| marcenmoni@cpu-net.net 2005-12-29, 10:21 am |
|
Cato wrote:
>
> As someone with a passing interest in the history of the Roman Empire
> (did my moniker give it away?), it's quite interesting how the old
> saying about history repeating itself does seem to do that, albiet with
> variations. Since GWB doesn't seem to have the skillset that a Julius
> Caesar had, what role should he be cast as? Would Sulla be more
> appropriate, or maybe a Crassus (the business connection comes to mind
> on that one)? Does that mean Iraq could possibly GWB's Carrhae? I'm
> obvioulsy thinking more in mind with the precursors to the end of the
> Republic rather than it's actual end. Sorry, just practicing a bit of
> mental mastubation, since this particular subject has crossed my mind a
> time or two. Maybe I should be searching alt.history. ;-)
You're probably more well-versed than I am on Roman history. I've been
meaning to get a complete history or histories and read up on it, but
haven't had the time. As for GWB, I doubt he can be mapped to any
particular Roman leader/emperor, given the differences between the two
'empires'.
But my observation is more of a cultural one; after all, the public
must be willing to accept someone as an emperor, and I think that when
that happens, generally speaking, the populace feels that they are
invincible, that the emperor is (mostly) infallible, to be deified, and
therefore begin to lose their sense of civic duty and vigilance that
was at the heart of creating the 'res-publica' in the first place.
Whatever objections some may have had the at reworkings of the
representative bodies in the transition from 'res-publica' to empire
wasn't enough to stop the transition from happening. Here's a brief
tidbit from Wikipedia, for those interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies
Marcello
|