If the king valued war, the state moved toward war.

This was the weakness of early Rome.

Rome had not yet fully become a state ruled by stable institutions.

It was still strongly influenced by the character and decision criteria of the king.

Therefore, when Tullus became king, the direction of Rome changed.

The institutions of Numa still existed.

The sacred rites still existed.

The memory of peace still existed.

But the OS center had changed.

And when the OS center changed, the state began to move in another direction.

4. A Small Dispute Between Rome and Alba Became a Reason for War

Tullus wanted war.

However, a king cannot move a state into war only by saying that he wants it.

War requires a justification.

The enemy must have done wrong.

Rome must appear to have a just cause.

Only then can the state be mobilized.

At that time, a dispute occurred between Rome and Alba.

Roman farmers plundered Alban land.

Alban farmers also plundered Roman land.

Both sides had suffered damage.

Therefore, Rome and Alba sent envoys to demand compensation from each other.

This should have been a diplomatic problem.

It could have been handled through negotiation.

It could have been solved through compensation.

But Tullus interpreted the situation differently.

For a king who wanted peace, this dispute would have been a matter for diplomacy.

For Tullus, it became material for war.

This is important.

Facts themselves do not determine the result.

The same fact can lead to negotiation.

The same fact can also lead to war.

The difference comes from the decision criteria of the OS.

Tullus did not see the dispute as something to be calmed.

He saw it as an opportunity.

5. Tullus Used Diplomatic Procedure to Create a Justification for War

Tullus used a clever method.

When the envoys from Alba came to Rome, he welcomed them warmly.

He treated them well.

As a result, the Alban envoys were delayed in Rome.

Meanwhile, the Roman envoys went to Alba.

There, they immediately demanded compensation.

They declared that if Alba refused, Rome would declare war after thirty days.

After the Roman envoys returned, Tullus finally received the Alban envoys.

The Alban envoys also demanded compensation from Rome.

They also said that if Rome refused, Alba would declare war.

Then Tullus presented his argument.

Rome had welcomed the Alban envoys.

But Alba had quickly sent away the Roman envoys.

Therefore, Tullus claimed that Alba had treated the envoys improperly.

He argued that the responsibility for the war would fall on Alba.

In this way, Tullus created a justification for war.

On the surface, he followed diplomatic procedure.

But in reality, the procedure was used to create a reason for war.

This is a very important structural point.

A procedure is not always used for its original purpose.

A diplomatic procedure can be used to preserve peace.

But it can also be used to justify war.

The difference depends on the decision criteria of the OS that operates it.

In the case of Tullus, diplomacy became an application for war.

6. The War Against Alba Was Not an Ordinary Foreign War

The war against Alba was not an ordinary foreign war.

Rome and Alba were deeply connected.

Both were connected to the line of Aeneas, who led the survivors of Troy.

Romulus himself was the grandson of Numitor, the king of Alba.

In this sense, Rome came from the Alban line.

Therefore, Livy describes the relationship between Rome and Alba as something like a parent-child relationship.

He treats the war between Rome and Alba as something close to civil war.

This matters.

Tullus was not simply fighting a distant enemy.

He was leading Rome into war against a community connected to Rome’s own origin.

This makes the decision more serious.

Tullus did not begin this war because Rome faced an unavoidable external threat.

He began it because war could prove royal honor.

The war against Alba was therefore not only a military event.

It was a sign that the Roman OS had begun to move away from Numa’s peace.

Rome was again turning toward war, expansion, and military prestige.

7. Tullus’ Rule Shifted V, the Decision-Criteria Validity of the Roman OS

This situation can be organized through OS Organizational Design Theory.

In this theory, a state or organization is seen as an operating body with decision-making power.

The center of that operating body is the OS.

The OS decides what is important.

It decides what is right.

It decides which application, or policy, should be executed.

In this case, Rome and Alba each functioned as a state OS.

Here, the most important point is the change in V.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

It means whether the criteria used for judgment are valid.

Under Numa, V was supported by peace, sacred order, reverence for the gods, faith, and oaths.

Under Tullus, V shifted toward honor, war, military achievement, and prestige.

This change was decisive.

The same Rome now executed a different application.

Numa’s Rome executed sacred rites, alliances, and internal order.

Tullus’ Rome executed war.

In other words, the Roman OS did not collapse.

It continued to operate.

But the direction of operation changed.

The OS did not stop.

Its decision criteria changed.

That is why the application changed from peace to war.

8. The Doors of the Temple of Janus Showed the Return of War

The Temple of Janus is important in this story.

Under Numa, the doors of the Temple of Janus had been closed.

This meant that Rome was at peace.

The closed doors were a visible sign of the order created by Numa.

They showed that Rome was not in a state of war.

They showed that peace had become the official condition of the state.

But under Tullus, the doors were opened again.

This was not only a religious symbol.

It was a sign that the Roman OS had changed direction.

The state that had been guided by Numa’s peace was now moving back toward war.

The opening of the doors showed that war had returned.

According to the tradition reported by Livy, after Numa’s reign, the doors of the Temple of Janus would remain open for a very long time.

They would not be closed again until after the end of the First Punic War.

This shows how rare peace was in Roman history.

It also shows how important Numa’s peace had been.

But Tullus opened the doors again.

This act symbolized the end of Numa’s peace and the return of Rome’s warlike direction.

9. Tullus’ Rule Was a Different OS Design From the Rule of Numa

Numa and Tullus represent two very different forms of rule.

Numa tried to move Rome away from weapons.

He tried to make peace visible through the Temple of Janus.

He tried to implant reverence for the gods.

He organized sacred rites.

He created priesthoods.

He tried to strengthen self-restraint inside the citizens.

His rule was a consolidation-stage OS design.

It emphasized peace, sacred order, internal stability, and self-restraint.

Tullus was different.

He looked back to the military honor of his grandfather.

He sought war.

He used a diplomatic dispute as a justification for military action.

He moved Rome toward conflict with Alba.

His rule was a return to a military founding mode.

It emphasized honor, war, military achievement, and prestige.

In this sense, Tullus did not simply continue Numa’s Rome.

He redirected it.

This is the key point.

Institutions may continue.

The city may continue.

The people may continue.

The Senate may continue.

But if the decision criteria of the OS center change, the same state can move in a completely different direction.

This is also true in modern organizations.

A company may have the same rules, the same departments, and the same employees.

But if the leader changes, the decision criteria may change.

One leader may value stability and long-term development.

Another leader may value expansion, competition, prestige, or short-term results.

When that happens, the same organization begins to execute different applications.

The case of Numa and Tullus shows this clearly.

Romulus created Rome through force.

Numa gave Rome inner order through sacred rites.

Tullus reopened the path of war.

All three were Roman kings.

But each operated the Roman OS with different decision criteria.

10. Why Did Tullus Break the Peace Built by Numa and Seek War?

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Numa rules Rome in peace for forty-three years.

Rome moves from the founding phase to the consolidation phase.

Numa creates sacred institutions and self-restraint.

Numa closes the doors of the Temple of Janus.

After Numa’s death, Rome again has no king.

The people choose Tullus Hostilius.

Tullus remembers the military honor of his grandfather.

Tullus seeks his own military achievement.

A dispute occurs between Rome and Alba.

Both sides send envoys to demand compensation.

Tullus delays the Alban envoys in Rome.

The Roman envoys demand compensation in Alba.

Tullus uses the diplomatic procedure to create a justification for war.

Rome moves toward war with Alba.

The doors of the Temple of Janus are opened again.

The decision criteria of the Roman OS shift from peace to military honor.

From this flow, we can see that Numa’s peace was not meaningless.

Numa played a very important role.

He moved Rome from the founding phase to the consolidation phase.

He tried to implant self-restraint in a warlike people.

He tried to strengthen V, the Decision-Criteria Validity of the OS, through sacred rites, faith, and oaths.

However, institutions do not operate automatically.

A system depends on the OS that operates it.

If the OS center does not inherit the purpose of the institution, the same institution can be used for another purpose.

In Tullus’ case, diplomatic procedure was not used to preserve peace.

It was used to begin war.

Kingship was not used to maintain stability.

It was used to prove royal honor through military achievement.

Therefore, Tullus broke Numa’s peace not simply because he was warlike.

He broke it because the decision criteria of the Roman OS changed.

The king who operated the Roman OS no longer valued peace as the highest priority.

He valued honor, war, and military achievement.

It is difficult to create peace.

But it is even more difficult to maintain peace.

To maintain peace, a state needs more than institutions.

The OS that operates those institutions must continue to recognize peace as a value.

Numa closed the doors of the Temple of Janus.

Tullus opened them again.

This was not only the beginning of one war.

It was a sign that Rome had begun to move again from peace and consolidation toward war and expansion.

Numa gave Rome inner order.

Tullus returned Rome to war.

This contrast shows one of the central problems of state and organizational design.

The future of an organization is not determined only by the systems it has.

It is determined by the decision criteria of the OS that operates those systems.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at why the Senate could not govern Rome after the death of Romulus.

After Romulus died, the next kingship was not decided immediately.

There were several factions inside the Senate.

The Sabine side also feared that, if no king was chosen from their side, they might lose royal power forever.

Therefore, the Senate created a temporary form of rule.

The senators were divided into groups of ten, called decuriae.

A chief was chosen from each group.

Then ten leaders, called interreges, held command authority in rotation for five days each.

This was the interregnum.

However, the people were dissatisfied with this system.

The people, who had become used to the rule of a great king, could not find a way to be governed except by another king of similar quality.

So the Senate asked the people to choose a king.

If the people chose a man worthy of succeeding Romulus, the Senate would approve him.

The man chosen was Numa Pompilius.

Numa was of Sabine origin.

The Senate was concerned.

Would royal power now pass permanently to the Sabines?

Would the Roman side lose the initiative?

Even with these concerns, there was no better man than Numa.

Thus, the rule of Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, began.

2. Numa Tried to Rebuild Rome Through Justice, Law, and Morality

After receiving royal power, the first thing Numa tried to do was to rebuild Rome through justice, law, and morality.

Romulus had built Rome through force.

He founded the city.

He established laws.

He gathered people.

He created the Senate.

He fought surrounding cities.

He made Rome powerful.

However, the rule of Romulus was the rule of a founding period centered on war and expansion.

The task facing Numa was different.

He had to transform a city created by force into a city that could remain stable for a long time.

For that purpose, he needed to soften the hearts of a warlike people.

According to Livy, Numa tried to calm the warlike spirit of the people by moving them away from weapons.

For this purpose, he built the Temple of Janus at the beginning of the Argiletum.

This temple became an indicator of peace and war.

If the doors of the temple were open, the state was at war.

If the doors were closed, the state was at peace.

In this way, Numa created a system that made peace and war visible to the citizens.

3. What the Doors of the Temple of Janus Showed

The Temple of Janus was important.

It was not merely a religious building.

It was a system that showed the citizens whether Rome was in a state of war or in a state of peace.

According to Livy, after the reign of Numa, the doors of this temple were closed only twice.

The first time was after the end of the First Punic War.

The second time was after Augustus defeated his enemies at Actium and ended the Roman civil wars.

This shows how rare peace was for Rome.

That is why Numa’s action was important.

Numa made alliances with nearby peoples and removed the fear of war.

Then he closed the doors of the Temple of Janus.

This was a symbolic act.

It showed the citizens that Rome had entered peace, not war.

Numa did not try to rule the people only through military force.

He tried to make peace itself the foundation of rule.

4. Peace Brings Prosperity, but It Also Brings Arrogance

Peace brings a kind of prosperity that cannot be enjoyed during war.

During war, no one knows when the enemy will attack.

If the enemy attacks, fields may be destroyed.

Food may be taken.

People may be forced into military service.

In the worst case, they may be killed.

In other words, people at war live close to death.

Because of that, war naturally creates tension.

If people become arrogant during war, they may die.

But peace is different.

If people cultivate fields, they can harvest what they grow.

They do not need to fear sudden conscription or death on the battlefield as much as before.

People can live with greater security.

However, peace contains a trap.

That trap is the decline of self-restraint.

Human beings easily become arrogant when there is no external pressure.

When the fear of war disappears, tension weakens.

The will to preserve order also weakens.

Numa feared this.

How could people maintain self-restraint even in peace?

Numa’s answer was sacred rites.

5. Numa Tried to Create Self-Restraint Through Reverence for the Gods

Numa tried to implant reverence for the gods in the people.

But simply telling people to “respect the gods” was not enough.

It is difficult for people to continue believing in something they cannot see.

An invisible transcendent being becomes easier for people to accept when it is given form through rites, institutions, priests, dates, places, and oaths.

Therefore, Numa built reverence for the gods into Rome as an institution.

According to Livy, Numa pretended to meet the goddess Egeria every night.

Then, in the form of advice from her, he created rites pleasing to the gods and appointed priests for each god.

The important point is that Numa did not treat religion as a merely personal faith.

He organized reverence for the gods as a governing institution that supported the self-restraint of Roman citizens.

6. Numa Created a Sacred System That Did Not Depend on the King Alone

Numa personally performed sacred rites.

However, he understood the nature of Rome.

Rome was a warlike city.

Future kings might go to the battlefield, just as Romulus had done.

If the king went to war, he could not perform sacred rites.

Then sacred rites would depend too much on the situation of the king.

To avoid this, Numa created the permanent priesthood of the Flamen Dialis, the priest of Jupiter.

This was made a high office.

This priesthood was said to have its origin in Alba.

Alba was an important city connected to the line of Aeneas.

In other words, Numa connected the sacred system to the origin of Rome.

Numa also chose a pontiff from the Senate so that sacred rites would not be neglected.

The first pontiff was Numa Marcius.

Numa gave Marcius detailed written instructions about the sacred rites.

What sacrifices should be made.

On which days rites should be performed.

Where the expenses should come from.

What procedures should be followed.

All matters concerning sacred rites were placed under the authority of the pontiff.

Numa defined these matters in detail so that there would be no excess or deficiency in the rites.

He also wanted to prevent foreign rites from entering Roman sacred order.

In other words, Numa made sacred rites into a system that could be operated institutionally, not according to the mood of the king.

7. Sacred Rites Strengthened V, the Decision-Criteria Validity of the OS

Numa’s policy can be organized through OS Organizational Design Theory as follows.

This table is a simplified model.

Numa was king.

Therefore, as the center of the Roman OS, he basically held A, IA, H, and V.

A means Strategic Awareness.

IA means Information Flow Architecture.

H means Human Resource Governance.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

However, Numa thought that this was not enough.

Human judgment is unstable.

In peace, people become arrogant.

In war, people may be driven by fear.

When desire becomes strong, decision criteria bend toward private interest.

Therefore, Numa did not leave the judgment of the king and citizens to human convenience alone.

He incorporated reverence for the gods as a mechanism to strengthen V.

Here, V means the validity of the criteria used for judgment.

If humans judge only by themselves, V can be shaken by a love of war or by the arrogance of peace.

But if oaths and sacred rites exist, people try to measure their own judgments against a higher standard.

This was the meaning of Numa’s sacred system.

8. Citizens Were Ruled Not by Fear of Punishment, but by Faith and Oaths

Livy says that when the minds of all people were filled with piety, faith and oaths ruled the citizens instead of fear of laws and punishments.

This is very important.

Laws and punishments bind people from the outside.

If people violate the law, they are punished.

So they obey.

This is external control.

But faith and oaths are different.

People try to keep them by themselves.

Once they swear before the gods, they cannot easily break the oath.

They cannot change it only for human convenience.

In other words, Numa did not try to govern people only through laws and punishments.

He implanted reverence for the gods and awareness of oaths inside the people.

Through this, he tried to create a condition in which people would preserve order from within, even without external punishment.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, this was a policy to raise the Maturity of the Execution Environment.

Roman citizens would not obey only because they were ordered to obey.

They would preserve order by themselves.

They would not become arrogant even without war.

They would maintain self-restraint even in peace.

As the spiritual foundation for this, Numa institutionalized sacred rites.

9. Numa’s Rule Was a Different OS Design From the Rule of Romulus

Romulus built Rome through force.

He created the city.

He gathered population.

He created the Senate.

He won wars.

He made Rome powerful.

His rule was a typical founding-stage OS.

It emphasized survival, expansion, military power, integration, and victory over external enemies.

Numa’s rule was different.

Numa did not push Rome into more war.

He tried to cultivate self-restraint in peace.

He tried to rebuild Rome through law and morality.

He institutionalized sacred rites.

He organized priesthoods.

He entrusted detailed ritual management to the pontiff.

Through these measures, he tried to implant reverence for the gods, faith, oaths, and a sense of order into the inner life of Roman citizens.

In other words, if Romulus created an OS for defeating external enemies, Numa created an OS for maintaining internal order.

Here we can see a major turning point in the founding history of Rome.

10. Why Did Numa Introduce Sacred Rites into Rome?

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Romulus dies.

The Senate creates the interregnum.

The people are dissatisfied with the absence of a king.

The people choose Numa Pompilius.

The Senate approves Numa.

Numa becomes king of Rome.

Numa tries to move the people away from weapons.

He builds the Temple of Janus.

He makes alliances with nearby peoples.

He closes the doors of the Temple of Janus to show peace.

He recognizes the danger that peace can create arrogance.

He tries to implant reverence for the gods in the citizens.

He uses the authority of the goddess Egeria.

He creates sacred rites.

He organizes priesthoods and the pontiff.

He institutionalizes sacred affairs.

He forms faith and oaths inside the citizens.

Numa did not introduce sacred rites into Rome simply because he was personally religious.

He did it to implant self-restraint in the warlike Roman citizens.

He did it so that peace would not create arrogance.

He did it so that the judgment criteria of the king and the citizens would not be left only to human desire.

He did it to strengthen V, the Decision-Criteria Validity of the OS, through reverence for the gods, faith, and oaths.

He did it to form order from inside the citizens, not only through laws and punishments.

Romulus created Rome through force.

Numa brought order to Rome through sacred rites.

These two forms of rule were opposite in nature.

Yet both were necessary for the Roman OS.

Without Romulus, Rome would not have been born.

Without Numa, Rome would not have had a method for forming order from within.

In other words, if Romulus gave Rome its outer form, Numa gave Rome its inner order.

Numa’s role in the founding history of Rome was to give a city created by force an inner order built through sacred rites and oaths.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at the last battle and death of Romulus.

The joint rule between Romulus and Titus Tatius had already come to an abrupt end.

Relatives of King Tatius had committed violence against envoys of the Laurentes.

Tatius protected his relatives and ignored the complaint.

As a result, the Laurentes came to hate Tatius, and he was assassinated.

Normally, Romulus, as co-ruler, would have been expected to avenge Tatius.

But Romulus did not take revenge.

He treated the violence against the envoys and the killing of the king as if they canceled each other out.

In this way, he ended the matter.

Romulus then became the sole ruler again.

After that, Rome continued to expand.

Nearby cities feared the rise of Rome.

First, Fidenae attacked Rome and was defeated.

Then Veii also opposed Rome and was defeated.

