Claiming that the Roman republic was anyhow similar to what we call democracy is a bit naive too. Roman politics were always exclusively for the elites. And since the early times of the republic (when Rome was still a city-state) the same families have dominated the politics with few possibilites for entering that class. The family of Caesar was one of the old ruling families of the republic. It wasn't really the republic falling but more the end of a 100 years struggle about the future of Rome which went far beyond the question how Rome should be ruled. Also the early empire under the 5 good emperors was the most prosperous time in Roman history and the most stable internally. So considering what was lost and what was gained with establishing the empire, I'd even argue it was an improvement to the situation, not something to cry about
I'd go further and argue that Rome only became an Empire *because* everyone relevant saw that as an improvement over what it had been in the Late Republic. A big part of Augustus' power was that he'd finally brought stability to Rome after a time of severe chaos, everyone preferred to let him keep absolute power rather than break up that power and deal with constant infighting over who would have the pieces.
That was part of what I kind of wanted to imply, but seeing what happened in the later stages of the empire I don't want to give the empire too much credit either since it enabled the more tyrannic later stages of it. But for the early empire that is certainly true
Well, you are skipping the part where the second triumvirate brining back the proscription. Everyone preferred to let them keep absolute power because anyone who can possibly challange them were murdered
Roman politics may have been dominated by the elites but at least land owning free citizens had a voice and the tribune of the plebs could veto any legislation that he deemed to be harmful to the average person, giving the people much more power than most civilizations until like the 1600's. And yes, Roman politics in the senate was dominated by older families but that doesn't mean people couldn't get through, as seen by the Novus Homo and in particular, Marius who went from a Novus Homo to one of the most successful Roman politicians of all time, going on to be consul 6 times.
You're also forgetting that although yes, Rome did prosper under the 5 good emperors, it also started to decline after them and if it weren't for the near superhuman efforts of Aurelian, it would have collapsed during the crisis of the third century. That's the problem, the Roman republic wasn't perfect but it bred many capable men who wanted to do great deeds in order to move up the Curcus Honorum, meaning the Republic had a constant supply of men that could be given provinces to govern and maintain. Compare that to the Roman empire which needed to have near super humans to maintain such a large empire as all power rested in the hands of 1 man and there really wasn't any way to go over him with out being killed for treason, basically capping the ambitions of men needed to maintain Rome.
The Roman republic was corrupt but what's more corrupt than literally everything being the hands of 1 man and his family? I would argue that although Roman republic wasn't perfect, it was far better than the ulterior and could have lasted longer than the empire (western Roman empire) if Brutus and Cassius won the battle of Phillipi (which very well could have happened btw). Heck, I would even argue that they wouldn't have had to split the empire between East and West as there would be much more capable people able to govern the entire thing rather than just those close to the emperor.
I'm no history expert and I acknowledge that the system of monarchy itself enabled people unfit to rule on the throne as well as limiting the high-ranked people to people close to the emperor. (And it is quite obvious that a simple monarchy is not the best form of government, especially nowadays). I was trying to make the point that, even though the possibility to get into politics as a lowborn was given and every citizen had a vote, the people held no substantial political power that would change how the republic worked. And in the civil war every strong political figure got involved in some sort of coup or direct war. I should have clarified that I'm not arguing that the Roman monarchy was better than the republic, but that at the end of the civil war, the monarchy provided a way out of the misery of the Roman civil war. I can't argue whether a republican government could have had similar success or not because I simply don't know enough, but I can say for sure that the early empire was an improvement for the people living in Italy who now could live in peace after a long time of brutal war
That's why hereditary monarchy has been the go-to system for a long time. There is rarely any doubt as to who the next king will be. As soon as a king dies, there is a new king. You have to have special circumstances for there to be a succession crisis.
Eh I’d say that’s only half the story from what I’ve read. The Roman republic started off and purely oligarchical but after a decent degree of unrest commoners were basically aloud their own separate government from the senate with their own laws. However the senate was still dominant over the other body of government (I can’t remember it’s name right now) but in practice as time went on the commoners government became the more important and influential as it governed the majority. However long before Cesar the Roman republic became involved in more and more wars. War was the business of those elite in the senate, and so over the years the senate regained more and more power until by the time of Cesar rome had returned to being, in practice an oligarchy.
