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

How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#111

Post by ethbr1 »

jltsiren wrote: post #99
ethbr1 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His modern stuff is more... eh. E.g. I thought there were a lot of flaws in his early-war "NATO can't supply X, because Russia will threaten nukes" positions, as he completed ignored the obvious opposite "Russia can't escalate, because NATO will threaten nukes" 110% love his Roman-period deep dives though. There's probably a smarter quip than me out there to the effect of "Great people share their brilliance on many…

Wasn't the standard model for how a nuclear war would start basically "if you escalate, the reasonable expectation is that the other side will escalate as well"? If you escalate despite the nukes on the other side, it would be risky to assume that the other side is unwilling to do the same. If you escalate, you signal your intent to start a nuclear war if the other side does not back down. But if you are willing to d…

Inasmuch as I've read, and that's mostly 60s/70s stuff, most stable escalation theory is based on messaging and red lines.

I.e. identifying a future possibility and loudly proclaiming that if (and only if) it happens, then this nuclear action will take place (and stop there)

Essentially, trying to avoid surprise and uncertainty by tying specific actions to reactions, with the hope of avoiding runaway escalation-begats-escalation scenarios.

Which is notably the opposite of what Russia has been doing, which is more along the lines of "If the West pushes us too far... they're in for it", which is more the kind of bluff you'd make if you never intended to actually escalate (because you create the fear without establishing any requirements to escalate on yourself).

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#112

Post by url00 »

henrikschroder wrote: post #55
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently read Rubicon by Tom Holland, and honestly I came away from that book feeling like it's Sulla, not Caesar, who truly deserves the blame for the downfall of the Republic. Like yeah, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but that seal was broken decades earlier by Sulla. If Caesar hadn't done it, someone else would have because it was clear that there would be no real consequences as long as you could win the war. And…

> Rubicon by Tom Holland I'm currently listening my way through The Rest Is History, the podcast he does with Dominic Sandbrook. Very entertaning, highly recommended!

Me too! It’s definitely my favorite podcast at the moment. The series on Churchill in particular was very entertaining and educational for me.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#113

Post by hef19898 »

waihtis wrote: post #110
hef19898 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a Monarchy, or Oligarchy, not everyone who thinks they can make into the ruling class will manage to do so.

thats exactly how it should be. only a small percent of people have any business in being rulers of people.

Whixh is exactly how it should not be... But let me guess, you think you might be one of those "special" few?

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#114

Post by waihtis »

hef19898 wrote: post #113
waihtis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats exactly how it should be. only a small percent of people have any business in being rulers of people.

Whixh is exactly how it should not be... But let me guess, you think you might be one of those "special" few?

While being a King would be a lucrative profession, I have very few qualities that would be mandatory for success in that position.

I would still 100% support a more lean, highly qualified leadership versus a large pool of untalented career-driven nitwits which is what most western governments have to offer.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#115

Post by DylanSp »

eru wrote: post #104
philipov wrote: post #18

I hope he does a series like this on civic governance in Han China next!

Yes. Though I'd be more interested in Song China, ever since reading The Gunpowder Age by Tonio Andrande. Btw, Tonio Andrande's 'How Taiwan Became Chinese' is available for free online at http://www.gutenberg-e.org/andrade/intro.html

He's referenced Andrade's work in the past, so that's actually a possibility, though I think he'd focus more on their military due to his focus and background.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#116

Post by namaria »

thom wrote: post #105
namaria wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to get technical, the Roman Republic controlled provinces and ally states. Emperor was the title of a victorious general, and a notion of a "Roman Empire" is an artifact of modern scholarship.

I don’t think there’s much difference between our concept of empire and what Polybius called “ἀρχή” in his Histories (“dominion”, perhaps). He compares Rome to Persia and yes, some smaller states like Sparta, but it’s clearly in the context of acquiring and controlling large territories. That the Roman war machine had a particularly efficient and (for the most part) inclusive manner of absorbing territories doesn’t r…

Any abstraction on concrete concepts of public administration across millennia (especially involving translations from ancient/dead languages) is very lossy.

> I don’t think there’s much difference between our concept of empire and what Polybius called “ἀρχή” in his Histories (“dominion”, perhaps)

Yes there is. You could write a doctorate thesis on the differences.

