EPTOstensibly, there appears to be a strong current of "Not In My Time Period" in that.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 302
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
Ostensibly, there appears to be a strong current of "Not In My Time Period" in that. | ||
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On June 18 2018 13:08 mozoku wrote: To Igne's credit, it certainly seems (from a present-day perspective) that many historians appear to agree that the world is a better place for Napoleon and Alexander the Great having existed. Though had any of us existed while either one was alive, we'd probably consider them gravely sociopathic by modern standards and among their opposition. Alexander the Great? Really? The guy who created zero institutions anywhere he went and whose empire promptly collapsed the day he died? The guy was a walking natural disaster. He showed up, he wrecked shit, he got drunk, he wrecked more shit, he wrecked himself. Name the historians who think Alexander made the world a better place? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
Regardless, whether Alexander does or doesn't fit, Napoleon alone exposes some NIMTP sentiment. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
Krugman was suggesting that people stopped being barbarians and started being Romans because they saw the merits of adopting Roman values and culture. The Roman Empire can be broadly split into two halves. In one half the indigenous population were exterminated through warfare and slavery. In the other half the indigenous population retained much of their previous culture, most notably their language. In neither half is Krugman's claim true. Krugman should stick to whatever his field of expertise is. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42009 Posts
On June 18 2018 14:14 IgnE wrote: Well Krugman specifically said "local elites" didn't he? Did not some leaders of the Gauls capitulate and accept Roman rule? Did not client kings in the Greek speaking east find Roman rule tolerable? It's a bit reductive to say, "well the east didn't speak Latin so they didn't take much from Roman culture," when Krugman's argument was precisely that Rome exercised "soft power." It's not really clear which period you're referring to when you say Client Kings. Krugman seemed to be implying the Imperial period but Client Kings in the Greek east were largely a feature of the Republican era. There's always Armenia which is a bit of an odd one out, but I don't think you meant them. In any case, I'm certainly not suggesting that there was no cultural interchange between Rome and the east. Rather that to suggest that the east was romanized would require an awful lot of very big exceptions, such as language as you point out. And not to state the obvious but when the barbarians in the west were able to retain strong cultural identities under their own elites there was a pattern of acts that would suggest they were not fully romanized, such as sacking Rome. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On June 18 2018 10:43 IgnE wrote: Or, you could subscribe to the theory that future human life has near infinite value, by virtue of its very very lengthy potential duration and scope, and that we should do everything to maximize future life as quickly possible, even if that means clearing the way for a great civilization like that of the Romans. This sort of utilitarian reasoning is flawed from the offset exactly because it subsumes 'smaller' wrongs such as genocide into the umbrella of the greater good. A utilitarian could easily make the argument that Hitler was a good man because look how good things are now! but that is, I hope, clearly inherently ridiculous. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 18 2018 14:25 KwarK wrote: It's not really clear which period you're referring to when you say Client Kings. Krugman seemed to be implying the Imperial period but Client Kings in the Greek east were largely a feature of the Republican era. There's always Armenia which is a bit of an odd one out, but I don't think you meant them. In any case, I'm certainly not suggesting that there was no cultural interchange between Rome and the east. Rather that to suggest that the east was romanized would require an awful lot of very big exceptions, such as language as you point out. And not to state the obvious but when the barbarians in the west were able to retain strong cultural identities under their own elites there was a pattern of acts that would suggest they were not fully romanized, such as sacking Rome. I'll chime in as a fellow (though a little less well-read) scholar of the Roman period, and point out that the Romans had a rolling war economy. Their 'soft power' was essentially conscription into new legions to go and invade someone else. But because they WERE a war economy they HAD to build infrastructure everywhere they went, because otherwise the legions couldn't march on through said place to go and do some conquering. The difference between Alexander and the Romans is just that. The Romans had to and did build a lot everywhere they went, in order to protect what they'd conquered and move their legions around more efficiently. The Romans were not generally good at diplomacy. There were a) people they could conquer, so they conquered them and b) people they couldn't conquer YET, so they made treaties. Almost any time the Romans bordered a nation they could attack and beat, someone invented a reason to go and do it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The White House and administration are straight up saying this isn’t happening. The head of DHS said that they are not separating children from their families. They are lying to the public so they can get away with this as long as possible. And Trump has said he won’t sign the moderate immigration bill being floated, so nothing is going to change. We are a shameful, trash county that can’t even learn from its recent past: | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 18 2018 19:22 iamthedave wrote: I'll chime in as a fellow (though a little less well-read) scholar of the Roman period, and point out that the Romans had a rolling war economy. Their 'soft power' was essentially conscription into new legions to go and invade someone else. But because they WERE a war economy they HAD to build infrastructure everywhere they went, because otherwise the legions couldn't march on through said place to go and do some conquering. The difference between Alexander and the Romans is just that. The Romans had to and did build a lot everywhere they went, in order to protect what they'd conquered and move their legions around more efficiently. The Romans were not generally good at diplomacy. There were a) people they could conquer, so they conquered them and b) people they couldn't conquer YET, so they made treaties. Almost any time the Romans bordered a nation they could attack and beat, someone invented a reason to go and do it. What are you talking about, the Romans were great at diplomacy. You wouldn't believe the amount of wills mysteriously bequeathing their kingdoms to the Romans. :D | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 18 2018 19:42 Plansix wrote: Rome has the best PR for a fallen empire. So many conservatives have boy band like fandom for Rome. The Byzantines never had it this good. Which is funny, in huge part because most of Western civilisation is built on Grecian political and social philosophy, NOT Roman political and social philosophy. Oh, and most of our art and literature has its root in Grecian works as well. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1850 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1850 Posts
On June 18 2018 21:46 iamthedave wrote: Which is funny, in huge part because most of Western civilisation is built on Grecian political and social philosophy, NOT Roman political and social philosophy. Oh, and most of our art and literature has its root in Grecian works as well. That is like saying the current fastfood trends in the world are largely influenced by german food. Just because most of what America nowadays passes for American food has come from german immigrants nobody would call Hamburgers or hot dogs or potato salad german. We know of Greek culture because the Romans integrated it in theirs and brought it to middle europe. What they made of it shaped catholic europe, the greek influence is much more relevant in islam. But in the end, they are both pretty much the same. Just like the Byzantine empire that might have spoken Greek but saw itself as the roman empire both while the western half was still alive and while it was long gone. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On June 18 2018 21:46 iamthedave wrote: Which is funny, in huge part because most of Western civilisation is built on Grecian political and social philosophy, NOT Roman political and social philosophy. Oh, and most of our art and literature has its root in Grecian works as well. I don't see why it's an either/or situation. Rome itself borrowed heavily from ancient Greek works/thinking. Rome brought us the Greek influence. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10605 Posts
"Surrender or we kill you in the most horrific ways." Yeah, Alexander, the Romans but also Ghengis Khan were great Dealmakers. | ||
| ||
