9 ms·
Secessio plebis
- edoceo 6y agoI'm in.
- labster 6y agoLet's do this, chums!
- nautilus12 6y agoUm... society already is...
- jaza 6y agoCall the People's Front of Judea!
- gorgoiler 6y agoOne thing I don’t really have a sense for is how much did Roman culture change over the centuries of its existence? The article says there were estimated to have been five of these general strikes over a two century period. That feels a bit like saying there were a handful of major upsets on /r/politics over the past couple hundred years — the timespan seems very long! Was Roman culture pretty static for a very long time?
- edoceo 6y agoIt just takes the plebes a few generations to get riled up and protest. Boiling frogs and all that. And there are loads of books on Roman culture - interesting reading of you have the time - and the empire was vastly different across the whole area of influence. Edit: Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_a... It's !w about this long book(s) and it's fascinating.
- jimnotgym 6y agoI have not read it, but I believe that whilst a seminal work that modern scholars draw a great deal from, it is neither the entry point for the casual reader, nor is it the latest thinking on many parts. Can I recommend 'SPQR' by the wonderful Mary Beard as a better entry point.
- edoceo 6y agoYea, @svip is right, it's missing part of the story (which is coverd in part in SPQR) but it's like /The/ book. And you're right too - its a lot of work to read, SPQR is likely a better start with a more complete timeline. Link for the curious https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28789711-spqr https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28789711-spqr
- gorgoiler 6y agoThank you and the parent for recommendations. Every time I encounter Beard she seems amazing. (To be fair to the parent comment: I think they meant to literally read the Wikipedia article, rather than the volumes themselves!)
- foobarian 6y agoWhile not a book, the History of Rome podcast[1] by Mike Duncan is excellent. [1] https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/archives.html https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/arc...
- brians 6y agoHe’s got a book now, too! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34184069-the-storm-before-the-storm https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34184069-the-storm-befor... But the ancients did not think like us—I like Lendon for explaining how and why: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1569074.Empire_of_Honour https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1569074.Empire_of_Honour
- Amezarak 6y agoI actually did not like SPQR, though I concede it may be a better introduction to someone who otherwise knows nothing. I found it too informed by 21st century perspectives, too set on telling me what to think, and uninteresting for that reason. But, I know the subject material better than the average reader, and there is no single older work I can think of that covers the same time period. Gibbon's Decline and Fall is really much broader than Rome: he covers the Empire all the way to shortly after 1453, and not just Rome as such, but the broader theater of Europe and the East. But it does not cover the Republic or the early Empire. Gibbon surely is guilty of some anti-religious bias (which he confines, for the most part, to a single chapter), and there are a few things we have learned through later archeological research - but not much that would be of interest to a general reader - and a few things he did just get plain wrong. But as a whole, the work still stands tremendously, and for a non-academic historian, there's nothing wrong with it - except that in this case, you're not getting the whole history of Rome. I actually think its a great read for a casual reader, as long as they're looking for a history of the time period specified. It is long, not dry at all, and the style is very refreshing. But for the earlier history of Rome, I'd do what Gibbon did for his work: go to the primary sources. Read Livy, Plutarch, Caesar, and the like. Read the Romans as they presented themselves, without anyone else interpreting it for you, or putting any kind of lens in front of you. To be sure, all the Roman writers had biases too, and where history gets hazy, they are sometimes much more eager than a modern writer would be to plunge into myth - though they are usually willing to say so, and often present interpretations of what they think actually happened. To be sure, there will be a lot of things we never know, things there can never be any evidence for aside from stories. But if nothing else, it adds color. I've also found that modern academics are far too skeptical for my taste, and too ready to take absence of evidence as evidence of absence; generally too ready to deem myth as having no basis in reality whatever, improbable stories as impossible, unlikely ones as highly improbable, and even entirely plausible ones as exaggerated or unlikely, if any historian has lately, in need of making a career and publishing papers, an axe to grind against it. Half of any modern academic history nowadays seems dedicated to sneering at the gullibility of earlier historians. To be fair, maybe this isn't a new trend, only an old one refined to new heights - I recall a passage in Decline and Fall where contemporary writers were shocked at the numbers involved in the Goth migration, and suddenly realized that maybe accounts of army size in the Persian War weren't so crazy after all. I don't know. Maybe the best thing for someone unfamiliar altogether with it all is to read SPQR, then, if they are still interested, read Gibbon and the more popular and accessible primary sources.
