Similarities through history.

[Zaknafien]

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]

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]

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

I know. (Hence "could" instead of "can" )

[Baryonyx Walkeri]

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.


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?

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?

[Incongruous]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

Interesting that you chose the nazi regime, surely one of the European Imerial powers would also be a fit, maybe even a better one?

[Tellos Athenaios]

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]

Kudo?

sounds like a bird.....

[Tellos Athenaios]

No, "Kudos".

[Spoofa]

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

[Spoofa]

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


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

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are giving your friends a multitude of plural Kude?

Now that's:

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

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

[Julian the apostate]

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]

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]

- 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.

[Treverer]

- 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]

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]

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.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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]

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"? ;-)

[Zaknafien]

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

Yep, and this is almost exactly paralleled by the US today and its "defensive" wars to protect itself from outside threats.

[The Stranger]

after 100 A.D. most (long serving) emperors were not romans, you had plenty yllirians some who grew up in spain, gaul maybe too... balkan alot also.

[Olaf The Great]

after 100 A.D. most (long serving) emperors were not romans, you had plenty yllirians some who grew up in spain, gaul maybe too... balkan alot also.

It was more of a non-Italian ruler than a non-Roman, as there were plenty of non-Romans.
You could also say that they were all Roman, but their ethnicities were different.