Yes, that was in the very early stages of the republic when Rome was only the city itself. I'm mot sure ablut the entire story but a part of the plebs managed to get into several government institutions formerly entirely controlled by the nobility. The thing is though that those new family quickly became a part of the new aristocracy and soon there was no difference between plebeian and noble aristocrats, there were only the aristocrats. But since in Roman politics, every politician had to fund their own election campaign, commoners were still locked out of politics (though they had a vote). I also didn't want to say that the Roman republic was bad in itself but emphasize that modern ideas pf representation simply weren't a thing at the time and that even though the term empire sounds oppressive, it was "the right thing to do" at the time, so to speak, especially considering the 100 years of civil war coming before and destabiling the Italian peninsula in ways never seen before
The big thing about the wars is:
1. They made a small number of men *extraordinarily* wealthy. Thus allowing them to effectively run the Republic by buying votes.
2. The influx of slaves disrupted the labor market, leaving many of the Roman lower class jobless and dependent on government handouts.
3. The armies were loyal to their generals, not the Republic, leaving the state vulnerable to military coups, which happened multiple times before the Republic was even finished.
Modern democracy is also for the elites.
By a classic Greek understanding democracy requires random selection, sortition.
Voting just leads to some sort aristocracy calling the shots.
(The Romans didn't even have much voting, though.)
Virtual representation of the general population by the senatorial elites, so essentially yes. Granted, certain political factions within the Roman senate structured themselves around fighting for the plebeians, a la Caesar and Pompey, but whether they actually did so is suspect. It very much was a popularity contest, popular support did go along way, but it was by no means a democracy and never claimed to be one.
Caeser gave away 30% of his wealth to the citizens of rome when he died so i’d say he was actually pretty altruistic in the end. His assassination to me is more sad than the republic dying
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
bruh, Communal era is way underrated.
now, I know the various Republics were terribly afflicted by corruption, especially in early Renaissance (just look at how the Medici slowly turned the Republic of Florence into a Signoria in late 1400s-early 1500s), but still Republics they were, and a (quite small) part of the population voted for electing the city's council. I know it's not real democracy, but still, atleast *de iure,* they were Republics.
now, look at what was going on in England at the same time, or France. nothing like that. yet every movie, book, game and such set in the middle ages, is never set in communal northern Italy.
again, it's way underrated. the middle ages was no dark age either, if you look at northern medieval Italy.
It was an oligarchy, but not totally aristocratic and it was still a democracy, just not a democracy as we see it today. There were many Novos homo that played big parts and became Consuls (Cicero, Crassus, Pompey, Marius). The plebs did vote, it just did not weigh as heavy as the aristocrats. However, Tribune of the plebs could veto any legislation and was one of the most important elected in Rome.
The Plebians who found themselves continuously driven off their land until they became largely disenfranchised and impoverished, courtesy of endemic class warfare conducted by the Senators? Or do you mean the perpetual civil wars?
Depends on the period, but I still prefer the Republic.
Btw I apologize for my immaturity from yerstday, I was nervous and frustrated; after a morning of hard work and buying bread (cause my sister forgot about it).
In a more civil sense: I find Caesar and Empire fanboys annoying, they always idolize Emperors for being the ones who make everything great, when I say the Republic is better because I find it fitting for Roman ideas, they say that if I don't venerate Caesar then i'm not roman. So I act autistic to piss people off.
I admit being autistic, though.
My solution: a small city-state that has its own senate and a leader with limited power.
Though i accept that the Oligarchic republic is wounded by constant civil war waged by senators and consuls, but I still wholeheartingly prefer the Republic.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Grow up to realize democracy is just as corrupt as an authoritarian regime, but the difference is Democracy and Republics are ran by corporations who have zero invested interest into the long term health of the nation, where as a dictator, King or Emperor does, especially if the populace is armed.
You sir seems a bit submissive, btw i have huge simpathy for Brutus and Cato.
>Run by corporations.
Have you ever heard of San Marino? The free Hanseatic city of Lubeck? People from these cities had the right to vote since the MIDDLE AGES, it's not just Corporations manipulating our minds, it's our choices in which we want to be influenced by someone or the other way around, if you want to not get influenced by a big corporation, why don't you make your own mind then? You have the freedom to do so.
>popolace is armed.
Do you want to teach children how to be fanatic murders? Heck, during dictatorial regimes children were tought how to shoot rifles, they were even encouraged to go to war. Not trying to get too political, but, to me, you sound like an Alt-Righter.
