Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:21 PM   #61

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,821

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
"Maybe"?
"Probably"?
If you say so...

For now, let just mention the ambitus legislation.
(Guess this wiki-article would be enough as an introduction, right ?

Ambitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BTW, are you familiar with the ambitus concept?
Yes, Im familliar with it. I was always astonished about the number of bills in Rome which were enacted to protect the "fairness" of elections and that most of them were usually completelly ignored. However they were always useful in fighting political opponents.
Mosquito is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:23 PM   #62
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
I see you edited post and added above comment. As I siad before I know how did Comitia centuriata work but thank you for this farther explanation and clarification.

Such type of clarification... I mean explaining obvious things which were said by someone else earlier... is it your hobby?
Nope, searching for relevant hard evidence is my hobby, especially regarding carelessly perpetuated urban myths.

And yours?


Anyway, just not to derail this nice thread and back to the OP, again, are you familiar at all with the concept of ambitus?

(Guess not just "obvious things which were said by someone else earlier", right?)
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:28 PM   #63
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
Yes, Im familliar with it. I was always astonished about the number of bills in Rome which were enacted to protect the "fairness" of elections and that most of them were usually completelly ignored. However they were always useful in fighting political opponents.
Just for the record, where's all your additional relevant hard evidence on this new categorical statement on
"most of them were usually completelly ignored"???

Guess you are already well aware of the impressive amount of absolutely unfounded gossipy information we are dealing with here...

Just for the record;
Are you actually aware of the details of even just any single Roman electoral process ever?
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:33 PM   #64

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,821

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Just for the record, where's all your additional relevant hard evidence on this new categorical statement on
"most of them were usually completelly ignored"???

Guess you are already well aware of the impressive amount of absolutely unfounded gossipy information we are dealing with here...

Just for the record;
Are you actually aware of the details of even just any single Roman electoral process ever?
I write without checking sources, right from my memory.

If I remember well in the last century of Republic there were many such trials. I would have to look for details, what - if you insist - I can do tommorow.

But as I do really value your knowledge of history, I suppose that you know well that there was no office of state prosecutor in Rome and that all the accusations had private character. So simply, any personal or political enemy could have start such lawsuit. And you are probably aware that good advocatus, briberies of judges, political influences were often more important in judging the case than facts and evidences.

Last edited by Mosquito; November 7th, 2012 at 07:40 PM.
Mosquito is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:40 PM   #65
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
I write without checking sources, right from my memory.

If I remember well in the last century of Republic there were many such trials. I would have to look for details, what - if you insist - I can do tommorow.
Guess you are well aware that the vast majority of Classical sources (including the vast majority of those relevant for the issue at hand) are freely available online, right?

For the moment, you can check out the Leges de Ambitus?

I mean, if as you admittedly blindly states such laws were systematically ignored, then why weren't they ever repeated?

Why were they so clearly progressively evolving through time from the last to the next one?



You know, there's nothing wrong in being a bit critical on the hearsay information that may reach us...
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:50 PM   #66

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,821

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Guess you are well aware that the vast majority of Classical sources (including the vast majority of those relevant for the issue at hand) are freely available online, right?

For the moment, you can check out the Leges de Ambitus?

I mean, if as you admittedly blindly states such laws were systematically ignored, then why weren't they ever repeated?

Why were they so clearly progressively evolving through time from the last to the next one?



You know, there's nothing wrong in being a bit critical on the hearsay information that may reach us...
I belive that such laws were actually systematically repeated.

So far I know first were 12 tables in which for buying votes was death sentence.
Mosquito is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:54 PM   #67
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
I belive that such laws were actually systematically repeated.

So far I know first were 12 tables in which for buying votes was death sentence.
Nope, they weren't repeated; as stated, they were progressive; i.e. each of them forbids a previously allowed practice. The progression is perfectly consistent.

Too much and too detailed legal work all along centuries for anything that was supposedly just going to be "ignored", right?
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 02:31 AM   #68

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,696
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Easy as that, after such an obscure post I still could only wonder on which points exactly would you consider that we may disagree; you are not giving too many hints, you know.

Anyhow, let's try a couple of your most bizarre assertions:

- The lack of hard historical evidence for essentially any Roman stuff earlier than at least the Brennus' sack is currently still an objective undeniable fact; if you may disagree, please share with us any relevant hard evidence on the opposite (nope, not your bare opinions; evidence)

- You are (deliberately?) misrepresenting your own quotations from Morstein-Marx & others: in the Roman popular assemblies the affluent vote might have been in practice overrepresented (as it has been in practice so prevalent among virtually any democratic regime, either ancient or modern) but no one has denied yet that even the poorest Romans effectively still voted; period.

- You are again attempting a Nirvana fallacy; not being the Roman Republic a pristine perfect Utopian ideal democracy (I'm not aware of any such historical example) couldn't deny the evident democratic nature of the Roman Constitution and practices, even relative to modern standards, and certainly even according to your own quoted sources.