By this point, few nearby cities could defeat Rome in open battle while Romulus led it.

But the rule of Romulus could not last forever.

After a reign of forty years, Romulus died.

Then Rome fell into confusion over who should inherit the kingship.

2. After the Death of Romulus, Factions Fought Over the Kingship

According to Livy, after the death of Romulus, the senators called patres formed factions and competed over the next kingship.

The Sabine side also feared that, if no king was chosen from their side, they might lose royal power forever.

This shows that Rome had not yet become a fully unified OS.

There was a Roman line centered on Romulus.

There was also a Sabine line that had been integrated through the peace with Tatius.

In addition, there were several powerful figures inside the Senate.

While Romulus was alive, these tensions did not easily come to the surface.

That was because Romulus existed as a strong center.

But when that center disappeared, the questions came to the surface at once.

Who would become the center of the Roman OS?

Who would become king?

Would the Senate govern?

Would the king come from the Roman side?

Would the king come from the Sabine side?

For the first time since its founding, Rome had to process the absence of the king as an institutional problem.

3. The Candidates Did Not Have Legitimate Authority Over the Whole Roman OS

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, Rome at this time can be organized as follows.

The important point is that these people did not lack power completely.

Each was a center inside his own faction.

Each had supporters.

Each had influence.

Each had an information network.

In other words, each faction functioned as a small OS.

However, none of them was the legitimate administrator of the whole Roman OS.

The kingship was empty.

Romulus was dead.

Tatius was already gone.

Who would make the final decision?

Whose command would become the command of all Rome?

Who would finally integrate A, IA, H, and V?

There was no answer.

Therefore, this was not complete disorder.

But as the whole Roman OS, Rome had lost its center.

4. A Faction Is Also a Small OS

Here, we need to clarify the meaning of faction in OS Organizational Design Theory.

An OS is an operating body that has decision-making power.

If so, a faction is also a kind of small OS.

A faction has a central figure.

It has supporters.

It has a purpose.

It has opponents.

Information gathers inside it.

Judgments are made.

Actions are executed.

This can be organized as follows.

In this case, the faction itself is one OS.

And the basic purpose of an OS is survival.

Therefore, the faction tries to protect its own survival.

It wants its own candidate to become king.

It wants to maintain its influence.

It does not want another faction to take the lead.

It does not want the Sabine side to take royal power.

Or, from the Sabine side, it does not want the Roman side to monopolize royal power.

In this way, each faction acts according to its own survival purpose.

As a result, the interest of the faction can come before the interest of Rome as a whole.

5. Why Did Rome Not Fall Into Civil War?

Then why did Rome not fall into civil war?

Livy states that no one wanted to yield to the other side.

This shows that factional conflict truly existed.

However, even so, Rome did not enter civil war.

Why?

Because the faction leaders still had a minimum level of reason.

They understood that, if Rome collapsed, their own factions would also collapse.

They had been used to the rule of a great king, Romulus.

Therefore, they understood how dangerous the absence of a king could be.

If they continued to fight, surrounding cities might attack.

If Rome became divided, external forces like Fidenae or Veii might move again.

If the struggle over kingship continued too long, the Roman OS itself might collapse.

Because they understood this danger, they avoided civil war.

Factions existed.

Desire existed.

But at the line where the survival of Rome as a whole would be endangered, self-restraint worked.

6. The Interregnum as a Temporary Form of Rule

In order to avoid conflict over the kingship, the Senate created a temporary system of rule.

First, the senators were divided into groups of ten.

These groups were called decuriae.

Then a chief was selected from each group.

The ten selected chiefs would govern Rome in turn.

The method was simple.

Each of the ten would hold command authority for five days.

The person who held command authority was called an interrex.

This was the interregnum.

The interregnum was a system in which the Senate temporarily held royal power when there was no king.

It was a method for avoiding civil conflict over the kingship.

Royal power would not be given to one faction.

Long-term authority would not be concentrated in one person.

Command authority would rotate over a short period.

Through this method, the Senate tried to process the crisis caused by the absence of the king.

7. Why Did Rule by the Senate Not Become Stable?

However, the interregnum did not become a stable system of rule.

Why?

Because the people did not know who the king was.

The person with command authority changed every five days.

Yesterday’s supreme authority and today’s supreme authority were different.

Who held final responsibility?

Whose command should the people follow?

It was difficult to see.

This created anxiety for the Execution Environment.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, the Execution Environment is the layer that executes the applications designed by the OS.

If the Execution Environment cannot recognize who the center of the OS is, the penetration of command becomes weaker.

In other words, the interregnum succeeded in temporarily suppressing factional conflict inside the Senate.

But it failed to show a clear OS center to the Execution Environment.

As a result, the people became dissatisfied.

There was no king.

They did not know who was ruling.

They did not know whether this system could continue.

The Senate sensed this dissatisfaction.

8. The Senate Opened the Way for the People to Choose a King

After sensing the dissatisfaction of the people, the Senate made its next decision.

The interrex in office held an assembly for the people.

He then declared that if the people chose a king worthy of succeeding Romulus, the patres would approve him.

This was an important turning point.

The Senate did not try to choose the king only by itself.

It also did not try to continue ruling by itself.

Instead, it used the acceptance of the people to decide the next king.

Here, an important feature of the Roman OS appears.

Kingship cannot be established only by bloodline or military power.

The approval of the Senate is also necessary.

The acceptance of the people is also necessary.

In order to process the absence of the king, several layers inside the OS must agree.

The Senate understood this.

That is why it allowed the people to choose a king, and then the patres approved that choice.

9. The Selection of Numa Pompilius

The person chosen by the people as the next king was Numa Pompilius.

Numa was known as a man who understood both divine law and human law.

He was known for justice and piety.

He lived in Cures, a Sabine town.

Here, the Senate had a concern.

If Numa became king, would royal power pass to the Sabine side?

Would the Roman side lose the initiative?

This was a real concern.

However, the Senate finally accepted Numa.

Why?

Because there was no one in the Senate who was superior to Numa.

At this point, the Senate placed the survival of Rome as a whole above factional interest.

What Rome needed was not the victory of one faction.

What Rome needed was a king who could stabilize the whole Roman OS.

Therefore, the senators unanimously approved Numa Pompilius as the next king.

In this way, the second king of Rome was chosen.

10. Why Could the Senate Not Govern Rome?

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Romulus dies
→ The kingship becomes empty
→ Factional conflict appears inside the Senate
→ The Sabine side fears the loss of kingship
→ But civil war would endanger all Rome
→ The Senate creates the interregnum
→ Ten men hold command authority in rotation for five days each
→ The people become dissatisfied because they do not know who the king is
→ The Senate allows the people to choose a king
→ The people choose Numa Pompilius
→ The Senate unanimously approves him
→ The second king of Rome is established

From this, we can see that the Senate did not lack governing ability completely.

The Senate responded to the crisis of the empty kingship.

It prevented factional conflict from becoming civil war.

It created the temporary system of the interregnum.

It also sensed the dissatisfaction of the people.

Finally, it approved Numa Pompilius.

In other words, the Senate functioned as a corrective institution.

However, it could not become the long-term OS center that governed all Rome in place of the king.

Why?

First, there were factions inside the Senate.

Second, in the interregnum, command authority changed every five days, so the center was unclear to the Execution Environment.

Third, the people of Rome, as the Execution Environment, had become used to being ruled under a strong OS center called Romulus.

In other words, the Senate could process the crisis caused by the absence of the king.

But it could not replace the king.

The Senate functioned as a corrective institution.

But it could not be sufficiently recognized by the people as the long-term OS center of Rome.

This is why Rome needed the next king.

The people, who had become used to being ruled by a great king, could not find a way to be governed except by another king of similar quality.

This does not mean that the people were foolish.

It means that the Roman city OS was still at a stage where it needed rule by a central king, not rule by institutions.

Therefore, Rome did not move toward rule by the Senate.

It moved toward the selection of the next king.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at why Titus Tatius, the co-ruler of Romulus, was killed.

Romulus had abducted the daughters of the Sabines in order to solve Rome’s gender imbalance.

As a result, Rome entered a series of wars against the Sabines and nearby cities.

The strongest enemy was Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines.

Tatius invaded deep into the city of Rome and was about to enter a final battle with Romulus.

However, the battle was stopped by the abducted Sabine women.

To the Romans, they were wives.

To the Sabines, they were daughters.

If either side died, they would lose husbands or fathers.

So they begged both sides to stop fighting.

Because of this appeal, the Roman army and the Sabine army lowered their weapons.

Romulus and Tatius made peace.

They shared royal power and united the Romans and the Sabines into one people.

However, several years after the beginning of this joint rule, relatives of King Tatius committed violence against envoys of the Laurentes.

Tatius protected his relatives and ignored the complaint of the Laurentes.

As a result, the Laurentes came to hate Tatius, and he was assassinated.

As co-ruler, Romulus would normally have been expected to avenge Tatius.

But he did not take revenge.

He treated the violence against the envoys and the killing of the king as if they canceled each other out.

In this way, he ended the matter.

Romulus then became the sole ruler again.

2. The Preemptive Attack by Fidenae

After Romulus settled the conflict with the Laurentes, Rome’s power became greater than that of the nearby cities.

One city felt threatened by this rising Rome.

That city was Fidenae.

Fidenae was located north of Rome.

It was north of the Sacred Mount, the hill where the plebeians would later withdraw during political conflicts.

Fidenae believed that Rome’s growth could no longer be ignored.

So it launched a preemptive attack against Rome.

However, this was a dangerous decision.

Rome had already won many battles against nearby cities.

Romulus was an able king.

He was also militarily strong.

Even so, Fidenae challenged Rome alone.

Romulus commanded the Roman defenders and repelled the attack.

Then the Roman army pursued Fidenae.

The Romans entered the city and struck back.

The preemptive attack by Fidenae did not remove the Roman threat.

Instead, it placed Fidenae itself in danger.

3. What Did Fidenae Misjudge?

Why did Fidenae make the reckless choice of launching a preemptive attack?

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, several problems can be seen in the judgment of Fidenae.

Fidenae recognized Rome as a future threat.

This point was not completely wrong.

Rome was rapidly growing stronger.

If Rome was left alone, it could become dangerous to Fidenae in the future.

Therefore, part of A: Strategic Awareness was functioning.

The problem was how Fidenae responded to that threat.

Fidenae did not correctly evaluate the present balance of power.

Could Fidenae defeat Rome alone?

Could it cooperate with surrounding cities?

Should it strengthen its defenses over the long term?

Should it adjust its relationship with Rome through diplomacy?

There is no sign that Fidenae fully examined such options.

In this sense, IA: Information Flow Architecture was insufficient.

The largest problem was V: Decision-Criteria Validity.

Fidenae recognized Rome as a threat.

But it chose a single-city preemptive attack as its response.

This was not a valid judgment from the perspective of OS survival.

If a weaker OS attacks a stronger OS without sufficient preparation, it does not increase its own survival.

It endangers itself.

The situation can be organized as follows.

Fidenae imagined a future danger.

But recognizing danger and choosing the right response are not the same.

A weaker side tried to break through by force.

That was the failure of Fidenae.

4. The Anxiety and Raid of Veii

To the west of Fidenae flowed the Tiber River.

Across the river was the Arsian Forest.

Beyond that forest, northwest of Fidenae, stood the city of Veii.

Veii heard about the disaster of Fidenae and became anxious.

If Rome continued to advance, Veii might also be trampled by Rome.

That was the fear.

So Veii also took action against Rome.

However, according to Livy, its action was more like a raid than a war.

In other words, Veii did not choose open war against Rome.

It tried to damage the Roman side and seize something.

But this judgment also failed.

The Roman army struck back against Veii.

Veii was a strong city, protected by solid walls and difficult terrain.

For that reason, the Roman army could not capture the city itself.

But Veii did not escape without loss.

In the end, Veii gave part of its farmland to Rome as compensation and received a truce for one hundred years.

This became the last battle of Romulus.

5. What Did Veii Misjudge?

The judgment of Veii was different from that of Fidenae.

Fidenae launched a single-city preemptive attack against Rome.

Veii, on the other hand, seems to have understood to some extent that it could not easily defeat Rome in open war.

That is why it chose a raid rather than full-scale war.

But here another problem appears.

What did Veii expect to gain from a raid?

In the short term, it might obtain some plunder.

But in exchange, it would invite Roman retaliation.

And in fact, Veii was struck by the Roman army.

It lost part of its farmland and accepted a one-hundred-year truce.

In this sense, Veii had better situational awareness than Fidenae in some respects.

It recognized the Roman threat.

It also understood the strength of its own city defenses.

But the policy it chose was poor.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the case can be organized as follows.

The problem of Veii was not that it failed to see the Roman threat.

It did see the threat.

It also seems to have understood that it could not easily defeat Rome in open battle.

But after recognizing this, it chose a raid.

This was a poor application.

A raid was not powerful enough to weaken Rome seriously.

But it was enough to give Rome a reason to retaliate.

The benefit was small.

The damage it invited was large.

Veii recognized the situation to some extent, but chose the wrong application.

6. Why Did Preemptive Attack and Raid Fail?

Fidenae and Veii acted differently.

But they also had something in common.

Both feared the rise of Rome.

Both acted against a future threat.

But neither action increased their security.

Instead, both invited Roman retaliation and worsened their own position.

This shows that threat recognition alone is not enough.

What matters is the policy chosen in response to the threat.

It is natural for a weaker OS to fear a stronger OS.

But that does not mean it should immediately choose force.

If a weaker side launches a preemptive attack against a stronger side, it may destroy itself.

If it raids an opponent it cannot defeat openly, it gives that opponent a reason to retaliate.

Fidenae and Veii had other possible options.

They could have built friendly relations with Rome.

They could have formed alliances with other nearby cities.

They could have strengthened their own defenses.

They could have adjusted relations through trade or marriage.

They could have used Rome’s growth to create benefits for themselves.

They could also have taken time to build their own power.

But they chose short-term attack and raid instead of long-term strategy.

That was the reason for their failure.

7. The Strength of Romulus and the Nature of Monarchy

This contrast reveals the strength of Romulus.

Romulus built Rome from nothing.

He established law.

He gathered population.

He created the Senate.

He integrated the Sabines.

He handled the crisis of joint rule.

He also won against Fidenae and Veii.

His reign is said to have lasted forty years.

During that time, Rome grew into a city feared by surrounding communities.

This shows the nature of monarchy.

In a monarchy, the quality of the king is directly connected to the prosperity of the state.

If the king is capable, the state OS can grow rapidly.

If the king recognizes reality, receives information, uses people, and holds valid decision criteria, the state can expand greatly.

Romulus was a typical example.

However, monarchy also contains danger.

It depends too much on the quality of the king.

While Romulus lived, the Roman OS was strong.

But what would happen after Romulus died?

That question now appears.

8. The Death of Romulus

The war with Veii became the last battle of Romulus.

After that, the rule of Romulus reached forty years.

His end is described in a mysterious way.

Romulus was reviewing the army at the Caprae Marsh, north of the Capitoline.

Suddenly, a storm arose.

Thunder sounded.

A deep mist covered Romulus.

When the mist cleared, the king was gone.

This is how Livy describes the end of Romulus.

However, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the important point is not only how Romulus disappeared.

The important point is what happened to Rome after the strong center of the OS disappeared.

9. What the Death of Romulus Shows

Romulus was almost identical with the Roman OS in its founding stage.

He built the city.

He established the laws.

He gathered the population.

He created the Senate.

He integrated the Sabines.

He fought wars against surrounding cities.

He made Rome powerful.

In other words, the early Roman OS depended heavily on Romulus as an individual.

In such a structure, the death of the leader becomes a serious problem.

While Romulus lived, decisions were fast.

Commands were clear.

Wars could be won.

Problems could be handled.

But when that center disappeared, new questions appeared.

Who would become the next center of the OS?

Who would inherit the kingship?

How would the Senate act?

Whom would the people recognize?

Would the integration with the Sabines be maintained?

The death of Romulus was not merely the death of one king.

It was the disappearance of the center of the founding-stage OS.

That is why Rome then faced the problem of the next kingship.

10. What the Last Battle of Romulus Shows

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Rome grows stronger
→ Fidenae feels threatened
→ Fidenae launches a preemptive attack
→ Romulus repels it and retaliates
→ Veii becomes anxious
→ Veii carries out a raid
→ Romulus retaliates
→ Veii gives farmland and receives a one-hundred-year truce
→ The last battle of Romulus ends
→ Romulus disappears at the Caprae Marsh
→ Rome faces the problem of the next kingship

The important point is that the rise of Rome stimulated the threat perception of nearby cities.

Fidenae and Veii feared Rome.

However, they could not choose appropriate policies in response to that fear.

Fidenae chose a single-city preemptive attack.

Veii chose a raid.

Both invited Roman retaliation.

On the other hand, Romulus continued to win militarily against these external attacks.

Because of this, Rome became even stronger.

And because it became stronger, it became even more feared.

Thus, the reign of Romulus was a story of success.

He built Rome from nothing.

But it was also a story of expansion that continued to threaten the surrounding cities.

At the center of that story stood Romulus.

However, a powerful center cannot exist forever.

After the death of the great Romulus, Rome had to face the problem of the next kingship.

From this point onward, the question was whether the Roman OS could move beyond dependence on a single king and process the absence of the king through institutions.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at how the abduction of the Sabine women came to an end.

Rome had rapidly developed as a city.

But it faced one serious problem.

The balance between men and women was poor.

Rome had many men.

But it had too few women.

If there were too few women, children could not be born.

If children could not be born, Rome could not connect itself to the next generation.

Therefore, Romulus sent envoys to the surrounding cities and asked them to allow marriages between Roman men and their women.

But the surrounding cities refused.

They feared the rapid growth of Rome.

They did not want to help Rome become stronger.

So Romulus chose a forceful method.

He held games in Rome.

He invited people from the surrounding cities.

Then he had young women seized from among the spectators.

The main victims were the Sabines.

The Sabines and other nearby peoples attacked Rome in revenge.

Rome defeated them.

But the last and strongest enemy was Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines.

Through a strategy, Tatius entered the city of Rome itself.

The Roman army and the Sabine army were about to enter a final battle.

The ones who stopped that battle were the abducted Sabine women.

To the Romans, they were wives.

To the Sabines, they were daughters.

If either side died, they would lose husbands or fathers.

So they begged both sides to stop fighting.

Their appeal was accepted.

Romulus and Tatius made peace.

They decided to share royal power.

They also decided to unite the Romans and the Sabines into one people.

Thus, the war ended.

But a new problem began.

That problem was joint rule.

2. The Incident Caused by the Relatives of King Tatius

Several years passed after the beginning of joint rule by Romulus and Tatius.

Then an incident occurred.

Relatives of King Tatius committed violence against envoys of the Laurentes.

The Laurentes complained according to their own rules and procedures.

But King Tatius ignored their complaint.

He protected his own relatives.

Here, a serious problem of joint rule appeared.

