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 8th, 2012, 05:16 AM   #71
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
and when Sylla is proven to be wrong he changes subject and starts talking about logic, changing the whole argument into ad absurdum
Actually you're right in one point.
I have proven the absurdity of your argumentation here so far.
For the record, that's of course no fallacy, just perfectly valid logic, as anyone here could easily verify.

This may be news for some people, but for proving Sylla1 or anyone else here to be wrong (more exactly, to prove the purported non-democratic nature of the Roman republic) some relevant hard evidence and sound logic are absolute requirements.

Please, be my guest.


And of course, carefully proving that your methodology here simply stinks could hardly be called "changing the whole argument".
That's just another deliberate misrepresentation (i.e. a fallacious straw man)
Keeping a sound methodology could hardly be any more relvant for any serious debate.

On the other hand, please remember that all what is required from you, me or any other debater here is just some relevant hard evidence; just that.

In your case, especially regarding your categorical but still unfounded fallacious bare assertions.

Nope, no cheating, not tricky fallacies are required (please follow the links); just evidence; plain & simple.

Please feel free to share such relevant hard evidence with us here whenever you may believe to have found it.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:56 AM   #72

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,617

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Actually you're right in one point.
I have proven the absurdity of your argumentation here so far.
For the record, that's of course no fallacy, just perfectly valid logic, as anyone here could easily verify.

This may be news for some people, but for proving Sylla1 or anyone else here to be wrong (more exactly, to prove the purported non-democratic nature of the Roman republic) some relevant hard evidence and sound logic are absolute requirements.

Please, be my guest.


And of course, carefully proving that your methodology here simply stinks could hardly be called "changing the whole argument".
That's just another deliberate misrepresentation (i.e. a fallacious straw man)
Keeping a sound methodology could hardly be any more relvant for any serious debate.

On the other hand, please remember that all what is required from you, me or any other debater here is just some relevant hard evidence; just that.

In your case, especially regarding your categorical but still unfounded fallacious bare assertions.

Nope, no cheating, not tricky fallacies are required (please follow the links); just evidence; plain & simple.

Please feel free to share such relevant hard evidence with us here whenever you may believe to have found it.

However you have already agreed that lowest classes did not vote or rarelly had chance to vote. The higher classes had more centuries with less people, the lower classes had fewer number of centuries but in those poorer centuries was much more people. Every centuria had one vote, doesnt matter how many people counted centuria.

Once the majority had been reached in voting about somthing, they didn't vote any further. As you have wiselly stressed: "Naturally because the result was already definitive, and no additional votes (of any money) would have modified it."

So your claim that:

Quote:

"no one has denied yet that even the poorest Romans effectively still voted; period"
and

Quote:

" 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)"
is completelly wrong.

Because the lowest centuries rarelly if ever did take part in the vote and because they counted more men than all the higher centuries together.
Mosquito is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 06:04 AM   #73
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Just as a bit more food for thought:

If the Roman popular vote was purportedly so useless, then why would the Roman politicians have systematically taken so much effort & pain and spent such immense amounts of money in their electoral campaigns?
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 06:11 AM   #74

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,617

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Just as a bit more food for thought:

If the Roman popular vote was purportedly so useless, then why would the Roman politicians have systematically taken so much effort & pain and spent such immense amounts of money in their electoral campaigns?
I guess that bribery of men from higher centuries was costly. But politician didnt have to bribe them all. He moreless knew on how many votes he can count, he had to bribe in every higher centuria enough many to reach the majority in that one particular centuria. 50% + 1 people supporting him in one centuria was giving him the vote of the whole centuria.
Mosquito is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 06:13 AM   #75
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
However you have already agreed that lowest classes did not vote or rarelly had chance to vote. The higher classes had more centuries with less people, the lower classes had fewer number of centuries but in those poorer centuries was much more people. Every centuria had one vote, doesnt matter how many people counted centuria.

Once the majority had been reached in voting about somthing, they didn't vote any further. As you have wiselly stressed: "Naturally because the result was already definitive, and no additional votes (of any money) would have modified it."

So your claim that:



and



is completelly wrong.

Because the lowest centuries rarelly if ever did take part in the vote and because they counted more men than all the higher centuries together.
Nope, I couldn't have agreed in such nonsense, as anyone could easily verify.
Naturally because you haven't presented here the slightest evidence.

In any case, you are again attempting another poor straw man.

