4 ms·

The whole 'history repeats itself' really rang true to me when I was reading on the birth of the roman empire, about when the republic fell (not the last decade

The whole 'history repeats itself' really rang true to me when I was reading on the birth of the roman empire, about when the republic fell (not the last decade, the full history) and I realized much of what we see happening in American politics is not new. The big outrageous personalities, the moral pleas, the manipulation of public opinion, the principled vs the pragmatic. All of that resonates across the centuries. But, alas, as they say... those who don't know history are condemned to repeat, while those who know are condemned to watch other repeating it.

sirspacey 4y ago
I question the implication of this common assertion - how does knowing history change the repetitive nature and outcomes of human systems?
satvikpendem 4y ago
Some writing on why the US and Rome are completely different: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19mi71/how_valid_is_the_analogy_between_modern_day_usa/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19mi71/how_v... https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ir3jm/in_what_ways_are_the_roman_empire_and_the_united/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ir3jm/in_wh...
- namaria 4y ago
  The fact that they are completely different contexts, yet we can see patterns in behavior repeating themselves, is what makes this interesting.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Not really. As said in those posts, just because there are superficial ostensible patterns does not mean that they are useful, or even real.
    - namaria 4y ago
      These posts are disabusing people of the notion that The American Empire shall follow because omens were foreseen. I am obviously not saying that. I took care to single out the personality traits and behaviors I was comparing. It's an aesthetic exercise and not at all similar to prognosticating modern politics bases on ancient history. What are you trying to accomplish?
nescioquid 4y ago
The sad story of the Gracchi brothers is often considered a turning point in the republic because it "normalized" violence as a political tool. What followed were proscriptions, the Catilinarian conspiracy, civil wars. I don't think we're there yet, but the last several years have made me a little more nervous. Are we close to groups of people resorting to political assassinations and if so, will it become normalized? I actually think more about what Donald Kagan said about tyrannies (a tyrant is just someone who seizes power extra-constitutionally): they generally don't last more than three generations. That led me to compare with democracies, and I can't think of many much older than a couple centuries (though I'm claiming no erudition here).
- namaria 4y ago
  I'm wary of 'turning points' analysis in history. Roman society was exceedingly violent by modern standards. For a long while that violence could be channeled towards conquest. The power military leaders derived from this process and the diminishing returns after most prosperous neighboring polities had been absorbed contributed to erode the internal social order of the Republic. But those are centuries long processes, and it didn't 'turn' on this or that remarkable event we have records of. We shouldn't prognosticate American politics based on the History of Ancient Rome, that is folly. One thing is to observe parallels and patterns in behavior. But entirely different systems and contexts cannot be used to analyze one another by cherry picking.
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    My main purpose was to point out that even with a facile comparison, we are missing a very salient element (normalization of violence as a political tool). For the rest, I really should have just said "signal event". I wasn't suggesting anything along the lines of "but for that event things would have gone the other way". Here, I merely meant a threshold was passed. Personally, I'm more interested in cultural comparisons, mainly because they were so different from us in many ways. And, if I may add to your concern about cherry-picking, we should also have a great deal of humility about how much we really know. What's the metaphor? The ancient world is Versailles, and everything we know about it is what we can see through the keyhole on the front door.

sirspacey 4y ago

I question the implication of this common assertion - how does knowing history change the repetitive nature and outcomes of human systems?

satvikpendem 4y ago

Some writing on why the US and Rome are completely different: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19mi71/how_valid_is_the_analogy_between_modern_day_usa/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19mi71/how_v... https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ir3jm/in_what_ways_are_the_roman_empire_and_the_united/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ir3jm/in_wh...

namaria 4y ago
The fact that they are completely different contexts, yet we can see patterns in behavior repeating themselves, is what makes this interesting.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Not really. As said in those posts, just because there are superficial ostensible patterns does not mean that they are useful, or even real.
  - namaria 4y ago
    These posts are disabusing people of the notion that The American Empire shall follow because omens were foreseen. I am obviously not saying that. I took care to single out the personality traits and behaviors I was comparing. It's an aesthetic exercise and not at all similar to prognosticating modern politics bases on ancient history. What are you trying to accomplish?

nescioquid 4y ago

The sad story of the Gracchi brothers is often considered a turning point in the republic because it "normalized" violence as a political tool. What followed were proscriptions, the Catilinarian conspiracy, civil wars. I don't think we're there yet, but the last several years have made me a little more nervous. Are we close to groups of people resorting to political assassinations and if so, will it become normalized? I actually think more about what Donald Kagan said about tyrannies (a tyrant is just someone who seizes power extra-constitutionally): they generally don't last more than three generations. That led me to compare with democracies, and I can't think of many much older than a couple centuries (though I'm claiming no erudition here).

namaria 4y ago
I'm wary of 'turning points' analysis in history. Roman society was exceedingly violent by modern standards. For a long while that violence could be channeled towards conquest. The power military leaders derived from this process and the diminishing returns after most prosperous neighboring polities had been absorbed contributed to erode the internal social order of the Republic. But those are centuries long processes, and it didn't 'turn' on this or that remarkable event we have records of. We shouldn't prognosticate American politics based on the History of Ancient Rome, that is folly. One thing is to observe parallels and patterns in behavior. But entirely different systems and contexts cannot be used to analyze one another by cherry picking.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  My main purpose was to point out that even with a facile comparison, we are missing a very salient element (normalization of violence as a political tool). For the rest, I really should have just said "signal event". I wasn't suggesting anything along the lines of "but for that event things would have gone the other way". Here, I merely meant a threshold was passed. Personally, I'm more interested in cultural comparisons, mainly because they were so different from us in many ways. And, if I may add to your concern about cherry-picking, we should also have a great deal of humility about how much we really know. What's the metaphor? The ancient world is Versailles, and everything we know about it is what we can see through the keyhole on the front door.