Empires With Expiration Dates

[caldrail]

I'm not aware of a popular uprising in Rome by the common people, but then if the plebs were kept in place by social class and custom, and lets face it, the roman class system wasn't easily ignored, then without a suitable leader why would they revolt? Now you could quote the name Spartacus, but in his case he had his own motives for rebellion and people latched onto him nonetheless, so you can't really class him as a typical rebel leader defending peoples freedom.

As Orwell stated in 1984, common people never cause uprisings or revolutions - middle class people do, in the name of the common people, and using the common people as a means of changing place with the upper classes, who then become the new middle. The common people (as a group) always stay where they are. I think that applied then as now. Rebellions in the third and fourth century were military coups.

 

No, thats not entirely true. The issue is one of leadership. If there's a personality amongst them who can lead effectively, then the possibility exists. I'm also thinking of the various resistance groups in occupied europe, who conducted some astonishing campaigns against the nazi's. True, some of them got help from the allies, but those in eastern europe didn't, and their campaigns were the most impressive. The rebellions in britain against Rome were not gnerally led by middle class romans for instance.

[Northern Neil]

The rebellions in britain against Rome were not gnerally led by middle class romans for instance.

Indeed, and as such were aimed at a colonial power. What Orwell (and I!) were on about is popular uprising or revolution within a society, by its own citizens - although again, Kosmo might want to comment on that regarding the events in his country in 1989?

[ASCLEPIADES]

I'm also thinking of the various resistance groups in occupied europe, who conducted some astonishing campaigns against the nazi's. True, some of them got help from the allies, but those in eastern europe didn't, and their campaigns were the most impressive.

Salve, K

 

As far as I know, most anti-Nazi resistance was based on communist groups, even in western Europe and Germany itself. They were obviously sponsored by the Soviet Unions, which of course for a long time required more help than they could give.

 

For "impressive", I would guess firstly we're talking about Yugoslavian Marshall Tito (aka Josip Broz); he was certainly alone for the first two years of his struggle, but after the Italian collapse (June 1943) he received more Anglo-American material help than any other resistance group.

[caldrail]

The rebellions in britain against Rome were not gnerally led by middle class romans for instance.

Indeed, and as such were aimed at a colonial power. What Orwell (and I!) were on about is popular uprising or revolution within a society, by its own citizens - although again, Kosmo might want to comment on that regarding the events in his country in 1989?

 

You might want to consider the Winter of Discontent as the beginnings such an uprising. At what point do demonstrations of discontent become rebellions? I recall irate victorians threatening to storm Buckingham Palace and held at bay with bayonets. At what point would that have been an uprising?

[Northern Neil]

You might want to consider the Winter of Discontent as the beginnings such an uprising. At what point do demonstrations of discontent become rebellions? I recall irate victorians threatening to storm Buckingham Palace and held at bay with bayonets. At what point would that have been an uprising?

Hmm, definitely a matter of degree. I believe that many revolutions started out as an uprising of the people, but the successful ones (Such as French, Russian ) quickly became hijacked by middle class intelligentsia for the purposes stated by Orwell.

[Kosmo]

Romanian revolution had no clear goals, organization or leadership in the first phase, until Ceausescu was forced to run by protests and the breaking of the security system. At that point a new center of power with goals, mass organization and leadership emerged in the hands of second rank communists, army leaders and government officials, while some dissidents and revolutionaries were allowed to join. The riots were directed against Ceausescu, at the abuses of power and at the poor living conditions

So, we had a massive popular riot (some claim that was started by actions of foreign intelligence services) that forced a change at the top of the political system. Neither capitalism, human rights or democracy were the goals of this mass demonstrations. Despite being desired by some of the revolutionaries they were not accepted as a platform by all participants. The communists that got the power could not bring the river beck so they were forced by a combination of reasons (public protests, internal disunity, western pressure, weak legitimacy etc) to accept the goals that were being formulated now by the intelligentsia. Still, this goals were not those of the majority of the population.

As often the case the revolution gradually became more radicalized. The post-Ceausescu leadership fulfilled the basic desires of most people, but were threatened themselves by more radical groups.

I think this gradual radicalization of goals it's common to most revolutions in history.

[Ingsoc]

I think that you missing the main cause for the successful revolution Kosmo, Romania (like all other Communists states in eastern Europe except Yugoslavia) was founded and maintain by Soviet bayonets, had it not for the Soviet withdrew from the affairs of her eastern clients states the Red Army would've crush all anti-Communist opposition just like it did in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

[Kosmo]

Yes, the attitude of the Soviet Union was important. By the summer of 1988 Gorby stated that he will not interfere again with the Red Army, so the communists of the vassal states were left alone to face the mounting internal discontent.