The Laurentes were not distant strangers to Romulus.

They were connected to the origin of Rome.

When Aeneas first came to the Italian peninsula, he formed a relationship with the people of that region.

Aeneas made peace with King Latinus.

He married Latinus’s daughter, Lavinia.

Then he founded the town of Lavinium.

In this sense, the Laurentes and Lavinium were important to the origin of Romulus.

Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the Laurentes also appealed to Romulus.

But Romulus remained silent.

Why?

Because this was not merely a diplomatic problem.

It was also an internal problem of joint rule.

3. Why Was King Tatius Killed?

Because Tatius ignored the complaint of the Laurentes, their anger did not disappear.

They answered humiliation with violence.

During a great festival at Lavinium, King Tatius was present.

There, the Laurentes attacked him.

King Tatius was killed.

This was clearly an act of violence.

However, the beginning of the incident was on the side of Tatius.

His relatives had committed violence against envoys.

Tatius had protected his relatives.

He had ignored the formal complaint.

The path of lawful settlement had been closed.

As a result, the Laurentes turned to violence.

According to Livy, after this event, Romulus did not show anger.

He avoided war.

He treated the violence against the envoys and the killing of the king as if they canceled each other out.

Then he renewed the bond between Rome and Lavinium.

This was an unusual decision.

If a king is killed, revenge war can normally be expected.

But Romulus did not choose that path.

Why?

Because if Romulus continued to judge this matter, it was clear that a chain of revenge would begin between the relatives of Tatius and the Laurentes.

Therefore, Romulus did not continue the judgment.

He treated the death of Tatius as the end of the matter.

This was not simple passivity.

It was a political decision to stop the chain of revenge.

4. In Joint Rule, the Failure of One King Becomes the Responsibility of the Whole OS

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the joint rule of Romulus and Tatius can be organized as follows.

This is a simplified model.

Romulus and Tatius shared royal power.

Therefore, political judgment, information grasp, and human resource governance were partly shared.

In other words, A, IA, and H were no longer held only by Romulus.

A means Strategic Awareness.

IA means Information Flow Architecture.

H means Human Resource Governance.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

However, the power of command had been transferred to Rome.

Therefore, the main initiative in execution remained on the side of Romulus.

But here lies the difficulty of joint rule.

The judgment of King Tatius was not merely the judgment of Tatius as an individual.

Because he shared royal power, his judgment became part of the judgment of the integrated Roman OS.

In other words, when Tatius ignored the complaint of the Laurentes, that decision could be seen as the decision of the whole Roman OS.

If Romulus denied the judgment of Tatius, joint rule would collapse.

But if he did not deny it, injustice toward the Laurentes would remain unresolved.

This was the difficult position of Romulus.

5. Why Did Romulus Not Blame Tatius?

Romulus was close to the Laurentes.

If we trace the origin of Rome, we reach Aeneas, Latinus, Lavinium, and the Laurentes.

Therefore, ignoring the complaint of the Laurentes was not desirable for Romulus.

However, he could not openly blame Tatius.

If Romulus denied the judgment of Tatius, how would the Sabine side understand it?

They could think that Romulus had looked down on the Sabine king.

They could think that the Roman side had broken joint rule.

They could think that Romulus had treated Tatius not as an equal king, but as a subordinate.

If that happened, the integration of the Romans and the Sabines would collapse.

The joint rule created through peace would move again toward internal division.

Romulus tried to avoid that.

That is why he did not openly oppose the judgment of Tatius.

But his silence did not remove the anger of the Laurentes.

And King Tatius was killed.

6. Why Did Romulus Not Take Revenge for the Killing of Tatius?

After King Tatius was killed, Romulus did not start a war of revenge.

This is also important.

If a king is killed, revenge would usually follow.

But Romulus did not do so.

He treated the violence committed by the relatives of Tatius and the killing of Tatius by the Laurentes as if they canceled each other out.

Then he restored the relationship between Rome and Lavinium.

This decision had several meanings.

First, Romulus avoided war with the Laurentes.

If Rome had gone to war against the Laurentes, it would have fought against a people connected to the origin of Rome.

Second, the death of Tatius removed an unstable element from the joint rule.

This is a cold interpretation.

But structurally, it is true.

Third, the relatives of Tatius and the Sabine side might have demanded revenge.

However, by treating the violence against the envoys and the killing of the king as a closed matter, Romulus tried to stop further revenge.

If Romulus had continued to judge the case, the problem would not have ended.

The relatives of Tatius would have demanded punishment.

The Laurentes would have defended their act as revenge for the earlier insult.

The Sabine side and the Laurentes could have entered a new cycle of hostility.

That conflict would have been brought into the integrated Roman OS.

Therefore, Romulus chose not to continue judgment.

His decision was not emotional revenge.

It was a decision to preserve the stability of the integrated OS.

7. Joint Rule Is Difficult Unless Both Rulers Are Excellent

This incident shows the difficulty of joint rule.

Joint rule is a temporary measure for integrating different OS units into one.

Rome and the Sabines had originally been different communities.

They had different interests.

They had different sources of legitimacy.

They had different human relationships.

Romulus and Tatius tried to combine them through joint rule.

But in joint rule, the failure of one king becomes the responsibility of the whole.

The relatives of Tatius committed violence against envoys.

Tatius protected them.

This was a problem on the side of Tatius.

However, because there was joint rule, it also became a problem for Rome as a whole.

Romulus could not fully correct the failure of Tatius.

If he corrected it openly, the equality of joint rule would break.

Therefore, joint rule is difficult unless both rulers are excellent.

If one ruler makes a mistake, the other ruler is also pulled into it.

If one ruler protects his relatives, justice in the whole community is damaged.

If one ruler breaks trust with an external group, the credibility of the whole OS is damaged.

This is the danger of joint rule.

8. Joint Rule Needs an Institution That Corrects Both Kings

How could joint rule have functioned better?

The answer is that there needed to be an institution that could correct both kings.

Under the sole rule of Romulus, the Senate had functioned as a corrective institution.

The Senate did not completely control Romulus.

However, as the population increased and the information structure became more complex, the Senate corrected IA, or Information Flow Architecture.

In the joint rule of Romulus and Tatius, however, the corrective function of the Senate was not strong enough.

At least in the case involving the relatives of Tatius, it did not function as a neutral institution that corrected both kings.

Ideally, the structure should have looked like this.

If such a corrective institution had existed, the complaint of the Laurentes might not have been left to the personal judgment of Tatius.

Violence against envoys damages the credibility of the whole community.

Therefore, it should not be judged only by whether a ruler wants to protect his relatives.

It should be judged according to V, Decision-Criteria Validity, of the whole Roman OS.

If the Senate had functioned as a corrective institution for both kings, the following process might have been possible.

The relatives of Tatius could have been investigated.

The complaint of the Laurentes could have been formally examined.

A judgment could have been made without favoring either Romulus or Tatius.

Compensation or apology could have been offered to the Laurentes.

The Sabine side could have been told that this measure was necessary to protect the credibility of joint rule.

If such an institution had existed, the assassination of King Tatius might have been avoided.

9. What the Death of King Tatius Shows

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Rome and the Sabines make peace
→ Romulus and Tatius share royal power
→ The two peoples are integrated into one
→ Relatives of Tatius commit violence against Laurentian envoys
→ The Laurentes file a formal complaint
→ Tatius protects his relatives and ignores the complaint
→ Romulus remains silent in order not to break joint rule
→ The Laurentes kill Tatius
→ Romulus does not take revenge
→ He treats the two wrongs as canceled out
→ He renews the relationship between Rome and Lavinium
→ Joint rule effectively ends

This incident is not merely the assassination of a king.

It shows the limit of joint rule.

The integration of Rome and the Sabines doubled the power of Rome.

However, through joint rule, the Roman OS also had to carry the failures of the Tatius side.

When Tatius protected his relatives, trust with an external group was damaged.

Romulus could not correct this openly.

If he corrected it, joint rule itself would break.

As a result, the injured side, the Laurentes, took revenge through violence.

And King Tatius was killed.

10. Joint Rule Needs a Corrective Institution

The death of King Tatius shows the danger of joint rule.

Joint rule is useful for ending war.

It is also useful for rapidly integrating different groups.

But joint rule is not a stable system by itself.

This is because multiple decision criteria, multiple interests, and multiple sources of legitimacy exist inside the same OS.

When one king makes a wrong decision, the whole OS is shaken.

If the other king denies that decision, joint rule breaks.

If he does not deny it, justice and credibility of the whole community are damaged.

Therefore, joint rule needs a third corrective institution.

It needs an institution above both kings.

Or it needs an institution between both kings.

At the very least, it needs an institution that can correct the judgments of both kings according to the V of the whole community.

Without this function, joint rule becomes a structure in which one ruler must carry the failure of the other.

When a problem occurs, responsibility becomes unclear.

The death of King Tatius shows this.

The joint rule of Romulus and Tatius ended the war between Rome and the Sabines.

But it did not have a strong enough corrective institution to operate joint rule in a stable way.

That is why a problem involving the relatives of Tatius developed into the assassination of a king.

To make joint rule successful, the ability of the two rulers is not enough.

A system is necessary.

A corrective institution is necessary.

A mechanism is necessary that can correct judgment according to the survival purpose of the whole community, not according to personal or bloodline interests.

This is the lesson shown by the death of King Tatius.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at how Romulus responded when Rome faced the problem of gender imbalance.

After defeating Remus, Romulus built a new city on the site of present-day Rome.

He established laws.

He made his authority visible.

He increased the population.

He also created the Senate.

As a result, Rome developed rapidly and began to gain enough power to threaten the surrounding cities.

However, a serious problem appeared.

There were far too few women in Rome.

If there were only men and not enough women, children could not be born.

If children were not born, Rome could not connect itself to the next generation.

In other words, Rome’s prosperity risked ending in one generation.

So Romulus sent envoys to surrounding cities and proposed marriage between Roman men and their women.

But the surrounding cities refused.

They feared the rapid growth of Rome and did not want to help Rome become stronger.

Romulus then chose a forceful method.

He held games in Rome, invited people from nearby communities, and had young women seized from among the spectators.

The main victims were the daughters of the Sabines.

One of the nearby cities angered by this event was Caenina.

Caenina attacked Rome.

But Rome was militarily stronger.

Romulus defeated Caenina and killed its king.

This gave Rome its first major victory.

At the same time, however, it became the beginning of a long period of warfare for Romulus and Rome.

2. Rome Defeated the Surrounding Cities One After Another

While Romulus was away fighting Caenina, Rome’s defenses became weaker.

Antemnae, located north of Rome, tried to take advantage of this moment and attacked Rome.

However, this attack was also repelled by the Roman defenders.

Then, using this momentum, the Roman army captured the city of Antemnae.

Rome was strong.

But here, one important point must be noted.

The cities defeated by Rome, such as Caenina and Antemnae, included the parents and relatives of the abducted women.

The women appealed to Hersilia, Romulus’s wife.

They asked that their relatives be forgiven.

They wanted the killing between their parents and husbands to stop.

Hersilia brought this request to Romulus.

Romulus accepted their appeal.

For Romulus, the original purpose was not the permanent destruction of the surrounding cities.

His purpose was to solve the problem of Rome’s next generation.

He did not need to annihilate the surrounding cities completely.

3. But Romulus Did Not Spare Cities That Remained Hostile

At the same time, Romulus did not hesitate to attack cities that continued to oppose Rome.

Next, Crustumerium, located farther north than Antemnae, became hostile to Rome.

Romulus organized his forces and marched out from Rome.

However, Crustumerium quickly surrendered after hearing that other cities had been defeated one after another.

Rome and Crustumerium then made peace.

They also allowed migration between the two cities.

Some people wanted to move to the fertile land of Crustumerium.

But many also wanted to move to Rome.

Many of them were relatives of the abducted women.

This shows an important feature of Rome.

Rome did not simply destroy the cities it defeated.

After victory, Rome allowed migration and incorporated related people into its own order.

In other words, Rome defeated enemies through war, but also absorbed them through marriage and migration.

4. The Greatest Enemy Was Titus Tatius, King of the Sabines

However, the strongest enemy in this conflict was Titus Tatius, the king of the Sabines.

Tatius did not move immediately.

But behind the scenes, he was preparing an attack on Rome.

He bribed the daughter of Spurius Tarpeius, who was connected to the defense of the Roman citadel, with gold.

When Tatius declared war on Rome, this daughter handed the citadel over to the Sabines.

Thus, the Sabines succeeded in entering a key point of Rome.

However, the daughter of Tarpeius, who had betrayed Rome, was then killed by the Sabines.

Livy explains this event as an example showing that a traitor is never truly trusted.

This is important.

Tatius used betrayal in order to attack Rome.

But he did not trust the person who had betrayed her own side.

In war between external OS units, a traitor may be useful for a moment.

But a person who betrays once may betray again.

That is why Tatius did not trust her.

5. The Roman Army Fled, and Romulus Prayed to Jupiter

The Sabine army entered the city of Rome.

Romulus deployed his forces in the plain between the Palatine and Capitoline Hills in order to retake the citadel.

The front line of the Roman army was led by Hostius Hostilius.

He was a brave general and fought well against the Sabines.

But when Hostius was killed, the Roman army began to collapse.

The Roman soldiers fled toward the old gate of the Palatine.

Romulus himself was carried back by the retreating soldiers.

This Palatine Hill was the very hill Romulus had chosen as his base when he had once competed with Remus over the right to rule.

There, Romulus raised his sword to the sky and prayed to Jupiter.

He said that he had followed Jupiter’s augury and laid the first foundation of Rome on the Palatine.

Yet now the Sabines had come armed into that same place.

He asked Jupiter to drive the enemy away and stop the shameful flight of the Romans.

If Rome was saved, he promised to build a temple to Jupiter Stator at that place, as a memorial to the divine protection that saved Rome.

Whether this prayer was truly heard cannot be known.

But the retreat stopped.

Romulus restored the defeated army and rushed to the front line himself.

Then he attacked the Sabines.

6. Both Armies Could No Longer Withdraw

The Roman army and the Sabine army were now moving toward a final battle.

The Romans had no place left to flee.

The Sabines had also advanced deep into the city and could not easily withdraw.

Both armies were in a position where retreat was difficult.

Anyone could see that, if the fighting continued, many people would die.

The Roman OS fought to protect its city.

The Sabine OS fought to recover its daughters and restore its honor.

Both sides had their own legitimacy.

Both sides had their own survival purpose.

If this continued, the conflict could move not toward peace, but toward a war of exhaustion or destruction.

7. The War Was Stopped by the Abducted Sabine Women

The ones who stopped the battle were the abducted Sabine women.

They had been forced to marry young Roman men.

However, over time, they had become connected to both sides.

To the Sabines, they were daughters.

To the Romans, they were wives.

In some cases, they were already mothers.

They entered between the fighting armies.

Then they appealed to both sides.

No matter which side died, it would be a tragedy for them.

If the Sabines died, they would lose their fathers.

If the Romans died, they would lose their husbands.

If the battle continued, they would have to live either as widows or as orphans.

Therefore, they asked both sides to stop fighting.

Their appeal moved the commanders of both armies.

Weapons were lowered.

The battle stopped.

Peace was made.

Here, the important point is that these women were not only victims of war.

They had become mediators connecting the Roman OS and the Sabine OS.

Father and husband.

Birth home and marriage home.

Sabine and Roman.

Because they belonged to both worlds at the same time, they had the power to stop the war.

8. How Did Romulus and Tatius Make Peace?

After the appeal of the women stopped the battle, Romulus and Tatius made peace.

The terms were important.

First, Romulus and Tatius would share royal power.

Second, the power of command would be transferred to Rome.

Third, the two peoples would be united into one.

The citizens were to be called Quirites, after the Sabine city of Cures.

As a result, the power of Rome doubled.

What happened here was not a mere ceasefire.

It was the integration of Rome and the Sabines.

It was not a simple case in which one side completely conquered the other.

Romulus and Tatius shared royal power.

Command was transferred to Rome.

The citizen name was unified.

Through these measures, the two peoples were reorganized into one community.

This resembles the earlier integration of the Trojans and the Aborigines under the name “Latins” in the story of Aeneas.

Different groups were brought together under one name.

A shared name created a new communal identity.

A group that had been an external enemy was transformed into internal citizens.

The same structure appears here again.

9. Joint Rule Was Integration, but Also a Risk

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the structure after the peace between Romulus and Tatius can be organized as follows.

This table is a simplified model.

Romulus and Tatius shared royal power.

Therefore, areas related to political judgment, information, and human resource governance, such as A, IA, and H, can be understood as having become partly shared.

On the other hand, because the power of command was transferred to Rome, the main initiative in execution remained on the Roman side, that is, with Romulus.

For that reason, V can be understood as a structure in which Romulus was the main holder, while Tatius acted as a corrective force.

This structure had advantages.

Rome did not completely exclude the Sabines as enemies.

Instead, by sharing royal power and unifying the citizen name, Rome incorporated them into the community.

As a result, Rome’s population, military strength, and social base expanded greatly.

However, there were also risks.

Joint rule means that two OS units are being combined into one.

This is not easy.

There would be more situations in which Romulus could no longer execute policies alone.

The judgments and actions of Tatius would also affect the whole of Rome.

If the interests of the Roman side and the Sabine side conflicted, the question would arise:

Whose decision criteria should be prioritized?

In other words, the peace ended the war.

But at the same time, it created new adjustment problems inside the integrated OS.

10. The Abduction of the Sabine Women Ended Not by War, but by Integration

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

The abduction of the Sabine women
→ The attack by Caenina
→ Roman victory
→ The attack by Antemnae
→ Roman victory
→ The surrender of Crustumerium
→ The full-scale invasion by Tatius
→ The entry of the Sabines into Rome
→ The two armies stand on the edge of total battle
→ The Sabine women intervene
→ The battle stops
→ Romulus and Tatius make peace
→ Royal power is shared
→ Command authority moves to Rome
→ The citizen name is unified under the name Quirites
→ Roman power doubles

The important point is that the war caused by the abduction of the Sabine women did not end only through military victory.

Rome was strong.

It defeated Caenina.

It defeated Antemnae.

Crustumerium surrendered.

However, the war against Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines, did not end through simple military victory.

It ended through the appeal of the women who were connected to both Rome and the Sabines.

What came after that was not a mere ceasefire.

It was the integration of two peoples.

Rome was not only a city that defeated enemies through war.

It was also a city that incorporated former enemies into its own order through marriage, migration, citizen names, and joint rule.

This integrative capacity was one of Rome’s strengths.

At the same time, however, it created a new problem.

The Sabines, who had been an external OS, were brought inside the Roman OS through the form of joint rule.

This meant that different decision criteria, different interests, and different sources of legitimacy were now held inside the same OS.

It is true that the peace between Romulus and Tatius ended the war.

It also doubled Rome’s population and military strength.

But at the same time, it meant that the Roman OS had entered a more complex stage of integration.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at why Romulus created the Senate from the beginning.