Again, in plain English, my previous explanation on this issue:
As I stated above, when a definitive majority was achieved, no more votes were required.
Either in the Roman Republic or in the indisputably radically democratic Athens.
Simply stated, the measure simply shortened an already irrelevant and certainly expensive administrative procedure.

By repeating the same aforementioned analogy...
... exactly the same as if in the last US election the votes would have stopped once Mr Obama had achieved his 270th electoral vote.
(I.e. when he had already been elected president)
Amazingly enough, no additional votes (rich or poor) did modify Mr. Obama's already definitive triumph.

Not exactly rocket science, right?


Again, if the popular vote was so useless, why was so much money spent by th Republican politicians for the Republican electoral campaigns?

Why were so many Leges de Ambitus required?

It simply makes no sense.


In fact, when the Roman elections became irrelevant under the Empire, both the Ambitus' laws and the electoral campaigns disappeared.

That couldn't be any more eloquent.



Besides, amazing as it may sound for you, majority was not so easily achieved in Roman elections.
(Guess you should have already reviewed at least some actual historical Roman elections by now, right?)

Plainly, your contention simply makes no sense regarding the available evidence here.

Last edited by sylla1; November 8th, 2012 at 06:25 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 07:06 AM   #76

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,695
Blog Entries: 1

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.
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). - That's what I wrote in previous post which you quoted, but again you say I haven't provided you the source. Easy as that, when you don't like something you simply jump over it, write some words like fallacious, straw, period, etc..


As I see, you haven't yet red XII tables, or the part about marriages between patricians and plebeians. Here you can read it and say for yourself fallacious words or whatever you like. Twelve Tables

You might need a explanation about patricians and plebeians, since you obviously don't understand the meaning of the words:

patricians - patricius adj.

pater, of fatherly dignity, of senatorial rank, of the patricians, patrician, noble gens, S.: nisi qui patricius sit.—As subst m . and f a patrician, nobleman, noble lady (that is said minority L.V)

plebeians - plēbs (-bis) plēbis, or plēbēs, ēī (ei) or ī, f

PLE-, the common people, commons, commonalty, plebeians, folk(that is said majority, L.V)
(Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary )

Cheers.
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 07:52 AM   #77
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
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). - That's what I wrote in previous post which you quoted, but again you say I haven't provided you the source. Easy as that, when you don't like something you simply jump over it, write some words like fallacious, straw, period, etc..


As I see, you haven't yet red XII tables, or the part about marriages between patricians and plebeians. Here you can read it and say for yourself fallacious words or whatever you like. Twelve Tables

You might need a explanation about patricians and plebeians, since you obviously don't understand the meaning of the words:

patricians - patricius adj.

pater, of fatherly dignity, of senatorial rank, of the patricians, patrician, noble gens, S.: nisi qui patricius sit.—As subst m . and f a patrician, nobleman, noble lady (that is said minority L.V)

plebeians - plēbs (-bis) plēbis, or plēbēs, ēī (ei) or ī, f

PLE-, the common people, commons, commonalty, plebeians, folk(that is said majority, L.V)
(Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary )

Cheers.
And all this time I thought we were talking about the Roman Republican Constitution so magnificently described bt Polybios and not just about some semi-legendary law that had been obsolete already for centuries

BTW, guess you are already well aware that, wonder of wonders, three of the four wives of the proud patrician CJ Caesar were proud plebeians, right?

Or that the extremely proud patrician Cornelia (daughter of Africanus Major, no less) was the mother of the perfectly plebeian Gracchi, right?

Hint: If you really can't understand that as duly & timely explained above the Struggle of the Orders had completely disappeared long, long before the Roman Constitution described in my previous posts, you really ought to go back to the elementary basics of Roman history, politics & society.

BTW, guess you must be already well aware than long before Polybios more than half of the consulships and the vast majority of magistracies were actually occupied by Plebeians, right ?

For the record, you should try some Dictionary of Roman Antiquities (as a minimum William Smith, Daremberg et Saglio would be exponentially better) and not just any elementary pocket language dictionary for any definition of the admittedly complex & rather technical Roman legal, political & social jargon.
(Nope, your elementary pocket language dictionary is no good for any glossary of brain surgery jargon either)



Not to mention of course that this nicely irrelevant fallacious red herring on outdated social stratification couldn't affect a bit our interpretation of the Roman Republican electoral system described by Polybios (yup, my first post).

Which, as I may have mentioned before, was rather democratic by any standards, even relative to the US or the UK of the XVIII century.

Cheers.

