3 ms·
He specifically mentions that Greeks are a better comparison than Romans because their citizens were less militarized.
by BlueTemplar 6y ago
He specifically mentions that Greeks are a better comparison than Romans because their citizens were less militarized.
- roenxi 6y agoIf you are referring to the paragraph with "fall of the Roman Republic was so heavily influenced by the involvement of the Roman Army" that isn't what he is saying. He is saying that Roman insurrections involved the military, so this riot isn't a close parallel to a Roman insurrection. US insurrections will involve the army too - that is what weakens the comparison with ancient Greece. The Romans (and US) have professional, geographically dispersed militaries and the Greeks by and large didn't. That completely changes the dynamic of how revolts happen.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoHe insists on the militarization of Romans in his other writings too, specifically the October one : > In no small part, that success seems to have been motivated by the avowed need of elite patricians for the support of the plebeian commons in order to campaign, since the plebeians made up most of the army [of the Roman Republic]. So, no the Roman Republic did not have a professional army. (Neither, AFAIK did the Roman Empire : they went from mandatory draft to mercenaries ?) But good point, and I don't know enough about the Greek republics, maybe they were pretty close to the Roman one for this question ?
- roenxi 6y agoPlebeian-equivalent people make up the bulk of the US army. I don't see a link between that quote and the question of professionalism.