- deltaepsilon42 6y agoIt’s worth noting that we’re talking about very early days here— Rome was still just a regional power on the Italian peninsula, not the Mediterranean-spanning empire we think of today. Also bear in mind that most of these reported incidents happened before 387 BC, when Rome was sacked and most historical records were destroyed. Events before this date are often more legend than fact. Roman culture changed a great deal over its thousand-year span, but most of those (that we know of) came under the later empire, as foreign cultures got folded in. To later-day romans, this period is one they looked back at as the “brave days of old”, when all men were honourable, honest, hardworking, patriotic, that old refrain. Needless to say, history from this period tended to get embellished. The reason for so few successions is likely because it was a nuclear option. Getting an entire city of (very poor) middle and lower class citizens to close up shop and camp out on a hillside in solidarity is a massive undertaking, and even then it probably only worked because of Rome’s militaristic nature and then-lack of a professional army— when the citizens march off, well, that’s all your legions. Let’s hope the Etruscans don’t notice. A final thing to note is that these successions were usually resolved with landmark constitutional changes. These were huge concessions, like the creation of the powerful office of tribune, or the outlandish idea of requiring of Rome’s laws to be written down publicly (the horror!). Successions were a Big Deal.
- gorgoiler 6y agoThanks for the detailed answer. HN would be pretty cluttered if everyone thanked everyone else for their contributions but I saw your account is only 3 hours old, so (1) thank you and also (2) Welcome!
- mellow2020 6y ago> That feels a bit like saying there were a handful of major upsets Only if you assume "general strike" is the only form "major upset" can take.
- Svip 6y agoRoman culture was initially just Greek culture, and Greek culture would remain a heavy influence on Rome throughout its existence. Hence why we refer to it as Greco-Roman in a historical context. These "general strikes" are but one way that the conflict between the plebeian and patrician classes manifested itself. A central pillar in Roman society, it persisted long into the imperial era, but since by the time of Augustus, the powers of the Senate and the Tribunes (which still existed) were evaporated, the conflicts weren't as dramatic as the republican ones. You can counter-argue your static culture question with since the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the rise of capitalism in the 18th century, Western Europe maintained the same economical structure (i.e. feudalism); was European culture pretty static for a very long time? History is a lot more complicated than that. If one only focuses on one aspect, then similar events may crop up occasionally, making one think people did not change much over long time spans. But sometimes re-introducing old protests can be a way of honouring one's ancestors as well as inspiration for a solution to one's new conflict.
- barry-cotter 6y ago> Roman culture was initially just Greek culture, and Greek culture would remain a heavy influence on Rome throughout its existence. Hence why we refer to it as Greco-Roman in a historical context. This is about as accurate as describing the culture of the Abbasid Caliphate as Persian. They were Arabs whose high culture was deeply informed by Persian culture, not Persians. In the same way the Romans were not Greeks, any more than the Carthaginians and other Phoenicians were. Their language was different. Their political culture was somewhat outside of the Greek mainstream. They were more liberal in regards to women’s social role than the Greeks. Their cultural production was pitiful compared to the Greeks’. The Romans stand in a similar relation to the Greeks as the English to the Romance speaking Western Christian world. Nothing about them makes sense without reference to the other but they’re very different.
- Svip 6y agoWhile a statement in the brief that certainly leaves a lot of details omitted, you are of course correct; as the main gist is the same as yours; their cultural production was pitiful. Romans admired the Greeks when it came to culture, and adopted as much as they could. Incorporating other culture's gods into their own pantheon was a common occurrence for Romans, they were not afraid of other cultures. There is still some historical debate over whether the Romans who founded Rome were actually Greeks (which they were according to their own legend), that simply adopted the local language from the local Latins, and then conquered them. Or whether they were their own unique tribe in central Italy, and not a foreign invader. I am honestly not sure what the historical consensus is these days.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoRome was probably one of the most conservative societies that existed. Even when they did changes, they tried to cloak it in tradition. Part of why Augustus was so successful was that he pretended that he was restoring the Republic and he took no new titles for himself and “consulted” the Senate on everything.
- jv22222 6y agoAs Elon Musk said yesterday on Joe Rogan: "If no one is making stuff... there is no stuff!"
- chroem- 6y agoMaybe it's just me, but generally I would expect a higher level of competence from the leaders of our public and private institutions, than "throw bodies and money at the fire" would imply. If there had been any sort of long term planning or disaster preparedness, we wouldn't be forced to choose between our personal wellbeing and the continued operation of our economy. Unfortunately, that long term thinking fell outside the scope of next quarter's earnings. The fact of the matter is, the emperor has no clothes.
- meddlepal 6y agoI don't know why anyone expects competence from public elected officials who just collectively represent our own stupidity since they're elected by the general population.
