Similarities through history. [Archive]

The Errant

08-02-2007, 13:00

Nations.

Carthage was a nation focused primarily on the aqusition of wealth trough trading. They fought wars to protect their commercial interests, rather than expansion and empire building.

The United States is the foremost speaker for globalisation, capitalism, and freedom trough democracy. Funny how they always manage to get involved in conflicts where their own commercial interests are at stake.

Rome. Highly nationalistic society with dreams of being an empire (until they managed just that). Convinced that they (and only they) know the best way of running the world. If the barbarians don't understand it's better to live under the auspices of Rome. Send a legion or two to teach them how to be good citizens.

The former Soviet Union. Very nationalistic. Equally convinced that their ideals and methods were superior to anyone elses. And should those others resist. Then they shall be crushed under the blessed boot of mother Russia. After all. Free nations cannot be expected to know for themselves, what is best for them.

Horst Nordfink

08-02-2007, 14:32

How interesting. The same can be said for America poking it's nose in other peoples business and trying to force "democracy" on countries through the barrel of a gun/blade of a sword. Although, were Rome usually won, America generally gets a good shoe-ing from the peasants they tried to dictate to.

Foot

08-02-2007, 14:46

The Errant

08-02-2007, 16:53

I believe that Athens makes a better comparison to America. It also conquered territories and in some cases forced democracy on the recently conquered inhabitants.

Compare to Persia, who on the whole couldn't care less as long as you sent money to Persis.

Foot

Personally I don't think the average american citizen gives a rat's ass if anyone in the world outside the U.S is living freedom and democracy. While the war in Afganistan can be somehow justified in getting rid off an openly terrorists supporting nation, their war in Iraq has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with oil. Oil they now control. If that isn't fighting a war for commercial interests and resources, what is?

Of all current nations in existence the U.S reminds me mostly of the money grabbing commercial empire. Just take a look at all the different customs and tariffs they have erected to "safeguard" the domestic industry. All the while they keep complaining that certain nations like China aren't opening their markets to "free trade" by having "illegal" customs against foreign companies. :dizzy2:
Their hypocracy stinks all the way to my country. And a live one big ocean and a smaller sea removed from them.

Persia is an example in expedience and practicality. You got an empire that spans roughly the know civilized world. In all that territory you got hundreds if not thousands of different peoples, cultures, languages, customs and religions. How do you manage something that big?
The Persians were happy in letting it run itself trough a large number of vassal rulers who had relatively free hands in running their respective territories. All the King of Kings asks, is that you contribute to the general welfare by paying tribute. A lot of which goes to pay the army that kept them in power.

Both the Diadochi and the Romans had another method. The Diadochi tried making the world greek by setting up colonies troughout their lands inhabited by greeks. Hoping that the culture that was at the top would gradually seep trough to the people beneath. Didn't work as well as they hoped. Even so it left a Greek legacy all over the Middle East.

The Romans were more thourough in making the whole Empire Roman. Taxation, administration, legal systems, agriculture, religion, infrastructure. Everything was exported from Rome to every corner of the Roman world. When the people who have previously been thinking of themselves as Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian, Celt or Numidian start thinking of themselves as Roman, you've won.

I know Athens was expansionistic. But unlike Cartage I don't think the sole reason for their expansion was money and profit.

Foot

08-02-2007, 17:03

Personally I don't think the average american citizen gives a rat's ass if anyone in the world outside the U.S is living freedom and democracy. While the war in Afganistan can be somehow justified in getting rid off an openly terrorists supporting nation, their war in Iraq has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with oil. Oil they now control. If that isn't fighting a war for commercial interests and resources, what is?

Meh, and unimportant point. What people care about, and what they want to care about are two different things. Or more generally, the way people are and they way they want to be are invariably different. The former is indicates the psychology, sociology (and to a lesser extent, biology, physics and chemistry) of a people, the latter indicates the philosophy and politics of a people (amongst others). Both tell their story, and in the idealism of America, she believes that forcefully bringing democracy to the world is a good thing - it wasn't called Operation Iraqi Freedom for nothing! Of course it was also a cover for commercial interests, but that they chose freedom and democracy as their cover says a lot.

Foot

The Errant

08-02-2007, 21:27

Other similarities with history could be the general region of the Middle East.
Syria and Judea in particular are conflict magnets.

It was a mess during the war between Egypt and the Hittites.

It was a mess during the war between Egypt and Babylon.

It was a mess during the time of the Diadochi.

It was a mess during the wars between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Persians.

It was a mess during the Crusades.

It was a mess during the breakup of Saladin's Empire.

It was a mess during the Mongol invasion.

It was a mess during WWI.

It was a mess after WWII.

And It's still a mess today. The crossroads of the world seem to draw trouble like s*** draws flies. :skull:

Treverer

08-02-2007, 23:17

Nations.

Carthage ...

The United States ...

Rome. Highly nationalistic society with dreams of being an empire (until they managed just that). Convinced that they (and only they) know the best way of running the world. If the barbarians don't understand it's better to live under the auspices of Rome. Send a legion or two to teach them how to be good citizens.

The former Soviet Union. Very nationalistic. Equally convinced that their ideals and methods were superior to anyone elses. And should those others resist. Then they shall be crushed under the blessed boot of mother Russia. After all. Free nations cannot be expected to know for themselves, what is best for them.
As Political Scientist I must object:

- the idea & concept of a "nation" is relatively new. The time of the French Revolution is considered the first one where this 'concept' appeared. To speak of "Roman Nationalism" in the way you do hurts every member of my science branche ...

- the Soviet Union is viewed as everything, but NEVER as "nationalist", because (soviet) Communism is regarded as an "universalist" doctrine, putting nations aside and propaganding happiness & welfare for everybody. Well, in the beginning, it had a russianphile /-phobic touch, and Communist Parties during / after WWII had "national" traits, but not all and not that heavy.

Apart of these 2 points, I simply second your statements. Especially the one about Roman & Soviet cultural / political IMPERIALISM.

Treverer

EDIT: Fortunately, there is something a certain Mr Kennedy called "Imperial Overstretch". ~;)

NeoSpartan

08-03-2007, 00:52

I believe you guys are generalising American foreing policy a little too much.

From about 1788-1860 (after the ratification of the Constitution 'till before the Civil War) American's intention was to EXPAND. Weather by taking the land of the Indians, buying it from the French, or taking it from Mexico. Everheard of Manifest Destiny????

But right before the Civil War the issue of Slavery prevented any further expansion North or South of the continent.

