|
feedmegin posted:Um. They align a lot more closely with the 18th century King, Lords and Commons tbh. yeah probably. More realistically all three approaches are similar solutions to similar problems e: and it's entirely possible I'm completely overestimating the amount the Roman system inspired the American founders, though on the other hand when they name their more distinguished body "the senate" it's pretty easy to assume that the parallel was intentional. I have not read much specifically on which aspects of the constitution were inspired by what though so I could be off-base cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Sep 18, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I ask these questions because I was taught that American democracy is built off a similar structure as the Romans or Greeks system of government. while that's a simplistic summary of the intellectual heritage of the constitution, it isn't wrong. but that statement is not referring to the US government in 2019; try 1783 instead. modern american democracy is the result of two and a half centuries of reforms to a system that was fundamentally rather similar to the roman republic, filtered through enlightenment-era sensibilities. as mentioned, the electoral college is similar to the tribal divisions; it doesn't favor specific classes and such explicitly like the roman system, but it's a good example of an un-democratic voting system that was inherited from the roman republic. the roman heritage of the US government is most evident in the un-democratic elements that still remain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Family Values posted:There were as many Greek systems as there were Greek cities, so 'the Greek system' is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:When people say that they seem to usually mean Athens, but with an implicit understanding that also BTW Sparta was very cool and manly. Nobody brags much on Thebes, for instance, though I think Thebes did at least as well as Athens or Sparta - they just didn't produce as much literature to carry forwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i talk about thebes, thebes ruled please effortpost thebes I feel like everything I've read about classical Greece is just Xenophon, Herodotus, and Thucydides filtered through modern authors
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
I'm very far from an expert but I thought classical greece could largely be broken down into democracies, tyrannies, oligarchies, and Sparta's weird system? please correct if I'm wrong I would love to be better informed
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Were horse-drawn carriages functionally the same up until the fossil fuel era or were there technological changes that caused improvement since ancient times? Were they strictly limited to roads and paths? I'm having a hard time imagining them covering rough terrain. How much did it hamper military logistics to lack access to roads or good paths? Would the legionnaires march carrying all their personal gear or would they have been assigned carts to carry it for them? Half-joking, but would the Romans have had anything like the conspicuous consumption of personal vehicles that we have? How many of the camp followers would be slaves/employees of the state versus private individuals trying to make a profit? Did the Romans have a coherent policy for managing camp followers or was it at the discretion of the commanding officers? EDIT: And what was the system for profiting from looting and enslavement? Would soldiers have the right to sell whoever/whatever they grabbed, or would the state take ownership of all captives/loot and assign a share to each soldier? Was it a systematic process, ot just complete mayhem? I'm imagining drunk Roman soldiers stabbing each other in a burning city over nice set of silver candlesticks...was it really that bad? Corsec fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
This thread has been very educational. Thanks for the responses. It seems that democracy (or anything resembling close to universal suffrage) is an extremely recent thing in recorded history and is a huge recent experiment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
also greek government as it existed had very little influence on modern democracy basically anywhere. the inspiration that was taken from the greeks is more in the category of philosophy than practical governance
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:while that's a simplistic summary of the intellectual heritage of the constitution, it isn't wrong. but that statement is not referring to the US government in 2019; try 1783 instead. Eh, I don't know about that. The US Senate, despite the name, was not analogous to anything in the Roman Republic. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and the point of the senate was to safeguard the states' sovereignty against the federal government. The framers of the US system were essentially Romaphiles and just wanted to cosplay as Ancient Romans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
I do get the sense that being part of the Delian League was a worse deal than being under the regional dominion of the Roman republic, although they both had their issues. Rome eventually extended citizenship to further regions, although there was a lot of stress in the process. Athenian democracy also wound up killing itself by getting invested into the idea of attacking Sicily, which doesn't speak well to its functionality. Although maybe Rome didn't make better decisions, maybe they were just plain better fighters who crushed all potential competition before they started getting dysfunctional. I think Roman women had a better deal than Athenian women, but that's really not saying much at all. I don't think I've heard much about any Roman inclination to pederasty at least. Neither of those have much to do with government type though, unless it's in a weird roundabout way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:e: and it's entirely possible I'm completely overestimating the amount the Roman system inspired the American founders, though on the other hand when they name their more distinguished body "the senate" it's pretty easy to assume that the parallel was intentional. I have not read much specifically on which aspects of the constitution were inspired by what though so I could be off-base Classical allusions were in the air. The Anti-Federalist papers were written under pen names like Cato and Brutus, the Federalist papers under that of Publius (Valerius Poplicola, one of the first two consuls of the republic). They weren’t trying to literally recreate the Roman state, but any well-educated American would have thought of Rome the instant a republic was mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Eh, I don't know about that. The US Senate, despite the name, was not analogous to anything in the Roman Republic. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and the point of the senate was to safeguard the states' sovereignty against the federal government. definitely not 1:1, no. what influence there was, was filtered through enlightenment ideals and also influence from the structure of 1700s-era parliament, which the US senate more closely resembles than it does anything roman