After defeating his twin brother Remus, Romulus founded a new city on the site of present-day Rome.

First, he established laws.

Then, in order to make his authority visible, he arranged his appearance and surrounded himself with twelve lictors.

He also opened an asylum to receive people from neighboring peoples.

Free men and slaves flowed into the new city.

In this way, Rome rapidly increased its population.

Romulus then selected one hundred senators from among the gathered people.

The people respectfully called them “fathers,” or patres.

Romulus did not merely build a city.

He tried to operate a new city OS by establishing law, authority, population policy, and the Senate.

However, a new problem soon appeared in the rapidly growing city.

That problem was the gender imbalance.

2. Rome Became Strong, but It Could Not Create the Next Generation

Under Romulus’s policies, Rome developed rapidly.

Its population increased.

Its laws were established.

The Senate was created.

The city became strong enough that it would not easily lose against the surrounding cities.

Rome was moving from the founding phase into the expansion phase.

However, Romulus realized that Rome could not last in its present condition.

The reason was simple.

There were not enough women.

Livy states that without women, Rome’s prosperity would last only for one generation.

No matter how many people gathered, and no matter how many strong young men came to the city, the community could not continue unless the next generation was born.

The city might look strong for a time.

But that strength would not be connected to the next generation.

In other words, Rome had become militarily strong, but it had a serious defect in terms of population reproduction.

3. The Senate Pointed Out Rome’s Structural Defect

Here, the important point is that this problem was not found only through Romulus’s own viewpoint.

Rome had the Senate.

The Senate was an advisory institution placed around Romulus.

As we saw in the previous part, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the early Senate was an institution that corrected the information structure of the Romulus OS.

OS Health can be expressed as follows.

OS Health = A × IA × H × V

A means Strategic Awareness.

It is the ability to recognize reality correctly.

IA means Information Flow Architecture.

It is the structure through which necessary information reaches the OS.

H means Human Resource Governance.

It is the system for appointing, placing, rewarding, and punishing people.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

It means whether the decision criteria of the OS fit the survival purpose of the OS.

The shortage of women in Rome may have been difficult for Romulus alone to notice fully.

However, because there was an advisory institution called the Senate, this structural defect in the city OS was recognized.

This means that IA was functioning.

Also, Romulus accepted the problem, planned a policy, and tried to act on it.

This means that A was functioning.

Up to this point, the Roman OS was recognizing itself properly.

The problem was the policy that followed.

4. The First Policy Was Marriage Negotiation

Romulus sent envoys to neighboring peoples and proposed marriage relations.

As a first policy, this was reasonable.

Rome lacked women.

If this situation continued, the next generation would not be born.

Therefore, Romulus tried to solve the problem of population reproduction by forming marriage relations with neighboring peoples.

This was not a military solution.

It was a diplomatic solution.

However, the response of the neighboring peoples was cold.

They were cautious of Rome’s rapid growth.

Rome had become strong enough to stand beside nearby cities in only one generation.

For neighboring peoples, giving their daughters to such a city could mean helping a future threat grow even stronger.

From their perspective, marriage with Rome was not merely a family matter.

It meant cooperating with the growth of Rome.

That is why they rejected Rome’s proposal.

At this point, Romulus faced a major choice.

Should he continue negotiations?

Should he search for a compromise?

Should he take time to build diplomatic credibility?

Or should he solve the problem by force?

5. Romulus Was Right in Recognizing the Problem, but Failed in the Policy

Romulus was right to recognize the problem.

If women were lacking, Rome could not connect itself to the next generation.

If the problem of population reproduction was left unsolved, Rome’s prosperity would end in one generation.

Therefore, from the survival purpose of the OS, it was reasonable for Romulus to regard this as a serious problem.

However, correct problem recognition does not always lead to correct policy.

After negotiations with the neighboring peoples failed, Romulus chose a forceful method.

He prepared a great festival in honor of Neptune, the god of horses.

He widely announced the event to neighboring towns.

People gathered for the festival, partly because they wanted to see the new city of Rome.

The Sabines in particular came with their wives and children.

The Romans welcomed them.

But when the games began, the young men of Rome suddenly seized the daughters of the Sabines.

This was not an accidental outburst.

It had been planned in advance by Romulus.

At this point, the policy of Romulus clearly turned into coercion.

The Roman OS tried to solve the survival problem of population reproduction not through negotiation, but through seizure.

6. Coercion Can Solve a Short-Term Problem, but It Creates Long-Term Enemies

The action of Romulus seemed to solve the problem in the short term.

Women were brought into Rome.

If marriages were formed, the next generation could be born.

Rome would no longer remain a city of only one generation.

However, this policy had a serious defect.

It destroyed the diplomatic credibility between Rome and the surrounding cities.

If Rome wanted to build long-term relations with neighboring peoples, mutual trust and diplomatic credibility were necessary.

But Romulus used a friendly festival as a trap.

From the viewpoint of the surrounding cities, this was a clear betrayal.

A place of hospitality became a trap.

A religious and public festival became a place of seizure.

After marriage negotiations were rejected, Rome took by force.

As a result, Rome lost credibility among the surrounding cities.

In other words, Romulus solved the population reproduction problem in the short term.

But as the price for that solution, he pushed relations with neighboring cities toward war.

7. The Limit of Romulus’s Maturity

Here, the problem is the Maturity of Romulus himself.

Romulus was a strong leader.

He built a city.

He established laws.

He gathered people.

He created the Senate.

He was also militarily capable.

However, Romulus was not the type of ruler who could manage conflict over the long term through high self-restraint.

He had the ability to identify problems.

He also had the ability to execute solutions.

But when negotiations were rejected, he chose to break through by force rather than take time to build diplomatic credibility.

Here, we can see the limit of Romulus’s Maturity.

If his Maturity had been higher, other paths might have been possible.

He could have expanded trade with neighboring cities.

He could have formed military alliances.

He could have made marriage conditions more favorable.

He could have built credibility over time.

He could have created relationships that also brought benefits to the surrounding cities.

Such paths were possible in theory.

However, Romulus did not choose them.

He prioritized the survival of Rome and chose a coercive solution.

As a result, Rome gained the possibility of the next generation.

At the same time, it greatly increased the risk of war with surrounding cities.

8. The War with Caenina Was a Natural Consequence

Because the daughters of the Sabines had been seized, the surrounding cities became furious.

The parents condemned Rome.

The seized women were also, naturally, shocked, angry, and desperate.

The injured parties appealed to Titus Tatius, the king of the Sabines.

However, Tatius did not immediately commit himself deeply to this problem.

Many Sabines also did not move together at once.

As a result, one of the injured cities, Caenina, attacked Rome on its own.

But Romulus defeated the forces of Caenina by a surprise attack.

In the battle, he killed the king of Caenina and took his armor.

Livy states, in effect, that anger without strength is useless.

Romulus then returned to Rome in triumph.

He carried the armor of the king of Caenina to the Capitoline and dedicated it in a sacred place of Jupiter.

Thus, Rome gained its first major military victory.

But at the same time, the reign of Romulus entered a chain of wars.

This was not accidental.

Once Rome had handled its population problem through coercion, war with the surrounding cities became difficult to avoid.

9. How Should Romulus Have Responded?

How should Romulus have responded?

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, Romulus was correct at the stage of problem recognition.

Rome lacked women.

If this continued, the next generation would not be born.

The city OS would end in one generation.

This recognition was correct.

It was also reasonable that he first tried marriage negotiations.

The problem came after the negotiations were rejected.

Romulus should have prioritized the formation of diplomatic credibility with surrounding cities rather than coercion.

For example, he could have provided military protection.

He could have offered trade benefits.

He could have opened shared religious festivals.

He could have built marriage relations gradually.

He could have created relationships that benefited not only Rome, but also the surrounding cities.

Such long-term policies would have been necessary.

Of course, this would have taken time.

It would not have produced immediate results.

Rome’s speed of growth might also have slowed.

However, if Romulus had not destroyed credibility with surrounding cities, his reign might not have been filled with so much warfare.

In other words, Romulus needed a policy that could solve the population reproduction problem while also maintaining stable relations with surrounding external OS units.

But he prioritized the former and damaged the latter.

This is the structure that pushed the reign of Romulus toward war.

10. Why the Reign of Romulus Was Filled with Warfare

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Rome grows rapidly
→ The population increases
→ But women are lacking
→ A crisis of reproduction becomes visible
→ The Senate advises on the problem
→ Romulus recognizes the problem
→ Rome proposes marriage to neighboring peoples
→ Neighboring peoples reject the proposal because they fear Rome
→ Romulus holds a festival
→ The daughters of the Sabines are seized
→ Diplomatic credibility with surrounding cities is destroyed
→ Caenina attacks Rome
→ Romulus defeats Caenina
→ A chain of wars begins

The important point is that Romulus was not incompetent.

Rather, Romulus was extremely capable.

He recognized the problem.

He planned a policy.

He moved people.

He defeated enemies.

He expanded the city.

However, his policies tended to break through problems by force.

This tendency can appear effective in a founding phase.

That is because a founding-stage OS is fighting for survival itself.

However, coercion destroys diplomatic credibility.

When diplomatic credibility is destroyed, relations with surrounding external OS units become unstable.

Unstable relations invite war.

Therefore, the reign of Romulus was filled with warfare not simply because the surrounding cities were hostile.

It was also because Romulus himself had a tendency to solve the survival problems of the OS by force.

Rome grew through that force.

But the same force also drew Rome into war with the surrounding world.

Here lies the danger of the founding-stage OS.

In the founding phase, force is necessary.

However, if an OS continues to solve problems only by force, it creates friction with the surrounding world.

That friction creates a structure in which the OS must continue fighting.

That was the fate of the reign of Romulus.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at why the twin brothers Romulus and Remus had to fight.

After the tyrannical King Amulius was defeated and Numitor was restored to the throne of Alba Longa, Romulus and Remus were officially recognized as the grandsons of Numitor.

However, they did not remain in Alba Longa.

They decided to build a new city in the place where they had been abandoned and raised.

That city later became Rome.

But when they began to build this new city, a problem appeared.

Who would give the city its name?

And who would rule it?

Romulus and Remus were twins.

Age could not decide which one was superior.

So they tried to settle the matter by augury.

However, the interpretation of the augury was divided.

Remus’s side claimed victory because the birds appeared to them first.

Romulus’s side claimed victory because a greater number of birds appeared to them.

This conflict developed into armed violence.

Remus was killed.

Romulus became the sole ruler.

The new city came to be called Rome.

But the important point is not only that Romulus became the victor.

After becoming the victor, Romulus had to design a new city OS.

2. Romulus First Established Law and Authority

After his victory over Remus, Romulus surrounded the Palatine Hill with walls and performed religious rites there.

This was the hill where he had received victory through augury.

After that, he gathered the people, held an assembly, and established a legal system.

According to Livy, Romulus believed that rough people would obey the law more easily if they also felt respect toward him.

For this reason, Romulus made his appearance more dignified.

He also surrounded himself with twelve lictors.

This was not mere decoration.

In order to govern a new city, the ruler must be recognized as the ruler.

Who gives commands?

Whose judgment represents the judgment of the community?

Which authority should people obey?

If these points are unclear, a new city cannot have order.

By establishing law, arranging his public appearance, and surrounding himself with lictors, Romulus made visible that he was the center of the new city OS called Rome.

3. Law Corrects the Maturity of the Execution Environment

In OS Organizational Design Theory, an organization can be divided into two main layers.

The first is the ruling layer.

This is the OS that makes decisions.

The second is the ruled layer.

This is the Execution Environment that carries out the applications, or policies, designed by the OS.

The health of each layer can be expressed as follows.

OS Health = A × IA × H × V

A means Strategic Awareness.

It is the ability to recognize reality correctly.

IA means Information Flow Architecture.

It is the structure through which necessary information reaches the OS.

H means Human Resource Governance.

It is the system for appointing, placing, rewarding, and punishing people.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

It means whether the decision criteria of the OS fit the survival purpose of the OS.

On the other hand, the health of the Execution Environment can be expressed as follows.

Execution Environment Health = M × T

M means Maturity.

It is the inner order, moral sense, organizational understanding, and self-restraint of the ruled layer.

T means Trust.

It is the trust that the Execution Environment has toward the OS.

Romulus established the legal system in order to correct M.

If moral ethics are already well developed in a community, people can maintain order by themselves even with few written laws.

But the people gathered by Romulus were not necessarily refined citizens.

Some were rough.

Some were disorderly.

Some had flowed in from outside.

To make such people live together in one city, written law was necessary.

Law is a mechanism of external control for an Execution Environment whose Maturity is not yet sufficiently developed.

In other words, the legal system was a device to correct the M of the Execution Environment.

4. Symbols of Authority Increase Trust

However, law alone is not enough.

Even if laws exist, order cannot be maintained unless there is authority that makes people obey them.

Therefore, Romulus tried to strengthen his own authority.

He arranged his appearance.

He surrounded himself with twelve lictors.

These actions were not personal vanity.

They were policies to make his authority visible and to make the people recognize that he was the center of the city OS.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, this relates to T: Trust in the Execution Environment.

Trust does not simply mean personal affection.

It means that the ruled layer recognizes the following:

If we follow this ruler, order will be maintained.

The commands of this OS have meaning.

This city has a center that should be obeyed.

This recognition is essential.

Romulus corrected M through law and tried to increase T through symbols of authority.

In other words, one of Romulus’s first tasks after founding Rome was to raise the health of the Execution Environment.

5. Romulus Treated Population Growth as the Source of the City’s Power

Next, Romulus built walls with future population growth in mind.

But the most important part of his population policy was the opening of an asylum.

Romulus accepted people from neighboring tribes, whether they were free men or slaves.

Livy described this as the source of Rome’s strength.

This is extremely important.

For a newly founded city OS, population is infrastructure.

Without people, a city cannot exist.

There is not enough labor.

There is not enough military power.

A market cannot form.

Rituals and institutions cannot be maintained.

That is why Romulus gathered people regardless of their origin.

Here, we can see a structure similar to the integration policy of Aeneas.

A founding-stage community cannot survive only by protecting purity.

It must take in people from outside, increase its population, and make its Execution Environment thicker.

By opening the asylum, Romulus expanded the Execution Environment of Rome.

6. Why Was the Senate Necessary?

Then Romulus selected one hundred senators from among the people who had gathered.

They were respectfully called patres, meaning “fathers.”

Their descendants later came to be called patricians.

Why did Romulus create the Senate?

Romulus’s rule was basically monarchical.

Romulus was the center of the city OS.

He judged.

He commanded.

He led.

However, monarchy has a structural problem.

A, IA, H, and V tend to concentrate in the monarch.

In other words, in a monarchy, Strategic Awareness, Information Flow Architecture, Human Resource Governance, and Decision-Criteria Validity depend heavily on one ruler.

If the monarch recognizes reality correctly, receives correct information, uses people properly, and maintains valid decision criteria, the OS remains stable.

But it is difficult for one person to maintain all of these functions alone.

This was especially true because Rome was rapidly increasing its population.

By opening the asylum and accepting many different people, Romulus increased the number of people to be governed.

When the number of people to be governed increases, information increases.

Problems increase.

Interests increase.

Dissatisfaction increases.

One monarch cannot grasp everything alone.

If this is left unchanged, IA: Information Flow Architecture will decline.

Therefore, an advisory institution becomes necessary.

This is why Romulus created the Senate.

The Senate was not an institution that ruled the city in place of Romulus.

At least in the beginning, it was not an institution that took power away from Romulus.

Rather, it was an advisory institution that helped Romulus manage a growing city and corrected the information that he alone could not fully grasp.

7. The Senate Was an IA Correction Device for the Early Roman OS

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the relationship between Romulus and the Senate can be organized as follows.

Basically, Romulus managed all the control variables of the OS.

However, Romulus alone could make mistakes.

In particular, as population increased and the city expanded, the information structure became more complex.

Who came from where?

Which group does each person belong to?

Which area has dissatisfaction?

Which people should be used?

What kind of order should be created?

It is difficult for one person to understand all of these things alone.

The Senate was a device to correct this information structure.

By creating the Senate, Romulus tried to correct the IA that could decline because of population growth.

In other words, the Senate was an institution that expanded the information-processing capacity of the city OS in the earliest stage of Rome.

8. Royal Power Cannot Be Built by Force Alone

From this perspective, Romulus’s founding policies had several layers.

First, through ritual and augury, he showed a connection to divine will.

Second, through walls, he created the boundary of the city.

Third, through law, he corrected the M of the Execution Environment.

Fourth, through his appearance and lictors, he tried to increase T toward the OS.

Fifth, through the asylum, he expanded the infrastructure of population.

Sixth, through the Senate, he created an advisory institution to correct IA.

This means that the royal power of Romulus was not built only on force or bloodline.

He had defeated Remus.

But that alone could not stabilize royal power.

Being the victor and functioning as a ruler are not the same.

To function as a ruler, he needed law to govern a disorderly population.

He needed authority.

He needed population.

He needed an institution to correct information.

In this sense, Romulus was not merely a warrior.

He was a designer of the city OS.

9. What the Creation of the Senate Shows

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

Victory over Remus
→ Romulus becomes the sole ruler
→ The Palatine Hill is surrounded with walls
→ Religious rites are performed
→ A legal system is established
→ Royal authority is made visible through symbols and lictors
→ The asylum is opened and population is gathered
→ The Execution Environment of the city expands
→ IA becomes more complex
→ The Senate is created
→ The information-processing capacity of the Romulus OS is corrected

Romulus created the Senate from the beginning not simply because he wanted to place distinguished men around him.

As the city OS expanded, one monarch could no longer process all information alone.

As the population increased, the difficulty of creating order also increased.

By accepting people of different origins, the object of rule became more complex.

Therefore, Romulus needed an institution that could support royal power and correct the information structure.

That institution was the Senate.

From this perspective, the Senate did not suddenly appear later as a political institution of the Roman Republic.

Its prototype already existed inside the monarchy of Romulus.

Rome was not a city ruled only by one king from the beginning.

It was a city centered on a king, but it already needed an advisory institution to support the growing city OS.

This point is important for understanding the strength of Rome.

From the beginning, Rome accepted population, established law, made authority visible, and created an advisory institution.

Romulus did not merely build a city.

He created mechanisms to operate a new city OS.

He corrected M and T in the Execution Environment.

He also created a mechanism to correct IA.

This is why Romulus created the Senate from the beginning.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at how the tyrannical ruler Amulius collapsed.

Amulius had taken the throne from his brother Numitor. He killed the sons of Numitor. He also made Numitor’s daughter, Rhea Silvia, a priestess in order to prevent Numitor’s bloodline from returning to the throne.

But Rhea Silvia gave birth to twin boys.

These twins were Romulus and Remus.

Amulius tried to kill them by having them thrown into the Tiber River. But they survived. They were first saved by a she-wolf and were later found by Faustulus, a shepherd of the king.

