Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#41

Post by all2 »

swift532 wrote: post #36
all2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the question is not if, but when the us will be under single person rule and what shape will it take. The question will remain if as long as the right to bear arms remains a right. No tyranny can survive an armed and angry population. The problem that follows that, though, is something the French faced during their revolutionary years. We could be in for a bloodbath if we don't move correctly.

I might be reaching a bit, but I'd think that, with current technology, psyops etc., it should not be that hard to defeat any rebellion before it ever starts - whether by neutralizing (not "kill" in the USA, but deincentivize, defame or frame) potential leaders or stopping public discourse from ever reaching that stage.

I'd say that depends on the convictions of the people involved. I don't know how kids feel about their Constitution, or their rights. If they don't care, we're screwed.

If there is a deep commitment to protecting their rights, no defamation will stop them.

I think this idea would make an interesting speculative novel: America is on the brink of tyranny. The Constitution has been set aside (for some 'sufficient' reason) and freedoms summarily stripped from the people (in essence, we have become what China is now).

What do Federal law enforcement agencies have to do in order to quell rebellion? Psy-ops? Kill teams and other wet work? Propaganda? Probably a liberal mashing up of these and other tactics.

How would rebellion work? Who succeeds and survives? Why and how do others fail? What is the best outcome? The worst?

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#42

Post by munk-a »

all2 wrote: post #33
ReptileMan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since there has been ongoing process in concentrating power in the federal government, which itself concentrates its power into the executive branch - and there appears to not be slowing down or reversing - the question is not if, but when the us will be under single person rule and what shape will it take.

>the question is not if, but when the us will be under single person rule and what shape will it take. The question will remain if as long as the right to bear arms remains a right. No tyranny can survive an armed and angry population. The problem that follows that, though, is something the French faced during their revolutionary years. We could be in for a bloodbath if we don't move correctly.

Uh, so why has citizen's united been allowed to stand. If the 2nd amendment will magically save us all some day... why is it waiting?

I am more cynical and think that the 2nd amendment does protect against sudden tyranny but slow insidious tyranny is quite able to work around it.

On the other hand, I'm pretty hopeful that the first amendment will be able to get us out of our terrible situation.

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#43

Post by dv_dt »

wcarey wrote: post #4
pjc50 wrote: post #2

The military disasters referenced are the Battle of Cannae and the previous Battle of Lake Trasimene, both of which suffered appalling losses by the Roman side when they were trapped unable to retreat. After those Rome relied on the unflashy but effective tactic of Fabius the Delayer to defeat Hannibal over a period of time, rather than risk yet another disastrous confrontation.

Fabius was dictator after Trasimene, but before Cannae. Although his tactics were effective, the Romans cared more about virtus than effectiveness and replaced him with Varro and Paulus, who engaged with Hannibal directly at Cannae. The aim of ancient war was the demonstration of martial virtue, with victory as a relatively secondary concern. Because victory without the clash of arms was worth little to the Romans, R…

Interesting summary of Gracchi on Wikipedia [1]:

The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, were Romans who both served as tribunes in the late 2nd century BC. They attempted to pass land reform legislation that would redistribute the major aristocratic landholdings among the urban poor and veterans, in addition to other reform measures. After achieving some early success, both were assassinated by enemies of these reforms.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#44

Post by dv_dt »

e40 wrote: post #11
swift532 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Once the taboo of violence against other officials in the state got broken, all hell broke loose.

This implies that once a political norm is broken, it will forever be broken. That does not bode well for our current political situation in the US.

That ignores that the norms came to be norms in the first place.

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#45

Post by hannasanarion »

dv_dt wrote: post #43
wcarey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fabius was dictator after Trasimene, but before Cannae. Although his tactics were effective, the Romans cared more about virtus than effectiveness and replaced him with Varro and Paulus, who engaged with Hannibal directly at Cannae. The aim of ancient war was the demonstration of martial virtue, with victory as a relatively secondary concern. Because victory without the clash of arms was worth little to the Romans, R…

Interesting summary of Gracchi on Wikipedia [1]: The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, were Romans who both served as tribunes in the late 2nd century BC. They attempted to pass land reform legislation that would redistribute the major aristocratic landholdings among the urban poor and veterans, in addition to other reform measures. After achieving some early success, both were assassinated by enemies of these re…

More importantly, they were the first to bypass the democratic norms of the republic in order to get their agendas passed (by skipping senatorial approval for their bill, and censuring a tribune for vetoing it), and their opponents violated even more norms in order to halt their agendas (by passing an emergency decree calling for their deaths).

