When Rome was a republic, would you say they were mostly centrist on a political chart or did they lean more toward the right?
I understand they had a very large government and that their state works extended to providing mail service, giving bread to the poor (ancient welfare), free water from public aqueducts, free sewage service, and public roads. Which makes them quite a left-wing society.
But on the other hand, they were also very right-wing, due to their large military, nationalism, and other things like that.
Would this make the Romans, essentially, moderate/mixed, in comparison to most nations today who lean more left-wing or right-wing on their economic and fiscal policies?
Did the Roman Republic have the best of both worlds, left-wing and right-wing?
>>1310020
Modern political classifications dont really work when applied to ancient cultures
>>1310039
One could argue Rome was a modern state of its time, they were so organized of a state that they could be considered a modern nation due to that alone.
>>1310056
They were an oligarchy of landed nobility
>>1310089
But aren't most nations today considered oligarchic republics? Princeton University even said that USA was no longer a true republic but rather a deviated republic favoring the ruling class, as they have the most sway on things having the most money, aka 1%ers.
Since most nations have a similar system to American politics, they could also very well be oligarchic republics.
This means that Rome was a past repeat of what modern countries are now.
In this sense, their government structure can be considered somewhat of a modern nation.
They had better bureaucracy than most other states until recent times. Between that, their public works/monuments, and military expansion that's pretty much all there was to Rome.
>>1310131
But if Rome was a person, where exactly would you put them on this graph?
>>1310145
Again, useless comparison. Sometimes the consuls were traditionalists, sometimes they were warhawking jingoists. Sometimes the Senate was full of Catonians who believed in the divinity of the republic, other times it was full of what we could call atheists or agnostics. Some consuls wanted to uplift the plebs, some wanted to improve the rights of slaves and citizens, etc. Etc. If you want a solid answer you need to give us a year to look at.
The interesting thing about Greek and Roman democracy (or republicanism, but politics in general) Is that there were always multiple views on the topic. That's why there were always two consuls.
>>1310161
I would say somewhere near conservative, nationalist and traditionalist. At least if you're talking about the Roman republic during its hay days.
>>1310177
What about here?
Generally, the Senate fell into two opposing camps: the Optimates or 'best men', these were the typical oligarchs, and the Populares, these were oligarchs who sought the support of the plebs. The former could generally be said to be right-wing, the latter left-wing.
>>1310108
The US has a voting system based on the masses
There is no "patrician" status through birth in the US
A majority of US congressman are closely related to other congressman (though a lot are)
The US system actually has constituents elect its representatives, Rome did not
All of this is true for most modern republics
Romans were "conservative" ... because back then everyone would be considered conservative, even the democracy of Athens.
The reality of their situation did not allow for trivial conversation. Romans acted in ways both like ours today, and savage ways we will never again see in our life time. Nationalism was not simple flag waving, it was the idea that your nation must survive over all.
Play Age of Empires, it will help you understand the basic concepts of life for the ancient man and woman. I say that unironically.
>>1310260
>The former could generally be said to be right-wing, the latter left-wing.
You mean "conservative" and "progressive" respectively, relative to their own society. Left and right wing have no meaning outside a modern context
>>1310566
>age of empires
Because life consisted of chopping wood, endlessly.
>>1310576
Yes, more accurately, but I was trying to relate to OP's question.
>>1310583
Fair enough
>>1310566
Prostagma?
>>1310753
Volome
>>1310020
Left and Right are Post French Revolution memes that cannot be used on Ancient civilizations
>>1310020
Stop acting like ancient Rome was a precursor to modern nations. They were completely foreign to us. You probably have more in common with modern China than you do with ancient Rome
>>1310108
The 1% of today aren't a special class with state privileges and special rights bestowed on them due to birth. Your "name" becomes worthless in todays society should a rich person become poor while your status as a patrician did not diminish. A complete no one like Obama can become the first man without a violent revolution or purging of opposing families
So no, Rome was not an "ancient" version of modern democratic nation states
>>1310801
/Thread
>>1310817
>>1310310
>implying nepotism isnt a rampant problem in almost every company
You act like people born rich dont always end up doing better due to having more opportunities bought for them or handed to them by their parents (such as small $1000000 loans) and having the ability to take risks that poor people can't
>>1310855
In today's society, all of those privileges disappear once someone loses their wealth, there is no class of "special" people who receive rights and privileges from the state based on their family name
>>1310864
That is technically true but how often do the bourgeoise ever fall in the manner you said?