Romulus and Remus grew up as shepherds. They became strong young men. They hunted, attacked robbers, and shared spoils with their companions. Through this, they gradually became leaders among the young shepherds.

Later, Remus was captured by robbers and sent to Numitor. There, the secret of his birth began to appear.

Numitor realized that Remus was his grandson.

At the same time, Romulus also learned the secret of his birth from his foster father Faustulus.

Thus, Romulus and Remus learned that they belonged to the bloodline of Numitor. They also learned that they were the very people whom Amulius had tried to eliminate.

The two brothers cooperated, defeated Amulius, and restored Numitor to the throne of Alba Longa.

Up to this point, the story was about the restoration of legitimate order.

But after that, a new problem appeared.

2. Why Did Romulus and Remus Not Remain in Alba?

After Numitor was restored as king of Alba, he declared before the gathered people that Romulus and Remus were his grandsons.

By this declaration, Romulus and Remus were no longer merely young shepherds.

They were recognized as members of the royal bloodline of the Silvii.

However, they did not remain in Alba Longa.

To them, Alba seemed too small.

They decided to build a new city in the region where they had been abandoned and raised.

That city later became Rome.

But at this stage, the city did not yet have a name.

A new problem arose.

Who would give the city its name?

And who would rule it?

Romulus and Remus were twins.

Age could not decide which one was superior.

So they decided to use augury, or bird divination.

Romulus chose the Palatine Hill.

Remus chose the Aventine Hill.

Each waited on his own hill for the appearance of birds.

The first birds appeared on the Aventine Hill, where Remus was waiting.

There were six birds.

Remus believed that he had won.

But later, twice as many birds appeared on the Palatine Hill, where Romulus was waiting.

Romulus’s side claimed victory because the number of birds was greater.

Remus’s side claimed victory because the birds had appeared to them first.

Thus, augury could not resolve the conflict.

The interpretation was divided.

Then the conflict developed into armed violence.

Remus was killed.

Romulus became the sole ruler.

3. The Problem Was Not Which Twin Was Superior

This event can be read as a simple quarrel between brothers.

It can also be read as a story in which Romulus was stronger, Remus lost, and Remus died.

But from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the problem is deeper.

The real question is this:

When more than one person has legitimate qualifications, who should become the core of the OS?

Romulus and Remus had almost the same conditions.

They were twins.

They were born from the same mother.

They were abandoned in the same way.

They were raised in the same shepherd world.

They grew strong in the same environment.

They both took part in the defeat of Amulius.

They both belonged to the bloodline of Numitor.

In other words, there was no clear condition that made one obviously superior to the other.

In such a case, the community needs a rule to decide who will become the ruler.

But at this stage in the founding of Rome, that rule was not yet fully established.

That is why they relied on augury.

However, augury did not give a clear result.

Should priority be given to the birds that appeared first?

Or should priority be given to the larger number of birds?

Because the interpretation was divided, the two sides came into conflict.

Here, one important point must be noted.

It was not that there was no mediator at all.

Their grandfather Numitor existed.

Numitor was the king of Alba.

He was also the superior figure who had recognized the legitimacy of both Romulus and Remus.

Therefore, they could have asked Numitor to make the final decision.

But Romulus and Remus did not choose that path.

They did not pass the issue through the judgment of Numitor as a higher authority.

Instead, they tried to settle the matter by augury among themselves.

In other words, the problem was not the complete absence of a mediator.

The problem was that two lower-level OS units directly collided without passing through the mediation of the higher OS.

4. Romulus and Remus Each Had Their Own OS

Another important point is that Romulus and Remus were not merely two individuals.

Each had supporters.

Romulus mobilized the shepherds and attacked King Amulius.

He had practical power formed in the field.

He had the ability to move the Execution Environment represented by the shepherds.

Remus, on the other hand, was connected to Numitor.

He moved troops from the house of Numitor and supported Romulus.

This means that Remus had a connection to the legitimacy of Numitor and the royal line.

Here, we can see two OS units.

The Romulus OS was an OS of execution power based on the shepherd group.

The Remus OS was an OS connected to the legitimacy of Numitor and the royal line.

These two OS units could cooperate while they were fighting Amulius.

That was because they had a common enemy.

But once the common enemy was defeated, the problem changed.

When they began to build a new city and decide its ruler, the question became this:

Which OS would become the core of the new city?

Romulus and Remus had to fight not simply because they were twins and no hierarchy could be established.

They had to fight because each had his own OS and each carried the survival purpose of that OS.

While there was a common enemy, they could cooperate.

But when the rule of the new city became the issue, neither could easily yield.

This is factional conflict.

At the scale of a state, it becomes civil war.

5. Why Do Groups with Their Own OS Collide?

In OS Organizational Design Theory, an OS is an operating body with decision-making power.

If a group moves under a leader, and if that leader becomes the center of judgment and action, then that group can be seen as one OS.

From this perspective, Romulus and Remus each had a small OS.

And each OS had a survival purpose.

The group of Romulus tried to survive around Romulus.

The group of Remus tried to survive around Remus.

To integrate these two OS units, one side had to stand above the other.

Or a system had to be created to include both.

Or a division of roles had to be designed.

But in a founding-stage community, such a system did not yet exist.

Therefore, the two OS units collided over the rule of the same city.

This was not merely an emotional dispute.

It was a conflict between two decision-making bodies over the same object of rule.

In such a condition, if deliberation does not work, the matter is finally decided by force.

This is why Romulus and Remus had to fight.

They were brothers.

But at the same time, each was the center of a different OS.

6. If Their Maturity Had Been Higher, Another Ending Was Possible

Of course, another ending was possible.

If the Maturity of Romulus and Remus had been higher, they might have compromised.

One could have become the ruler.

The other could have taken charge of military affairs or religion.

They could have created a dual-rule system.

They could have asked Numitor, the higher mediator, to make the final decision.

Or they could have taken time to integrate their supporters.

These options were possible in theory.

But Romulus and Remus were men who had led young shepherds, attacked robbers, shared spoils, and struck down Amulius.

They had execution power.

At the same time, they were also warlike.

They were strong leaders.

But they had not yet reached the stage where they could institutionalize conflict through high self-restraint.

Here, the lack of Maturity becomes a problem.

A leader with low Maturity tends to prioritize the survival of his own OS.

To protect his group, he may exclude the other group.

To protect his own legitimacy, he may refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the other.

To protect his own supporters, he may choose conflict.

As a result, conflict between equal OS units moves toward battle rather than integration.

7. Factional Conflict in Modern Organizations Has the Same Structure

This structure also appears in modern organizations.

Inside a company, several powerful people may each have subordinates and supporters.

Each may have an independent information network.

Each may have an independent evaluation standard.

Each may have an independent personnel structure.

Each may have an independent purpose.

When this happens, several small OS units appear inside one organization.

On the surface, the company may look like one organization.

But in reality, several decision-making bodies are competing inside it.

If a higher mediation system functions, conflict can be controlled.

But if mediation is weak, evaluation standards are vague, and final authority is unclear, factional conflict intensifies.

If the Maturity of the leaders is low, they tend to choose exclusion rather than integration.

The conflict between Romulus and Remus is an ancient and legendary event.

But structurally, it is similar to factional conflict inside modern organizations.

It is also similar to conflict between founders, the split of co-founders, and succession struggles.

When leaders with their own OS compete over the same object of rule, conflict intensifies if the mediation system does not function.

8. What the Battle Between Romulus and Remus Shows

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

The defeat of Amulius
→ The restoration of Numitor
→ The recognition of the legitimacy of Romulus and Remus
→ The plan to build a new city
→ The problem of who would rule the city
→ No clear superiority by age
→ Decision by augury
→ Division of interpretation
→ Conflict between the Romulus OS and the Remus OS
→ Armed conflict
→ The death of Remus
→ The sole rule of Romulus

The important point is that Romulus and Remus did not fight merely because they were violent by nature.

Each had legitimacy.

Each had supporters.

Each had execution power.

Each could become the center of an OS.

At that moment, if their grandfather Numitor had functioned as a higher mediator, another result might have been possible.

But Romulus and Remus did not pass the issue through Numitor’s mediation.

They tried to settle the matter between their own OS units.

Therefore, they fought while carrying the survival purpose of their own OS.

As a result, Remus lost his life.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, whether internal conflict intensifies is not decided only by personal character.

The danger of internal conflict depends on several conditions.

Are there multiple groups with their own OS?

Is there a higher rule that can integrate those OS units?

Does that higher rule actually function?

Do the leaders have enough Maturity to allow compromise and institutionalization?

The battle between Romulus and Remus shows that, in a founding-stage community, if internal integration rules are immature, even brothers may be forced to fight.

Rome was born on top of this tragedy.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at how a tyrant appeared in the line of Aeneas.

After the fall of Troy, Aeneas led the survivors to the Italian peninsula.

They came into conflict with local people, but eventually integrated with them, founded towns, and expanded their power.

Alba Longa became the central city of this region.

The kings who ruled this city and belonged to the line of Aeneas took the family name Silvius.

Later, Proca, a descendant of this royal line, had two sons.

The elder son was Numitor.

The younger son was Amulius.

Before his death, Proca chose Numitor, the elder son, as the successor to the royal line of the Silvii.

But Amulius did not accept this decision.

He took the throne by force.

Then, in order to pass the throne to his own children, he killed the male descendants of his brother Numitor.

He also made Numitor’s only daughter, Rhea Silvia, a priestess.

A priestess was required to remain a virgin for life.

In other words, Amulius tried to prevent Numitor’s bloodline from returning to the throne by making Rhea Silvia unable to have children.

Thus, Amulius usurped the throne and destroyed the legitimate order of succession.

But how does such a tyrannical ruler collapse?

That is the question of this part.

2. The Birth of Rhea Silvia’s Twins and Their Survival

However, as Livy tells the story, fate did not move according to the plan of Amulius.

Rhea Silvia, who had been made a priestess, was forced and gave birth to twin boys.

These twins later became Romulus and Remus.

King Amulius imprisoned Rhea Silvia.

He also ordered that the twin babies be thrown into the Tiber River and killed.

But at that time, the Tiber was flooded.

The men who received the king’s order tried to throw the twins into the river, but they could not reach the main stream because of the flood.

So they placed the babies in shallow water and treated this as if they had fulfilled the king’s command.

The basket holding the babies floated downstream and eventually came to land.

The first creature to find the babies was a she-wolf.

She gave milk to the babies and kept them alive.

Later, Faustulus, a shepherd of the king, found the twins and took them into his home.

Faustulus had heard the story of babies abandoned by royal order.

Therefore, he suspected that these twins might be of royal blood.

But he could not speak of this openly.

Keeping the twins alive was itself an act against the command of King Amulius.

In this way, Romulus and Remus were raised as the sons of a shepherd.

3. The Growth of Romulus and Remus

Romulus and Remus grew strong as shepherds.

They hunted.

They attacked robbers.

They shared the spoils with the shepherds.

Gradually, people began to follow them.

Their number increased.

Before long, a group of some size had formed around Romulus and Remus.

This is important.

Romulus and Remus were not merely abandoned children.

They grew up inside the Execution Environment, that is, among ordinary people outside the ruling layer.

There, they naturally began to show leadership.

They had the ability to fight.

They had the ability to gather followers.

They had the ability to gain support by distributing spoils.

In other words, Romulus and Remus did not only have royal blood.

They also gained practical support inside the Execution Environment.

This later became an important source of their power.

4. The Capture of Remus and the Awakening of Numitor

One of the hills of ancient Rome was the Palatine Hill.

Long before Rome was founded, Evander, who was said to be of Arcadian origin, had settled in this area.

He brought with him the festival of Lupercalia, in which young men ran about freely in honor of the god Inuus.

Romulus and Remus also took part in this festival.

However, robbers who had once been attacked by Romulus and Remus learned of this.

They lay in wait and attacked them.

Romulus escaped.

But Remus was captured.

The robbers took Remus to King Amulius.

They accused him of being a robber who had been raiding the lands of Numitor, the king’s brother.

Amulius then sent Remus to Numitor.

Here, the situation changed greatly.

Numitor met Remus.

As he looked at him, heard his age, and learned that he had a twin brother, Numitor began to suspect something.

Could this young man be his grandson?

Numitor asked about Remus’s upbringing in detail.

Then he became convinced that Remus was indeed his grandson.

At the same time, Romulus also learned the secret of his birth from his foster father Faustulus.

Thus, Romulus and Remus learned that they belonged to the bloodline of Numitor.

They also learned that they were the very people whom Amulius had tried to eliminate.

5. The Killing of Amulius and the Restoration of Numitor

Romulus and Remus then cooperated and carried out revenge against King Amulius.

Romulus gave orders to the shepherds.

He told them to come separately to the city of Alba, where Amulius was staying, by a fixed time.

This was to avoid making their movement look like a large organized action.

Meanwhile, Remus also brought troops from the house of Numitor and supported Romulus.

Then Romulus and Remus attacked Amulius by surprise.

King Amulius was killed.

After that, Numitor, who should originally have inherited the throne, was restored as king.

In this way, the legitimate order of succession destroyed by Amulius was restored by Romulus and Remus.

6. Why Did Numitor Remain Silent for So Long?

Here, one important question appears.

Why did Numitor not resist Amulius for so many years?

And why did he support the killing of Amulius after he learned of the existence of Remus?

First, we must consider why Numitor had remained silent.

Numitor was the legitimate successor.

But Amulius had taken the throne by force.

He had also killed Numitor’s sons and made Rhea Silvia a priestess.

By doing this, Amulius almost completely cut off the possibility that Numitor’s bloodline would return to the throne.

If Numitor had fought to regain the throne under these conditions, what would have happened?

Civil conflict would have occurred.

The community of Alba might have been divided.

Neighboring powers might have intervened.

Without a clear heir, the conflict could have looked like a mere power struggle.

Numitor likely tried to avoid this.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, Numitor did not think only of his own legitimacy.

He also considered the stability of the whole community.

In this sense, Numitor had high Maturity.

He avoided causing civil conflict only for personal revenge.

By contrast, Amulius had low Maturity.

He placed the preservation of his own power above the order of the community.

This difference explains the difference between their actions.

7. The Rule of Amulius Was Not Healthy Just Because No Rebellion Occurred

The rule of Amulius continued on the surface.

But this does not mean that it was healthy.

It only means that no rebellion had yet occurred.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, OS Health can be expressed as follows:

OS Health = A × IA × H × V

Here, A means Strategic Awareness.

It is the ability to recognize reality correctly.

IA means Information Flow Architecture.

It is the information structure through which necessary information reaches the OS and cognitive correction becomes possible.

H means Human Resource Governance.

It is the governance of people through appointment, evaluation, reward, punishment, placement, promotion, demotion, and exclusion.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

It means whether the decision criteria of the OS fit the original survival purpose of the OS.

In the case of Amulius, the first element to become distorted was V.

Originally, a king exists to maintain the community and protect its order.

But Amulius turned the throne into a tool for preserving his own power.

As a result, V was shifted away from the survival purpose of the community and toward the personal self-preservation of Amulius.

When V is distorted, H is also distorted.

Numitor, the legitimate successor, was excluded.

The sons of Numitor were killed.

Rhea Silvia was made a priestess so that she could not have children.

This was not Human Resource Governance for the community.

It was personnel exclusion for the preservation of Amulius’s personal power.

Furthermore, under such rule, IA also deteriorates.

This is because criticizing the usurpation or tyranny of Amulius becomes dangerous.

People become silent.

The truth is no longer spoken.

Dissatisfaction no longer appears openly.

As a result, the OS loses its capacity for self-correction.

In other words, the rule of Amulius was already unhealthy as an OS, even though no rebellion had yet occurred.

8. A Tyrannical Ruler Gradually Loses T

Here, we must also consider the health of the Execution Environment.

In a state, the Execution Environment means the ruled layer.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, the health of the Execution Environment can be expressed as follows:

Execution Environment Health = M × T

Here, M means Maturity.

It is the inner order, moral sense, organizational understanding, and self-restraint of the members of a community.

T means Trust.

It is the trust that the Execution Environment has toward the OS.

When Amulius usurped the throne, the people did not immediately rebel.

But this does not mean that they trusted him.

There was no rebellion because of fear, silence, resignation, and the absence of a legitimate alternative.

A tyrannical ruler like Amulius tries to move people by command.

If they do not obey, he punishes them.

If they oppose him, he removes them.

If they express dissatisfaction, they become dangerous.

Such rule may appear stable from the outside.

But in reality, it continues to lower T.

People appear to obey.

But inwardly, they do not trust the ruler.

People are silent.

But they are not convinced.

People do not rebel.

But they are not loyal.

This condition is very dangerous.

This is because when a legitimate alternative appears, the Execution Environment no longer has a reason to protect the tyrannical OS.

9. Why Did Amulius Collapse?

Amulius did not collapse simply because Romulus and Remus were strong.

Of course, Romulus and Remus had practical power.

They mobilized the shepherds.

They organized military action.

They attacked Amulius by surprise.

But that was not the only reason.

The rule of Amulius had already become hollow from within.

Amulius destroyed legitimate order.

He privatized the throne.

He excluded the bloodline of Numitor.

He ruled through fear.

As a result, he lost the trust of the community.

At this point, Numitor existed as the legitimate successor.

Romulus and Remus also appeared as actors who belonged to the legitimate bloodline and had practical execution power.

Then, the reason to protect Amulius became weak.

Numitor had legitimacy.

Romulus and Remus had execution power.

The rule of Amulius had only fear.

When this structure appears, a tyrannical ruler collapses.

In other words, the collapse of Amulius was not merely an assassination.

It was a case in which an unhealthy OS was replaced by an alternative OS that had both legitimacy and execution power.

10. The Collapse Structure of a Tyrannical Ruler

The flow of this case can be summarized as follows.

A person with low Maturity takes control of the OS.

→ V is distorted from the purpose of the community to personal self-preservation.

→ H becomes not Human Resource Governance, but a device of exclusion.

→ IA deteriorates through silence.

→ T in the Execution Environment declines.

→ The OS tries to maintain commands through fear.

→ T declines even further.

→ A legitimate alternative appears.

→ Actors with execution power take action.

→ The tyrannical OS is removed.

The important point is that a tyrannical ruler is not stable because he is strong.

He only suppresses rebellion through fear.

Even if people appear to obey, that is not trust.

Even if people appear silent, that is not acceptance.

Even if no rebellion occurs, that is not support.

Therefore, the rule of a tyrannical ruler is not as strong as it looks from the outside.

Rather, an OS that has lost trust is fragile from within.

Numitor had avoided revenge for many years because he wanted to avoid civil conflict.

But the situation changed when he met Remus and when Romulus and Remus appeared as actors with execution power.

Legitimacy.

Bloodline.

Execution power.

Distrust toward Amulius.

When these four elements came together, the rule of King Amulius collapsed.

A tyrannical ruler can make people obey through fear in the short term.

But fear does not create trust.

When an OS loses trust, it can collapse rapidly once a legitimate alternative and actors with execution power appear.