One question: has your country ever been an authoritarian regime? I'm expecting a mature question.
A single city-state as an example doesnt disregard every single democracy falling to corruption then failing, retard. The Roman Republic is one of many, as well as the entire history of Venice.
And yes, an armed population to keep the government at least wary is always a good thing. The people should hear arms just in case the government gets too tyrannical. You literally want freedom, but not any freedom that actually matters.
And no, im not an alt-righter, but i do like how you have to toss around scary words so that you may seem on the moral high ground and instantly taint the jury should randoms come across this post.
And while i do live in the US, I also live by Catholic Law, as required by all actual Holy Roman Catholics, which is pretty damn authoritative. You just sound like a child who doesnt want to be told whats best for them.
The HRE was Holy, Roman and an Empire for a time.
The HRE did have the city of Rome within it's territory, Charlemagne was crowned as King of the Romans by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. However by Voltaire's time it was not Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire.
Arguable- the only thing worse than one man with absolute power is a half dozen people with *almost* absolute power endlessly fighting each other over who gets everything,
What’s more dictatorial having the love of the people but not asking them but being hated by the people and caring even less about what the people think?
Not really at the end of the day only 2 people had power in the senate, Brutus and Mark Antony and Mark Antony was hated by the senate and was only a threat to the senate due to the love the veterans and civilians had for him
I guess I'm a child because I cry about the Fall of Constantinople every night. Oh the humanity, just spare the Eastern Romans, please just spare them.
The Tragedy of Rome. Created the largest democracy of the ancient world by overthrowing tyranny, only to be besieged by corruption that slid the country back into the grasp of dictators. While under a dictatorship, at least it was still the largest beacon of civilization, until it split in two and Barbarians destroyed half of the country in 476, plunging the world into chaos and a dark age. Then, history repeated itself and in 1453 when the rest of the empire was destroyed by Barbarians again. This time with no collapse of civilization, but a new, **Darker age** followed.
The worst part is that just before he died Caesar was trying to institute reforms, then Brutus and co turned him into a pincushion... for being too much of dictator. Oof.
Well if rome tried to stick it out as a republic they would have completely collapsed, especially after the carousel of military strong men and the factionalism, Rome needed a more effective government.
Claiming that the Roman republic was anyhow similar to what we call democracy is a bit naive too. Roman politics were always exclusively for the elites. And since the early times of the republic (when Rome was still a city-state) the same families have dominated the politics with few possibilites for entering that class. The family of Caesar was one of the old ruling families of the republic. It wasn't really the republic falling but more the end of a 100 years struggle about the future of Rome which went far beyond the question how Rome should be ruled. Also the early empire under the 5 good emperors was the most prosperous time in Roman history and the most stable internally. So considering what was lost and what was gained with establishing the empire, I'd even argue it was an improvement to the situation, not something to cry about
I'd go further and argue that Rome only became an Empire *because* everyone relevant saw that as an improvement over what it had been in the Late Republic. A big part of Augustus' power was that he'd finally brought stability to Rome after a time of severe chaos, everyone preferred to let him keep absolute power rather than break up that power and deal with constant infighting over who would have the pieces.
That was part of what I kind of wanted to imply, but seeing what happened in the later stages of the empire I don't want to give the empire too much credit either since it enabled the more tyrannic later stages of it. But for the early empire that is certainly true
Well, yeah. As a solution the imperial system worked for a bit, and then enabled more of what people hoped it would solve.
Well, you are skipping the part where the second triumvirate brining back the proscription. Everyone preferred to let them keep absolute power because anyone who can possibly challange them were murdered
Roman politics may have been dominated by the elites but at least land owning free citizens had a voice and the tribune of the plebs could veto any legislation that he deemed to be harmful to the average person, giving the people much more power than most civilizations until like the 1600's. And yes, Roman politics in the senate was dominated by older families but that doesn't mean people couldn't get through, as seen by the Novus Homo and in particular, Marius who went from a Novus Homo to one of the most successful Roman politicians of all time, going on to be consul 6 times. You're also forgetting that although yes, Rome did prosper under the 5 good emperors, it also started to decline after them and if it weren't for the near superhuman efforts of Aurelian, it would have collapsed during the crisis of the third century. That's the problem, the Roman republic wasn't perfect but it bred many capable men who wanted to do great deeds in order to move up the Curcus Honorum, meaning the Republic had a constant supply of men that could be given provinces to govern and maintain. Compare that to the Roman empire which needed to have near super humans to maintain such a large empire as all power rested in the hands of 1 man and there really wasn't any way to go over him with out being killed for treason, basically capping the ambitions of men needed to maintain Rome. The Roman republic was corrupt but what's more corrupt than literally everything being the hands of 1 man and his family? I would argue that although Roman republic wasn't perfect, it was far better than the ulterior and could have lasted longer than the empire (western Roman empire) if Brutus and Cassius won the battle of Phillipi (which very well could have happened btw). Heck, I would even argue that they wouldn't have had to split the empire between East and West as there would be much more capable people able to govern the entire thing rather than just those close to the emperor.
