Principate Or Dominate?

[Virgil61]

...

And why should the views of the masses influence decisions, - most of them are under-educated, uninterested and uninformed - despite attempts to offer education, newspapers and media, etc.

 

Here it is, the real reason for your views. May I ask how young you are and why you hold such contempt for humanity?

 

America is now the world's imperial power (in economic if not purely political terms), yet it is clear that the majority of Americans take little interest in the wider world and know little about it.

 

Secondly, the present administration is in power largely because it defrauded the electorate in Florida five years or so ago. And the individuals running it - Cheney, Rumsfeld etc appear to be pretty corrupt and pretty resistant to "democracy" or the voice of the people in many of their policies.

 

It's naive to think only Americans take little interest in the outside world. When in overseas I'm always surprised at how misinformed people there are or to put it bluntly, how willing they are to believe anything negative about the US over anything positive and how silly conspiracy theories are believed. Much as I hate to defend Bush, your views on the "defrauded" election and Cheney/Rumsfeld are the perfect example.

[Germanicus]

Phil25, this is not the Afterhours lounge, if you want to debate the pros and cons of the USA, best to do it there, although you'll find it's been discussed previously on more than one occasion.

 

Sad to say, we as a nation just can't help bullying others. But then again, who would you rather have helping the world. The UN or US. Ask people that and they tell you how the UN does nothing and that only leaves the US. Oh, another reason is tha America has "money." Nations would gladly anytime take our money, so therefore, we have every right to interfere.

 

I am so glad that you are NOT representative of Americans in my experience Flavius, most I know through this forum, and are intelligent, well read and open minded.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Oh don't mind me. I know my views are stupid, which is why each time I put them up, so as not to argue, I admit my views as biased and in brackets to avoid less controversey than by trying to say that I'm right.

Edited January 4, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Ursus]

Folks,

 

The topic here is about the Principate versus the Dominate. American politics really don't apply here. I must say I'm starting to become a tad annoyed that whenever we have a discussion on Roman government, it's not long before contemporay American politics is brought into the picture.

 

I echo Germanicus' sentiment to take contemporary politics to the Afterhours lounge

[M. Porcius Cato]

A representative republic is a form of democracy. Some media nut-jobs have recently taken it upon themselves to try and distance the term republic from democracy. That's nothing more than cynical manipulation.

 

But Polybius himself distinguished democracy from a republic when discussing the Roman form of government. So did James Madison. Surely we needn't apply the 'media nut-job' label to Polybius and Madison!

[Sextus Roscius]

Of course, I would always choose republic is given the choice, I follow the example of one of my heros, cicero. But of course in this case, becuase I'm not given the option, I chose Principate

[phil25]

The topic here is about the Principate versus the Dominate. American politics really don't apply here. I must say I'm starting to become a tad annoyed that whenever we have a discussion on Roman government, it's not long before contemporay American politics is brought into the picture.

 

My apologies as a newcomer if I ruffled feathers. But it is difficult to draw comparisons between perceptions of historic circumstances and situations/systems and modern ones, if one is barred from drawing examples from current affairs.

 

It is only when we see that the past was just as emotive - and subjective - to those who lived through it, as the present is to us, that we begin to appreciate the reality of the past.

 

Are Americans really so sensitive to discussion of how they are perceived in the world, though?

 

Once again my apologies if I have offended more sensitive fellow posters - but history should never be an easy, comfortable or convenient subject. The past is an alien place, and current events and circumstances are tomorrow's history. But it was not my intent to do anything than foster intelligent discussion.

 

Phil

[Virgil61]

My apologies as a newcomer if I ruffled feathers. But it is difficult to draw comparisons between perceptions of historic circumstances and situations/systems and modern ones, if one is barred from drawing examples from current affairs.

 

It is only when we see that the past was just as emotive - and subjective - to those who lived through it, as the present is to us, that we begin to appreciate the reality of the past.

 

Are Americans really so sensitive to discussion of how they are perceived in the world, though?

 

Once again my apologies if I have offended more sensitive fellow posters - but history should never be an easy, comfortable or convenient subject. The past is an alien place, and current events and circumstances are tomorrow's history. But it was not my intent to do anything than foster intelligent discussion.

 

Phil

 

You're being disingenuous. You posted opinion on contemporary American politics obviously meant in a negative fashion including a somewhat naive questioning of why the U.S. government doesn't acquiesce to U.N. rule. The mods and regs here aren't ahistorical yokels, we're very aware of analogies to contemporary society. Rather than throwing back on them an accusation of sensitivity you ought to keep in mind that they've seen this before a dozen times and it degenerates into argument over contemporary American policies and politics.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Virgil61

[Ursus]

Are Americans really so sensitive to discussion of how they are perceived in the world, though?

 

Most of us on this forum - American and non-American alike - grow tired of seeing threads supposedly on Ancient Rome degenerate into commentaries on US foreign policy.

 

While most old hands are aware of the rules, it does seem the aforementioned rule has not been clearly spelled out in the forum guidelines. Newer members may therefor not be totally clear on the rules.

 

However, you will be happy to know I just officially added it to the forum guidelines.

 

May the discussion on Ancient Rome resume in earnest.

[P.Clodius]

Hear hear. Tota Romanitas!

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Hear hear. Tota Romanitas!

 

I think it should be Totos Romanos because I doubt that the Romans would be describing themselves so femininely. Remember, masculine is the way to go for Romans.

[pompeius magnus]

Ha, the Romans were feminists compared to the Greeks. One must only take a look at how their language is structured to see the introduction to this.

[Neos Dionysos]

We'll never get a good clear answer on this, though majority will favor Principate perhaps of the era, what it exemplified or that it was at the dawn of the Imperial Era. Personally, I think the Principate was an excellent institution though when the crisis of the third century ensued a true strong-man, dominate structure was needed to end the strife and the problems. Within the structure of the Principate, while the Emperor had supreme control, the Senate and other republican forms were given at last the perception of power and so they used this to nominate hiers and contendors to the throne and used it to influence the course of events. The army added to mess, so once the dominate established itself, you no longer had the Senate pushing for candidates to the throne in the face of military leaders who held the feality and loyalty of the army. The problems arose when the army could not decide on a single ruler and this continued as problems after the division of East and West, since each army would be loyal to thier own respective leaders over the others. This is all just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

[Honorius]

i prefer dominate

 

it prevents civil wars in a way