Last edited by sylla1; November 8th, 2012 at 08:15 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:23 AM   #78

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,695
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
And all this time I thought we were talking about the Roman Republican Constitution so magnificently described bt Polybios and not just about some semi-legendary law that had been obsolete already for centuries

Hint: If you really can't understand that as duly & timely explained above the Struggle of the Orders had completely disappeared long, long before the Roman Constitution described in my previous posts, you really ought to go back to the elementary basics of Roman history, politics & society.

BTW, guess you must be already well aware than long before Polybios more than half of the consulships and the vast majority of magistracies were actually occupied by Plebeians, right ?

For the record, you should try some Dictionary of Roman Antiquities (as a minimum William Smith, Daremberg et Saglio would be exponentially better) and not just any elementary pocket language dictionary for any definition of the admittedly complex & rather technical Roman legal, political & social jargon.
(Nope, your elementary pocket language dictionary is no good for any glossary of brain surgery jargon either)



Not to mention of course that this nicely irrelevant fallacious red herring on outdated social stratification couldn't affect a bit our interpretation of the Roman Republican electoral system described by Polybios (yup, my first post).

Which, as I may have mentioned before, was rather democratic by any standards, even relative to the US or the UK of the XVIII century.
You have strange habits you know? Not only you don't read posts you don't like, but you also are repeating things. I never questioned Polybius, the writer who I personally like very much, but your assumptions, and it's obvious you can't cope with the challenge. You might turn few pages back and see accounts made by Mosquito in which he mentioned patrician families and number of consuls?

Event Smith's dictionary will tell you similar if not esentially the same thing. Here is quotation from my favorite Smith's dictionary you adore so much:

Second Period: from the establishment of the plebeian order to the time of Constantine.

When the plebeians became a distinct class of citizens, who shared certain rights with the patricians, the latter lost in so far as these rights no longer belonged to them exclusively. But by far the greater number of rights, and those the most important ones, still remained in the exclusive possession of the patricians, who alone were cives optimo jure, and were the patres of the nation in the same sense as before. All civil and religious offices were in their possession, and they continued as before to be the populus, the nation now consisting of the populus and the plebes. This distinction, which Livy found in ancient documents (XXV.12), seems however in the course of time to have fallen into oblivion, so that the historian seems to be hardly aware of it, and uses populus for the whole body of citizens including the plebeians(p. 875 - 878)

Your beloved Smith is speaking about the times after abolishment of Kingdom and roughly to the period of Empire in my quotation. That is about patricians.

Let's see what our beloved Smith has to say about plebeians:

There was still no connubium between the two orders, and the populus was still in every respect distinct from the plebs. Considering the fact that the patricians reserved for themselves all the powers which had formerly been concentrated in the king, and that these powers were now given to a number of patrician officers, we must admit that the plebeians at the commencement of the republic were worse off than if the kingly rule had continued under the institutions introduced by Servius. They, however, soon gained some advantages. The vacancies which had occurred in the senate during the reign of the last king were filled up with the most distinguished among the plebeian equites (patres conscripti, Liv. II.1; Dionys. V.13; Festus, s.v. Qui patres; Plut. Public. 11; Senatus), and Valerius Publicola carried a number of laws by which the relations between patricians and plebeians were more accurately defined than they had hitherto been, and which also afforded some protection to the plebeians. [Leges Valeriae.] Both orders acted in common only in the army and the comitia centuriata, in which, however, the patricians exercised an overwhelming influence through the number of their clients who voted in them; and in addition to this all decrees of the centuries still required the sanction of the curiae. Notwithstanding all these disadvantages, the plebeians occupied a position which might soon have enabled them to rise to a perfect equality with the patricians, had not a great calamity thrown them back, and put an end to their political progress. This was the unfortunate war with Porsenna, in which a great number (a third) of the plebeians lost their estates, became impoverished, and perhaps for a time subject to the Etruscans.(p. 923 - 927)
(coloured by L.V)

(William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.)

What shall we do now, our beloved Smith betrayed you? You may again say fallacious, straw, period or something similar.

Inevitable democratization came only roughly before Polybius was born.period and easy as that.

And what the hell Cesar has with the period I'm talking about? o.O straw, fallacious, period, easy as that. o.O

Last edited by Lucius Vorenus; November 8th, 2012 at 08:29 AM.
Lucius Vorenus is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:31 AM   #79
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Vorenus View Post
You have strange habits you know? Not only you don't read posts you don't like, but you also are repeating things. I never questioned Polybius, the writer who I personally like very much, but your assumptions, and it's obvious you can't cope with the challenge. You might turn few pages back and see accounts made by Mosquito in which he mentioned patrician families and number of consuls?