> That the Roman war machine had a particularly efficient and (for the most part) inclusive manner of absorbing territories doesn’t really change the nature of the resulting entity even if we use different words.

What is 'the Roman war machine'? How did it absorb territories? Which territory? Are we talking italic peninsula, client kingdoms, consular provinces or imperial dominions? From which time specifically? Efficiency is an entire topic in itself. The levels of corruption, the predatory nature of the tax collection enterprises (it was typically farmed out to private investors), were all very inefficient.

Saying Roman Empire and Persian (Seleucid?) Empire is a didactic simplification and I don't think there's any grounds to equating ἀρχή (which is also the root in archaic, archaeology, archetype, among others) to the modern concept of Empire or the the ancient concepts used in ancient polities to handle the intricacies of moving around troops, collecting taxes and dispensing justice across millions of square miles in Roman, Persian, or any Hellenistic state contemporary to Polybius for that matter.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#117

Post by thom »

namaria wrote: post #116
thom wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think there’s much difference between our concept of empire and what Polybius called “ἀρχή” in his Histories (“dominion”, perhaps). He compares Rome to Persia and yes, some smaller states like Sparta, but it’s clearly in the context of acquiring and controlling large territories. That the Roman war machine had a particularly efficient and (for the most part) inclusive manner of absorbing territories doesn’t r…

Any abstraction on concrete concepts of public administration across millennia (especially involving translations from ancient/dead languages) is very lossy. > I don’t think there’s much difference between our concept of empire and what Polybius called “ἀρχή” in his Histories (“dominion”, perhaps) Yes there is. You could write a doctorate thesis on the differences. > That the Roman war machine had a particularly effi…

Instead of getting into the weeds, let's rewind a bit. Do you believe the Roman Republic was ever in possession of something _we_ should recognise as an empire? You seemed to imply that you don't, so I'm interested in where our definition might fall short (and how would _you_ translate Polybius?) And then beyond that, what do you think is most interesting about how the Romans (or their subjects or enemies) perceived their many conquests and the vast territories that they acquired? What's the difference between their conception and ours? Genuine questions, hoping to learn!

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#118

Post by eru »

xg15 wrote: post #108
eru wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the Cold War was still raging, Thomas Schelling, of 'Strategy of Conflict' fame, pointed out that while the war stays cold thanks to the 'mutually assured destruction' consensus, it would be an optimal strategy in terms of bang-for-your-buck to pretend to have many more nukes than you actually have. Concretely, since no one ever wants to call your bluff and test your nuclear arsenal, it's natural to expect that…

Without wanting to do any speculation how the current situation will ever end, but I always assumed that the first stage of nuclear escalation would be weapons tests - to exactly call this kind of bluff of the other side and to signal that the own side would be actually capable of performing a nuclear strike. From what I know this was also what happened in the cold war - the nuclear threat back then was a lot more "p…

Yes. Though the test would only tell you that the other side has at least a few working nukes, not the proportion of working nukes.

(If a side could credibly commit to testing an unbiased (pseudo-) random sample of nukes, they would be able to convince the world that a large portion of their nukes work.

But I am not sure how you would do that without revealing all of your nukes?)

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#119

Post by nvm0n2 »

Jensson wrote: post #65
Rebelgecko wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people find it humorous because it's an unexpected instance of sexual dimorphism. Like a "Men are from Mars [not Ares]" kind of thing.

Since when is making fun of sexual dimorphism a thing? I thought we stopped doing that. Like, would it be funny if men asked women how often they think about celebrity relationships and drama? People just think about different things.

> Since when is making fun of sexual dimorphism a thing?

Since at least the days of the Roman Empire!

> I thought we stopped doing that.

Hollywood would love you to think so, but no, human nature is unchanging. This trend is huge exactly because it reminds us that men and women are different, and humans have derived humor from that fact since the dawn of time.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#120

Post by OscarCunningham »

belval wrote: post #77
bee_rider wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy has absolutely nailed the nerdy-but-accessible vibe, no surprise his posts are recurring first-pagers.

I wish we had a Bret Devereaux for more topics, but then I might never get things done.

Matt Levine for finance topics.
Post reply on HN