After the Civil War America's intention turn to Imperialism (well actually before the Civil War, America had forfully open up Japan to foreing trade, but any further Imperialistic expansion was interrupted by the Civil War). JUST LIKE ALL OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS OF THE TIME. Due to the European Powers already having colonies or economic influences in most of the world, the US turn to open up Japan, and to kick any European powers out of South America, (especifically Spain). That way effectively making "American for Americans". The US also took over Spanish colonies in South East Asia, and took over the Hawaii.

However, WWI started to somewhat put the breaks that Imperialist trend the world powers where having, plus most of the world was already under some power's influence. That is why when Japan started its Imperialistic campains in China and South East Asia, it came into MAJOR diplomatic confrontation with the Europeans and Americans. So bad that the US cut Oil Exports to Japan and Japan decided it cold destroy the US Pacific Fleet (which it almost did) and give itself time to finish up in Manchuria and grow its Navy even more. So it could effectively fight the Americans when they returned.

After WWII, it was the COLD WAR.
The Soviets wanted to expand Communism and the Americans wanted to stop them. Both sides used any means nessesary but comming short of provocing eachother into direct nuclear confrontation. (especially after the scare of 1962).
ex:-The USSR backed North Korea and China during the Korean war but it didn't become directly involved. It did the same in Vietnam. In Angola the USSR equiped Cubans and the MPLA to fight there. (my brother almost went there)
-The US trainned and equiped Cuban exhiles to take Cuba from Fidel. Also the US backed the Mujahadim (sp) in Afganistan. The US backed the Contras in Nicaragua....
.... there are many more "Small wars" in South America, Africa, South East Asia, Middle east, that followed this pattern.

The interesting thing is, that in this time the US decided to take an "Adult Supervision" approach to foreing policy. Where the US and Nato will hold off the Soviets, but the US will share most of the expense. As a result, this didn't compel the other members of Nato to become again a major military power. Plus, the US basically forbade Japan from becomeing another world power by putting in its Constitution that Japan should only have a "Security Force" not a military capable of expanding. (to this day Japan has Security Force)

After the Cold War:
-The US being the sole world Power, and continuing its "Adult Supervision" approach to foreing policy. Goes into war, imposes sactions, etc. to any nation who threatens its ECONOMIC INTERESTS and its SECURITY. Just like any other nation would do in its place and ALL nations, empires, etc have done before.

In the case of Iraq, the leaders here got really overconfident expecting the Invasion of Iraq to flow like the Invasion of Panama in 1989. Which it aint ....

Zaknafien

08-03-2007, 02:33

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

KARTLOS

08-03-2007, 02:55

As Political Scientist I must object:

- the idea & concept of a "nation" is relatively new. The time of the French Revolution is considered the first one where this 'concept' appeared. To speak of "Roman Nationalism" in the way you do hurts every member of my science branche ...

- the Soviet Union is viewed as everything, but NEVER as "nationalist", because (soviet) Communism is regarded as an "universalist" doctrine, putting nations aside and propaganding happiness & welfare for everybody. Well, in the beginning, it had a russianphile /-phobic touch, and Communist Parties during / after WWII had "national" traits, but not all and not that heavy.

Apart of these 2 points, I simply second your statements. Especially the one about Roman & Soviet cultural / political IMPERIALISM.

Treverer

EDIT: Fortunately, there is something a certain Mr Kennedy called "Imperial Overstretch". ~;)

the english formed a sense of english nationalism around the time of the 100 years war.

KARTLOS

08-03-2007, 02:56

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

rome completely lacked the radical racialism of the nazis.

Zaknafien

08-03-2007, 03:08

rome completely lacked the radical racialism of the nazis.

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

fatsweets

08-03-2007, 03:23

NeoSpartan

08-03-2007, 03:36

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

True... the only major difference that comes to mind is that Hitler wanted to "purify" the Reich. All those whom were not considered arian were to be disposed off. While the Romans did most of the genocide in the invasion, but later they tried to win over thier new-found subjects and make them part of the empire and their military.

p.s all this roman talk is making me want to start a new Romani campain....

abou

08-03-2007, 03:46

If there is one thing I wish the US could take more of from Rome, it would be the architecture. I think one of the guys said that they really just ripped it off from the Greeks and Etruscans, but having studied it that really isn't something very fair to say at all. The Romans were certainly evolutionary in their application, but many times they were quite revolutionary.

Now, a lot of stuff in DC takes direct inspiration from from Rome, but I really wish there was more of it. A lot of the presidential libraries in particular are absolutely atrocious. That's why if I were to become president my library would be based either on Trajan's forum or the Sanctuary of Fortuna. Hell, that's campaign material right there: Vote for me. I won't have an ugly presidential library.

KARTLOS

08-03-2007, 04:07

Not at all! The Roman government was an excellent example of a fascist state, you know. The military-industrial complex and propaganda machine in the heyday of the Principate and later Imperial stages were something that modern states can only model upon, and the ever present 'defensive' reasonings for Roman expansion and genocide mirror Hitler's own reasons for the Reich's defensive wars. What defines the fascist movement is the belief in the cult of the state, which is something the Romans excelled at (even the city herself was deified, literally).

yes but as i said it completely lacked the radical racialism which is at the core of nazism.

rome was a multicultural state, where race was never really too much of a bar to advancement. there was no concept of an ethnically pure masterace or any of the rest of that germanic rubbish.

Khazar_Dahvos

08-03-2007, 04:13

in regards on the subject of these postings the romans took the best of what they learned and assimilated it into their culture. for example the gods, also military technologies(example gladius, from the Iberian peninsula and helmets from the gaulic tribes and( the extra layer of chainmail around their shoulders once they ran into the dacian rhomphi I think.):2thumbsup:

Treverer

08-03-2007, 04:52

Come on people, this is not a political forum let us talk about the game we love and not about nationalism and comparisons between the US and government 2000 years ago. This could turn ugly really quick.
:focus: Seconded!
Is there no kinda "off-topic" / "open" (sub-) forum, where threads / discussions like these might fit in? If no, I suggest to create one (a subforum!).

russia almighty

08-03-2007, 05:02

^I agree with you on that . There are things that are sorta related to EB like this but don't go along with the main boards focus .

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-03-2007, 10:06

yes but as i said it completely lacked the radical racialism which is at the core of nazism.

rome was a multicultural state, where race was never really too much of a bar to advancement. there was no concept of an ethnically pure masterace or any of the rest of that germanic rubbish.

I agree what many people forget, Rome was not a etnical empire....the roman citicenship could be granded virtually to everybody who earned it or pay for it (look Paulus he was not a etnical roman).

