4 ms·

> These results suggest that an emperor relied on his military for support. The is obvious to even the laziest Roman history reader. The emperors knew this wel

> These results suggest that an emperor relied on his military for support. The is obvious to even the laziest Roman history reader. The emperors knew this well, and bankrupted the state to shower donatives on troops. Now you know one of the reasons the army is forbidden from being deployed on US soil. The founders understood the risk of a military dynasty taking over.

wcoenen 8y ago
Wasn't the army involved in getting the LA riots under control? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
- lostlogin 8y ago
  I think the US national guard are deployed on the sourthern border now? https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1487387/national-guard-troops-deploy-to-southern-us-border/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1487387/nationa...
  - adventured 8y ago
    The US National Guard is not the same as the US Military as it's typically thought of. It's a state-based, part-time reserve force. The governor of a state typically orders the deployment of its national guard. For example, a state can (several have) refuse to deploy its guard forces to the border against the wishes of the US President. The guard is directly controlled in each state by the adjutant general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutant_general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutant_general If the US Military attacked a state - let's say in a manner of unprovoked aggression of some terrible sort - it would be the responsibility of the the state's national guard to defend the state against the federal aggression. The US Government can attempt to federalize a state's guard forces for its own use, in this hypothetical conflict scenario it's hard to tell what the hell would happen (probably a mixed loyalty outcome, some would refuse, some would go with the Feds).
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      This actually came to a head at Little Rock during the Civil Rights era. Brown v Board of Education allowed black students to attend the main (white) high school. The governor called out the National Guard to block them. Eisenhower brought in the 101st Airborne (!) to tell the National Guard to sit down and shut up.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United...
jfoutz 8y ago
Pretty sure those laws came after reconstruction.
azernik 8y ago
This is not the case for the US, but actually is the case (constitutionally) in Germany
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  Also not totally forbidden. In an emergency the german army can be and has been deployed. Emergency like a flood. But also to help secure conferences, like the G20 in Hamburg.
remarkEon 8y ago
>Now you know one of the reasons the army is forbidden from being deployed on US soil. I don't know where people get this idea but I assume it's a charitable interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In the hypothetical, yet entirely plausible, scenario where one or several South American governments collapses and a migrant crisis reaches the Southern Border of course the military could and would be deployed. As for the Act itself, it has many exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
goodcanadian 8y ago
During the Republic, it was forbidden for a commander (an Imperator, from which we derive the word Emperor) to bring his Legion into Rome. This is why Caesar crossing the Rubicon (with his Legion) was such a big deal.

wcoenen 8y ago

Wasn't the army involved in getting the LA riots under control? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

lostlogin 8y ago
I think the US national guard are deployed on the sourthern border now? https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1487387/national-guard-troops-deploy-to-southern-us-border/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1487387/nationa...
- adventured 8y ago
  The US National Guard is not the same as the US Military as it's typically thought of. It's a state-based, part-time reserve force. The governor of a state typically orders the deployment of its national guard. For example, a state can (several have) refuse to deploy its guard forces to the border against the wishes of the US President. The guard is directly controlled in each state by the adjutant general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutant_general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutant_general If the US Military attacked a state - let's say in a manner of unprovoked aggression of some terrible sort - it would be the responsibility of the the state's national guard to defend the state against the federal aggression. The US Government can attempt to federalize a state's guard forces for its own use, in this hypothetical conflict scenario it's hard to tell what the hell would happen (probably a mixed loyalty outcome, some would refuse, some would go with the Feds).
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    This actually came to a head at Little Rock during the Civil Rights era. Brown v Board of Education allowed black students to attend the main (white) high school. The governor called out the National Guard to block them. Eisenhower brought in the 101st Airborne (!) to tell the National Guard to sit down and shut up.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United...

jfoutz 8y ago

Pretty sure those laws came after reconstruction.

azernik 8y ago

This is not the case for the US, but actually is the case (constitutionally) in Germany

hutzlibu 8y ago
Also not totally forbidden. In an emergency the german army can be and has been deployed. Emergency like a flood. But also to help secure conferences, like the G20 in Hamburg.

remarkEon 8y ago

>Now you know one of the reasons the army is forbidden from being deployed on US soil. I don't know where people get this idea but I assume it's a charitable interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In the hypothetical, yet entirely plausible, scenario where one or several South American governments collapses and a migrant crisis reaches the Southern Border of course the military could and would be deployed. As for the Act itself, it has many exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

goodcanadian 8y ago

During the Republic, it was forbidden for a commander (an Imperator, from which we derive the word Emperor) to bring his Legion into Rome. This is why Caesar crossing the Rubicon (with his Legion) was such a big deal.