This is the structure shown by the collapse of King Amulius.

The fall of Amulius is not merely an episode in the founding history of Rome.

It shows how a tyrannical ruler, who governs by fear and destroys legitimate order, may appear stable for a time but gradually loses the trust of the Execution Environment.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, this is an early case of how an unhealthy OS is replaced when legitimacy and execution power return to the side of the community.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at how the Latin community expanded after the death of Aeneas.

After the death of Aeneas, his son Ascanius was still young.

It was his mother Lavinia who protected him and developed the town of Lavinium.

There was no conflict with the Etruscans in the north.

The town gained peace.

Its population increased.

Lavinium prospered.

When Ascanius became an adult and the population of the town became too large, he entrusted Lavinium to his mother Lavinia and founded a new town at the foot of Mount Alba.

That town was Alba Longa.

In other words, the previous part showed how an early founding-stage community responded to population growth and resource limits by preserving its existing base while creating a new one.

However, when a community becomes stable and a royal line continues, a new problem appears.

That problem is the internal destruction of order over succession.

2. The Royal Line of Alba Longa and the Usurpation by Amulius

After Ascanius died, his son Silvius succeeded him.

After that, the royal line of the Silvii continued.

The son of Silvius was called Aeneas Silvius.

His son was called Latinus Silvius.

According to Livy, several colonies were founded during the reign of Latinus Silvius.

These new cities were satellite cities centered on Alba.

For this reason, the kings who ruled Alba took the family name Silvius.

Some kings in this line left their names in later Roman geography.

For example, Tiberinus became the origin of the name of the Tiber River, which flows north of Rome.

The river had once been called the Albula, but after Tiberinus drowned while trying to cross it, it came to be called the Tiber.

There was also a king named Aventinus.

Livy says that he was buried on the hill later known as the Aventine Hill, one of the seven hills of Rome.

The son of Aventinus was Proca.

Proca had two sons.

The elder son was Numitor.

The younger son was Amulius.

Before his death, Proca chose Numitor, the elder son, as the successor to the royal line of the Silvii.

But Amulius did not obey this decision.

According to Livy, Amulius used force to take the throne from his brother Numitor.

He then killed the sons of Numitor, who could have become heirs.

Numitor also had one daughter, Rhea Silvia.

Amulius did not kill her.

Instead, he gave her the honorable position of a priestess.

At first glance, this looked like an honor.

But a priestess was required to remain a virgin.

In other words, Amulius gave Rhea Silvia the position of priestess in order to prevent her from having children.

By doing this, he tried to block the possibility that the bloodline of Numitor could return to the throne.

Thus, for the first time in the line of Aeneas, a tyrant appeared.

3. Why Was Amulius Able to Break the Order?

The important question is not only what Amulius did.

The deeper question is why Amulius was able to do something so cruel.

His father Proca had chosen Numitor, the elder son, as the legitimate successor.

This was the order of the royal line.

Succession order is not merely a family arrangement.

It is a structure that prevents confusion in the community, connects the legitimacy of rule, and protects the stability of the state OS.

But Amulius broke that order.

He ignored his father’s will.

He took the throne from his brother.

He killed his brother’s sons.

He made his brother’s daughter a priestess and took away her possibility of having children.

The root of this action was not merely political ambition.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, Amulius lacked M: Maturity.

Here, Maturity means the internal order, moral sense, and self-restraint of a person or a community.

Maturity does not simply mean knowledge.

It does not simply mean the ability to obey orders.

Maturity means the inner ability to understand what may be done and what must not be done inside a community.

It means the ability to govern oneself.

A person with Maturity feels shame when doing evil.

A person with Maturity fears destroying the order of the community.

A person with Maturity places the survival of the community above personal desire.

A person with Maturity respects legitimate promises and succession order.

Amulius did not have this inner restraint.

That is why he could break his father’s will.

That is why he could take the throne from his brother.

That is why he could kill his brother’s sons.

That is why he could close the future of Rhea Silvia.

Therefore, the starting point of Amulius’s tyranny was not only a defect in the institution.

First, Amulius himself had low Maturity.

4. When a Person Without Maturity Takes the OS, V Is Distorted

The important point is that the lack of Maturity does not remain only a personal problem.

When a person like Amulius, who lacks Maturity, takes the core of the OS, his personal lack of moral restraint enters the whole state OS.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, the health of the OS can be expressed as follows:

OS Health = A × IA × H × V

A means Strategic Awareness.

It is the ability to recognize reality correctly.

IA means Information Flow Architecture.

It is the information structure through which necessary information reaches the OS and correction of awareness becomes possible.

H means Human Resource Governance.

It is the governance of people through evaluation, appointment, placement, reward, punishment, promotion, demotion, and exclusion.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

It means whether the decision criteria of the OS fit the survival purpose of the OS.

In the case of Amulius, the first problem is the lack of Maturity in the individual.

Amulius, as a person with low Maturity, seized the throne by force.

This created the tragedy of the Silvian royal line.

A person with high Maturity understands how to act and judge for the organization.

Such a person restrains actions based on private desire.

But a person with low Maturity cannot do this.

What happens when such a person takes control of the organizational OS?

Originally, the operator of the OS should make decisions, design policies, and execute them for the sake of the organization.

But when an individual with low Maturity becomes the operator of the OS, the policies created by that person become biased toward private desire.

In other words, V: Decision-Criteria Validity becomes distorted.

Thus, Amulius used the power of the organization to commit violent acts.

He excluded his brother.

He killed his nephews.

He made his niece a priestess.

He blocked the legitimate royal line.

These actions were against the survival purpose of the community.

But they fit the personal power-preservation purpose of Amulius.

This is the core of the birth of a tyrant.

When a person with low Maturity takes the core of the OS, the V of the OS is shifted away from the survival purpose of the community and toward the self-preservation purpose of the ruler.

5. The Lack of Maturity Also Destroys H and IA

The problem of Amulius does not end with the distortion of V.

When V is distorted, H is also destroyed.

Amulius excluded Numitor, the legitimate successor.

He killed the sons of Numitor.

He made Rhea Silvia a priestess and blocked the possibility of royal succession through her.

This was the destruction of Human Resource Governance.

People necessary for the stability of the community were removed.

The legitimacy that should have been protected was cut off.

The royal line that should have connected to the next generation was blocked.

In other words, the H of Amulius was not Human Resource Governance for the community.

It became personnel exclusion for the preservation of his own power.

In addition, under such a tyrant, IA is also destroyed.

This is because speaking the truth becomes dangerous.

Anyone who criticizes the usurpation of Amulius becomes a threat.

Anyone who sympathizes with Numitor becomes suspicious.

Anyone who tries to protect Rhea Silvia may be excluded.

As a result, people become silent.

When people become silent, correct information does not reach the OS.

When correct information does not reach the OS, the OS cannot correct its own judgment.

In this way, the lack of Maturity in Amulius distorts the V of the state OS, destroys H, and silences IA.

A tyrant is, therefore, a condition in which the low Maturity of an individual enters the core of the state OS.

6. Why Are Tyrants Born in Times of Peace?

Here, one point is especially important.

Amulius did not emerge from a great war against an external enemy.

In the age of Aeneas, there were wars against external enemies.

In the age of Ascanius, there were problems of population growth and expansion.

But after the royal line of the Silvii continued, Alba Longa had gained a certain level of stability.

In other words, Amulius appeared after the community had matured to some degree, after the royal line had continued, and after the institutions had become stable.

This is important.

Tyrants are not born only in times of chaos.

They can also be born in times of peace.

Why?

Because in times of peace, people easily forget that institutions depend on human Maturity.

People assume that a royal family will protect the order of the community.

They assume that brothers will not commit such cruel acts.

They assume that the will of the father will be respected.

They assume that the order of succession will naturally function.

When these assumptions exist, institutions easily lose preparation against malicious actors.

In a community made up of people with high Maturity, the mechanism for punishing evil may be weak.

This is because the order operates on the assumption that no one will commit such extreme wrongdoing.

But what happens if a person with low Maturity suddenly appears at the center of such a community?

Someone with a strong sense of justice must stop that evil.

But people who have respected order may feel resistance toward using violence, because violence itself is an act of disorder.

Therefore, the usurpation of Amulius could not be stopped in time.

And a tyrant was born.

7. A Tyrant Is Born When the Lack of Maturity Privatizes the OS

The appearance of Amulius was the first birth of a tyrant in the line of Aeneas.

But it is not enough to read this event merely as the evil of one individual.

The problem was not only that Amulius was an evil man.

The problem was that a person without Maturity took the core of the OS and poured his low Maturity into the whole state OS.

First, Amulius lacked Maturity as an individual.

Therefore, he felt no shame in breaking order.

Next, because a person without Maturity took the core of the OS, V was distorted.

The throne ceased to be a role for the community.

It became a tool for preserving personal power.

Then the distortion of V destroyed H.

The legitimate successor and his bloodline were excluded.

Then the destruction of H silenced IA.

No one could speak the truth.

The OS lost its self-correction capacity.

This flow can be summarized as follows:

Lack of Maturity
→ Loss of moral restraint
→ Destruction of legitimate order
→ Usurpation of the throne
→ Distortion of V
→ Destruction of H
→ Silencing of IA
→ Decline of T
→ Deterioration of the whole OS

Here, T means Trust.

It is the trust that the Execution Environment has toward the OS.

Immediately after Amulius seized the throne, people could not resist him.

But when people saw that the king had broken legitimate order and tried to erase the bloodline of his brother, their trust in the OS would gradually decline.

When T declines, the Execution Environment no longer carries out the commands of the OS sincerely.

Then the tyrant tries to force people to obey.

He tries to bind people through fear.

But fear does not restore trust.

Rather, it lowers T even further.

In this way, the rule of a tyrant may appear to function in the short term.

But in the long term, it deteriorates the community from within.

A tyrant is not merely a cruel ruler.

A tyrant is a condition in which a person without Maturity takes the core of the OS and replaces the survival purpose of the community with his own purpose of power preservation.

From that moment, the state OS begins to break from the inside.

The usurpation of Amulius is not merely a struggle for the throne in the founding history of Rome.

It is an early case that shows how legitimate order is destroyed when a person with low Maturity appears inside a community that has enjoyed peace and succession.

It also shows how the OS’s decision criteria, human resource governance, information structure, and trust deteriorate in a chain reaction.

From this perspective, the founding history of Rome is not merely a legend.

It is a story that shows how a community can fall into crisis not only because of external enemies, but also because of a tyrant born from within.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous parts, we looked at how Aeneas and the Trojan survivors began to build a new community in the Italian peninsula.

After the fall of Troy, Aeneas led the survivors to Italy.

They had almost nothing left except their weapons and ships.

They had no homeland.

They had no farmland.

They had no stable food supply.

Therefore, they entered the land of the Laurentines and attacked the fields of the local Aborigines.

This brought Aeneas into conflict with King Latinus, who ruled that land.

However, after Aeneas won the battle against Latinus, he did not simply choose domination.

He made peace with Latinus and formed a friendly relationship with him.

He also married Lavinia, the daughter of King Latinus.

Then he founded a town named Lavinium, after his wife.

After that, Turnus, king of the Rutulians, became angry because Lavinia, who had once been engaged to him, had been given to Aeneas, a foreigner.

Turnus made war against Aeneas and Latinus.

In this war, King Latinus was killed.

Turnus then formed a military alliance with Mezentius, king of the Etruscans in the north, and opposed Aeneas again.

Facing this major threat, Aeneas integrated the Trojans and the Aborigines under the same rights and the same name.

Both groups came to be called Latins.

Aeneas won this war, but it became his final battle.

2. Who Supported the Community After the Death of Aeneas?

After the death of Aeneas, his son Ascanius succeeded him.

However, Ascanius was still a child.

Therefore, his mother Lavinia served as his guardian and regent.

Livy records that there were different traditions about who the mother of Ascanius was.

However, from the structural point of view of this story, the important point is that Lavinia supported the community after the death of Aeneas.

Aeneas had created a new community through war, peace, marriage, and integration.

But that community was not yet a stable state OS.

The Trojans and the Aborigines had only recently begun to be integrated under the common name of Latins.

Then Aeneas died.

At this point, the community could easily have divided again.

But it did not collapse.

Lavinia governed skillfully.

Until Ascanius became an adult, she preserved the community, and Lavinium became prosperous.

A certain balance was also formed with the Etruscans in the north.

The Latins and the Etruscans maintained a boundary at the Tiber River.

In other words, Lavinia suppressed the succession crisis that could have appeared after the death of Aeneas.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, Lavinia functioned as a stabilizing OS support until the young Ascanius became able to govern.

She connected legitimacy and stability during a fragile transition period.

3. Lavinium Prospered, but Its Population Became Too Large

Under Lavinia’s guardianship, Lavinium became stable.

Then the town prospered.

But prosperity creates a new problem.

That problem is population growth.

When a community becomes stable, population grows.

When population grows, land becomes insufficient.

When land becomes insufficient, pressure over food, housing, and resources increases.

Lavinium also became crowded as its population grew.

At this point, Ascanius made an important decision.

He did not remain in Lavinium.

He did not try to suppress the population by force.

He did not choose a path in which people inside Lavinium would fight over limited resources.

Instead, Ascanius left Lavinium to his mother Lavinia and founded a new town at the foot of Mount Alba.

That town was Alba Longa.

This was not merely a migration.

It was a policy that expanded the capacity of the community in response to the resource limits created by population growth.

4. Why Did Ascanius Found a New Town?

The reason Ascanius founded a new town is simple.

The community of Lavinium had grown beyond the capacity of its existing Infrastructure.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, Infrastructure means the resources that allow the OS to operate.

Land.

Food.

Population.

Housing.

Institutions.

Credibility.

Defensive bases.

These are the foundations that support a community.

A founding-stage community first needs land in order to survive.

Then it must increase its population and connect itself to the next generation.

However, when population grows, the existing land and resources eventually become insufficient.

At that point, the community faces two choices.

One choice is to fight internally over limited resources within the existing Infrastructure.

The other choice is to acquire new Infrastructure and expand the capacity of the community.

Ascanius chose the second path.

He did not destroy Lavinium.

He left it to his mother.

Then he founded a new town, Alba Longa.

By doing this, the Latin community was no longer confined to one town.

It gained a new base.

In other words, Ascanius did not turn population growth into internal conflict.

He handled it through external expansion.

5. Lavinia Made Expansion Possible

Here, one point is especially important.

Ascanius did not abandon Lavinium.

He entrusted Lavinium to his mother Lavinia.

This means that he did not throw away the existing community.

He added a new base while preserving the old one.

If Lavinia had not been alive and capable, Ascanius would have found it difficult to leave Lavinium.

If the leader left and no one could maintain the old town, Lavinium could have become unstable.

However, because Lavinia could support the stability of the community, Ascanius gained room to found a new town.

This is an important structure for a community moving from the founding stage to the expansion stage.

One person maintains the existing base.

Another person opens a new base.

Only when these two functions coexist can a community expand without dividing itself.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, this is the simultaneous execution of two tasks.

The first is the stable maintenance of the existing base and OS.

The second is the acquisition of new Infrastructure.

Lavinia protected the old base.

Ascanius created a new base.

Through this division of roles, the Latin community expanded from Lavinium to Alba Longa.

6. Population Growth Is Both a Blessing and a Risk

Population growth is a great strength for a community.

If population increases, labor power increases.

Military strength also increases.

The market expands.

The next generation becomes easier to maintain.

However, population growth is also a risk.

Land becomes insufficient.

Food becomes insufficient.

Work becomes insufficient.

Dissatisfaction increases.

Internal conflict becomes more likely.

Therefore, a community cannot simply celebrate population growth.

It must prepare the Infrastructure that can support that population growth.

The founding of Alba Longa by Ascanius was one answer to this problem.

If population grows, the capacity of the community must be expanded.

If the old base becomes crowded, a new base must be created.

Instead of fighting internally over limited resources, the community expands outward.

Because Ascanius made this decision, the Latin community was able to move to the next stage.

7. The Founding of Alba Longa Opened the Long Road to Rome

Ascanius entrusted Lavinium to his mother Lavinia and founded Alba Longa.

Then he completed his rule in peace.

At first glance, this may not look like a great war or a dramatic reform.

However, in the flow of Roman founding history, it is extremely important.

This is because Alba Longa later became a central point in the royal line and tradition that led to Rome.

Aeneas led a people who had lost their state and gained new land.

Through peace with King Latinus, he connected with local power.

Through the common name of Latins, he integrated different groups into one community.

Then Ascanius responded to population growth by founding a new town.

Here, we can see the next stage of a founding-stage OS.

It is the transition from merely surviving to expanding the capacity of the community.

The founding history of Rome is not a story in which Rome suddenly appears.

It passes through stages.

The fall of a homeland.

Migration.

Acquisition of land.

Marriage.

Integration.

Unification of name.

Population growth.

Foundation of a new town.

Through these stages, the story gradually moves toward Rome.

Therefore, the founding of Alba Longa by Ascanius was not merely the construction of a town.

It was the process by which an early founding-stage community expanded its OS while responding to population growth and resource limits.

I discuss this idea in more detail in a related Research Case.

There, I analyze why the most urgent tasks for an early founding-stage community are not purity of origin, but survival, population growth, military formation, succession, and the establishment of a governing base, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory.

今すぐ登録する

In the previous part, we looked at what Aeneas and the Trojan survivors did first after crossing to Italy following the fall of Troy.

After long wandering, Aeneas and his people landed in the territory of the Laurentes in the Italian peninsula.

They had almost nothing left except their weapons and ships.

They had no homeland.

They had no farmland.

They had no stable food supply.

Therefore, they attacked the fields of the local Aborigines and came into conflict with the forces of King Latinus, who ruled that land.

After winning this conflict, Aeneas did not simply dominate Latinus.

He made peace with him and formed a friendly relationship.

Aeneas also married Lavinia, the daughter of King Latinus, and founded a town named Lavinium after her.

In other words, the previous part showed the process by which a people who had lost their state gained new land, connected with local powers, and began to build a new community.

However, a founding-stage community does not become stable simply because it gains land.

When a new community is born, new enemies also appear.

2. The Death of King Latinus and the New Threat

Before Lavinia married Aeneas, she had been engaged to Turnus, king of the Rutulians.

For this reason, Turnus was angry that Aeneas, a foreigner, had been chosen as Lavinia’s husband instead of him.

Turnus then made war against the Aborigines and the Trojans.

In this war, King Latinus, the father-in-law of Aeneas, was killed.

However, Aeneas succeeded in driving back Turnus.

After his defeat, Turnus fled to Mezentius, king of the Etruscans in the north.

There, he formed a military alliance and tried to oppose Aeneas again.

At this point, the situation changed greatly.

Aeneas was no longer facing only the personal revenge of Turnus.

He was facing war against the Etruscans, a powerful force in northern Italy.

In the face of this major threat, Aeneas made an important decision.