About fascism, well I do not entirely agree, of course for those days it was wery advanced, and usually fascist states (mussolini for the first, but also Hitler) tryed their best to copy the romans. But we can not compare a anciet government structure using our modern standart.

pezhetairoi

08-03-2007, 11:44

To answer the original query, the Almogavars' being so similar to the EB-era Iberian units are hardly a coincidence. Their armed forces' equipment and fighting style is really decided by the major factors of available resources, and geography. Iberia is hilly, and has few fields that permit massive Cannae-style battles. Fighting in Spain has necessarily been guerrilla, from then until the modern day. That fundamental rule decides the reason why them Iberian fellas are all so identical despite their time period. Firstly, javelins were cheap to produce, could cause helluva damage when hurled from high ground (of which there was plenty in Iberia), and they permitted the Iberians to keep at arms' length from melee combat, which allowed them to melt away quickly without committing themselves to fighting which would cost them as heavily as the enemy. Though to compare the Lusotana and Iberi troops in EB to the Almogavars is perhaps not fully accurate, since the Almogavar were light troops, whose closest equivalent in EB are perhaps the Caetrati. Surely they must have had a larger variety of heavier troops too, though these were necessarily rarer in proportion to the cost and complexity of their panoply.

Hope this answers some part of your query at least.

Zaknafien

08-03-2007, 11:56

if you think rome was not based on ethnicity you are highly mistaken, and maybe have watched too many movies...

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-03-2007, 12:03

if you think rome was not based on ethnicity you are highly mistaken, and maybe have watched too many movies...

and maybe you have read to few books... :book:

pezhetairoi

08-03-2007, 12:06

Rome was the archetypical multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious hodgepodge of a nation that today has become a normal occurrence in the community of nations. Citizenship must not be misconstrued as ethnicity. You are born a race, it cannot be conferred on you. To say the Roman Empire was not ethnic is like saying the USA, arguably the most racially and culturally diverse nation on earth at the moment, is all white people, or African-Americans, or Asians, or any other ethnic group you can name. It's a lot more complex than that.

Zaknafien

08-03-2007, 12:26

Of course there were dozens of races within the occupied lands by the Roman government. Many more if you count the millions of slaves. However, power was concentrated in a strict Roman oligarchy with no misconstruing of their racial superiority to others. The fierce fight to grant even the lightest forms of citizenships to even the oldest Italic allies took years and much bloodshed. Don't kid yourself on the supposed benign nature of the Roman government.

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-03-2007, 12:35

Zaknafien

08-03-2007, 12:39

paullus

08-03-2007, 12:40

Sure there were, and there were powerful black people in the Jim Crow South. That they appeared occasionally doesn't disprove racist/ethnicist mindsets of the majority of powerholders. Rather, they had to work usually twice as hard to justify their ascent. Now, I think the Jim Crow South comparison is actually a harsher situation than Rome, where plenty of Hellenes could do relatively well, but hopefully the hyperbole helps to illustrate the basic point.

EDIT: and guys, let's be careful with either implying negative ideas about one another, or saying them outright.

Tellos Athenaios

08-03-2007, 13:35

Anyway, the Hellenic emperors didn't pop up till after the second dynasty.

Bovarius

08-03-2007, 15:53

If you want a simliarity, compare the policies of post-Persian Wars Athens to recent US foreign policy.

Or the comparison of the foreign policy of the early and mid republic of Rome and the US foreign policy until 1910.( A friend of mine made his scription ("thesis") on that subject for his master degree in History.)

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

08-03-2007, 18:02

Fascists were impressed by the cult held around the state, the city, the empire in ancient Rome, by the mighty Legions and what not. Ancient Rome is argueably the best idol for the fascist states of the 20th century. And of course, Roman state ideology was not about italic superiorty over all other races. It was about Roman superiorty over the rest of the world. The rise of Emperors like Germanicus belongs to the very end of the Western Roman Empire, which is (funny that) characteristically marked by its inevitable decline, at least partly caused by the "barbarization" of the society.

The Greeks were highly racist from what I know. Funny that the Germanic people of that days basically saw everybody able and willing to fight as part of their tribe.

Treverer

08-03-2007, 20:12

there were also NON etnical roman inperators and senators...
Isn't Zak. talking / speaking about Roman REPUBLIC oligarchies ... ? And BTW about the Rome EB is covering ... ?

Yours,
Treverer

EDIT: Ooops, a bit late ... my reply

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 05:31

The empire is a different creature altogether. We're talking about the Republic which is what's covered in EB. Although you'd be silly to say the Empire was a multicutural hodgepodge of univeralism, as well ..

But the repubblic was multicultural, of course not like Carthago (but only because Carthago was older) who were the romans? they were local italians!
Rome had also been dominated by the etruschians, so it is naive to say the "roman race" because there were no roman race.

Roman citicens of course they will always have more right than other non romans, but that is the same what happens in modern time, a american citicen (or Danish, Italian, Rumenian or whatever) will always be able to do more than who doesent have the citicenship, like voting and this means a citicen of a state will always have more rights. Rome needed more people to work and fight for them....and here we have the plebs. Who were poor local people, but also many individual (not migration) who settled in rome or around rome.

About the multicultural of the empire, well rome builded a empire above the nations so the multicultural element was actually the core of the empire, otherwise it would not have survived for so long time.

Tellos Athenaios

08-04-2007, 10:11

But the repubblic was multicultural, of course not like Carthago (but only because Carthago was older) who were the romans? they were local italians!
Rome had also been dominated by the etruschians, so it is naive to say the "roman race" because there were no roman race.

Carthage is an entirely different league. A different world, pehaps. Carthage relies first and foremost on it's commercial activities - Rome on it's military. Hence, Carthage cannot afford to be anything but multicultural - by depending on trade, you depend on a relatively open, and multicultural society. You need it, because you rely on foreign relations to trade with to provide for the tax you need.

Race isn't entirely correct, we should speak of ethnicity. And in such sense, the Romans did understand the concept. Gens, anyone?

Roman citicens of course they will always have more right than other non romans, but that is the same what happens in modern time, a american citicen (or Danish, Italian, Rumenian or whatever) will always be able to do more than who doesent have the citicenship, like voting and this means a citicen of a state will always have more rights. Rome needed more people to work and fight for them....and here we have the plebs. Who were poor local people, but also many individual (not migration) who settled in rome or around rome.

The plebs is basically consists of everyon who are:
1) Roman (citizen)
2) Not a patrician.

And the Plebs mostly consisted of voting citizens - however that hardly meant anything in Rome. You were expected to vote as your Patronus wished. If anything being Patronus or Cliens mattered a great deal more than being a member of the Plebs or a Patrician. (Though the Patricians were de facto always Patroni.) To a certain extent, you may compare Roman citizenship with being member of a the maffia. Being the Pater familias of your Gens can be compared to being a Godfather.