- culturestate 6y ago> generally I would expect a higher level of competence from the leaders of our public...institutions Speaking from the American perspective, I think people broadly assume a level of competence in elected leaders but either aren't able or simply don't care to seek out and identify leaders who meet the standard. There are a lot of factors in play here - time, attention span, media, political polarization, etc - but at the core it feels like there are huge numbers of voters today who simply don't appreciate how hard it actually is to do these jobs well. There's a quote from the West Wing that sums this up pretty nicely: "Yeah, but a funny thing happened when the White House got demystified. The impression was left that anybody could do it."
- pdonis 6y ago> there are huge numbers of voters today who simply don't appreciate how hard it actually is to do these jobs well. I would put it a bit differently: there are huge numbers of voters today who simply don't appreciate that nobody can do these jobs well. Not with the expectations voters currently have of them. The solution is to lower expectations: stop demanding that the government solve all problems, and limit it to the few proper functions that it can actually perform decently.
- ggm 6y agoAfter the uprising of the 17th of June The Secretary of the Writers' Union Had leaflets distributed on the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could only win it back By increased work quotas. Would it not in that case be simpler for the government To dissolve the people And elect another? (Die Lösung, Berthold Brecht, 1953)
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoThe last secession was in 287 BC. Why were there not secessions after it? The reason has to do with the growth of the Roman Empire. Rome’s conquests really went into overdrive after that and they conquered many kingdoms. Along with those conquests, there came a lot of slaves. This totally changed the dynamics. After a while, the wealthy depended not on their poor fellow Romans to farm or make goods, but on slaves. Now it did not matter if the plebes didn’t not show up. I fear that globalization may have served the same function in the United States. The wealthy don’t depend on their poor fellow Americans to provide goods for them and work for them. They depend on good produced oversees and even for domestic production on immigrant labor(look at who gets employed in fame labor or domestic help). They have an alternative to their fellow poor Americans. Now, a strike in the US has a good chance of resulting not in long term employee benefits like it did before, but in the plant being moved oversees. Unfortunately, this has bad consequences. When the relatively peaceful secession was no longer an option, Rome devolved into outright violence in the Roman Revolutions which saw demagogues and authoritarians mobilize the disaffected poor to kill their enemies and establish their power. When it all ended with the ascension of Augustus in AD 31, Rome was a republic in name only, but in reality a military dictatorship. And the people were generally happy with it because it brought peace after decades of violence and bloodshed. I hope our democracies can find a better solution to the issues of wealth inequality, before this story happens to us too.
- bottled_poe 6y agoI agree. The service industry seems like the last bastion of connection between the haves and have-nots. However, the more we automate the more control we transfer away from unions and society generally.
- toyg 6y agoS/oversees/overseas
- ithkuil 6y agos/S/s/
- blackrock 6y agoUntil a vaccine is found for the virus, I think states will next begin limiting interstate travel. Or at least forcing a two-week quarantine on incoming visitors, like what Hawaii has done. These states, or cluster of adjacent states, can effectively become their own operating government. If the next door state has the virus running rampant, because they did a terrible job with their quarantine, then so be it. They will get travel restrictions from freely entering. The interesting thing is, this scenario puts these cluster of states into positions of independence. The only thing missing, is to declare their own currency. At which point, the federation government will declare war.
- jaclaz 6y agoJust for your interest inspired by the "secessio plebis" there was an initiative (failed) against Mussolini's government in 1924, after the killing of Giacomo Matteotti: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessione_dell%27Aventino https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessione_dell%27Aventino (not too bad in Google Translate) Shorter article on en.wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventine_Secession_(20th_century) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventine_Secession_(20th_centu... so it is still an used expression in italian to "retire on the Aventine Hill", particularly regarding political debates meaning "to boycott".
- OliverJones 6y agoA similar popular revolt to these secessii plebies took place in Industrial Revolution - era England in the years before 1832. The districts -- called boroughs -- were laid out according to agrarian-culture history instead of population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832 The United States presently has a similar imbalance of political power between states with large cities and more rural states. These sorts of imbalances can lead to instability.
- runawaybottle 6y agoThis exists in modern American history as well under the term ‘solidarity’. For example, in the 50s if the teachers union went on strike, so did bus drivers. It made labor movements strong. We’re far from that type of world now. If you take the recent issues at Amazon, we had an isolated case of solidarity with one tech engineer backing up warehouse workers. That won’t get it done. The general public, in it’s vastness, ironically, vastly underestimates it’s power. All it takes is for us to stop going to movies, restaurants, flights, etc , and suddenly we are not powerless against any industry. The rest of Amazon does not backup the warehouse workers. It is something to think about, we all play a part. Lack of solidarity is one of the most disheartening developments of our present.
- pizza 6y agoI have a sense part of that is the "Oh Dearism" - we just watch sad news each day and it makes us think all that can be done is say "oh dear" - reflected in this short video by Adam Curtis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok (also featuring Charlie Brooker, creator of Black Mirror)