Livy says that Aeneas believed that, in order to unite the Aborigines and the Trojans, they should not only share the same rights, but also have the same name.

Therefore, Aeneas decided that both groups should be called Latins.

Later, the Latins led by Aeneas fought against the Etruscans.

Aeneas won this war, but it became his final battle.

After his death, the people worshiped Aeneas as Jupiter Indiges, a local protective deity.

3. Why Did Aeneas Unify Not Only Rights but Also the Name?

The important point here is that Aeneas did not prepare for the enemy only in a military way.

Before fighting the external enemy, he advanced internal integration.

Through his marriage to Lavinia, Aeneas had strengthened the relationship between the Trojans and the Aborigines.

However, when King Latinus died, an important link between the two groups was lost.

While Latinus was alive, the relationship between Aeneas and the Aborigines had been legitimized through King Latinus.

But once Latinus died, the relationship between the Aborigines and the Trojans could become unstable.

If Aeneas had to fight the powerful Etruscans in this condition, internal division would be dangerous.

Therefore, he needed to integrate the two groups into one community.

For this purpose, he unified both rights and name.

To share the same rights means that both groups are treated as members of the same community.

To share the same name means that both groups recognize themselves as belonging to the same community.

In other words, Aeneas did not simply allow the Trojans and the Aborigines to coexist side by side.

He integrated them under one common name: Latins.

4. A Founding-Stage OS Must Integrate Multiple Groups into One Execution Environment

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, this was an extremely important policy.

A founding-stage community is a process of transformation from disorder into order.

In that process, groups with different origins, interests, and memories are incorporated into one order.

In the community of Aeneas, at least two groups existed.

One was the Trojan survivors.

The other was the local Aborigines.

If these two groups had remained separate, Aeneas would have had to govern them separately.

He would have had to issue commands to each group separately.

He would have had to handle each group’s dissatisfaction separately.

He would have had to confirm each group’s loyalty separately.

He would have had to collect information from each group separately.

He would have had to manage each group’s interests separately.

This would raise the cost of governance.

However, if both groups are integrated under the single name of Latins, the unit of the community becomes clearer.

The target of command becomes clearer.

The target of military mobilization becomes clearer.

The direction of loyalty becomes clearer.

The two groups can face a common enemy as one common community.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, this is related to the stabilization of IA: Information Flow Architecture.

IA is the information structure through which necessary information reaches the OS and decisions of the OS are transmitted to the Execution Environment.

If multiple groups remain divided, information is split, and the command structure becomes complex.

However, if they are reorganized as one community through common rights and a common name, information transmission and command penetration become more stable.

Therefore, Aeneas’s unification of the name Latins was not merely a change of words.

It was an OS formation policy for integrating two groups into one Execution Environment.

5. A Name Creates the Boundary of a Community

Names have power.

A name shows who belongs to the same community.

A name distinguishes who is inside and who is outside.

A name creates a new belonging beyond past origins.

If Aeneas had continued to treat the “Trojans” and the “Aborigines” as separate groups, their difference in origin would have remained.

However, by calling both groups Latins, he created the boundary of a new community.

This was not the unification of bloodline.

It was not the unification of memory.

But it was the unification of political belonging.

In a founding-stage community, this kind of name unification is extremely important.

A community is not formed simply because people gather in one place.

It becomes stable only when people recognize that they belong to the same community.

In this sense, the unification of the name by Aeneas was a policy for forming community consciousness.

6. The Same Problem Exists in Modern Organizations

This structure also applies to modern organizations.

For example, when a company acquisition or organizational integration takes place, employees and departments with different origins enter one organization.

At that time, if people continue to think in terms of the old company, the new company, the acquiring side, and the acquired side, the organization does not become one.

Even if the company is legally one organization, multiple communities remain inside.

As a result, information becomes divided.

Commands do not penetrate easily.

Evaluation criteria become divided.

Factions appear.

The distinction between “us” and “them” remains.

In this condition, the organization cannot function easily as one OS.

On the other hand, forcing integration too strongly also creates resistance.

If the organization tries to erase all unique cultures, it may lose trust from the field.

Therefore, integration requires careful design.

How much of the old culture should be preserved?

At what point should the organization shift to a new common name or common system?

What rights should be shared?

What symbols should be shared?

If this design fails, organizational integration fails.

However, if the organization can cross the boundary of origin and create one common name and one common rights system, as Aeneas did, different groups can be transformed into one strong community.

7. Aeneas’s Policy Was the Prototype of Roman Integration

In the end, Aeneas won the war against the Etruscans.

Of course, this was partly due to his military talent.

But that was not the only reason.

Before the war, he had carried out internal integration.

He united the Aborigines and the Trojans as Latins through equal rights and a common name.

As a result, the community of Aeneas was no longer merely a group of Trojan survivors.

It became a new community that incorporated local powers and held a new name.

This can be read as a prototype of later Roman integration.

One reason ancient Rome became strong was that it did not simply exclude outsiders.

Under certain conditions, it incorporated external people and transformed them into part of its own community.

Of course, this was not always peaceful.

There was war.

There was domination.

There was coercion.

Even so, one source of Rome’s strength was its ability to incorporate others into its own order beyond differences of origin.

Aeneas’s unification of the name Latins can be read as the first symbolic scene of this Roman integration.

A founding-stage OS does not need only the power to defeat enemies.

It also needs the power to integrate different groups into one community after victory.

I discuss this idea in more detail in a related Research Case.

There, I analyze why Aeneas believed that, in the face of a new threat, the two groups should not only share the same rights, but also have the same name, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory.

今すぐ登録する

When an organization is built from zero, what is needed first?

Is it an ideal?

Is it an institution?

Is it excellent talent?

Or is it money and resources?

Of course, all of these are important.

However, for a community in the founding stage, the first thing it needs is a place where it can survive.

The next thing it needs is a way to connect that community to the next generation.

Livy’s History of Rome begins with the survivors of Troy after its fall.

Troy was a city involved in the long war against the Achaeans, as described in Homer’s Iliad.

The Iliad itself reaches one of its great climaxes when Achilles kills Hector, the hero of Troy.
But in the larger story, the war continues, and Troy eventually falls.

After the fall of Troy, many Trojans suffered under the victorious Achaeans.

However, Aeneas and Antenor were spared because they had friendly relations with the Achaeans.

Antenor crossed the Adriatic Sea, reached the foot of the Alps, and gained new land there.

Aeneas, on the other hand, traveled from Macedonia to Sicily and then crossed to the Italian peninsula.

There, he entered the land of the Laurentes.

This land was ruled by King Latinus.

From this point, the first story leading to the founding of Rome begins.

2. Aeneas and His People First Sought Land

According to Livy, Aeneas and the Trojan survivors had lost almost everything after their long wandering, except their weapons and ships.

They were a people who had lost their state.

They had no homeland.

They had no living base.

They had no farmland.

They had no stable food supply.

They had no place to raise the next generation.

In this situation, the first thing they did was act to gain land.

Aeneas and his people entered the land of the Laurentes and attacked the fields for supplies.

From a modern point of view, this seems like a violent act.

However, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, this was an action by a stateless people trying to secure survival infrastructure.

For a community to survive, it first needs food.

To obtain food, it needs land.

To obtain land, conflict with local powers may become unavoidable.

As a result, Aeneas and his people came into conflict with the forces of King Latinus.

The Trojans had lost their state, but they had survived a long war.

They were therefore a powerful group in terms of military ability.

In Livy’s story, Aeneas wins the battle against King Latinus.

But the important point is what he did after that victory.

3. Why Did Aeneas Choose Integration Instead of Domination?

Aeneas defeated King Latinus.

However, he did not simply choose to dominate Latinus and take everything by force.

According to Livy, Aeneas made peace with Latinus and formed a friendly relationship with him.

Latinus also gave his daughter to Aeneas in marriage.

After that, Aeneas founded a town named Lavinium, after his wife.

He also had a son who became his heir.

Here, we can see an important structure for a community in the founding stage.

For Aeneas, winning the battle was not the final purpose.

What his people needed was a place to settle.

They also needed to produce the next generation and make the community continue.

What would have happened if Aeneas had cared only about Trojan purity?

Even if he had built a town, the population would have been limited.

Marriage relations would have remained closed.

Hostility with surrounding powers would have continued.

Conflicts over land and food would have continued.

The community would have lost connection with the outside and would likely have declined over time.

In other words, what matters for a founding-stage community is not only preserving the purity of bloodline or origin.

Rather, in order to survive, it must connect with local powers, gain land, secure population, and form the next generation.

Aeneas’s peace with Latinus and his marriage into the local ruling family were not merely personal events.

They were acts of OS formation.

They integrated the Trojan survivors and local people into a new community.

4. A Founding-Stage OS Needs Integration More Than Purity

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the group led by Aeneas was not yet a completed state OS after the fall of Troy.

It had some order.

It had a leader named Aeneas.

It had military ability.

But it did not yet have stable land, institutions, population, or an Execution Environment.

In other words, they were survivors of a fallen state.

They were not yet a new state.

For this group to continue as an OS, it first needed Infrastructure.

Land.

Food.

A place to settle.

Marriage relations.

Population.

Relations with surrounding powers.

Without these, even strong military ability could not make the community last.

That is why Aeneas chose integration after victory, not domination alone.

This was not only an act of defeating an enemy.

It was an act of incorporating a former enemy into a new order.

A founding-stage OS needs this ability to integrate.

This is because a founding-stage community does not have enough population or resources from the beginning.

What is lacking must be brought in from outside.

For this, exclusion alone is not enough.

Integration is necessary.

In this sense, Aeneas’s choice can be read as an early model of OS formation in the founding stage.

5. The First Tasks Are Settlement and the Next Generation

The first actions of Aeneas and his people can be abstracted as follows.

Fall of the homeland
→ Wandering
→ Landing in a new place
→ Lack of survival infrastructure
→ Conflict over land
→ Victory
→ Peace
→ Marriage
→ Foundation of a town
→ Birth of the next generation

This process shows what a founding-stage community needs first.

First, it needs land.

Without land, it cannot settle.

Second, it needs food.

Without food, the community cannot continue.

Third, it needs relations with local powers.

If it remains hostile to all surrounding powers, it cannot become stable.

Fourth, it needs marriage and population.

If the next generation is not born, the community ends with one generation.

Fifth, it needs a town.

A town is not merely a place to live.

It is a base where the order of the community becomes visible and institutionalized.

In other words, what Aeneas did was not merely migration.

It was not simply an extension of lost Troy.

It was the first work of creating a new OS.

6. The Same Structure Exists in Modern Organizations

This structure also applies to modern organizations.

When a new organization is founded, not everything is prepared from the beginning.

There is not enough money.

There are not enough people.

There is not enough credibility.

There are not enough customers.

Institutions are not yet developed.

The Execution Environment is still immature.

In such a stage, what the founder must do first is not only speak about ideals.

First, the founder must secure a place where the organization can survive.

Next, the founder must acquire necessary resources.

Then, the founder must bring in outside people, partners, and supporters, and connect the community to the next stage.

A founding-stage organization cannot survive by purity alone.

If it clings only to the original members, it will lack people.

If it clings only to its own origin, it cannot absorb outside resources.

If it cares only about victory, it cannot build relations with its surroundings.

That is why a founding-stage OS needs the ability to integrate.

It must be able to bring in people of different origins.

It must be able to connect outside resources to its own order.

It must be able to turn former enemies into part of the community under certain conditions.

It must create an environment in which the next generation can appear.

This is the ability required of an OS in the founding stage.

7. The Founding History of Rome Can Be Read as a Story of OS Formation

Livy’s founding history of Rome is not merely a mythical origin story.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, it is a story of how people who lost their state formed a new OS.

Aeneas and his people first sought land.

They fought in order to gain land.

After victory, they chose peace, not domination alone.

They joined with local powers through marriage.

They founded a town.

They gained the next generation.

Here, the first problems faced by a founding-stage community are concentrated.

Survival.

Land.

Food.

Integration.

Marriage.

Population.

Foundation of a town.

Connection to the next generation.

Without these, an OS cannot be formed.

Therefore, the first question in the founding history of Rome can be stated as follows.

What did the survivors who crossed to Italy after the fall of Troy do first?

The answer is clear.

They sought land for survival, came into conflict with local powers, chose integration after victory, and created a new community.

In other words, a founding-stage OS begins not with purity, but with population, land, and the ability to integrate.

I discuss this idea in more detail in a related Research Case.

There, I analyze why a founding-stage community must prioritize population and integration over purity, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory.

今すぐ登録する

OS Organizational Design Theory is an organizational theory based on the metaphor of IT architecture.

It treats an operating body that has decision-making authority as an OS.

In this theory, an organization is analyzed through four major domains.

The first is the OS.

The OS is the central decision-making body of the organization.
In a state, it corresponds to the governing body.
In a company, it corresponds to the management layer.

The second is Infrastructure.

Infrastructure means the resources that allow the OS to operate.
These include funds, people, land, equipment, credibility, and institutional foundations.

The third is Applications.

Applications are the policies and measures designed by the OS to achieve its purpose.
They include policies, institutions, orders, projects, and strategies.

The fourth is the Execution Environment.

The Execution Environment is the field that actually executes the Applications.
In a state, it includes the people, the army, and the citizen body.
In a company, it includes departments, field sites, and operating teams.

With these four domains, a state or company can be analyzed not merely as a group of people, but as a system in which decision-making, resources, policies, and execution are connected.

Before analyzing Livy’s History of Rome, these basic concepts must first be organized.

2. OS Health Is Expressed as A × IA × H × V

Broadly speaking, an organization can be divided into a ruling layer and a ruled layer.

In a company, the ruling layer is the management layer, which functions as the OS.

The ruled layer is the field or operating teams, which function as the Execution Environment.

In a state, the governing body is the OS, while the people, soldiers, and communities form the Execution Environment.

The health of the OS can be expressed as follows.

OS Health = A × IA × H × V

Here, A means Strategic Awareness.

This is the ability to recognize reality correctly.

IA means Information Flow Architecture.

This is the information structure through which necessary information reaches the OS and cognitive correction becomes possible.

H means Human Resource Governance.

This is the governance function that maintains the OS through personnel evaluation, placement, rewards, punishments, promotion, and exclusion.

V means Decision-Criteria Validity.

This means whether the decision criteria of the OS fit the survival purpose of the organization.

This formula is an abstraction of the ideal state governance shown by Emperor Taizong of Tang in The Zhenguan Zhengyao.

An ideal ruler gathers information, recognizes problems, uses capable people, and executes policies according to valid decision criteria.

If there is a problem with a policy, the ruler gathers information again, listens to opinions, recognizes the problem, and corrects the policy.

In other words, OS Health does not simply mean that the top leader is capable.

It means seeing reality correctly.

It means receiving accurate information.

It means using people properly.

It means that decision criteria fit the survival purpose of the organization.

Only when these four elements work together can the OS function in a healthy way.

3. Execution Environment Health Is Expressed as M × T

However, an organization cannot function only because the OS is healthy.

Even if the OS designs policies, those policies will not function unless the Execution Environment actually executes them.

Therefore, the health of the Execution Environment can be expressed as follows.

Execution Environment Health = M × T

Here, M means Maturity.

Maturity means the inner order, understanding, moderation, public-mindedness, and order-forming capacity of the people or the field.

T means Trust.

Trust means the degree of trust that the Execution Environment has toward the OS.

If Maturity is low, the Execution Environment cannot understand the meaning of the policy.

If Trust is low, the Execution Environment does not trust the orders of the OS and does not move as expected.

Therefore, the health of the Execution Environment can also be understood as a multiplication of Maturity and Trust.

In a state, even if the people have high maturity, orders will not penetrate the Execution Environment if trust in the governing body is low.

Conversely, even if there is trust in the governing body, stable governance is difficult if the people lack the ability to form order.

This is very important when analyzing Roman history.

In the Roman Republic, not only kings, the Senate, and consuls, but also plebeians, tribunes, military mobilization, and land problems became central to state operation.

4. In Monarchy, A, IA, H, and V Are Concentrated in the Monarch

The political system discussed in The Zhenguan Zhengyao is basically monarchy.

Emperor Taizong of Tang was the ruler at the center of the state OS.

He was the person who held final decision-making authority for the state.

Therefore, in monarchy, A, IA, H, and V, which form OS Health, are ultimately concentrated in the monarch.

Of course, even in actual monarchy, ministers, officials, remonstrators, and local officers exist.

However, final decision-making authority is concentrated in the monarch.

For this reason, the health of the state OS in monarchy depends greatly on whether the monarch can recognize reality correctly, maintain an accurate information structure, use people properly, and hold valid decision criteria.

However, even in monarchy, ministers and remonstrators may correct A and V.

The importance of corrective advice in The Zhenguan Zhengyao shows exactly this correction function.

In other words, monarchy does not necessarily mean a system without correction.

Rather, monarchy is a governing structure in which final authority is concentrated in the ruler, while ministers and remonstrators are placed around the ruler as correction devices to maintain the health of the OS.

5. In the Roman Kingdom, the Senate Corrected V

In the early Roman history described by Livy, Romulus is said to have selected one hundred senators.

At this stage, the Senate was not yet a republican governing institution in the later sense.

It was closer to an approval body that supplemented kingship.

The king was the center of the state OS and mainly held A, IA, H, and V.

On the other hand, the Senate assisted the king and functioned as an institution that approved the next ruler after the king’s death.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the Senate was a correction device for V inside the monarchy.

It did not completely replace the king’s decision criteria.

However, it corrected judgments related to legitimacy, approval, and the connection between kingship and the community.

The important point is that the Senate was not merely an advisor.

Because it had the function of approving the next ruler after the king’s death, the Senate connected the legitimacy of the state OS.

In other words, in the Roman Kingdom, the Senate can be understood as an institution that connected kingship with communal legitimacy and corrected V.

6. In the Republic, OS Control Variables Were Distributed Across Multiple Institutions

When the monarchy of Tarquinius Superbus collapsed, Rome moved from monarchy to republic.

At that time, consuls took the place of the king and led state affairs.

The important point is that there were two consuls.

This means that the authority of the state OS, which had been concentrated in one person under monarchy, was distributed among multiple persons.

To avoid one-man rule, the Republic built the distribution of authority into its institutions from the beginning.

In the early Republic, consuls were the center of the state OS in military action, administrative judgment, and emergency response.

In other words, consuls mainly carried short-term and executive A.

On the other hand, the Senate corrected the A and V of the consuls through long-term national awareness, tradition, diplomacy, legitimacy, and consensus among the aristocratic class.

In the early Roman Republic, the consuls carried executive judgment, while the Senate corrected the decision criteria and long-term awareness behind that judgment.

This was a mechanism to avoid the concentration of V in one person, as in monarchy.

The Republic was not merely a system that abolished the king.

It was a structure that distributed the control variables of the OS across multiple institutions and restrained the runaway of judgment.

7. The Dictator Was an Emergency Mode of the Republican OS

When a crisis that threatened the survival of the state appeared, Rome appointed a dictator.

