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

21–30 of 126 posts

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

#21

Post by bigstrat2003 »

ulizzle wrote: post #17

I think I’m almost out of this illness. Still sweating the fever but no migraines Ive been reading a lot because that’s about the only thing I can do so I read the original Gallic wars from Julius Cesar and its funny because he’s painted like a bad guy today for becoming a dictator but the Senate was at that point so corrupt and inefficient and everyone hated it so he wasn’t the only one trying to get rid of democrac…

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 then Sulla painted the town red with blood to get rid of his enemies. All the reforms in the world can't undo that kind of damage to the social fabric, or so I would think. I am admittedly not the most knowledgeable about this topic, but it really does seem like Sulla should get the blame that Caesar does.

Also, one thing that struck me about the Republic is that it worked right up until people stopped upholding the social norms that made it work. And while one might say the lesson is "make your system of government work without social norms", I wonder if such a thing is possible. Looking at the US government it seems damaged (not broken yet, at least) precisely because we have stopped upholding the social norms that made it work. This being despite the fact that the US constitution seems to be more robust than what the Romans had! It really makes me wonder if any form of government, no matter what, absolutely relies on social norms to work well (and breaks down when those norms do).

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

#22

Post by swasheck »

belval wrote: post #8
snowpid wrote: post #4

This is the reason I think about the Roman Empire at least once a week!

This has the be the funniest trend to come out of Tiktok. My SO point blank asked me how many times I thought about the roman empire and I replied "I don't know, once or twice a week". Little does she know we get a post from acoup every week! Reference (for those out of the loop): https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/09/18/how-ofte...

my wife asked me and i said once per week. then she and my daughter cackled and asked me to repeat my answer and i knew i was about to become part of a trend so i refused. but isn't it fascinating how truly interested in the roman republic and emopire we are? people are coming up with theories about why this is the case but i'm not sure any of them resonate with me. i was always more of a greece person until i visited italy 7 years ago and i was thoroughly smitten.

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

#23

Post by [deleted] »

riazrizvi wrote: post #9

Point to Charlie Munger, whom I was critical of a few days ago, how is so much written on how the Roman Republic worked, without talking about the most basic of incentive structures that drove its citizens to work like no others in the first place - The Law of Twelve Tables? It gave every citizen property rights that were protected by the State. The system was _the_ get rich game for the common man (after Alexander r…

[deleted]

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

#24

Post by waihtis »

ulizzle wrote: post #17

I think I’m almost out of this illness. Still sweating the fever but no migraines Ive been reading a lot because that’s about the only thing I can do so I read the original Gallic wars from Julius Cesar and its funny because he’s painted like a bad guy today for becoming a dictator but the Senate was at that point so corrupt and inefficient and everyone hated it so he wasn’t the only one trying to get rid of democrac…

We’re super close to it given how many states have abandoned and spat on the contributing class in favour of egalitarianism.

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

#27

Post by digging »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #21
ulizzle wrote: post #17

I think I’m almost out of this illness. Still sweating the fever but no migraines Ive been reading a lot because that’s about the only thing I can do so I read the original Gallic wars from Julius Cesar and its funny because he’s painted like a bad guy today for becoming a dictator but the Senate was at that point so corrupt and inefficient and everyone hated it so he wasn’t the only one trying to get rid of democrac…

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…

Sulla often gets the opposite treatment because he retired from dictatorship, but it's important to keep in mind exactly the problems you raise. Mass murder causes stress to a society, regardless of intent.

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

#28

Post by thom »

throwawaycities wrote: post #16
snowpid wrote: post #4

This is the reason I think about the Roman Empire at least once a week!

That is one of the great ironies of the meme… Most people self-identifying that they think about the Roman Empire don’t seem to know the difference between the Roman Republic & Roman Empire (much less the period of Kings)…it’s all just the Roman Empire.

Well, the Roman Republic had an empire so you can see where it gets confusing.

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

#29

Post by lainga »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #21
ulizzle wrote: post #17

I think I’m almost out of this illness. Still sweating the fever but no migraines Ive been reading a lot because that’s about the only thing I can do so I read the original Gallic wars from Julius Cesar and its funny because he’s painted like a bad guy today for becoming a dictator but the Senate was at that point so corrupt and inefficient and everyone hated it so he wasn’t the only one trying to get rid of democrac…

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…

"Time was when men could (so to speak) of a given man, by nourishing and decorating him with fit appliances, to the due pitch, make themselves a King, almost as the Bees do ... How such Ideals do realise themselves; and grow, wondrously, from amid the incongruous ever-fluctuating chaos of the Actual ... How they grow; and, after long stormy growth, bloom out mature, supreme; then quickly (for the blossom is brief) fall into decay; sorrowfully dwindle; and crumble down, or rush down, noisily or noiselessly disappearing."

(Carlyle's history of the French Revolution)

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

#30

Post by DylanSp »

philipov wrote: post #18

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

As great as that would be, it's well out of Devereaux's area of specialization; I don't think he'd feel like he could do that topic justice. If you look up his older series on farming, he notes in the introduction and in his addendum on rice farming that he's not as familiar with Chinese history.
Post reply on HN