>>1310864
You are simpy wrong.
A disowned without a penny to his name Rothschild is worth and treated far better than any normal American.
>>1310801
Except the part where the founders based the US on the form of government on the Roman Republic.
>>1311467
If his family supports him sure, but without financially backing he becomes just like everyone and no one will think he is related to the Rothchild family and that his name is coincidence.
This is completely unlike ancient Rome where in the late republic, you had social tensions between plebs who had become wealthy against patricians who were of modest means, but were guaranteed special rights and privileges by the state due to their name and family history
>>1312253
and enlightenment ideals, early America was very different from ancient rome
>>1311244
The Chinese have a saying that wealth only lasts three generations (one to earn it, one to enjoy it and one to squander it). While some fall spectacularly like NFL players and lottery winners most simply fade away over time. Exceptionalism is a personal thing that doesn't get passed down the family very far if at all.
>>1312384
Yeah... thats balls... it makes people feel better but as evidenced by the sheer amount of Blue Blood ruling and being important in the UK...
the senate was extremely conservative, as in actual conservatism. tradition and politics were intertwined as fuck
The Roman senate was basically a right wing dictatorship except you had like 600 men instead of 1
also your American difinition of politics like big government and taxes being left wing are incrredibly retarded as fuck
stop that
>>1310260
the populares werent left wing or progressive in any fucking way
>>1310580
and being raided by those damn fucking Iroquois
>>1310020
They would have considered themselves as moderates. Whether we would see them as such is a different ballgame.
For example they were a cross between Athens and Sparta. They had the popular franchise and nationalistic tendencies of the Athenian citizenry, and the dual ruler and agrarian focus of the Spartans. They would also follow the same path the Spartans took to ruin, namely greater inequality and reliance on slave labor.
>>1313722
He meant Age of Empires 1, retard.
>>1310580
Unironically, you are correct.
Sorry your inner city lifestyle didn't give you the knowledge to understand life before technology invented in the last 200 years, like it was supposed to :^)
>>1310161
>moderate
>liberal
What fucking retard made this? Liberal is far left bottom
Moderate is called moderate
I fall in the moderate spectrum and I have virtually nothing in common with liberal beliefs
>>1310161
Yeah who made this? National Socialism is on the left next to communism? These are opposite view points that don't work together at all.
>>1310161
God this is retarded
None of this makes sense
>Nationalism
>Above Authoritarianism
>On the Authoritarian scale
How? Nationalism doesnt have a place on the authoritarian / libertarian scale at all, its a right ideology. You can be libertarian nationalist, national socialist, ect.
>Social Democratism
>Democratic Socialism
>Ultra Capitalism
>Ultra Anarchism
You're just making up words now
A Bernie bro clearly made this, explains why its all utter nonsense
If you fall into the bottom right you are likely an AnCap, straight right you have your nationalism and classic conservatism, upper right you are likely religious conservative, upper middle you are seig heil, upper left you are a filthy communist, straight left you are a socialist, lower left you are a filthy liberal, bottom middle you are a retarded anarchist. If you fall in the middle you can be many things, or none.
Thats all you need to know.
Roman senatorial politics consisted primarily of two factions.
>Optimates
Elitist oligarchs who were interested in staying powerful and helping out their friends. They considered the rival Populares idealistic and dishonorable.
>Populares
These guys were a populist party whose goal was improving living and working conditions for the pleibians. This also helped the Populare politicians to be viewed in a good light by the average Roman. In the case of a civil uprising, the Populares would not have to worry about being an enemy of the people.
I have to say that ancient civilizations' political factions are hard to analyze analogically. It is more interesting to think of ancient and even contemporary foreign political systems, especially in China and the east, as incomparable to our own.