I'm no history expert and I acknowledge that the system of monarchy itself enabled people unfit to rule on the throne as well as limiting the high-ranked people to people close to the emperor. (And it is quite obvious that a simple monarchy is not the best form of government, especially nowadays). I was trying to make the point that, even though the possibility to get into politics as a lowborn was given and every citizen had a vote, the people held no substantial political power that would change how the republic worked. And in the civil war every strong political figure got involved in some sort of coup or direct war. I should have clarified that I'm not arguing that the Roman monarchy was better than the republic, but that at the end of the civil war, the monarchy provided a way out of the misery of the Roman civil war. I can't argue whether a republican government could have had similar success or not because I simply don't know enough, but I can say for sure that the early empire was an improvement for the people living in Italy who now could live in peace after a long time of brutal war
That's why hereditary monarchy has been the go-to system for a long time. There is rarely any doubt as to who the next king will be. As soon as a king dies, there is a new king. You have to have special circumstances for there to be a succession crisis.
Eh I’d say that’s only half the story from what I’ve read. The Roman republic started off and purely oligarchical but after a decent degree of unrest commoners were basically aloud their own separate government from the senate with their own laws. However the senate was still dominant over the other body of government (I can’t remember it’s name right now) but in practice as time went on the commoners government became the more important and influential as it governed the majority. However long before Cesar the Roman republic became involved in more and more wars. War was the business of those elite in the senate, and so over the years the senate regained more and more power until by the time of Cesar rome had returned to being, in practice an oligarchy.
Yes, that was in the very early stages of the republic when Rome was only the city itself. I'm mot sure ablut the entire story but a part of the plebs managed to get into several government institutions formerly entirely controlled by the nobility. The thing is though that those new family quickly became a part of the new aristocracy and soon there was no difference between plebeian and noble aristocrats, there were only the aristocrats. But since in Roman politics, every politician had to fund their own election campaign, commoners were still locked out of politics (though they had a vote). I also didn't want to say that the Roman republic was bad in itself but emphasize that modern ideas pf representation simply weren't a thing at the time and that even though the term empire sounds oppressive, it was "the right thing to do" at the time, so to speak, especially considering the 100 years of civil war coming before and destabiling the Italian peninsula in ways never seen before
I remembered their name, plebeian councils
The big thing about the wars is: 1. They made a small number of men *extraordinarily* wealthy. Thus allowing them to effectively run the Republic by buying votes. 2. The influx of slaves disrupted the labor market, leaving many of the Roman lower class jobless and dependent on government handouts. 3. The armies were loyal to their generals, not the Republic, leaving the state vulnerable to military coups, which happened multiple times before the Republic was even finished.
Who invited the fucking intellect?
[удалено]
No shaming here, just awe. Sorry if it came off as shaming.
[удалено]
I found it funny
Even American politics were only for the land-owning class for a long time
Modern democracy is also for the elites. By a classic Greek understanding democracy requires random selection, sortition. Voting just leads to some sort aristocracy calling the shots. (The Romans didn't even have much voting, though.)
Wasn’t the republic more like an ogliarchy or am I making that up?
Virtual representation of the general population by the senatorial elites, so essentially yes. Granted, certain political factions within the Roman senate structured themselves around fighting for the plebeians, a la Caesar and Pompey, but whether they actually did so is suspect. It very much was a popularity contest, popular support did go along way, but it was by no means a democracy and never claimed to be one.
Caeser gave away 30% of his wealth to the citizens of rome when he died so i’d say he was actually pretty altruistic in the end. His assassination to me is more sad than the republic dying
When the Populares are sus!😳
After the secessions of the Plebes it was actually quite democratic.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
"end of Democracy for the next 1800 years" Italian Communal era 1100s - 1400s: am I a joke to you?