- And yes, all the ordinary Roman republican magistracies before the pseudo-Dictatorship of CJ Caesar were democratically elected (under any definition) by the popular vote of the Roman people (nope, not just the Patrician or the rich vote, but the vote of the whole Roman people) even the whole ordinary cursus honorum of CJ Caesar himself (pontifex, quaestor, aedil, praetor & consul), as anyone could easily verify.

I have already posted the core definition of democracy; it couldn't fit any better to the Roman practices as stated by your own tertiary sources; I can't even remotely imagine why would you insist in your bare denial of such evident historical fact.

It's so refreshing to find sylla's posts in the morning. One can only wonder how he love words such as period, fallacious, etc..


Repeating things is irrelevant, and harms not only to the uniformity of the thread, but also to any serious attempt for discussion which always come under the influence of your arrogance.

What I proved(not by quoting sources which for the early period I can not quote as you know since the same are rare) by quoting relevant authors and their claims is that democracy did not existed in reality, although it might exist in theory and comitias were simply theoretically democratic. Through my entire work till now, not in the useless discussion with you, but in real life much of my professional work is dedicated to practices and reality of Romans rather than on written word, which is in many cases misleading. Again I say, 100. time, I don't negate democratic nature of Roman constitution, but practice is always different as showed by votes in comitias, and in this case practice was not democratic, no matter how stubbornly you use fallacious, straw, nirvana or whatever words you so much love. So I ask you, what value does the "democratic" constitution has if it can not be executed in practice? Republic is maybe great form of government in many aspects, which I never doubted, but in matter of democracy it was far from ideal. You might read XII tables or a base or Early Roman Constitution and see that marriages between plebeians(that said majority) and patricians(that said minority) were strictly forbidden. Why? Certainly because of democratic nature of Roman Republic(you might want to check the Table XI).

Cheers.
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:28 AM   #69
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
It's so refreshing to find sylla's posts in the morning. One can only wonder how he love words such as period, fallacious, etc..


Repeating things is irrelevant, and harms not only to the uniformity of the thread, but also to any serious attempt for discussion which always come under the influence of your arrogance.

What I proved(not by quoting sources which for the early period I can not quote as you know since the same are rare) by quoting relevant authors and their claims is that democracy did not existed in reality, although it might exist in theory and comitias were simply theoretically democratic. Through my entire work till now, not in the useless discussion with you, but in real life much of my professional work is dedicated to practices and reality of Romans rather than on written word, which is in many cases misleading. Again I say, 100. time, I don't negate democratic nature of Roman constitution, but practice is always different as showed by votes in comitias, and in this case practice was not democratic, no matter how stubbornly you use fallacious, straw, nirvana or whatever words you so much love. So I ask you, what value does the "democratic" constitution has if it can not be executed in practice? Republic is maybe great form of government in many aspects, which I never doubted, but in matter of democracy it was far from ideal. You might read XII tables or a base or Early Roman Constitution and see that marriages between plebeians(that said majority) and patricians(that said minority) were strictly forbidden. Why? Certainly because of democratic nature of Roman Republic(you might want to check the Table XI).

Cheers.
By not quoting sources that even you consider that don't exist, you have naturally proved nothing, not even the fallacious appeal to authority that you are suggesting above.

Fallacious bare assertions, even fallaciously repeated ad infinitum, are certainly irrelevant "to the uniformity of the thread".

On the plus side, your last posts might be consider as some useful review on what not to do on elementary logic & fallacies 101, and they remind us about some pervasive fallacious mechanisms that may help perpetuate urban myths.

Just follow the links.

Cheers.

Last edited by sylla1; November 8th, 2012 at 05:40 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:50 AM   #70

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,821

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
By not quoting sources that even you consider that don't exist, you have naturally proved nothing, not even the fallacious appeal to authority that you are suggesting above.

Fallacious bare assertions, even fallaciously repeated ad infinitum, are certainly irrelevant "to the uniformity of the thread".

On the plus side, your last posts might be consider as some useful review on what not to do on elementary logic & fallacies 101, and they remind us about some pervasive fallacious mechanisms that may help perpetuate urban myths.

Just follow the links.

Cheers.
and when Sylla is proven to be wrong he changes subject and starts talking about logic, changing the whole argument into ad absurdum
Mosquito is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
constitution, republic, roman


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Books on roman kingdom and roman republic Raist Ancient History 5 June 10th, 2012 09:49 AM
Books about the Roman Republic duccen History Book Reviews 5 December 15th, 2011 02:26 PM
Social group on the Roman republican constitution sylla1 Ancient History 0 November 25th, 2011 04:53 PM
Roman Republic VS Roman Empire CRUSADERcro Ancient History 36 November 26th, 2009 03:32 AM
Roman Republic vs. Roman Empire ice2w Ancient History 9 March 25th, 2009 10:26 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.