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Corsec posted:Would the legionnaires march carrying all their personal gear or would they have been assigned carts to carry it for them? It probably wildly varied by era but at least in the late republic they had pack animals (donkeys I believe) to carry their stuff. The supply train moved much slower than the army itself could move and this was a major point of weakness and deciding when and if to leave the bags you couldn't carry on your back behind was something generals spent a lot of time thinking about. quote:How many of the camp followers would be slaves/employees of the state versus private individuals trying to make a profit? Did the Romans have a coherent policy for managing camp followers or was it at the discretion of the commanding officers? There was definitely a mixture. Every century would have (I believe) 80 legionaries and 20 slaves as part of its official complement. There were also merchants who followed the army around and weren't state employees. Soldiers had to pay for food out of their paycheck and I think the army would buy up basic staples like wheat for soldiers to purchase at a fixed price, but if they wanted something like fruit or meat or salt they'd go to the merchants following the army. Generals definitely spent time thinking about camp followers (sometimes seizing their vessels to use in a makeshift navy for instance, or trying to convince the enemy's camp followers to follow your army instead) but I don't know if there was a coherent policy. I'm guessing there wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Corsec posted:Were horse-drawn carriages functionally the same up until the fossil fuel era or were there technological changes that caused improvement since ancient times? Springs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:e: and it's entirely possible I'm completely overestimating the amount the Roman system inspired the American founders, though on the other hand when they name their more distinguished body "the senate" it's pretty easy to assume that the parallel was intentional. Well they could hardly call it the Lords so wadyagonnado, at least everyones heard of senates and it sounds respectable
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
You still has differentiate between actual democracy (power with the people) and voting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Springs. Right, so as well as comfort how would this affect performance for factors like durability, range and passable terrain? What was the historical timeline for implementation, and how did this affect transportation and logistics? EDIT: I read that travelling by carriage without suspension would be exhausting. How bad would it be really? I mean, at the end of a trip would people be falling out of the carriage all sweaty and covered in bruises? Corsec fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Corsec posted:Were horse-drawn carriages functionally the same up until the fossil fuel era or were there technological changes that caused improvement since ancient times? Were they strictly limited to roads and paths? I'm having a hard time imagining them covering rough terrain. How much did it hamper military logistics to lack access to roads or good paths? I don't know the technical difference, but coaches caught on in a big way in 17th century England. At the start of the era, only invalids don't ride, but by the reign of Charles II using a coach is a big status symbol. Although now I think about it, sedan chairs also catch on over the same period, so perhaps it was just people getting decadent during the Restoration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I don't know the technical difference, but coaches caught on in a big way in 17th century England. At the start of the era, only invalids don't ride, but by the reign of Charles II using a coach is a big status symbol. According to Macaulay this is just because the roads sucked balls. I’ll see if I can dig up the passage when I get home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Corsec posted:EDIT: I read that travelling by carriage without suspension would be exhausting. How bad would it be really? I mean, at the end of a trip would people be falling out of the carriage all sweaty and covered in bruises? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvBUojP51DQ&t=222s
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I don't know the technical difference, but coaches caught on in a big way in 17th century England. At the start of the era, only invalids don't ride, but by the reign of Charles II using a coach is a big status symbol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Here is another baby's first Rome question. Was Rome by far the biggest superpower of its time? It is often portrayed as the strongest superpower in all of human history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:that's weird as hell, 30yw generals park their carriages behind the battlefield lol According to Wikipedia, the coach was invented in Kocs, Hungary (hence the name) in the fifteenth century, so it may be a case of slow east to west transmission. Cromwell nearly killed himself driving his own carriage through Hyde Park when he was Protector.