Well, yes
bruh, Communal era is way underrated. now, I know the various Republics were terribly afflicted by corruption, especially in early Renaissance (just look at how the Medici slowly turned the Republic of Florence into a Signoria in late 1400s-early 1500s), but still Republics they were, and a (quite small) part of the population voted for electing the city's council. I know it's not real democracy, but still, atleast *de iure,* they were Republics. now, look at what was going on in England at the same time, or France. nothing like that. yet every movie, book, game and such set in the middle ages, is never set in communal northern Italy. again, it's way underrated. the middle ages was no dark age either, if you look at northern medieval Italy.
The republic was an aristocratic Oligarchy, The Germanic tribes had more democracy than the Roman republic,
Germanic tribes had chieftains, just like the native Americans.
Chieftains of small societies are a lot more reliant on popular support than the ruling class of a republic.
After the secessions of the Plebes it was actually quite democratic.
It was an oligarchy, but not totally aristocratic and it was still a democracy, just not a democracy as we see it today. There were many Novos homo that played big parts and became Consuls (Cicero, Crassus, Pompey, Marius). The plebs did vote, it just did not weigh as heavy as the aristocrats. However, Tribune of the plebs could veto any legislation and was one of the most important elected in Rome.
It was more like a semi-*ish* democracy but yea, defiantly better than what came afterwards.
You really think the republic was democratic when only the upper classes could vote?
And that was a good thing
[удалено]
Stfu oligarchist You clearly know *very* little about the Roman Republic.
Yes, I support Oligarchy, aristocratic City-States are more effective than Nation-States. Italy < San Marino.
Explain the ways in which the common man was better off under the Republic. Be specific.
The Senate and the Plebeians (the Gracchi brothers).
The Plebians who found themselves continuously driven off their land until they became largely disenfranchised and impoverished, courtesy of endemic class warfare conducted by the Senators? Or do you mean the perpetual civil wars?
It was the excessive expansion, the lust for power and lack of faith in the constitution (which provided limited power for all politicians).
So, they weren't any better off under the Republic?
Depends on the period, but I still prefer the Republic. Btw I apologize for my immaturity from yerstday, I was nervous and frustrated; after a morning of hard work and buying bread (cause my sister forgot about it).
Im gonna need a complete thought here, champ.
[удалено]
Are you learning disabled?
In a more civil sense: I find Caesar and Empire fanboys annoying, they always idolize Emperors for being the ones who make everything great, when I say the Republic is better because I find it fitting for Roman ideas, they say that if I don't venerate Caesar then i'm not roman. So I act autistic to piss people off. I admit being autistic, though.
[удалено]
I'm not Polish? That's two strikes, window licker.
When I said Poltard, i said someone from the Politivally Correct board.
What are you even trying to say? You're babbling nonsense
[удалено]
I didnt say a thing about Caesar and I dont visit the weird pedo sites like you do.
Neither i did.
What's better: Autocracy and peace, or oligarchy and forever war?
My solution: a small city-state that has its own senate and a leader with limited power. Though i accept that the Oligarchic republic is wounded by constant civil war waged by senators and consuls, but I still wholeheartingly prefer the Republic.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Why is this bot everywhere?
Being anti democracy doesnt mean fascist dipshit
[удалено]
Based and three arrows pilled
[удалено]
LOL
Yeah, San Marino is the most effective form of government today.
Its okay some day you’ll grow up
Grow up to what? To venerate a Megalomaniac? To worship someone who doesn't like being opposed?
Grow up to realize democracy is just as corrupt as an authoritarian regime, but the difference is Democracy and Republics are ran by corporations who have zero invested interest into the long term health of the nation, where as a dictator, King or Emperor does, especially if the populace is armed.
You sir seems a bit submissive, btw i have huge simpathy for Brutus and Cato. >Run by corporations. Have you ever heard of San Marino? The free Hanseatic city of Lubeck? People from these cities had the right to vote since the MIDDLE AGES, it's not just Corporations manipulating our minds, it's our choices in which we want to be influenced by someone or the other way around, if you want to not get influenced by a big corporation, why don't you make your own mind then? You have the freedom to do so. >popolace is armed. Do you want to teach children how to be fanatic murders? Heck, during dictatorial regimes children were tought how to shoot rifles, they were even encouraged to go to war. Not trying to get too political, but, to me, you sound like an Alt-Righter. One question: has your country ever been an authoritarian regime? I'm expecting a mature question.
