Posted on 04/07/2011 5:34:56 AM PDT by Cronos
The chameleon usually eats crickets, but if we put a fly in her cage, ZOT, it’s gone. Except now, when she’s recovering from laying about 50 (infertile) eggs, poor thing. My husband and son are feeding her crickets with chopsticks, trying to get her strength up. It’s a tough life being a female lizard.
Then People will Traffic and Riches Increase.
Riches Produceth Pride. Pride is War's Ground!
War Begets Poverty. thus we Go Round"!
History Is and What If Isn't!
In Harry Truman's Biography he states the basis for Presidential Decisions is a well founded knowledge of HISTORY!
The Communist Thesis states that History should be revised so that it can be a "club" to control the masses.
For example as we approach the 150th Anniversary of the Firing of the cannon at Fort Sumter and the beginning of the Civil War it's amazing that the freed slaves would become staunch Democrats.
Those evil Republican slave holders who formed the Ku Klux Klan and Voting taxes were put off by that Magnificent Democrat President Abraham Lincoln! And so we go 'round!
Then People will Traffic and Riches Increase.
Riches Produceth Pride. Pride is War's Ground!
War Begets Poverty. thus we Go Round"!
History Is and What If Isn't!
In Harry Truman's Biography he states the basis for Presidential Decisions is a well founded knowledge of HISTORY!
The Communist Thesis states that History should be revised so that it can be a "club" to control the masses.
For example as we approach the 150th Anniversary of the Firing of the cannon at Fort Sumter and the beginning of the Civil War it's amazing that the freed slaves would become staunch Democrats.
Those evil Republican slave holders who formed the Ku Klux Klan and Voting taxes were put off by that Magnificent Democrat President Abraham Lincoln! And so we go 'round!
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
I think Mary Renault would agree with Persepolis being the center with all roads leading to it.
I think we would be ruled by an oriental despot - a kind of guy who had an arrogant sneer, his chin sticking out like a counterfeit Mussolini, the kind of guy who felt there should be one rule for himself and his followers and another for everybody else, a man who considered himself some kind of messiah, the sort of ruler who would spend his subjects, money like water....... I guess there would be no difference.
There is a great deal more to recommend the Greek civilization than ouzo and pederasty - that representative government thingy, for one - however, the principal reason we regard them as the good guys in all of this is that they wrote the histories available to us: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon. A similar champion of Persian virtue is yet to arise outside of a brief mention in the Old Testament by Jews grateful for the rebuilding of the Temple. The Greeks had a better agent. It happens.
An excellent post!
I have long believed the basic reason for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was its failure to develop an effective way to manage the succession. This led to destructive civil wars every decade or so.
What they had most of the time was an unstable cross between a hereditary monarchy and a winner-take-all free for all between the generals. This cross gave them the worst of both worlds.
Any emperor could be overthrown by a successful general, so he had to always be suspicious of any good officer. Usually killed them before they could kill him, kinda sorta in self defense. Yet both he and the empire had real enemies and desparately needed good generals.
Even the primogeniture monarchies of Europe were an improvement. Successful generals couldn’t aspire to the throne so the kings didn’t have to kill their generals. When the king died, you at least knew who his successor was.
This is a variant on the obvious notion that the ideal system of government is a benevolent absolute monarchy. The problem, assuming you manage to find a competent benevolent absolute monarch, is that he will eventually die, and expecting him to be succeeded by someone equally benevolent and competent is highly unlikely.
I’ve always meant to, but never read any of her novels. Are they good?
Well, Cyrus the Great is highly regarded both in and outside the Bible.
The primogeniture led to failures like “what do you do in the case of a minor?” or “do I divide the empire among my sons (merovingian)?” or “my ancestors all married their cousins, now I, Ivan IV am a schizophrenic!” or “let’s have a utter stalemate each time by mandating utter 100% agreement (Polish Rzeczpospolita”
A successful Persian subjugation of Greece might have resulted in a calm and orderly region, thus making it unnecessary for Rome to keep the peace (which was why Rome took over Greece in the first place). However I don’t see that as being likely. More likely, the unruly Greeks would have been trouble for Persian satraps. After Rome’s defeat of Carthage, they would have learned to pit Roman interests against Persian interests or outright appealed to Rome for aid. This would have resulted in war between Rome and Persia over Greece. The Persian army would have been no match for the legions, and Rome’s fleet would control the sea.
good analysis. Though the Persian army did hold the Byzantines for centuries.
Only one of your examples is a valid criticism of primogeniture monarchy.
Underage monarchs were a really major problem. The answer, which seldom worked well, was a regent. It only worked when the Regent wasn't after the throne himself and also had sufficient authority and power in his own right to overawe possible opposition. Otherwise, it usually resulted in civil strife or war anyway.
The "divide the empire" problem was the reason behind primogeniture. The empire or kingdom went to the firstborn son, which is the meaning of primogeniture. When he was incompetent and one of his brothers wasn't, he didn't always keep the throne, but that's a different story.
Marrying cousins was also a problem, but the later years of the Spanish Habsburgs are a much better example than Ivan IV. His two grandmothers not only weren't cousins, one was from Serbia and the other from the Byzantine Empire. Dude had a lot of problems, but being inbred wasn't one of them. BTW, historians disagree how mentally ill Ivan was. For a crazy guy he certainly accomplished a lot.