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Here is another baby's first Rome question. Was Rome by far the biggest superpower of its time? It is often portrayed as the strongest superpower in all of human history. well, "its time" could be any of two thousand or so years. Assuming you mean at its height, it was roughly equal in population to contemporary China from a quick google (and I believe larger in landmass because Europe had lower population density). Militarily, it had trouble with the various middle eastern states centered in modern Iraq and Iran for basically its entire history (first the Parthians, then the Sassanid Persians, then the Arabs). At the height of Rome's power, it conquered Iraq and parts of Iran but ended up abandoning the new provinces two years later, and this was after a series of two centuries of repeated attempts to invade going poorly. "Strongest superpower in history" is a super vague term and I don't really know how to rate it, but off the top of my head, it had far less global power than modern America or the Soviet Union, just because its influence was limited by the communications and transportation technologies of the day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Here is another baby's first Rome question. Was Rome by far the biggest superpower of its time? It is often portrayed as the strongest superpower in all of human history. I think military strength is one of those things that's hard to consider easily... like, to make an analogy, the wrestler Mark Henry probably was legitimately the world's strongest man when he was a competitive weightlifter, and he's probably in the top ten now. And he would certainly not be someone you would want to fight for real. But is he the "best" fighter, even in his general weight class?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
One thing to keep in mind with Rome at its peak is that it pretty much expanded and controlled as far in any direction as the geography would allow. To the south was the Sahara, to the north was rocks and ice, and to the and west was the Atlantic. To the north-east was a featureless steppe covered by homicidal tribes and land with no practical value, and to the more southerly east were the various Persian empires, which were separated from the Romans by a mix of mountains and deserts. There was pretty much nowhere else to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:One thing to keep in mind with Rome at its peak is that it pretty much expanded and controlled as far in any direction as the geography would allow. To the south was the Sahara, to the north was rocks and ice, and to the and west was the Atlantic. To the north-east was a featureless steppe covered by homicidal tribes and land with no practical value, and to the more southerly east were the various Persian empires, which were separated from the Romans by a mix of mountains and deserts. There was pretty much nowhere else to go. cowards never invaded ireland smh
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Wasn’t the reasoning behind age limitations on running for office in the US constitution directly citing the cursus honorum? That strikes me as a fairly “the founders specifically had the republic in mind” element e: and it also reinforces the proposition that the Roman parts of the US constitution are also the most undemocratic as the primary political fault line in the US is generational
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:According to Wikipedia, the coach was invented in Kocs, Hungary (hence the name) in the fifteenth century...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Here is another baby's first Rome question. Was Rome by far the biggest superpower of its time? It is often portrayed as the strongest superpower in all of human history. Rome was the greatest power of the Mediterranean from the Second Punic War on (post 201 BC), by far the greatest power after the Seleucid war (post 190 BC), and from around the middle of the 2nd century BC until the formal partition of the empire in AD 395 was effectively sole superpower in the Mediterranean world. There were other extremely powerful states in the world at this time (Han China is the obvious one) but contact between the Han and Rome was very sporadic and informal by modern standards, so it would be hard to compare their relative strengths even if we did have good data on the subject, which we don’t. During this (mid 2nd c. BC-late 4th c. AD) time period of Roman dominance, no other entity bordering Rome was remotely comparable to it in power except Parthia/Persia, which was seriously inferior to it in strength, yet too big for it to easily absorb. The heartland of the Parthian and Persian states in Mesopotamia got invaded and devastated multiple times by Roman armies in this period without the Parthians or even the somewhat more successful Persians ever getting an army anywhere near the Roman heartland. Even after the partition of the empire, the eastern empire was generally dominant over Persia until both were smashed by the Rashidun caliphs. The next most powerful state in the world as the Romans knew it during this period was probably Armenia. Below that there are much less organized societies that can’t really even be considered states, like the Gaulish nations conquered by Caesar and the Dacian kingdom reduced by Trajan. e: might also be worth considering that while the modern USA or any number of other recent states could obviously have taken Rome in a fight, no other power, whether with guns, planes, nukes, knives or sharp sticks, has ever succeeded in simultaneously ruling every littoral of the Mediterranean. skasion fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Here is another baby's first Rome question. Was Rome by far the biggest superpower of its time? It is often portrayed as the strongest superpower in all of human history. If we take Rome at its territorial height under Trajan, the only other comparable empire on Earth was Han China. I don't know what "strongest superpower in all of human history" is supposed to mean since any number of modern empires have been far more dominant than the Romans could have dreamed of. It's hard to argue for anything other than the post-WW2 United States as strongest superpower in history. Corsec posted:Would the legionnaires march carrying all their personal gear or would they have been assigned carts to carry it for them? Legions had baggage trains. They became much smaller after Marius introduced the idea of legionaries carrying all their own equipment in order to speed up the army's marches. The Romans also tried to supply armies by ship whenever possible, you can imagine a field army out fighting somewhere with a series of supply bases and runs headed back to the nearest navigable river or shoreline where ships are dropping off supplies. Corsec posted:Half-joking, but would the Romans have had anything like the conspicuous consumption of personal vehicles that we have? There are instances