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

How to Enter a City Like a King

worldhistory.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: How to Enter a City Like a King

#11

Post by dragontamer »

tooheavy wrote: post #9

Does anyone know the literature on adding people or individuals to groups, even an individual to a city? And the implications or outcomes of adding individuals of differing characteristics, potential for power, wealth, success, status, displacement, influence, or any number of other qualities, etc. I suspect this highlights fundamental elements of our social nature, our culture and societies, their values and problem…

Well this particular instance is about succession, the new king entered the city after the previous monarch died. London needed a new king so everyone was triumphant and celebrated the new replacement.

This isn't quite what you are talking about at all. The number of rich people in this example decreased on a country wide scale, but simultaneously the Nobility system was basically founded upon familial-wealth / dynasty wealth, rather than any individual having wealth. So in the old system the haves-families always had wealth and the have-nots always will not have wealth.

Re: How to Enter a City Like a King

#13

Post by churchill »

bombcar wrote: post #10
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but they killed that guy later in the week, so one can understand why other kings declined to follow his example.

Has someone run the numbers on how likely you are to be murdered/killed in war/assassinated as a King, historically?

Can't say for all monarchs through human history (nor is it even possible to), but for the Roman emperors, 70% died violent deaths via assassination (actual and suspected), execution, suicide, or being KIA.

You had some particularly colorful episodes like the year of the four emperors where Nero's regional governors revolted and he committed suicide. Galba, a general, was declared imperator by his troops, only to be overthrown and killed by the Praetorians 6 months later.

Otho seized power, but died by suicide after he was defeated by Vitellius 3 months later.

Vitellius was declared emperor by his troops after defeating Otho at Bedriacum; held onto power for 7-8 months before being defeated & executed by Vespasian at the 2nd battle of Bedriacum.

Vespasian seized power and had himself proclaimed emperor by his legions, reigning for ~10 years.

Re: How to Enter a City Like a King

#14

Post by quacked »

I often think about how much human labor there is available at any given moment, and how in any minute some percentage of "available labor" is bound up doing something.

Back in the day, with billions fewer people, you could still bind up some percentage of available labor making beautiful gates for the coronation, or staging mock battles for the king as he passed. Today, I guess people make marketing copy for cat food and run professional sports. And yet a great many of us are still alive, having continued to survive despite our countrymen spending all their available labor on frivolity.

What percentage of that "available labor" is really truly usefully bound up in making sure we don't all starve to death, get violently invaded, or die of exposure?

I wish I could see what kind of society would appear if that pool of "available labor" was turned toward purposes I personally consider worthy--caring for the weak, erecting and protecting great monuments and cities and wild areas, etc. Obviously this has been attempted before in various different regimes--merely having full dominion over all "available labor" and turning it toward "worthy purposes" does not automatically create a great nation, as the USSR and China found out--but it doesn't stop me from wondering, if Man wasn't so busy making gates for the king or increasing user conversion from 17.805% to 17.873%, what would that society look like?

Re: How to Enter a City Like a King

#16

Post by ctrlp »

bombcar wrote: post #10
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but they killed that guy later in the week, so one can understand why other kings declined to follow his example.

Has someone run the numbers on how likely you are to be murdered/killed in war/assassinated as a King, historically?

For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground

And tell sad stories of the death of kings;

How some have been deposed; some slain in war,

Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;

Some poison’d by their wives: some sleeping kill’d;

All murder’d: for within the hollow crown

That rounds the mortal temples of a king

Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,

Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,

Allowing him a breath, a little scene,

To monarchize, be fear’d and kill with looks,

Infusing him with self and vain conceit,

As if this flesh which walls about our life,

Were brass impregnable, and humor’d thus

Comes at the last and with a little pin

Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!

Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood

With solemn reverence: throw away respect,

Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,

For you have but mistook me all this while:

I live with bread like you, feel want,

Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,

How can you say to me, I am a king?

Re: How to Enter a City Like a King

#17

Post by card_zero »

quacked wrote: post #14

I often think about how much human labor there is available at any given moment, and how in any minute some percentage of "available labor" is bound up doing something. Back in the day, with billions fewer people, you could still bind up some percentage of available labor making beautiful gates for the coronation, or staging mock battles for the king as he passed. Today, I guess people make marketing copy for cat foo…

Nobody knows what percentage. Besides, people want more than to be fed, sheltered, and protected from violent attacks. Undoubtedly they are often wrong and want ridiculous pointless things, but nobody knows exactly which things are the wrong things. That's why we have a diverse society of idiots, all trying different things.

What intrigues me is that all of it is considered "economic activity", and counts toward GDP and is considered beneficial, even flower arranging and witchcraft accessories and cloud-connected sneakers. Somehow that assessment ends up being correct, because nobody knows for sure which parts are bullshit.

Re: How to Enter a City Like a King

#18

Post by chuckadams »

dragontamer wrote: post #11
tooheavy wrote: post #9

Does anyone know the literature on adding people or individuals to groups, even an individual to a city? And the implications or outcomes of adding individuals of differing characteristics, potential for power, wealth, success, status, displacement, influence, or any number of other qualities, etc. I suspect this highlights fundamental elements of our social nature, our culture and societies, their values and problem…

Well this particular instance is about succession, the new king entered the city after the previous monarch died. London needed a new king so everyone was triumphant and celebrated the new replacement. This isn't quite what you are talking about at all. The number of rich people in this example decreased on a country wide scale, but simultaneously the Nobility system was basically founded upon familial-wealth / dynas…

> everyone was triumphant and celebrated the new replacement.

Well, except for the bakers dozen who tried to blow him up, but that was a couple years later.

Re: How to Enter a City Like a King

#20

Post by quacked »

card_zero wrote: post #17
quacked wrote: post #14

I often think about how much human labor there is available at any given moment, and how in any minute some percentage of "available labor" is bound up doing something. Back in the day, with billions fewer people, you could still bind up some percentage of available labor making beautiful gates for the coronation, or staging mock battles for the king as he passed. Today, I guess people make marketing copy for cat foo…

Nobody knows what percentage. Besides, people want more than to be fed, sheltered, and protected from violent attacks. Undoubtedly they are often wrong and want ridiculous pointless things, but nobody knows exactly which things are the wrong things. That's why we have a diverse society of idiots, all trying different things. What intrigues me is that all of it is considered "economic activity", and counts toward GDP…

I agree, but surely with some strict definitions, you could get within 5%.

I am intrigued by the same thing you are. How does it all count as economic activity? What percentage of the flower-arranging has to be done to ensure that the medicine-manufacturing can be done? It's such an endless chain--"I pay the credit card fee on my purchase of custom stationary to the credit card company and the credit card company rolls it up in its revenue projections and forecasts a more profitable Q3 so their stock price increases so the portfolio-holding lenders are more lenient with their loan terms so Pfizer takes out a larger loan to build a factory in Bangalore to run the manufacturing lines..."

If the custom-stationary buying stops, so does the factory-loan lending... and vice versa.

Post reply on HN