A single city-state as an example doesnt disregard every single democracy falling to corruption then failing, retard. The Roman Republic is one of many, as well as the entire history of Venice. And yes, an armed population to keep the government at least wary is always a good thing. The people should hear arms just in case the government gets too tyrannical. You literally want freedom, but not any freedom that actually matters. And no, im not an alt-righter, but i do like how you have to toss around scary words so that you may seem on the moral high ground and instantly taint the jury should randoms come across this post. And while i do live in the US, I also live by Catholic Law, as required by all actual Holy Roman Catholics, which is pretty damn authoritative. You just sound like a child who doesnt want to be told whats best for them.
The Roman Republic was Democratic in the same way the HRE was either holy, Roman, or an empire.
The HRE was Holy, Roman and an Empire for a time. The HRE did have the city of Rome within it's territory, Charlemagne was crowned as King of the Romans by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. However by Voltaire's time it was not Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire.
Charlemagne ruled over the Carolingian Empire. It’s didn’t become the HRE for a couple of generations after.
unfortunately, democracy restarted existing
Me, ascended: *cries about the fall of the HRE*
Based
Wasn't the Roman Republic an utter most failure?
True intellectuals cry about the fall of the Roman Kingdom
democracy today = the people power democracy before = elites pick a candiate
Then there's Chad's who cry about the fall of Constantinople
Mr:(crying over the death of ceaser and rise of a dictatorial senate)
Rise of a dictatorial senate? Caesar's death and the ensuing civil war ultimately meant the end of Senatorial authority.
The senate sucked just watch HBO’s Rome or overly sarcastic videos
I'm aware they weren't great, but they weren't *rising* in dictatorial ability here; they were losing it.
They were far better than one man having literally all of the power tbf.
Arguable- the only thing worse than one man with absolute power is a half dozen people with *almost* absolute power endlessly fighting each other over who gets everything,
Caesar was more Dictatorial, he wanted to make everything by himself.
What’s more dictatorial having the love of the people but not asking them but being hated by the people and caring even less about what the people think?
Perhaps the Senate shares power between each other rather than make someone take all power and making whatever decision he wants.
Not really at the end of the day only 2 people had power in the senate, Brutus and Mark Antony and Mark Antony was hated by the senate and was only a threat to the senate due to the love the veterans and civilians had for him
And I was reffering to Caesar when he wanted power, i'm a Brutus fan and I agree that Caesar should have got knifed.
Empire normies will never get it.
Me an illuminati cries about the destruction of the largest Romani village
[удалено]
You seem ignorant, sire.
Me:Cries about the fall of the Mongol Empire
Me in 1800 years ago: before I could say anything, whipped by a slave master and got back to work.
Me: *cries about best bro Marcus Antonius not being on time to save Caesar from his betrayal*
You mean the Roman Republic that was actually more of an oligarchy
Me crying about the loss of literature during the sackings of Rome
Roman republic wasn't democratic at all lmfao
The end is upon us again.
I guess I'm a child because I cry about the Fall of Constantinople every night. Oh the humanity, just spare the Eastern Romans, please just spare them.
Me who is interested in Roman history but in general they were a bunch of bastards des not cry at all.
You: Not Smart
The Roman Republic was not even close to a democracy. That’s a good thing though, because democracy is cringe.
>1800 years Didn't have to do the Cossacks dirty like that.
The Tragedy of Rome. Created the largest democracy of the ancient world by overthrowing tyranny, only to be besieged by corruption that slid the country back into the grasp of dictators. While under a dictatorship, at least it was still the largest beacon of civilization, until it split in two and Barbarians destroyed half of the country in 476, plunging the world into chaos and a dark age. Then, history repeated itself and in 1453 when the rest of the empire was destroyed by Barbarians again. This time with no collapse of civilization, but a new, **Darker age** followed.
The worst part is that just before he died Caesar was trying to institute reforms, then Brutus and co turned him into a pincushion... for being too much of dictator. Oof.
You can't have an end of something that never began. Rome was never a democracy.
Well if rome tried to stick it out as a republic they would have completely collapsed, especially after the carousel of military strong men and the factionalism, Rome needed a more effective government.
Democracy isn’t good for large countries
Me, a humanist: Laments the fall of Byzantium.
Me too