05-31-2015, 11:29 PM
The Roman Republic worked when Rome was just a small city-state, but the empire was built on a system that required some degree of political and legal inequality. The late Republic (1st and 2nd century B.C.) got its wealth and power by conquering and exploiting foreign kingdoms, then doling out political and civil rights in those conquered territories on a limited and exclusive basis. This was inherently contradictory to the ideals of the republic. You can't just conquer Gaul or Egypt and then give everyone there the same rights as those who did the conquering.
The Roman rank-and-file were enticed to go along with such conquests by the promise of loot, booty, slaves etc., and conquering some foreign kingdom was one of the surest paths to power for a young Roman aristocrat of the late republic. Once you did that (think Sulla, Caesar), you a fiercely loyal, battle-hardened army -- i.e., the means to sieze absolute power.
There were centrifugal forces beyond Rome's control that incentivized and encouraged the decline of the republic. They were forces unique to Iron Age Europe, so it's hard to compare with modern U.S. politics.
This is a good point. In most cases, revolutions eventually work out for the better, because that's just the inevitable nature of human progress. But if you look closely at revolutions throughout history, you'll find a lot of ethically dubious characters. For every Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, there's a Hitler or a Pol Pot, and in between there are lots of opportunists ambiguous records like Constantine and Simon Bolivar.
For the record, obviously the greatest revolutionary of all time is the great George Washington, that holiest and most saintly of men
The Roman rank-and-file were enticed to go along with such conquests by the promise of loot, booty, slaves etc., and conquering some foreign kingdom was one of the surest paths to power for a young Roman aristocrat of the late republic. Once you did that (think Sulla, Caesar), you a fiercely loyal, battle-hardened army -- i.e., the means to sieze absolute power.
There were centrifugal forces beyond Rome's control that incentivized and encouraged the decline of the republic. They were forces unique to Iron Age Europe, so it's hard to compare with modern U.S. politics.
Quote:Aaron post=367924 Wrote:I chuckle when I see the foundings of both republics of America, and Rome. Except for the Slavery part, both had noble beginnings, and believed in honor. As they both grew it became a "What can you do for me?" society.
Sorry to tread on any toes but there's hardly any nobility in the founding of most states. Rome wasn't a 'founded state' at all but a few villages in the same neighbourhood, and millennia away from what we call a 'state'. Any similarity between Rome and (say) the USA is based on people looking back. Rome had no 'founding fathers' anywhere during it's history who, looking back and ahead, decided to write a constitution.
This is a good point. In most cases, revolutions eventually work out for the better, because that's just the inevitable nature of human progress. But if you look closely at revolutions throughout history, you'll find a lot of ethically dubious characters. For every Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, there's a Hitler or a Pol Pot, and in between there are lots of opportunists ambiguous records like Constantine and Simon Bolivar.
For the record, obviously the greatest revolutionary of all time is the great George Washington, that holiest and most saintly of men