You cannot compare modern day citizenship with Roman citizenship: those are two entirely different species. Roman citizenship meant protection from the law, especially against non-Romans. Non-Romans couldn't rely on such protection.

About the multicultural of the empire, well rome builded a empire above the nations so the multicultural element was actually the core of the empire, otherwise it would not have survived for so long time.

Now that's a contradictio in terminis. Romans created their empire by Romanizing their subjects. That's got more to do with Star Trek than with Multicultural Society. Anyway: it was a matter of removing the previous culture in favour of the Roman one. The one big exception to this was, of course, Hellenic culture. Here, Roman & Hellenic culture met and adapted to each other.

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 14:52

hmm I have much to say, but I have little time, so for now a short reply...

Race isn't entirely correct, we should speak of ethnicity. And in such sense, the Romans did understand the concept. Gens, anyone?

ok can you tell me then what etnicity was the romans? the romans were local italians, and in Italy there were many different cultures (greek, etruschian, celt ect) so it is basically impossible to NOT have a "multicultural" view.
The Quirites let me say were a mix of latins, sabines, etruschians and perhaps some greek individual. All those differences explain also why the romans were between the must tollerant dominator the world ever had.

The plebs is basically consists of everyon who are:
1) Roman (citizen)
2) Not a patrician.

And the Plebs mostly consisted of voting citizens - however that hardly meant anything in Rome. You were expected to vote as your Patronus wished. If anything being Patronus or Cliens mattered a great deal more than being a member of the Plebs or a Patrician. (Though the Patricians were de facto always Patroni.) To a certain extent, you may compare Roman citizenship with being member of a the maffia. Being the Pater familias of your Gens can be compared to being a Godfather.

are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend :wall: what is the godfather? what has mafia to do with ancient governmental structures...pleaaaase! why not compare it with star trek or Buffy the vampire slayer then? ;) (im just bein ironically if somebody dont understand)

The Plebs voted, but later in time they got also their own representation, something similar we will only see in modern time, when lower classes were permitted to vote and get their own representative in the parliament.
Anyway who were the plebs? local poor citicen and foreigners.

You cannot compare modern day citizenship with Roman citizenship: those are two entirely different species. Roman citizenship meant protection from the law, especially against non-Romans. Non-Romans couldn't rely on such protection.

yes I can, this topik is about similarities in history. Otherwise I will agree with you, and if you read my posts you will see I always mention to not compare the modern world with the ancient.
Roman citicenship means also protection but Rome was based on the RIGHTS and LAWS so it means citicens had to know the law and their rights and dutyes. Children in the early rome they had to learn the roman law who were written on 12 tables (Dvodecim Tabvlarum Leges) and this was more than 2500y ago. And I can also do other comparision with the modern world, the plebs when did the big strike (one of the first strikes in the history) they got their right. Intersting because many times is also what happen in the modern world.

Now that's a contradictio in terminis. Romans created their empire by Romanizing their subjects. That's got more to do with Star Trek than with Multicultural Society. Anyway: it was a matter of removing the previous culture in favour of the Roman one. The one big exception to this was, of course, Hellenic culture. Here, Roman & Hellenic culture met and adapted to each other.

no and yes, the romanitation was rarely and I mean RARELY forced. Must of the time local people choosed to adopt roman lifestyle (perhasp somebody dont like it, but that's the trut) romans were wery well known for their tollerance and respect of other culture. You can see the roman occupyed places kept their tradition and religions (must of the time).

PS.

Star trek is about multiculturality ;)

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 15:10

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 15:19

Im sorry, but your answers show your ignorance on the subject, friend. Foremost, Romans were not "local Italians". There was no such thing at the time. There were several distinct Italic peoples, with their own various cultures, religions, and governmental systems.

Zaknafien please....man, cant you read? that was what I said. The Romans were a mix of LATINS SABINES AND ETHRUSCHIANS. LEARN TO READ BEFORE REPLY!

The Romans viewed other Italic peoples and even other Latins as inferior racially to themselves. Your claim that the Romans were a tolerant people is ludicrious. THe Romans were one of the most isolationist, conservative, and superstitious people in history. Who not only abhorred change and progression, but were frightened of it.

lol isolationist, sure. Excuse but that's not possible, and I told you already why. (scroll up). Of course the romans belived their were better than others, but that's normal. Almust everyculture in the world did that sin (Greek, Israelites, Egyptians ect ect).

Your lack of understanding of Tellos' analogy to the mafia is telling. The system of patronage is indeed very similar to mafia patronship, and stems from the same idea of the patronus and cliens.

again, reread my post (i guess I hit a exposed nerve, since you were so fast to reply even without reading properly my post.

Plebs are certainly NOT foreigners. The plebs were made up of the lowest 3 strata of the property classes, the lowest of which being the capite censi, or the head count (what you might call the mob), who had no property to speak of and where often freedmen or indentured servants.

I say the between the plebs there were ALSO foreigners who was permitted to settle in Rome.

Your arguments are ridiculous. You just said you cant compare ancient with modern, and in the very next paragraph you claimed you could. This conversation is over.

P.S-- rarely forced? please.

A little advice, next time, read my post AND then reply, emotional responses are no use.

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 15:22

the romans were local italians, and in Italy there were many different cultures

are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend

Anyway who were the plebs? local poor citicen and foreigners.

yes I can, this topik is about similarities in history.

no and yes, the romanitation was rarely and I mean RARELY forced.

Uh, fine. Here are your quotes, then to preserve for history's sake, in case you decide to edit your post lol

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 15:27

Uh, fine. Here are your quotes, then to preserve for history's sake, in case you decide to edit your post lol

Zak, I dont know what your problem is, and I dont have time for this.

why you dont quote everything I wrote in my previous post?

PS

Maybe you dont realize but what you quoted atually confirm my answer to you.

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 15:34

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 15:47

this is ridiculous. Im sorry if this seems to antagonize you. Maybe theres a language barrier here, but your posts are entirely wrong about Roman culture, and the quotes I posted are explicitly so. I dont know exactly what you're trying to say, but if you have a question on one of these topics I'd be happy to answer it for you.

Your view of the Romans seems to come from a romanticized movie portrayal of them.

no need to apologice, but why dont you tell me, with your own words, and by your extensive culture how am I wrong.

And I will be more than happy to discuss with you. Dont missunderstand me, I cant be always right, I know that. But that's apply also to you (and to everybody else.

I dont like football mentality when we are talking about history. And excuse me since I found this board I saw lot if not to much ignorance about the romans (somebody even claim romans invented genocide) and all this lack of respect for history outrage me.

