3 ms·

The western industrial revolution started by replacing both paid and slave labor with machines. Note, while Rome built many great technologies like roads, aquif

The western industrial revolution started by replacing both paid and slave labor with machines. Note, while Rome built many great technologies like roads, aquifers, indoor plumbing, sewers, architecture, and standardized tax law. There was no such thing as due process within their democratic process. i.e. if a dozen people from the community dropped your name on pottery shards into the anonymous legal pot, than you were banished from the city without trial. It has also been argued, that a series of incompetent leaders starting with Caligula had caused the empire to enter a downward trend. Much how Julius Caesar grew the empires influence through bloody conquest, his successors ambitions simply exceeded the civilizations limits economically. It is fascinating how a whole civilization could collapse simply by having a few greedy fools in charge. However, I am certain we are different.. ;-)

tomrod 4y ago
> It is fascinating how a whole civilization could collapse simply by having a few greedy fools in charge. However, I am certain we are different.. ;-) Marx and Hegel really were visionary.
- imbnwa 4y ago
  Hegel wasn't a historical materialist though, the other way around no? IIRC Phenomenology of Spirit, we're about in the era of The Beautiful Souls
Amezarak 4y ago
You’re describing the Athenian ostracon. The Romans did not have that and did in fact place a great deal emphasis on the law-as-such in a way we would consider it analogous to due process.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  The Roman historian Polybius described exilium, relegatio, Aquae et Ignis Interdictio, and more commonly Deportatio as being favored over other forms of punishment. Of course, my memory may be incorrect, and you should study the matter yourself.
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    More important, they had to be found guilty at some sort of trial
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      IIRC, many simply fled capital punishment during the trials by renouncing citizenship and choosing exile over certain death.
      - kurupt213 4y ago
        I don’t think Patricians were killed that often…non citizens probably didn’t see much protection from the law - might as well be a slave. Banishment (forbidding anyone from offering food shelter or warmth from the hearth) was probably worse than death for most Romans.
        Joel_Mckay 4y ago
        >probably worse than death for most Romans Yep, brutal to the lower castes, and political consequences for the remaining family honor. Being a stateless immigrant today is probably not much better. It is likely wise to be cautious around those idealizing empires. =)
pfortuny 4y ago
Are you sure about the lack of due process? If there was something important in Rome it was its citizens (in the legal sense).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  If I recall correctly, Relegatio was banishment from the Roman province via magisterial decree. Aquae et ignis interdictio was a more severe version stripping individuals of most legal rights.
Attrecomet 4y ago
> There was no such thing as due process within their democratic process. i.e. if a dozen people from the community dropped your name on pottery shards into the anonymous legal pot, than you were banished from the city without trial. That's Athens, not Rome, which had very little in the sense of actual democratic processes indeed, even in republican times. The tribal assembly was continually overshadowed by the senate, and the only popular institution of any power was the tribunate of the people with it's veto powers -- practically lost during the Punic wars until the government started to break under the strain of the wrongly-incentivized oligarchy.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  What? The Romans weren’t going to lose the Punic wars as long as there was a new generation of men reaching fighting age every spring. They learned from their mistakes, and Hannibal’s invasion of Italy was doomed from the start because there was no resupply plan.
  - Attrecomet 4y ago
    I'm entirely unsure what you read in my comment. The Punic war was mentioned as a reference time from when on the senate had basically co-opted the entire Roman government.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  It has been many years, but concilium plebis made plebiscita that were legally binding for all citizens if I recall. Servius Tullius had also given the vote to others not of the original founding tribes. I do believe you are correct about the Athens origin of the clay shards though. The subject of exile was confused with the story of Cicero, who was a character who traveled an awful lot. ;)
  - Attrecomet 4y ago
    Yes, they did have that power. They did not, however, actually use it a lot (at all?) after the Punic wars AFAIK (the senate had in practice taken on the entire government as a war measure, and effectively shut out the tribal assembly of any decision making), and when the assembly again started to wield that it under the Gracchi brothers, they are basically reinventing the participation of the non-senatorial citizens because the old system had effectively lapsed. And we are by that time in the "it started to break" phase.
yywwbbn 4y ago
Roman economy and military power is considered to have been at it’s peak around the time of Marcus Aurelius, who ruled 120 years after the death of Caligula. Then again Romans didn’t really practice ostracism either…
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  >Then again Romans didn’t really practice ostracism either IIRC, the Roman historian Polybius described exilium, relegatio, Aquae et Ignis Interdictio, and more commonly Deportatio as being favored over other forms of punishment. >Marcus Aurelius I hope you were thinking of Antoninus Pius instead. ;)

tomrod 4y ago

> It is fascinating how a whole civilization could collapse simply by having a few greedy fools in charge. However, I am certain we are different.. ;-) Marx and Hegel really were visionary.

