P.Clodius Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Wouldn't is be great if the US had Tribunes who could veto legislation!! Monthly assemblies on the Mall to get the crowd going, hehehe. I don't think the Senate, House and President are accountable enough. The UK is different and have the Priminister's question time once a week where he can be verbally raped by the opposition for all to see. I'm probably posting this in the wrong area, maybe you could create a "Politics" section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 In the US system the President can veto legislation and is therefore a combination of Consul and Tribune. In any event, the House of Representatives is supposed to be the popular voice of the people. In theory, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scanderbeg Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Theres nothing about a governemnt thats not in theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 And the US system doesnt need 'Tribunes', because the Executive (President) and legislative (Senate and House) can effectively veto by various forms of political manipulation. Simple design, yet its evolved into ridiculous complexity. Perhaps a Tribune would help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastianus Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 The US system would probably be healthier by the use of Tribunes to represent the common people. But as in Rome they would probably eventually end up as an instrument of the elite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Interesting concept this. I wonder if we should also have two presidents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 The US system would probably be healthier by the use of Tribunes to represent the common people. But as in Rome they would probably eventually end up as an instrument of the elite. What's wrong with the use of Representatives to represent the people? You know, it's cheap and easy to SAY that the tribunes/Representatives don't represent the people, but "the people" don't speak with one voice--people disagree on any manner of issues and they prioritize the issues that matter most to them. This business of denigrating the electoral system just because you don't like the outcome is simply sour grapes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Politicians of every stripe have and will always put their own pockets first. Rome didn't conquer for Glory; it conquered for gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Politicians of every stripe have and will always put their own pockets first. Rome didn't conquer for Glory; it conquered for gold. Hm, gold certainly matters, but I think Romans did conquer even more for glory. In the Republic there was no better way to get the vote than prove yourself a conquering hero, and many did just that, even if it were a matter of quashing some poor tribe in the mountains of Hispania. In the empire too you see some emperors willing to launch war for glory in itself: Claudius and Britannia, Agrippa and Caledonia. Trajan and Dacia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Rome didn't conquer for Glory; it conquered for gold. I think you're confusing Carthage (or Renaissance Spain) for Rome. The Romans were fairly lax when it came to the Treasury. Most quaestors had no idea what was going on, and the money gained from conquest fairly often ended up in the pockets of troops rather than in the Temple to Saturn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 F.C. & M.P.C.: I am not trying to contradict you by this but, the best of the lands that were conquered were split up amongst the elites. The legionaries got the bottom lands. The result in any case led to the further enrichment of the aristocracy, be it in Europe, Asia or Africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 I am not trying to contradict you by this but, the best of the lands that were conquered were split up amongst the elites. The legionaries got the bottom lands. Hold on--they weren't "split up" amongst the elites. Leases were auctioned off so as to provide the best possible returns for the treasury. In consequence, the revenues of the state grew so rich that those legionaries soon found that they were no longer required to pay taxes. Moreover, in the late republic, these fairly purchased lands were confiscated by the triumvirs so as to settle those legionaries who had already been paid for their service and who had grown rich through plunder and slaving. Let's not weep for the wolves, shall we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 MPC: Your rheoric does your ancestor credit. As you well know, I was speaking in general and over a long period and not over that little fiasco you go on about. It happened two thousand years ago and you are still micturated about a certain party b_ff_ng your ancestor's sister! It was common practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Yes, and over a long period of time, the lands acquired by conquest were auctioned off for lease. They weren't simply split up among the senators or emperor's favorites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Yes, and over a long period of time, the lands acquired by conquest were auctioned off for lease. They weren't simply split up among the senators or emperor's favorites. You are an American and know what I meant by 'split up'. Now I have to take a pill! Are you really saying that that is how the common soldier became so rich? Really? Dixi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.