The saga of the Gracchi is when the cracks in the Republican order first began to appear. This pattern of norm-breaking back and forth between progressives and reactionaries would repeat until there were no norms left and it took six decades of civil war until peace and stability was restored by the imperial dictatorship.

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#46

Post by hannasanarion »

all2 wrote: post #33
ReptileMan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since there has been ongoing process in concentrating power in the federal government, which itself concentrates its power into the executive branch - and there appears to not be slowing down or reversing - the question is not if, but when the us will be under single person rule and what shape will it take.

>the question is not if, but when the us will be under single person rule and what shape will it take. The question will remain if as long as the right to bear arms remains a right. No tyranny can survive an armed and angry population. The problem that follows that, though, is something the French faced during their revolutionary years. We could be in for a bloodbath if we don't move correctly.

A tyranny can survive as long as it wants if it has the armed and angry population on its side. That's how fascism works.

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#47

Post by philipov »

hannasanarion wrote: post #45
dv_dt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting summary of Gracchi on Wikipedia [1]: The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, were Romans who both served as tribunes in the late 2nd century BC. They attempted to pass land reform legislation that would redistribute the major aristocratic landholdings among the urban poor and veterans, in addition to other reform measures. After achieving some early success, both were assassinated by enemies of these re…

More importantly, they were the first to bypass the democratic norms of the republic in order to get their agendas passed (by skipping senatorial approval for their bill, and censuring a tribune for vetoing it), and their opponents violated even more norms in order to halt their agendas (by passing an emergency decree calling for their deaths). The saga of the Gracchi is when the cracks in the Republican order first…

The first part of that sure sounds familiar.

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#48

Post by pesmhey »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #35

I really love Roman history. I'm just a hobbyist here (i.e. I've read a ton of biographies on great Roman leaders), so please correct me if any of my thoughts here are incorrect. My feeling has been that Sulla's purges were the effective end of the Republic. Rome had no bureaucracy. It instead relied on great administrators (like Pompey, for example) to carry out public work projects effectively. The conflicts of the…

What would you say about the argument that that breakdown of compromise and trust was, and is, spurred by the expansion of full citizenship and voting rights, in both republics. Preventing more Italians from Roman citizenship seemed to be one of Sulla’s main talking points.

Have you read Michael Lewis’ The Undoing Project? Lewis has basically chronicled the destruction of large swaths of the American bureaucracy. The parallels between Sulla and Trump are so striking, even down to the hair!

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#49

Post by microtherion »

hannasanarion wrote: post #26
jdpedrie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rome at the end of the Republic may have technically been republican (if oligarchic republicanism counts), but it was neither democratic nor liberal. Liberalism didn’t exist in name or form for another 1800 years. One must be extremely careful and judicious drawing straight line comparisons from Ancient Rome to today. And as usual, the correct answer when confronted by a discussion along these lines, the correct answ…

It was definitely democratic. Every office except senator was decided by majority vote with universal male suffrage. And even Senators were de-facto elected, since elevation to the Senate was automatic upon the completion of a term in an elected office. Sure, Rome began as an Oligarchic Republic, but after the secession of the plebs in 494 BC 12 years later, it was solidly Democratic. Think about it, if Rome wasn't a…

> Every office except senator was decided by majority vote

For some values of "majority vote". The voting was by centuries / tribes, both of them being extremely unbalanced in voting power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Roman_Republi...

Re: Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny

#50

Post by jimjimjim »

all2 wrote: post #33
ReptileMan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since there has been ongoing process in concentrating power in the federal government, which itself concentrates its power into the executive branch - and there appears to not be slowing down or reversing - the question is not if, but when the us will be under single person rule and what shape will it take.

>the question is not if, but when the us will be under single person rule and what shape will it take. The question will remain if as long as the right to bear arms remains a right. No tyranny can survive an armed and angry population. The problem that follows that, though, is something the French faced during their revolutionary years. We could be in for a bloodbath if we don't move correctly.

The population BECOMES the tyranny.

Tell 51% of the population that they are gods and if they don't feel like that it must be because of the other 49% percent.

fascists. tyrants. populists.

Post reply on HN