Excuse me Zak, but when you quoted me, I dont understand why you didnt quote everything? like this?

are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend what is the godfather? what has mafia to do with ancient governmental structures...pleaaaase! why not compare it with star trek or Buffy the vampire slayer then? ;) (im just bein ironically if somebody dont understand)

You just get some pieces of what I wrote and then quoted it. That is the footballmentality I dont like (I know sometimes I also guilty of this sin).

anyway let us forget this unfortunate incident and let us go back on topik. Shall we? ~:cheers:

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 15:52

I should probably point out that your quote comes from "Gladiator" of all things..which doesnt really help your credibility :)

I thought I had explained in my first post to you what you were confused on.. I didnt take your entire quote because its irrelevant. In one sentence, you claimed that comparisons with modern day are silly, in the next, you claimed that you could compare roman citizenship with modern citizenship. Thats called a non sequitur.

And sure, there are plenty of people on this forum who like the Romans just because they watched Gladiator or HBO Rome and have no idea how inaccurate those depictions are.

If you dont understand the relationship of the mafia to the Roman patronage system, I can explain to you how patronage works if you like.

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 16:15

I should probably point out that your quote comes from "Gladiator" of all things..which doesnt really help your credibility :)

my quote? damn! you got me! :dizzy2:

I thought I had explained in my first post to you what you were confused on.. I didnt take your entire quote because its irrelevant. In one sentence, you claimed that comparisons with modern day are silly, in the next, you claimed that you could compare roman citizenship with modern citizenship. Thats called a non sequitur.

no, you cant do that (of course you can, but it's not correct) on one line it was pure ironia (and I explained that) and on the others I also gave my reason. It is not irrilevant...sorry buddy! But that's up to you, belive what you want.

And sure, there are plenty of people on this forum who like the Romans just because they watched Gladiator or HBO Rome and have no idea how inaccurate those depictions are.

again the football mentality.....

If you dont understand the relationship of the mafia to the Roman patronage system, I can explain to you how patronage works if you like.

If you ignore what I write my friend how can we debate?

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 16:22

um.. ok, here's what you wrote.

are you kidding me? you cant compare modern day situation with ancient my friend what is the godfather? what has mafia to do with ancient governmental structures...pleaaaase! why not compare it with star trek or Buffy the vampire slayer then? ;) (im just bein ironically if somebody dont understand)

The Plebs voted, but later in time they got also their own representation, something similar we will only see in modern time, when lower classes were permitted to vote and get their own representative in the parliament.
Anyway who were the plebs? local poor citicen and foreigners.

Now, do you understand what patrons and clients were?

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 17:02

um.. ok, here's what you wrote.

Now, do you understand what patrons and clients were?

ok as i see you finally you learn how to quote (but you must agree with me that quoting is not your forte) why next time, instead wasting time trying to quote you just write what you want to say? ;) .

Client and patrons? well I did my home work back then, how about you? because it seems you dont understand (or dont want to understand) what I mean.

Clients (clientes, from cliere = obey) were the subject of the singles gentes quirinaries (or gentiles groups), and they had to obey to their pater familias to witch they were enthrust. And from who they got protection (Patronatus) so as you can see here is the similarity, BUT:

Now during the V and the IV century there was the crisis of the quiritial structure. The "ancient" istitution (rex, patres, comitia curata) were blurred, on the political plan, from the exercitus centuriatus patrizitian-plebs, were the praetor had lot of influence. The turnover of the monarchy (Brutus, Tarquinius, Lucrezia)along with the Etruschian domination and later the sack of rome, favour the socalled "revolt" of the Plebs.

Who were the Plebs (again and again) the Plebs, poor people, foreigners ect were the large population WITHOUT the citizenship, so it means they were NOT giuridical subject not for the pubblic law and for the private. They understod their importance for the army and for the local economy and for the function of the state of rome. So they start to claim their pretensions (claim for earth and also equality at certan degree with the patritians, including representationin the senate) so they got they asked and also 1 or two consul to be elected.

Later the number of the rapresentative of the plebs increased.

The plebs got their rapresentations after they did their massive strike on the avventinus.
So explain to me....HOW DOES THIS CONTERDICT WHAT I SAID?

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 17:21

Youre speaking completely out of our time frame. Please make your argument relative to the situation. Plebian members of Roman society held citizenship, they were simply the poorest of the 5 classes of citizen at the census. The head count were plebs as well, though they held no property. Plebs were enrolled in the census, could own property, and served in the army. There were no "foreigners" in the plebeian assembly.

The patron and client system is VERY similar to mafia familial and protectorive ties, indeed, the very word patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".

Interestingly enough, the plebeian vote counted for little in the assemblies to elect magistracies.

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 17:23

And I like also to add, we need to distinguish the concilia Plebis of the 494, it means the council only for the plebs, and the meeting of the tribunes, that was a assembly were plebs and patritian were reunited, but this is from late age.

The concilia Plebis are born like a one side assembly (for the plebs only) the plebi scita commit only the plebs. This uintil the Ortensia law were the plebi scita commited everybody (including the Patritian).

About the senate, at the beginning there were also plebeian consul (nothing prohibit that) and there were also plebeian consul in the repubblic, but they were rapidly excluded from the office. Later, when the law change the situation changed.

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 17:43

Youre speaking completely out of our time frame. Please make your argument relative to the situation. Plebian members of Roman society held citizenship,

no, originally the citicenzip was granted only to the patritian or quirites.

The patron and client system is VERY similar to mafia familial and protectorive ties, indeed, the very word patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".

true..

Obelics

08-04-2007, 17:53

could be "very similar" according to you two, but there is not relation. I noticed that one of you two has corrected himself, at first he was speaking of "relationship" and then, he sayd "similar". The second one is right, if we are talking of similitude, but that's not history.

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 17:54

no, originally the citicenzip was granted only to the patritian or quirites.

It is patrician, and it is not the same thing as quirites. But foremost, please keep your discussions within EB's time frame, we are not discussing earlier eras.

I dont understand what point you're trying to make here. What exactly are you aruging, anyway?

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-04-2007, 18:05

It is patrician,

thank you.

and it is not the same thing as quirites. But foremost, please keep your discussions within EB's time frame, we are not discussing earlier eras.

Originally was, Quirites was the oldest name of the romans, and since only the patritian got the citizenship it is proper call them Quirites (or patrician).

I dont understand what point you're trying to make here. What exactly are you aruging, anyway?

I am teaching you a little of the history of Rome, and if you cant see the connection, it's not my fault.

