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

21–30 of 88 posts

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

#21

Post by hannasanarion »

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 vetoing my popular bill) or halt someone else's (kill the guy who passed that popular bill).

The exciting part of the fall of the republic that all the plays and history books are written about, with the civil wars and the dictators for life and the "friends, Romans, countrymen", that was all enabled by the earlier boring but highly consequential political fighting and norm-breaking.

Oh, and this was totally recognized at the time. Sulla tried to address these problems directly with his constitutional reforms, but it was too little to late. Later politicians like Cato and Cicero tried to re-normalize democratic behavior, but failed because their opposition had learned how much profit there was in abusing the system.

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

#22

Post by hannasanarion »

rrggrr wrote: post #19

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/c... Let's not forget that Rome was broke when it met its demise, having debased its currency as tax revenues declined, and after taxing land owners to the point that additional revenue was unavailable and - anecdotally at least - some land owners sold themselves into tax-free slavery rather than face the consequences of non-payment.

That's the Empire, not the Republic. We should be more interested in how Rome fell from a liberal democratic republic into autocratic tyranny before worrying about how it collapsed militarily after 400 years of brutal dictatorship.

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

#23

Post by jdpedrie »

hannasanarion wrote: post #22
rrggrr wrote: post #19

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/c... Let's not forget that Rome was broke when it met its demise, having debased its currency as tax revenues declined, and after taxing land owners to the point that additional revenue was unavailable and - anecdotally at least - some land owners sold themselves into tax-free slavery rather than face the consequences of non-payment.

That's the Empire, not the Republic. We should be more interested in how Rome fell from a liberal democratic republic into autocratic tyranny before worrying about how it collapsed militarily after 400 years of brutal dictatorship.

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 answer is “it’s more complicated”.

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

#24

Post by ricree »

hannasanarion wrote: post #9
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.

Fabian tactics didn't defeat Hannibal. Hannibal's Italian army was never defeated. Rome won the war by ignoring Hannibal and striking at Carthage directly. The threat to the homeland forced Carthage to recall Hannibal, leaving his best troops in Italy, to fight a losing battle with fresh recruits against Roman veterans in Africa.

That was largely the point of the Fabian strategy, was it not? Similar to the concept of a Fleet in Being[1], maintaining a functioning force is protected, but still able to threaten the other side constrains their options and makes it harder for them to achieve victory. Hannibal may have never lost in Italy, but he was nonetheless prevented from winning either. Though the main armies could only do so much to keep him from taking objectives, it made it difficult for him to maintain control over them. Notably, Hannibal had difficulty securing lasting control or alliance with many of the Italian city states, and those he did control often required losing some of his limited forces in order to garrison, otherwise they risked being retaken by the Roman army once Hannibal had moved on.

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

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

#25

Post by iseeyoubydesign »

nkingsy wrote: post #12

The economist has been freaking out about norms destruction since day 1 of the trump whitehouse. This “book review” seems like just another chance to sound their favorite alarm. Not that they’re wrong, but the people (at least almost half of them) voted for someone who promised to break these norms. As far as I’m concerned, we signed a contract for 4 years of bull in china shop. Smart people need to be focusing on he…

the rage is not winding, its now a part of cultural. There are kids that have seen antifa rallies and this is the norm to them. On the other end there are kids that have seen this and will always see these people as traitors. Maybe the protest are a fad but the supporters of the protest and against the protest have deep seeded hate.

We are in the anti civil rights era. Where the position of segregation and identity politics is being sold as the answer for the outcome of the equality era.

This is not a position argued , but a position felt. Many dont like minority quotas and many dont trust white men. The diversity is our strength idea while not wrong does not come without costs.

If I told you a new norm would be secession would you accept that?

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

#26

Post by hannasanarion »

jdpedrie wrote: post #23
hannasanarion wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the Empire, not the Republic. We should be more interested in how Rome fell from a liberal democratic republic into autocratic tyranny before worrying about how it collapsed militarily after 400 years of brutal dictatorship.

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 democracy, then why did the Populares exist at all? In an oligarchy, wouldn't a political party that panders to the masses be utterly powerless?

While Romans didn't call what they had liberalism, they definitely practiced a liberal society. People were free to speak their minds, travel as they wished, and speak for or against people in power however they wanted (see: Catullus and the invention of slam poetry).

All of these freedoms were locked down tight the moment Augustus came to power. People were okay with it, because having your speech, movement, and life trajectory restricted is better than being dead in a civil war, but Roman society under the Empire was way less free than Roman society under the Republic.

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

#27

Post by creaghpatr »

iseeyoubydesign wrote: post #25
nkingsy wrote: post #12

The economist has been freaking out about norms destruction since day 1 of the trump whitehouse. This “book review” seems like just another chance to sound their favorite alarm. Not that they’re wrong, but the people (at least almost half of them) voted for someone who promised to break these norms. As far as I’m concerned, we signed a contract for 4 years of bull in china shop. Smart people need to be focusing on he…

the rage is not winding, its now a part of cultural. There are kids that have seen antifa rallies and this is the norm to them. On the other end there are kids that have seen this and will always see these people as traitors. Maybe the protest are a fad but the supporters of the protest and against the protest have deep seeded hate. We are in the anti civil rights era. Where the position of segregation and identity p…

I think it's a fad. With social media as the main distribution channel, alignment with any of these causes is low investment.

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

#28

Post by verylittlemeat »

nkingsy wrote: post #12

The economist has been freaking out about norms destruction since day 1 of the trump whitehouse. This “book review” seems like just another chance to sound their favorite alarm. Not that they’re wrong, but the people (at least almost half of them) voted for someone who promised to break these norms. As far as I’m concerned, we signed a contract for 4 years of bull in china shop. Smart people need to be focusing on he…

Andrew Johnson was a norm breaking president and the United States survived

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

#29

Post by pjc50 »

nkingsy wrote: post #12

The economist has been freaking out about norms destruction since day 1 of the trump whitehouse. This “book review” seems like just another chance to sound their favorite alarm. Not that they’re wrong, but the people (at least almost half of them) voted for someone who promised to break these norms. As far as I’m concerned, we signed a contract for 4 years of bull in china shop. Smart people need to be focusing on he…

Some people say that Brexit was a similar act of norm-breaking, and now the govenment is stockpiling insulin in advance of their planned disaster.

The current US government is actually not all that bad in practical terms by the standards of its behaviour in the 60s and 70s, but this is mostly because it's corrupt and ineffectual. They can't even prevent their own money launderers from being jailed.

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

#30

Post by loudmax »

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.

Post reply on HN