of rich people having fancy pleasure boats or particularly lavish litters to be carried in, so sort of? Corsec posted:How many of the camp followers would be slaves/employees of the state versus private individuals trying to make a profit? Did the Romans have a coherent policy for managing camp followers or was it at the discretion of the commanding officers? Dunno about the first. Officially legionaries were not allowed to have wives/girlfriends with them but unofficially most commanders seem to have looked the other way as long as it wasn't causing problems. Corsec posted:EDIT: And what was the system for profiting from looting and enslavement? Would soldiers have the right to sell whoever/whatever they grabbed, or would the state take ownership of all captives/loot and assign a share to each soldier? Was it a systematic process, ot just complete mayhem? I'm imagining drunk Roman soldiers stabbing each other in a burning city over nice set of silver candlesticks...was it really that bad? There wasn't a consistent system. Some generals would take all the loot and then give soldiers bonuses which could often be the majority of a soldier's real take home pay. We also have instances where a general would unleash soldiers to loot a city after it was taken, usually for a specific period of time set in advance. Supermarket Sweep for pillage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:a general would unleash soldiers to loot a city after it was taken, usually for a specific period of time set in advance. Supermarket Sweep for pillage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Here's the Macaulay bit I was thinking of. Bear in mind this is a Whig writing in the 1840s about the late 17th centuryquote:It was by the highways that both travellers and goods generally passed from place to place; and those highways appear to have been far worse than might have been expected from the degree of wealth and civilisation which the nation had even then attained. On the best lines of communication the ruts were deep, the descents precipitous, and the way often such as it was hardly possible to distinguish, in the dusk, from the unenclosed heath and fen which lay on both sides. Ralph Thorseby, the antiquary, was in danger of losing his way on the great North road, between Barnby Moor and Tuxford, and actually lost his way between Doncaster and York. He goes on to say that this was all because the roads were maintained by corvee at the parish level, so roads between big cities got incredibly lovely because way too many urbanites were traveling on them for the country people to repair them, and it wasn't fixed until tolls were accepted. He also says that pack horses were as common a way of moving goods as stage wagons, heavy goods such as coal were ruinously expensive to transport at all except by water, and that rich people commonly traveled with a coach and six, not to show off but because fewer horses meant you were more likely to "stick fast in the mire". skasion fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:this is still a thing in early modern europe and i would argue is still a thing now. in early modern europe it was part of "the law of war," which is a loose blob of customs that everyone just sort of "knows" Yeah if you surrender when asked nicely you won't* get raped and pillaged, but if you resist the approaching army your rear end is grass. *probably
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:this is still a thing in early modern europe and i would argue is still a thing now. in early modern europe it was part of "the law of war," which is a loose blob of customs that everyone just sort of "knows" So how would the soldiers resolve disputes and decide precedence among themselves when looting, if at all? I mean, I find it hard to believe that they'd keep polite discipline among themselves when loot is at stake when it's such a large proportion of their earnings. Would they accept that loot belonged to whoever grabbed it first, or would they insist on looting rights by rank, accomplishments or some other criteria? How often did they just shoot/stab each other in a quarrel over loot/women? I'm assuming that they must have had some informal understanding to keep infighting down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
I don't think we have that information for the Romans. My guess is that soldiers didn't loot individually, they would've looted as a contubernium and each decanus was responsible for keeping order between the men. Possibly doing it by century with the centurions in charge. And my further guess is that they'd loot as a group then divide it up together. There was surely some fighting but you wouldn't want your army just going hog on each other, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Didn't the development of the collars that let horses pull plows have some kind of an impact on carriages? Other than that, just looking at a 19th century carriage, there were a lot of improvements in seating, doors, windows, fancy folding roofs, and I think rubber tires came about just a bit before cars. I have wondered a lot how different covered wagons used by settlers in the early 19th century were from the wagons that ancient people would've used. How much technological improvement is there for the people trying to coast by as cheaply as possible 'cross the country?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Corsec posted:So how would the soldiers resolve disputes and decide precedence among themselves when looting, if at all? I mean, I find it hard to believe that they'd keep polite discipline among themselves when loot is at stake when it's such a large proportion of their earnings. Would they accept that loot belonged to whoever grabbed it first, or would they insist on looting rights by rank, accomplishments or some other criteria? How often did they just shoot/stab each other in a quarrel over loot/women? I'm assuming that they must have had some informal understanding to keep infighting down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:Wasn’t the reasoning behind age limitations on running for office in the US constitution directly citing the cursus honorum? That strikes me as a fairly “the founders specifically had the republic in mind” element eh, even if that's true the most undemocratic features of the US constitution are a combination of stuff that came out of grubby political deals and stuff that was never really planned in the first place
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:14
|
|