Obelics

08-04-2007, 18:08

patronvs is the forebear of the modern Italic padrino, which means "godfather".

again:

Padrino is not related with patronus, that is a false statement.
You are using a sort of "transitive regle" here that is not corrected in linguistic:

pater=> (A) lat patronu(m),
pater=> (B) lat medieval patrinu(m)
then (A) = (B) that is not correct.

the first one (A) is used in roman "diritto" and i guess both you two know what it means patronu(m)

the secon one (B) is from medieval latin and it was used in church as "spiritual parents" and it later become also a slang for what you was talking about (mafia): a padrino is your new acquired "(spiritual) father"....

please dont create a false relation between mafia and roman clienteral system.

bovi

08-04-2007, 18:13

I am teaching you a little of the history of Rome, and if you cant see the connection, it's not my fault.

If you're not interested in your audience to understand what you're talking about, why bother to post at all? A summary of your arguments and conclusions will help many, I believe, because this discussion has become disjointed. At least I fail to understand what you want to arrive at.

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 18:18

I agree. I fail to see what, if anything, we are arguing about. Obelics, there is a connection between the patron system and the mafia. How can you argue there is not? What is a mafia boss to his clients if not a patron? I think you fail to understand either system if you cannot see their similarities.

Denmark guy, I am always interested in learning more Roman history that my professors may have missed, but I fail to see what point you are trying to get at. You seem to have a very misconstrued view of Roman culture that is not entirely accurate.

Obelics

08-04-2007, 18:58

Obelics, there is a connection between the patron system and the mafia. How can you argue there is not? What is a mafia boss to his clients if not a patron? I think you fail to understand either system if you cannot see their similarities.

mafia is somethink related to the modern (post-unitarian) italian state, the situation of the agricoltural masses of the South, who were still linked to the old feudal system in vigor in the old Borbonic kingdom, and the new sort of colonialist system of the northern conquerors, who weren't able to interpretate the instances of the southern system.

if you see some "similitude" between the roman clienteral system and the link that a "servus of the gleba" had with its "Lord" (beware im using the word "lord" not patron) that's the same as to see the same similitude in other european feudal system. It was the "sudden" and "not gradual" ropture of this system that generate what you are talking about.

again if with "relationship" you are referring to some sort of "national genius" a word much used in the '800, that is as saying that if the roman had that clienteral system, than it still continue to be in the italian Dna as the mafia sembiante, than is a very forced thing, but im sure we are not talking of this.

again we are talking of similitudes, not of direct connections (and at last i would like to see what "exactly" are these "connection" and how much proved they are trough the whole course of history).
we can discuss on the matter forever and find as much of similitudes we want, but these are not probant of a direct connection on history, like to say A generate B.

I think it is very more fruitfull to go to investigate how it failed the system that Federico II wanted to give to the southern italy, and make a comparison with the new postunitarian system and its faults. Or again to go to investigate the social instances of the Vice-Realm centuries.

Tellos Athenaios

08-04-2007, 19:30

We, non-Italians often are told this (brief) explanation of Cliens-Patronus system along the lines of:

You've got a big boss. You've got the humble servant.

The big boss has lot's of cash, lot's of business or lot's or real estate or any mix you want. He has political influence, he's a member of the ruling class. He tries to ensure that all his clientes are being fed, employed, and housed. In exchange he demands a solid, unquestionable allegiance from his clientes. It's a virtue called pietas - both ways.

A Cliens can be a patronus to other clientes, but always knows where his true loyalities are to be. Most clientes, though, are people who simply look to their patronus for protection and aid should events turn against them. They'll support their Patroni whatever the cost - he is the only protector they have. They do not rely much on trials, minor offences are settled by a Patronus who decides on what is just and what is not. That can be anything from theft to rape - really. All Clientes will act as a voting block to support their chief of chiefs in times of elections, or law proposals.

--------------------------

See; there are some very striking similarities between the maffia as we, non-Italians, perceive it and the Patronus-Cliens system. You could also argue that there are striking similarities between Feudalism & Patronus-Cliens relationships - but then again it's is equally arguable that there are similarities between the maffia and Feudalism. For exactly the same reasons.

--------------------------

But anyways: I am much more looking forward to an update on your latest sentence than to continueing this pointless exchange of words (no offence meant, but to me the discussion between Zak and Baryonyx Walkeri comes across as such):

Zaknafien

08-04-2007, 19:31

you're looking way too far into it, my friend. My only claim is that the two systems are similar in how they work and the relationships involved. And I agree, the above was an entirely worthless discussion.

Obelics

08-04-2007, 20:10

You could also argue that there are striking similarities between Feudalism & Patronus-Cliens relationships - but then again it's is equally arguable that there are similarities between the maffia and Feudalism. For exactly the same reasons.

TA, ive not sayd that, god save me from create another simplification.

My only claim is that the two systems are "similar in how they work and the relationships involved

Zak: now that sound good mate, ive nothink against "similarities".

salut!

Tellos Athenaios

08-04-2007, 20:25

TA, ive not sayd that, god save me from create another simplification.

I know. :yes: (Hence "could" instead of "can" ~;))

Baryonyx Walkeri

08-05-2007, 11:36

Denmark guy, I am always interested in learning more Roman history that my professors may have missed, but I fail to see what point you are trying to get at. You seem to have a very misconstrued view of Roman culture that is not entirely accurate.

Well Zak its Baryonyx Walkeri, not Danmark guy. And if you fail to understand, thats only because you didnt follow the discussion of this topik. :wall:

Baryonyx Walkeri wrote:

The Plebs voted, but later in time they got also their own representation, something similar we will only see in modern time, when lower classes were permitted to vote and get their own representative in the parliament.

Do you understand now? :beam:

Obelics wrote

mafia is somethink related to the modern (post-unitarian) italian state, the situation of the agricoltural masses of the South, who were still linked to the old feudal system in vigor in the old Borbonic kingdom, and the new sort of colonialist system of the northern conquerors, who weren't able to interpretate the instances of the southern system.

I was in Italy not to long ago, especially at Napoli. I was talking to some people, I think they were some neo-Borbons (correct me if I am wrong), they were pretty pissed because of Garibaldi's invasion in the south.
They told me that the south italian army of Francis the II (Francesco II) didnt surrender at went up to the mountain and figh, a sort of guerrilla war who lasted around 10-15y. And the told me also about a law the italian parlament approved in 1863 were the italian soldiers who were fighting against the guerrilla, had the right to kill people for reprisal of the southern guerrilla. Actually they also told me must of the south were in uprest.
This also helped to increase the power of the mafia in the regions in the south (mafia, gamora ect). They were (the neoborbons) also trying to start a collection of signatures of local napolitan people to remove garibaldis statues around.