imbnwa 4y ago
Hegel wasn't a historical materialist though, the other way around no? IIRC Phenomenology of Spirit, we're about in the era of The Beautiful Souls

Amezarak 4y ago

You’re describing the Athenian ostracon. The Romans did not have that and did in fact place a great deal emphasis on the law-as-such in a way we would consider it analogous to due process.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago
The Roman historian Polybius described exilium, relegatio, Aquae et Ignis Interdictio, and more commonly Deportatio as being favored over other forms of punishment. Of course, my memory may be incorrect, and you should study the matter yourself.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  More important, they had to be found guilty at some sort of trial
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    IIRC, many simply fled capital punishment during the trials by renouncing citizenship and choosing exile over certain death.
    - kurupt213 4y ago
      I don’t think Patricians were killed that often…non citizens probably didn’t see much protection from the law - might as well be a slave. Banishment (forbidding anyone from offering food shelter or warmth from the hearth) was probably worse than death for most Romans.
      - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
        >probably worse than death for most Romans Yep, brutal to the lower castes, and political consequences for the remaining family honor. Being a stateless immigrant today is probably not much better. It is likely wise to be cautious around those idealizing empires. =)

pfortuny 4y ago

Are you sure about the lack of due process? If there was something important in Rome it was its citizens (in the legal sense).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Joel_Mckay 4y ago
If I recall correctly, Relegatio was banishment from the Roman province via magisterial decree. Aquae et ignis interdictio was a more severe version stripping individuals of most legal rights.

Attrecomet 4y ago

> There was no such thing as due process within their democratic process. i.e. if a dozen people from the community dropped your name on pottery shards into the anonymous legal pot, than you were banished from the city without trial. That's Athens, not Rome, which had very little in the sense of actual democratic processes indeed, even in republican times. The tribal assembly was continually overshadowed by the senate, and the only popular institution of any power was the tribunate of the people with it's veto powers -- practically lost during the Punic wars until the government started to break under the strain of the wrongly-incentivized oligarchy.

kurupt213 4y ago
What? The Romans weren’t going to lose the Punic wars as long as there was a new generation of men reaching fighting age every spring. They learned from their mistakes, and Hannibal’s invasion of Italy was doomed from the start because there was no resupply plan.
- Attrecomet 4y ago
  I'm entirely unsure what you read in my comment. The Punic war was mentioned as a reference time from when on the senate had basically co-opted the entire Roman government.
Joel_Mckay 4y ago
It has been many years, but concilium plebis made plebiscita that were legally binding for all citizens if I recall. Servius Tullius had also given the vote to others not of the original founding tribes. I do believe you are correct about the Athens origin of the clay shards though. The subject of exile was confused with the story of Cicero, who was a character who traveled an awful lot. ;)
- Attrecomet 4y ago
  Yes, they did have that power. They did not, however, actually use it a lot (at all?) after the Punic wars AFAIK (the senate had in practice taken on the entire government as a war measure, and effectively shut out the tribal assembly of any decision making), and when the assembly again started to wield that it under the Gracchi brothers, they are basically reinventing the participation of the non-senatorial citizens because the old system had effectively lapsed. And we are by that time in the "it started to break" phase.

yywwbbn 4y ago

Roman economy and military power is considered to have been at it’s peak around the time of Marcus Aurelius, who ruled 120 years after the death of Caligula. Then again Romans didn’t really practice ostracism either…

Joel_Mckay 4y ago
>Then again Romans didn’t really practice ostracism either IIRC, the Roman historian Polybius described exilium, relegatio, Aquae et Ignis Interdictio, and more commonly Deportatio as being favored over other forms of punishment. >Marcus Aurelius I hope you were thinking of Antoninus Pius instead. ;)