Posted on 12/20/2004 9:15:32 PM PST by CHARLITE
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until voters discover that they can vote themselves largeses from the public treasury. From that time on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."
My hope is that the next big revolution will be a comparatively bloodless one, and will come about when liberal puppets discover that the manipulators who they've thought were their friends were in fact responsible for their misery. A difficult message to get across, but I think the time is approaching for a breakthrough on abortion which will trigger a total sea change.
When did the Persians defeat and sack Rome?
Just got done reading a pretty good treatment of the 4th crusade by Jonathan Phillips. Have you seen that one?
I am Irish and German myself. When I was a kid, my Irish mother told me that all the bad things about me were from my father's German side.
I think I was more bad than Irish.
The great sack of Constantinople by the (conveniently labelled) Turks occurred in 1453. By the 1520s, they were at the gates of Vienna, and were routed utterly in 1529 by forces under the command of the not-well-known (sadly) Count Salm.
There is some historical testament that the Turks were not defeated, but merely retreated (although one could hardly say they did so in good order) because the phase of the moon -- evidently important to their commanders -- was not auspicious.
I have no dog in this fight.
The Turks, of course, tried again -- persistent, they were -- and by 1683, Vienna was again under siege.
The Hapsburg ''emperor'', Leopold I, during this time, was a snivelling little coward, he got the hell out of Dodge -- northward being the convenient direction.
Fortunately for all of us, none other than the King of Poland, Jan Sobyeski, led a sizeable relief force to Vienna, and kicked the Turk back again (they weren't too swift about logistics; fearsome fighters, certainly -- but it's difficult to fight for YEARS on an empty belly).
Yours for more accurate history than is generally taught in American schools, and -- politically incorrect person that I am -- may I wish you a VERY Merry Christmas, and the most prosperous of New Years!
I haven't read it but it sounds excellent. I just added it to my list. Many years ago I had quite a fascination with the 4th Crusade, and read everything I could find on it. I consider it one of the more dreadful tragedies of history not only for the geopolitical consequences (plunging the Byzantine Empire into the decline that eventually permitted the Ottoman conquest) but it also swept away much of the cultural heritage that had been preserved of ancient Greece and Rome.
Rome was a republic before it was an empire. I think the comparison that's more appropriate is the one between the Roman and American republics.
The history fails to note WHY Rome suddenly went from vibrant trade center to welfare state, though. Julius Caesar is presented in this almost as a holdout; he is, in fact, the great corruptor.
In Rome, soldiers were both the defenders AND police. And because military victories brough bounty, they were also the major source of government income, like the IRS.
In the days of the Republic, landowners were required to do service in the military, and they were the only source of officers. Rome was therefore reluctant to make unnecessary war, while at the same time eager to defend its holdings.
After the Spartacus rebellion, Rome feared it needed more soldiers, and a permanent interior police force. They recognized that servants would not make great officers, and that drafted soldiers would not fight well. So they devised a system to hire soldiers, who would then receive pay in the form of being able to keep their spoils.
Julius Caesar exploited the flaw in this system: Soldiers would be eager to fight wealthy, peaceful neighbors. A group of people living near Switzerland petitionned Caesar to migrate through Roman lands to reach France. Such petitions were often granted; they kept Roman neighbors peaceful and happy. Caesar granted permition, observed as they gathered all their wealth, and then attacked them in the middle of the migration, slaughtering innocent aliens by the tens of thousands. His officers were made obscenely wealthy, and, when they returned to Rome, they bought for him the power he would use to destroy the Republic and make himself Rex Tyrannis over all of Rome.
In a generation, Rome went from being beloved by most peoples of the Earth, including the Jews, to be a hated and oppressive tyranny, as its territories ran red with the blood of conquered and reconquered tributaries.
For a century, Rome expanded. But where it had formerly incorporated peoples into itself, it now just expanded its enemies. Within a century of Julius, Nero would destroy Rome itself.
Even then, Rome was expansionist in terms of territory it directly controlled. All viable comparisons between the Roman Republic and America ended after we hit the Pacific. Rome hit the Mediterranean and kept on going.
"Comparisons of America to Rome are baseless. One obvious, major difference between the two is that America is not an empire."
Rome was nice too, until Julius Caesar converted a Republic into a totalitarian hellhole.
Given that he achieved dictatorship after provoking a civil war, I don't think America can go that same route. I can't imagine Tommy Franks pulling a coup.
Rome and America are very closely linked, both historically and politically.
Was that Julius Ceasar, or Sulla?
ping
Bump!
The Byzantine Empire was plainly the most enduring empire in history, a proud legacy. I'm not sure how you can call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire, however. Doesn't the name "the Roman Empire" imply that it should be in Rome? Or run by Romans?
I would more liken Byzantium to the re-establishment of the Hellenic Empire, which is an Empire much more proud even than Rome.
Language:
Rome: Latin
Hellenic: Greek
Byzantium: Greek
Seat:
Rome: Italy
Hellenic: Greece
Byzantium: Greece
Territory:
Rome: Mediterranean
Hellenic: Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East
Byzantium: Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East
Tommy Franks doesn't enrich himself by claiming more power. If I were going to compare the US to Rome (which I wouldn't do), I would be comparing the government - not the military - to Caesar's legions.
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.