Ok I know this is a bit of topik, but since you are italian and from Napoli, the bond between Mafia and local south italian people is that to be ascribed to the "civil war"? or they were just fooling me? :laugh4:

Incongruous

08-05-2007, 11:54

Athens is a far better comparison to America.

Nazi Germany is a very accurate comparison to Rome.

I have never, ever heard that from any of the Classics lecturers who have ever visited or taught at my uni. I would be interested to know if you have writtne on this thseis? Seriuosly.

Zaknafien

08-05-2007, 15:19

I havent but I probably could. More precisely I would say that the early Principate of Augustus would be most similar to the early Nazi regime. Charismatic, energetic and brilliant leader, full-swing propaganda machine that is designed to worship the cult of the state, rampant racism and fear of outside 'evil doers', and an increasingly important military-industrial complex.

Tellos Athenaios

08-05-2007, 15:39

As for similarities through history:
The word MIC became widely known after the 'Good-bye speech' of D. "Ike" Eisenhower, shortly before his succession by J. Kennnedy. Since then the word has been applied to describe nearly all military organisation, most notably Rome's.

(It's interesting to compare both speeches - you can really feel how Kennedy needed to make a statement of (military) power when Eisenhower had just warned the nation against hot-headedness & mindless determination. That way, even Bush's speeches can be seen as a similarity through history.)

Also: the Roman attitude towards a revolt that eventually became the cause for the Punic War & The Monroe Doctrine (1823) & the concept of NIMBY.

Obelics

08-05-2007, 18:41

I was in Italy not to long ago, especially at Napoli. I was talking to some people, I think they were some neo-Borbons (correct me if I am wrong), they were pretty pissed because of Garibaldi's invasion in the south.
They told me that the south italian army of Francis the II (Francesco II) didnt surrender at went up to the mountain and figh, a sort of guerrilla war who lasted around 10-15y. And the told me also about a law the italian parlament approved in 1863 were the italian soldiers who were fighting against the guerrilla, had the right to kill people for reprisal of the southern guerrilla. Actually they also told me must of the south were in uprest.
This also helped to increase the power of the mafia in the regions in the south (mafia, gamora ect). They were (the neoborbons) also trying to start a collection of signatures of local napolitan people to remove garibaldis statues around.

Ok I know this is a bit of topik, but since you are italian and from Napoli, the bond between Mafia and local south italian people is that to be ascribed to the "civil war"? or they were just fooling me? :laugh4:

i know this is off-topic, and i will reply very very shortly, just to not appear unpolite... you have just took me at the heart... so i will suffer a bit to try to be so shortly...
i say, that here, i think not so few people who haven't just read the official school books, are pissed off garibaldi expedition (as you say), and Cavour secret plots.
im not neo-borbonic, but i say Francesco II resistence at Gaeta has all my simpaty, and the same to the so called "brigands" (the neo-borbonics will call them "partisans", and i can barely restrain myseld to not call them in such manner) who died trying to fight against some criminals as the savoiard general Cialdini etc... but that risk to become rethoric.
again, here we must take attention, to not call these brigands as mafians, cause the new mafia power in the south was often "used" by the italian state to control the south and to make it quiet, so we have the anti-state (mafia) who sometime just fight togheter with the state.
some of this mafias were just the so called massari, they were men who managed lands of the "signori" in the kingdom. they become very powerfull as the old system brokeup, and the istances of the peasants (who claimed more rights and a real emancipation) against the state had become more dangerous. You know how much southern people emigrated in other countries.
Giving these people (the mafians, who had not any political tendency, every political side is good for them if they can continue to do what they want) more power, was a great mistake, and if you add some of the politics of the new state (very sort of colonialist politics), than this "blocked" the south in a sort of Limbo were this people with no scruples can reproduce as beatles, and there were no real progress for the south.
Remember that some of the "real" heros, like Falcone and Borsellino, who were killed by mafia few years ago, are southern people, and they were left alone by the italian state.
My point in the previous posts was that to create a "direct connection" between the ancient roman clienteral system and the "modern" phenomenon of the mafia is unfair, is simplicistic and not historical, even worste is to apply this modern phenomenon to the ancient clienteral system as a calk, and say the roman clienteral system is a sort of mafia system (i haven't read the whole thread so im not saying someone has sayd that). The mafia system is a cancer who is born from the contraddictions of the Risorgimento (someone talk of a betrayed Risorgimento). And if this cancer has some roots in the "pre-existents" relations like that of the massari with their "signori" and with the peasants (but there are a lot of hypothesis), this is only probant of somethink that went wrong with the "assimilation" of the kingdom in the italian state, it's not probant of a pre-existent and "sleeping" mafia system in the whole course of the south italy history, or even worse of a pre-existent mafia-culture in the southern Dna.

salute! (anyway i hate to talk of this, and i see that videogame, films etc. make it very popular to the masses and a bit romanticized)

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

08-05-2007, 19:49

Hmm, very interesting. I don't know much about the topic, just one question: Do you think the movie "Il Gattopardo" (sp?) is a good depiction of the time?

Obelics

08-05-2007, 22:33

well, i dont remember well if the movie of Luchino Visconti depict the atmosphere of the book very well, but i can say that the book, from an historical point of view (as litterature, it is a great piece of litterature) is interesting, mostly because it is written from the view of a noble. Tomasi Di Lampedusa, the writer, was an aristocrat, and the Gattopardo is somewhat his alter-ego.
I think it depict very well the "atmosphere" of the period.

Incongruous

08-05-2007, 22:39

Tellos Athenaios

08-06-2007, 00:08

Another similarity I just came across: nowadays people give credit to others by stating "Kudos too...". Guess what an ancient Greek word for such "credit" is?

Spoofa

08-06-2007, 00:51

Kudo?

sounds like a bird..... :laugh3:

Tellos Athenaios

08-06-2007, 03:16

No, "Kudos". ~;)

Spoofa

08-06-2007, 03:19

So, Kudo's has no singular form? so I always have to give someone more then ONE Kudo? :stupido2:

Tellos Athenaios

08-06-2007, 03:20

"Kudos" in ancient Greek is singular - the plural would be "Kude". :wink:

Spoofa

08-06-2007, 04:36

Ah........ Strange........ confusing..... Mystifying...

(looks like im going to have a field day giving my friends Kude's. :2thumbsup: )

Tellos Athenaios

08-06-2007, 15:07

You are giving your friends a multitude of plural Kude? :inquisitive:

Now that's:
Strange...confusing...Mystifying... :grin:

Boy, are you in for a confusing day's work...

