Review of Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by swasheck » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #30

safgasCVS wrote: post #20

I really enjoyed Dan Carlin’s ‘Celtic holocaust’ that went at length into the character and motivations of Julius Caesar. What I mostly appreciate in listening to Carlin is his ability to sympathize with the people living through the moment but being respectful not to bias his reading of history so it doesnt reflect modern wishes and thinking. It’s in this vein I criticize the book as it sounds like it’s applying mod…

Dan Carlin's "Death Throes of the Republic" series goes way into the fall of the Roman Republic. It's $10 if you buy directly from his site and absolutely worth it. Along the same lines, fans of Mike Duncan's "History of Rome" podcast should consider purchasing his book "The Storm Before the Storm." It covers this period with nuance and depth.

Currently reading "The Storm Before the Storm" and, though (or perhaps because) it is quite detailed with great depth, it's an enjoyable and engaging read.

I highly recommend it.

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

#52

Post by wisdomoftheages » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 7:42 PM UTC

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…

To refer to "democratic norms" or "progressives and reactionaries" is an anachronistic stretch to say the least. A more accurate summation is that the Gracchi championed land reform for the poor (specifically, redistributing land illegally acquired smallholders by members of the senatorial oligarchy) in the service of their own political ambitions, and in doing so they repeatedly violated the norms of the governing oligarchy, which protected their property (itself frequently acquired in technical violation of legal norms) by murdering the reformers and massacring their followers.

The story of the fall of the Roman Republic is not so much a story of the decay of democratic or governing institutions as we know them as it is the story of a ruling oligarchy that gradually loses the ability to discipline its own members and keep them united in a common policy.

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

#53

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 7:45 PM UTC

all2 wrote: post #41

swift532 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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' reaso…

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by hannasanarion » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

wisdomoftheages wrote: post #52

hannasanarion wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To refer to "democratic norms" or "progressives and reactionaries" is an anachronistic stretch to say the least. A more accurate summation is that the Gracchi championed land reform for the poor (specifically, redistributing land illegally acquired smallholders by members of the senatorial oligarchy) in the service of their own political ambitions, and in doing so they repeatedly violated the norms of the governing o…

They didn't call them "democratic norms" or "progressives and reactionaries", sure, but that's what they were. These are descriptive terms, not proper nouns.

"democratic norms" are behaviors in the public sphere that are expected under the assumption that politicians are interested in the good of everyone and that the popular will has political meaning.

"progressives" are politicians who want to improve society through reform and the redistribution of wealth and power.

"reactionaries" are politicians who want to return things back to the way they were before progressives existed.

These terms are perfectly appropriate to describe the political climate in the late republic.

You keep asserting that there was a "ruling oligarchy" when this is simply not true. If Rome was ruled by an oligarchy, then the Gracchi never would have got off the ground.

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

#55

Post by wisdomoftheages » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:24 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #54

wisdomoftheages wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To refer to "democratic norms" or "progressives and reactionaries" is an anachronistic stretch to say the least. A more accurate summation is that the Gracchi championed land reform for the poor (specifically, redistributing land illegally acquired smallholders by members of the senatorial oligarchy) in the service of their own political ambitions, and in doing so they repeatedly violated the norms of the governing o…

They didn't call them "democratic norms" or "progressives and reactionaries", sure, but that's what they were. These are descriptive terms, not proper nouns. "democratic norms" are behaviors in the public sphere that are expected under the assumption that politicians are interested in the good of everyone and that the popular will has political meaning. "progressives" are politicians who want to improve society throu…

Leaving aside the historiographical issue of how projecting modern descriptive terms onto the past fundamentally distorts our understanding of how people back then conceived of their society, I'm afraid you're laboring under some extreme misapprehensions about the nature of the late Republican government. That Republican Rome was governed by an aristocratic land-owning oligarchy for pretty much its entire existence is an undisputed historical fact. The Gracchi were wealthy members of the ruling elite wielding land redistribution as a political tool in their competition for power with other members of the ruling elite. They weren't ordinary Roman citizens organizing popular resistance from below.

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

#56

Post by dv_dt » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

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…

How should history account for the economic unrest allowing the Gracchi to come to power? It seems that if the overall economic system were not functioning to distribute prosperity widely enough then some sort of chaos would ensue - is it the norm breaking, could the economic instability be a stronger contributing cause? Would the norm breaking even be possible without the lack of access to economic opportunity?

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

#57

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:29 PM UTC

all2 wrote: post #41

swift532 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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' reaso…

Psyops, definitely. jimjimjim upthread has the right idea. Start by setting up all sorts of alternative news sources each of which tell you to distruct the others. Get the militia movement on side, that's completely critical. Have a convicted traitor running the NRA. The kind of people who volunteer to do their own immigration enforcement, or who seize wildlife reserves. All this lot hate the "federal government", so you have to rebadge the takeover as something else.

Spread reports of election interference by "liberals". Use it as a pretext for cancelling polling in certain counties. Stage a couple of mass shootings at polling places. Bingo.

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

#58

Post by hannasanarion » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:30 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #49

hannasanarion wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

So? They were still elected by popular vote. The fact that votes were grouped in a certain way doesn't suddenly change the system from democracy to something else.

If you demand that all matters must be decided by simple-majority popular vote in order to call a government "democratic" then there has never been a democratic government in all of history. Even Ancient Athens had assemblies, councils, tribunals, and other elected offices.

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

#59

Post by geogra4 » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:30 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #21

safgasCVS wrote: post #20

I really enjoyed Dan Carlin’s ‘Celtic holocaust’ that went at length into the character and motivations of Julius Caesar. What I mostly appreciate in listening to Carlin is his ability to sympathize with the people living through the moment but being respectful not to bias his reading of history so it doesnt reflect modern wishes and thinking. It’s in this vein I criticize the book as it sounds like it’s applying mod…

That reading of the fall of the Republic long pre-dates Trump. The final years of the Republic were characterized by fights over citizenship for the Italians, consolidation of land in the hands of a small number of slave-owning oligarchs, meaning that more and more people were unemployed and ineligible for political advancement, and politicians breaking the political rules to push their agenda (kick out the guy vetoi…

>The final years of the Republic were characterized by fights over citizenship for the Italians, consolidation of land in the hands of a small number of slave-owning oligarchs, meaning that more and more people were unemployed and ineligible for political advancement, and politicians breaking the political rules to push their agenda (kick out the guy vetoing my popular bill) or halt someone else's (kill the guy who passed that popular bill).

well, that sounds very much like today!

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

#60

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:34 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #42

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.

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.

Because (despite what you seem to think) Citizens United did not create a tyranny.

And it seems ironic that you oppose Citizens United, but favor the First Amendment. If Citizens United had been decided the other direction, that would have been a blow against the First Amendment.