The Polish thing actually makes my point. Rather than a hereditary primogeniture monarchy, they had an elective one. Which meant just about every succession turned into a civil war complete with foreign intervention. Even when he was enthroned, the Polish king didn't have much power.
In fact, the elective monarchy was such a bad idea that when Poland put its reformist constitution of 1791 into effect they replaced it with a hereditary constitutional monarchy, with primogeniture as the rule of succession. The Constitution, of course, was rejected by Polish conservatives and by its greedy neighbors, which led directly to the Second Partition and the abrogation of the Constitution.
The elective veto was, BTW, among the least of Poland's problems. The BIG one was the liberum veto, as you say.
Thanks for that correction on Ivan IV -- and you're right about his accomplishments. it's pretty incredible that this little state of Muscowy became so huge after this madman.
The elective veto was, BTW, among the least of Poland's problems. The BIG one was the liberum veto, as you say.
Correct again -- I need to re-read polski history and wow the in-laws :)
I’m not familiar with Hungarian history, but I suspect this would lead to the sons of the previous king leading revolts once they came of age. Unless the new king killed all the potential challengers, as the Ottoman sultans did.
The problem is not so much one of deciding who gets the throne. It’s of getting everybody else to accept the succession as legitimate.
We do it in this country by elections. Regardless of the griping, almost every American accepts that the winner of the election has legitimate authority. This most recent election was an exception, based on the birth issue.
But that just reinforces my point. Clear rules of succession (and following them) are essential if the new ruler is to be viewed as legitimate by his people. A ruler not viewed as legitimate only remains in power by force, and as Napoleon said, the only thing you can’t do with bayonets is sit on them. And he certainly should have known.
That’s right, “The Persians (particularly up to the end of the Parthian Empire) didn’t care about the religion of the conquered. The wars w/ other lands, for the Persians, was not about ‘religious domination’, nor ethnicity. They even supported freedom of religion.
Sassanid Kings such as Shahpur I was a particular friend to the Jews. The mother of Shahpur II was Jewish. Similarly, many Christians were already freely living in Iran. But, they were Nestorian & Jacobites (Eastern Christians), who were mostly of Persian ethnicity, ex-pagan or Zoroastrian & largely loyal to the Persian Empire.
In fact, for the first three hundred years of Christianity, it was in the Roman Empire that the Christians were persecuted.
The problem began later during Sassanid Empire, when war w/ Rome intensified & Christianity became the favored religion of the Roman Empire. The Sassanid feared the alliance between “Western Christians” & Roman Empire would pose a threat to them. The Western Christians were also trying hard to convert Persian Zoroastrians. That’s when the Sassanid kings established a close tie w/ Zoroastrian clergy in Iran & made Zoroastrianism (along w/ a number of related practices & social structure) the official state religion to counter the Christian-Roman alliance. Prior to that, religion & state were separated in Iran. Even so, the “Western Christian” persecution by the Sassanid was largely limited to pro-Roman Christian clergy or groups, who were perceived or actually were loyal to the Roman Empire. It wasn’t about religion per se.
I agree that a Peso-Roman alliance would have ‘swatted’ Moslem-Arab invasion of Iran & generally prevented the advancement of Islam thereafter.
It is ironic that throughout pre & post Islam history of Iran, Persian empires or dynasties, have mostly managed to dominate or break even w/ those who were their equal, but have lost to those who, one way or another, were inferior to them.
Perso-Roman alliance
>>>”I once went to Persepolis ...”<<<
>>>”Oh, that’s not fair.”<<<
I visited Persepolis when very young w/ my parents, only remember images. But, my eldest sister was there during celebrations of 2500 yr of Persian Civilization/Empire (held in 1971) - she was in her late teens then, remembers it quite well, and says it was awesome.
There were many criticisms levelled at those celebrations by the leftists & Islamists (Iranian or otherwise). Many of them did not understand how positive the celebration was for Iran, both inside & outside. It truly put Iran on the world map & brought much tourism & other economic benefits to the country. The list of benefits is extensive.
However, for the the leftist/communist & their ideological variations (Iranian or foreign), it was their ignorance of Iranian history & utter contempt for the Pahlavis; they preferred to have the USSR or some other wanky commie regime in charge, all in what they stupidly believed to represent “democracy”. For the Islamists, well, they just hated the monarchy, always struggled to put themselves, Directly, in power & rule according to their backward Islamic laws; they wanted social influence & political power, which the Pahlavis, especially the late Shah’s father, Reza Shah (founder of the Pahlavi dynasty) largely & initially took away & denied them.
Finally, thru brainwashing the populace in Iran & abroad, they joined forces & made Iran what it is & has been for the last 32 yrs.
Ironically, the same Iranian Commies/Leftists, got their butt kicked by the same Islamists. Served them well. At least the Islamist knew exactly what they were doing. Their sidekicks, the Commies/Leftists, were & continue to remain retards!
Good YouTube clip of the celebration & another link with background info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1xSdH2PbJ4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500_year_celebration_of_the_Persian_Empire
>>>”There would have been no democracy in the way we know it”<<<
I often see the word “democracy” & Greece conjoined & thrown around a fair bit. Wondered 3 things:
a. Can you provide your definition of “democracy”, so that I understand to what (context) you are referring?
b. When exactly, and under what circumstances did many notable present-day European nations become demcratic?
c. What was the basis for democracy in America? I mean the U.S.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