Julian the apostate

08-08-2007, 18:44

I think the rough concept of parallel development and similar traits in modern and past goverments works
Being that you see both the development of similar weapon systems on opposite sides of the med. with the falcata, Kopis and then even the Nepali Kukri. All three swords were created for the purpose of cutting through armor. A similar situation is seen with the supposed imitation legions. It only means that several people reached the same conclusion on how to best answer a problem. I think that parallel development works similar enough to development of ideas and political theory throughout history.

There are comparisons between Buddhism and The teachings of Jesus (a time difference of around 500 years)

most cultures held a belief that they were superior. American manifest destiny can be matched by the need to spread Roman and Hellenic culture to inferiors. As well as need to enforce cults of personality such as God Kings throughout all of ancient culture and then of course the modern cult of personality such as that which surrounded Stalin (a bit of a stretch but still there are some similarities)
Everyone is the chosen people if you ask them. Moreover when threatened they will defend their way of life. It isn't to much of a stretch for clever individuals to use this fear to build up their own fortunes and create an empire. The automatic response of any creature (and the amalgam animal that is a state) is to destroy any threat to its survival.
1. The U.S. fights to protect and spread democracy (how you forcibly spread freedom i don't know)
2. Romans fought to spread their culture over the entire med.
3. The Germans in in 1933 formed a desperate militarism to protect themselves from the multitude of "threats" in the outside world
4. The Soviets later needed their buffer states to protect them from the next invasion
5. because of this the U.S. of course had to form Nato another protective and expansionist concept after the cold war started inflamed by Winston Churchilks words in the "Iron Curtain" speech.
6. Rome created the concept of consuls in fear of kings. They fight wars against in some cases imaginary enemies. What danger was Parthia to the Roman state? Or was it to Crassus and the rich.
7. Both The Byzantine Empire and The Chinese develop a vast culture which they defend often through intrigue more than warfare. Diplomats pitting Barbarians against eachother.

You can point to the general forces of conservativism and liberalism in most cultures. Most assemblies are divided into these two major parties.
The Anti-Barcids wanted expansion in Africa and were largely massive landowners
The Barcids wanted expansion into the north and the great wealth that would fall into the Conqueror's hands.
Rome was divided between the New Men and the old nobility for a time.
Hawks and doves there is an essential duality in opinion.

In the comparison between Rome and 1900s America, however, i think one crucial point missing is location. Both are located in a highly defensible and relatively isolated region (The Italian Peninsula has far easier borders to defend then say Poland of Germany (and yes this is from a perspective closer to E.B.s time frame when Rome held most of the peninsula). America is surrounded by two great oceans a massive isolationist barrier which should logically hold in expansion. Similar to Rome they are at the center of everything. The Sea is still and will most likely always be crucial to massed transport. Britian and Japanese empires are far more akin to the American considering how far flung Globalism has thrown colonies.

The one similarity among many cultures is the demand for more and more wealth and property more glory to the state. It is rare for humility to be truly valued and actually seen in culture. The hellenes at some points spurned excess wealth and other cultures valued the gloried agrarian life to the busy city life and capitalist system. Indeed these two forces are often the mentioned Conservative and Liberal. These two forces seem to cycle. Marx describes the steady ebb and flow in the power of the masses. The steady and shifting class warfare which existed in Roman times with the Plebs, and Patricians, just as much as the citizen and noncitizens. This same struggle brought about the French and Russian Revolutions. The masses again and again try to create a "just status" which is eventually corroded by the capitalistic force that moves some to the top and most to the bottom

This is all of course a rough comparison. I'd prefer to talk and debate and not argue emotionally and would love to listen to how and why i'm wrong as long as it didn't attack me personally (also i really did try to keep my spelling strong and intact its a weakness of mine sorry if there are occasional mistakes)

Treverer

08-09-2007, 04:03

3. The Germans in in 1933 formed a desperate militarism to protect themselves from the multitude of "threats" in the outside world
Ehmm, you're sure about this? Explain me the term of "desperate militarism", please.

America is surrounded by two great oceans a massive isolationist barrier which should logically hold in expansion. Similar to Rome they are at the center of everything.
Ehmm, again: you're sure about this? Or, perhaps you meant: "Similar to Rome they believe / think they are ..."

A general note: IMHO, you can compare similarities only in / from an abstract point of view.

artavazd

08-09-2007, 07:57

Treverer

08-09-2007, 10:24

- the idea & concept of a "nation" is relatively new. The time of the French Revolution is considered the first one where this 'concept' appeared. To speak of "Roman Nationalism" in the way you do hurts every member of my science branche ...

Armenia in the 5th century AD had a strong sense of nationalism and nation. There are many primary sources which support the concept of nation and nationalism in 5th century AD Armenia. Many refernces to defending the faith and Fatherland.
Well, one is never too young to learn more. EDIT: And I do not feel too old in that matter
At university, we (the students of Political Science) got always a scoulding (correct word ?) when speaking of "nation" & "nationalism" before the French Revolution.

Julian the apostate

08-09-2007, 16:09

Hitler after comming to power which was largely by the use of fear as a political tool. (The burning the of the Reichstag was blamed on communists) Of course there were also dangerous jews and slavs. While Hitlers actions were offensive and not defensive he came to power by blaming the Jews and Communists and other groups for Post World war one and pushing the german people to see them as enemies and threats. I said desperate because their economy would have bubbled and destroyed itself because it was entirely based on the MIC

Andronikos

08-09-2007, 16:13

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

08-09-2007, 21:42

But it is a cycle. Democracy can't be born out of nothing. Democracy only comes from the desire of the people to overthrow a authoritarian leader.

Treverer

08-09-2007, 22:19

What we have seen several times in the history: the desire for democracy leads into dictatorship,
Roman republic -> Roman empire, French revolution -> Empire of Napoleon, idea of comunism -> Stalin, and also Nazi Germany
I think that people want to live in a strong country so when somebody offers it and he is inteligent (or sly) enough to become a leader, they will believe him.
On the other hand hand there are also examples of good and wise rulers who did for their country more than a democracy could.
The "benevolant tyrant", eh? But can a tyrant do it right for everyone? One view, a rather sarcastic one, says that "democracy" is the "tyranny of the majority over the minority". With a tyrant you have "rule of One over the Rest".
One way, btw the one the Allies choose for post-nazi Germany, to avoid the "pervertions of rule / governments" is education. Teach the people what they gain from democracy, and slowly they accept that "democracy is not the best of all government forms, but better than anything else we've tested so far" (quoted by memory, W. Churchill). - Or should I better say "ochlocracy"? ;-)