The dictator had a short term of office, but was given stronger authority than the consuls.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the dictator was an emergency mode of the republican OS.

In normal times, the Republic distributed authority across multiple institutions.

However, when speed of decision-making became necessary in an emergency, A, IA, H, and V were temporarily concentrated in one person.

This was a mechanism by which the republican OS temporarily shifted into a monarchy-like high-speed decision-making mode.

However, the dictator was not a permanent monarch.

The limited term of office was essential.

Also, the activation, appointment, termination, and return to the normal OS were corrected by the Senate and the consuls.

Therefore, the dictator was a temporary concentration mode of OS control variables within the republican OS.

It was also an institution with correction conditions for returning to the normal peacetime OS.

If this point is missed, the dictator is understood only as a simple dictator.

However, in OS Organizational Design Theory, the dictator is understood as a temporary concentration mode of OS authority during emergency conditions.

8. The Tribune Was an Interface Between the OS and the Execution Environment

As the Republic developed, the power of the aristocrats grew stronger, and dissatisfaction among the plebeians increased.

To protect the rights of the plebeians, the tribunes were created.

The important point is that the tribune was not merely an officer who protected the plebeians.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the tribune was an interface that connected the state OS and the Execution Environment.

A state or organization cannot exist by the OS alone.

Even if the OS issues policies and orders as Applications, governance does not function unless the Execution Environment executes them.

If the plebeians trusted the state OS, namely the consuls and the Senate, military mobilization, taxation, labor, and public works were easier to carry out.

Conversely, if the plebeians lost trust in the state OS, orders could be issued, but they would not be executed.

The tribune connected the dissatisfaction and demands of the Execution Environment to the OS.

From the OS side, the tribune was a device that connected T, or Trust, of the Execution Environment to the OS.

From the plebeian side, the tribune was a representative device for correcting V, or the decision criteria, of the state OS.

Therefore, the Republic was not merely a system that abolished kingship.

It was a structure that institutionally recognized that governance cannot function unless the trust of the Execution Environment is connected to the OS.

9. The Agrarian Law Problem Was a Connection Problem Among Infrastructure, OS, and the Execution Environment

Later, conflict intensified among the consuls, tribunes, aristocrats, and plebeians over the proposal of agrarian laws.

The agrarian law problem was not merely a problem of land distribution.

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, it was a connection problem among Infrastructure, the OS, and the Execution Environment.

Land was Infrastructure of the state.

The consuls and the Senate were the state OS.

The plebeians were the Execution Environment that supported the state.

The tribunes had the role of connecting the demands of the Execution Environment to the OS.

The agrarian law was an Application concerning the distribution of Infrastructure.

In other words, the agrarian law problem was a case in which the relationship of trust between the OS and the Execution Environment was shaken over the distribution of Infrastructure.

Here, if T, or Trust, declines, the orders of the state OS no longer penetrate the Execution Environment.

Even if the consuls issue orders, if the plebeians do not obey, military mobilization and social order cannot be maintained.

In this sense, the political struggles of the Roman Republic were not only power struggles inside the OS.

They were also structural problems of connection failure among the OS, the Execution Environment, and Infrastructure.

In the agrarian law problem, the tribunes connected the demands of the Execution Environment to the OS.

The Senate tried to correct or restrain V concerning Infrastructure distribution.

The consuls carried executive judgment for state operation.

Therefore, the agrarian law problem was a case in which Infrastructure distribution, trust in the Execution Environment, and the decision criteria of the OS collided within the republican OS.

10. The Minimum Formulas Needed for Analyzing Roman History

To summarize, before analyzing Livy’s History of Rome, three minimum formulas are necessary.

The first is OS Health.

OS Health = A × IA × H × V

The second is Execution Environment Health.

Execution Environment Health = M × T

The third is the health of the whole organization.

Whole Organizational Health = OS Health × Execution Environment Health

By using these three formulas, kings, the Senate, consuls, dictators, tribunes, plebeians, and agrarian laws in Roman history can be read not merely as institutional history, but as connection problems among the OS, the Execution Environment, and Infrastructure.

Livy’s Roman history is not merely ancient history.

It is material that shows how a state OS was formed, differentiated, gained correction functions, and struggled to connect with the Execution Environment.

For this reason, before entering the analysis of Roman history, these basic concepts and formulas must be organized.

I discuss this idea in more detail in a related Research Case.

There, I analyze how the institutions of the Roman Republic can be positioned in relation to the control variables that form OS Health and Execution Environment Health, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory.

今すぐ登録する

Emperor Taizong of Tang, Li Shimin, is the central figure of The Zhenguan Zhengyao.

In the founding stage, he defeated rival powers with extraordinary military talent and made a major contribution to the founding of the Tang dynasty.

In the maintenance stage, he emphasized virtue, corrective advice, personnel appointment, rewards and punishments, and moderation in order to stabilize politics.

In this sense, Taizong was a ruler who experienced both founding and maintenance.

However, when building OS Organizational Design Theory, The Zhenguan Zhengyao alone is not enough to fully explain founding-stage politics.

This is because the founding of the Tang dynasty occurred after the collapse of the unified Sui dynasty.

Even though the ruling dynasty changed, the basic framework of the state, the emperor, bureaucracy, governing institutions, and the concept of “the realm” already existed as historical premises.

In other words, it was not a situation in which the institutional framework had to be created completely from scratch.

By contrast, in OS Organizational Design Theory, “founding” means a situation in which an actor without an established OS must build an OS from the beginning.

There is not yet order.

Institutions have not yet been formed.

There is not yet legitimacy.

Personnel placement is not yet stable.

The Execution Environment is not yet formed.

In such a stage, how can an OS be launched, made to survive, and connected to order?

This kind of founding stage cannot be fully treated through The Zhenguan Zhengyao alone.

2. To Analyze the Founding Stage, We Must Move Toward Livy and Machiavelli

This is where ancient Rome and Machiavelli become important.

The works that should be examined are Livy’s History of Rome, Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories, and Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy.

Livy’s History of Rome is a vast historical narrative that deals with Rome from its founding to the development of the Republic.

It contains many materials related to the formation of an OS in the founding stage.

These include the founding of Rome, kingship, the transition to the Republic, institutional formation, conflict between patricians and plebeians, military mobilization, religious legitimacy, and systems of honor.

Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories deals with the development of the city of Florence, from its origins to the death of Lorenzo de’ Medici.

It contains structures that extend from founding to prosperity and then to internal conflict.

These include the formation of a city-state, factional conflict, tension between wealthy citizens and the people, relations with external powers, and the instability of governance.

Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy is a theoretical work that extracts political principles from the ancient Roman Republic, using Livy as its foundation.

In other words, Livy provides factual material.

The Florentine Histories provide historical case material for a city-state.

The Discourses provide material for theoretical abstraction.

Therefore, to analyze the OS of the founding stage, these works must be read in connection with one another.

3. The Founding Stage and the Maintenance Stage Have Different OS Tasks

The decisive difference between the founding stage and the maintenance stage lies in the central task.

The founding stage is the stage in which the survival of the OS itself is at stake.

The maintenance stage is the stage in which an established OS must be maintained, protected from deterioration, and connected to long-term stability.

In the founding stage, the OS itself is still incomplete.

It must first survive.

It must defeat competitors.

It must create a minimum order.

It must gather people.

It must secure resources.

It must endure external attacks.

At this stage, virtue and moderation are also important.

However, what comes to the forefront is breakthrough power.

Military breakthrough power.

Political breakthrough power.

Organizational breakthrough power.

The ability to decide under crisis.

The ability to move people in a short period of time.

In other words, in the founding stage, the ability to win for survival is strongly required.

By contrast, in the maintenance stage, the task changes.

How should established order be maintained?

How should personnel be repositioned?

How should rewards and punishments be operated fairly?

How should the information structure be preserved?

How should arrogance and comfort be restrained?

How should trust in the Execution Environment be maintained?

In the maintenance stage, what matters is not breakthrough, but maintenance.

It is not short-term victory, but long-term stability.

4. The Success Factors of the Founding Stage Can Become Risk Factors in the Maintenance Stage

Here, a difficult problem appears.

Abilities and systems that were effective in the founding stage can become risk factors in the maintenance stage.

Strong arbitrary decision-making that was necessary in the founding stage can block cognitive correction in the maintenance stage.

Military power that was necessary in the founding stage can become a financial burden or a source of internal conflict in the maintenance stage.

Emergency measures that were necessary in the founding stage can destroy institutional order in the maintenance stage.

Meritorious retainers who were active in the founding stage can become holders of excessive power or centers of factions in the maintenance stage.

In other words, the success factors of the founding stage can become causes of organizational deterioration if they are carried directly into the maintenance stage.

From this, one point becomes clear.

The founding stage and the maintenance stage are not simply difficult in separate ways.

The more difficult problem is how to switch from founding to maintenance.

How should people who were active in the founding stage be repositioned in the maintenance stage?

How much military power and emergency measures, which were necessary in the founding stage, should be reduced in the maintenance stage?

How much breakthrough power should be kept?

At what point should the organization shift to a maintenance system centered on virtue and moderation?

If this transition fails, the organization may appear successful on the surface, but deterioration begins from within.

5. Why We Must Connect The Zhenguan Zhengyao to Machiavelli

In OS Organizational Design Theory, The Zhenguan Zhengyao is an important foundation for analyzing the maintenance stage.

It contains wisdom for maintaining an established OS over the long term.

This includes corrective advice, virtue, rewards and punishments, personnel appointment, the people’s support, moderation, and self-correction.

However, this is not enough to theorize the founding stage.

In the founding stage, the OS has not yet been established.

Therefore, before maintaining order, order must first be created.

Before maintaining legitimacy, legitimacy must first be acquired.

Before maintaining an information structure, an organization that gathers information must first be built.

Before operating a stable system of rewards and punishments, it is necessary to identify who is an ally and who is an enemy.

To treat this stage, another line of classical texts is necessary.

That is why we must move toward Livy and Machiavelli.

Livy gives factual material about the founding of Rome and the formation of early order.

The Florentine Histories give case material about a city-state that prospered while carrying internal conflict.

The Discourses give theoretical material for extracting political principles from these histories.

By comparing these with the maintenance-stage theory derived from The Zhenguan Zhengyao, OS Organizational Design Theory can be expanded into a theory that treats both founding and maintenance.

6. The Transition from Founding to Maintenance Is the Core Issue

In The Zhenguan Zhengyao, Taizong asks which is more difficult: founding or maintenance.

Taizong recognizes that both founding and maintenance have their own difficulties.

However, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the more important issue is not to treat founding and maintenance as separate problems.

Rather, the key issue is how to design the transition from founding to maintenance.

The logic of the founding stage is the logic of survival.

The logic of the maintenance stage is the logic of preservation.

In the founding stage, speed, breakthrough power, military force, and emergency measures become important.

In the maintenance stage, moderation, trust, institutions, information circulation, and self-correction become important.

These two logics are not the same.

That is why failure easily occurs during the transition.

The logic that was necessary for survival continues to be used after peace has been achieved.

The power that was necessary to defeat enemies continues to be used for internal governance.

Meritorious retainers from the founding stage cannot be integrated into the institutional order of the maintenance stage.

Emergency measures cannot be returned to normal operation.

At this point, the organization may succeed in founding but begin to deteriorate in maintenance.

Therefore, theorizing the transition from founding to maintenance is the next core task for completing OS Organizational Design Theory.

7. Toward the Next Stage of Research

Until now, OS Organizational Design Theory has mainly analyzed the governance structure of the maintenance stage through The Zhenguan Zhengyao.

Through this analysis, it has organized the health of the OS, information structure, human resource governance, decision criteria, virtue, the people’s support, and the maturity and trust of the Execution Environment.

However, organizations are not born in the maintenance stage.

Every organization has a founding stage.

There is disorder.

There is competition.

There are external enemies.

There is a shortage of resources.

There are incomplete institutions.

If this stage is not treated, OS Organizational Design Theory remains incomplete.

Therefore, in the next stage of research, I will analyze the formation of the founding-stage OS through Livy’s History of Rome, Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories, and Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy.

Ultimately, the goal is to connect the maintenance-stage theory derived from The Zhenguan Zhengyao with the founding-stage theory derived from Roman history and Machiavelli.

Through this connection, I aim to build a model of transition from founding to maintenance.

This connection is the next task for advancing OS Organizational Design Theory.

I discuss this idea in more detail in a related Research Case.

There, I analyze the research agenda for the founding stage and explain how OS Organizational Design Theory should move forward from this point.

今すぐ登録する

Suppose a new department manager is assigned to a team.

How should that manager lead the members?

Should the manager make subordinates obey through fear?

Or should the manager try to gain their trust?

This is a question that also applies to modern organizations.

In Chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli asks whether it is better for a ruler to be feared or loved.

His answer is that, if it is difficult to be both, it is safer to be feared than to be loved.

However, he also warns that the ruler must avoid being hated.

Behind this argument is a certain view of human nature.

Human feelings are unstable.

When danger comes, people may betray the ruler.

Therefore, it may seem safer to bind people through fear, because the ruler does not need to rely on their goodwill.

However, The Zhenguan Zhengyao offers a different perspective.

It argues that even if people are bound by punishment or intimidation, the ruler cannot gain long-term support from the people.

Coercive rule may create temporary obedience.

But it does not create long-term stability.

Why, then, is coercion not enough?

Why is the ruler’s virtue necessary?

2. The Limit of Coercive Rule Seen in The Zhenguan Zhengyao

In the third chapter of the “Political System” section of The Zhenguan Zhengyao, Emperor Taizong asks Wang Gui a question.

Why was the governance of recent rulers and ministers inferior to that of ancient rulers?

Wang Gui answers that ancient rulers respected calm and simplicity.

They governed with the same desire that the people had: the desire to live in peace.

By contrast, later rulers made the people suffer and thought only of satisfying their own desires.

They also appointed ministers who lacked proper learning and moral cultivation.

As a result, moral practice was lost, and good customs based on human feeling were destroyed.

This is not merely praise of the ancient past.

The point is that governance based on oppression, exploitation, and the ruler’s private desire destroys the order and customs of the people.

Taizong accepted this view.

In other words, The Zhenguan Zhengyao does not see governance as a simple relationship between command and obedience.

It sees governance as something that becomes stable when inner order is formed among the people and trust toward the governing body is maintained.

3. Coercion Creates Only External Obedience

Coercive politics can be described structurally as follows.

Coercion
→ Obedience
→ Internal dissatisfaction remains
→ Dissatisfaction accumulates
→ Resistance, separation, or rebellion occurs

Military force and punishment can create external obedience.

They can make people follow orders.

They can silence people.

They can suppress resistance temporarily.

However, this is only obedience created by force.

It does not create acceptance or trust inside the people or subordinates.

Rather, dissatisfaction accumulates in places that cannot be seen.

Then, when it passes a critical point, that dissatisfaction appears as resistance, separation, or rebellion.

Coercive rule also increases the cost of governance.

To suppress dissatisfaction, surveillance becomes necessary.

To maintain surveillance, regulation becomes necessary.

To control those who break the regulations, punishment becomes necessary.

As punishment becomes stronger, dissatisfaction accumulates even more.

In this way, the cost of governance continues to rise.

In the short term, the ruler may appear to be in control.

But in the long term, coercive rule exhausts the governing body itself.

4. Governance by Virtue Forms Inner Order

Governance by virtue has a different structure.

Virtue
＋
Moderation
→ Trust of the people
→ Formation of inner order
→ Voluntary obedience
→ Long-term stability

Here, virtue means the personal and governing foundation by which a ruler or governing body restrains desire and places the people or the field first.

Moderation means governing with proper restraint, so that policies and orders do not exhaust the people or the field unnecessarily.

If there is virtue, people are more likely to trust the ruler.

If there is moderation, people are less likely to feel that they are being exploited unnecessarily.

If there is trust, people begin to preserve order by themselves.

This is different from obedience through coercion.

Coercion binds behavior from the outside.

Virtue forms order from the inside.

Coercion requires surveillance and punishment.

Virtue creates trust and voluntary cooperation.

That is why governance by virtue can reduce maintenance costs over the long term.

5. The People’s Support Can Be Expressed as M × T

From the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, the recovery and maintenance of the people’s support can be expressed as follows.

People’s Support = M × T

Here, M means Maturity.

Maturity means the inner order of the people or the field.

It includes morality, moderation, public-mindedness, and the ability to form order.

T means Trust.

Trust means the degree of trust that the people or the field have toward the ruler, management, upper layer, or governing body.

Even if Maturity is high, the people’s support will not be stable if Trust in the governing body is low.

Conversely, even if there is Trust in the governing body, stability will not be maintained if the people or the field lack the ability to form order.

Therefore, the people’s support can be understood as a multiplication of Maturity and Trust.

The important point is that Trust is difficult to build in a short period of time.

Fear can be created quickly.

But Trust can only be built through long-term accumulation.

That is why governance by virtue may appear slow.

However, once Trust is formed, the cost of maintaining the people’s support becomes lower.

This is because the people or the field begin to maintain order voluntarily.

6. Reconsidering Machiavelli’s Question from OS Organizational Design Theory

Now we can return to the first question.

Machiavelli asked whether it is better to be feared or loved.

In short-term crisis response or in the founding stage, rule by fear may appear effective.

If human betrayal is assumed, control through fear may look rational.

However, from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory, rule by fear has a clear limit.

Fear creates external obedience.

But it does not create Trust.

If Trust is not created, the people’s support does not become stable.

If the people’s support is not stable, the governing body must depend on surveillance and punishment.

If it depends on surveillance and punishment, the cost of governance increases.

In other words, rule by fear exhausts the OS in the long term.

By contrast, governance by virtue creates Trust.

Trust creates voluntary order among the people or the field.

When there is voluntary order, dependence on surveillance and punishment becomes smaller.

As a result, the OS becomes more stable over the long term.

Therefore, if an organization wants long-term stability, governance that gains the people’s support is better than governance based only on fear.

This is not merely an idealistic argument.

It is a structural requirement for lowering governance costs, maintaining information circulation, and gaining cooperation from the field.

7. The People’s Support Is Maintained by Virtue, Not Coercion

Coercive methods create short-term obedience.

But that does not mean the governing body has gained the people’s support

The people’s support is not merely a state in which people obey on the outside.

It is an inner state in which people trust the governing body and try to preserve order by themselves.

For this, coercion is not enough.

Virtue is necessary.

That means the governing body restrains its desires, places the people or the field first, keeps the burden of policy moderate, and accumulates trust.

In OS Organizational Design Theory, the health of the Execution Environment can be understood as M × T.

Maturity.

Trust.

Only when both are present does the people’s support become stable.

And when the people’s support is stable, the OS can move the Execution Environment not through coercion, but through trust.

I discuss this idea in more detail in the related Research Case.

There, I analyze from the perspective of OS Organizational Design Theory what happens when the governing body approaches the field with coercion, and what happens when it approaches the field through virtue.

今すぐ登録する