Event Smith's dictionary will tell you similar if not esentially the same thing. Here is quotation from my favorite Smith's dictionary you adore so much:

Second Period: from the establishment of the plebeian order to the time of Constantine.

When the plebeians became a distinct class of citizens, who shared certain rights with the patricians, the latter lost in so far as these rights no longer belonged to them exclusively. But by far the greater number of rights, and those the most important ones, still remained in the exclusive possession of the patricians, who alone were cives optimo jure, and were the patres of the nation in the same sense as before. All civil and religious offices were in their possession, and they continued as before to be the populus, the nation now consisting of the populus and the plebes. This distinction, which Livy found in ancient documents (XXV.12), seems however in the course of time to have fallen into oblivion, so that the historian seems to be hardly aware of it, and uses populus for the whole body of citizens including the plebeians(p. 875 - 878)

Your beloved Smith is speaking about the times after abolishment of Kingdom and roughly to the period of Empire in my quotation. That is about patricians.

Let's see what our beloved Smith has to say about plebeians:

There was still no connubium between the two orders, and the populus was still in every respect distinct from the plebs. Considering the fact that the patricians reserved for themselves all the powers which had formerly been concentrated in the king, and that these powers were now given to a number of patrician officers, we must admit that the plebeians at the commencement of the republic were worse off than if the kingly rule had continued under the institutions introduced by Servius. They, however, soon gained some advantages. The vacancies which had occurred in the senate during the reign of the last king were filled up with the most distinguished among the plebeian equites (patres conscripti, Liv. II.1; Dionys. V.13; Festus, s.v. Qui patres; Plut. Public. 11; Senatus), and Valerius Publicola carried a number of laws by which the relations between patricians and plebeians were more accurately defined than they had hitherto been, and which also afforded some protection to the plebeians. [Leges Valeriae.] Both orders acted in common only in the army and the comitia centuriata, in which, however, the patricians exercised an overwhelming influence through the number of their clients who voted in them; and in addition to this all decrees of the centuries still required the sanction of the curiae. Notwithstanding all these disadvantages, the plebeians occupied a position which might soon have enabled them to rise to a perfect equality with the patricians, had not a great calamity thrown them back, and put an end to their political progress. This was the unfortunate war with Porsenna, in which a great number (a third) of the plebeians lost their estates, became impoverished, and perhaps for a time subject to the Etruscans.(p. 923 - 927)
(coloured by L.V)

(William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.)

What shall we do now, our beloved Smith betrayed you? You may again say fallacious, straw, period or something similar.

Inevitable democratization came only roughly before Polybius was born.period and easy as that.
Nothing "betrays" my point here, as anyone can easily verify.

You are simply fallaciously quoting out of context; no big secret.

You may try to read with some care about the Struggle of the Orders in Smith's dictionary, it is an old but excellent source on this issue.

Because if you don't do your own homework, nobody is going to do it for you.
(Trust me on this one)



Just for the record, have you already been able to check about the three Plebeian wives of the Patrician CJ Caesar?

Or about the Patrician mother of the Plebeian tribunes of the Plebs Gracchi?

Hint: even Wiki might help you here...

Yup, I could of course list some additional hundreds of patrician/plebeian marriages, but I guess the point on this nicely fallacious red herring is already crystal clear, right ?

Cheers.

Last edited by sylla1; November 8th, 2012 at 08:36 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:42 AM   #80

Lucius Vorenus's Avatar
Boss(ma)niac.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Dalmatia Interior
Posts: 2,695
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Nothing "betrays" my point here, as anyone can easily verify.

You are simply fallaciously quoting out of context; no big secret.

You may try to read with some care about the Struggle of the Orders in Smith's dictionary, is an old but excellent source on this issue.

Because is you don't do your own homewrok, nobody is going to do it for you.
(Trust me on this one)



Just for the record, have you already been able to check about the three Plebeian wives of the Patrician CJ Caesar?

Or about the Patrician mother of the Plebeian tribunes of the Plebs Gracchi?

Hint: even Wiki might help you here...

Yup, I could of course list some additional hundreds of patrician/plebeian marriages, but I guess the point is already crystal clear, right ?

Cheers.
lol you did it again . I love this, you remind me on a 3 years old kid who doesn't know where is the toy

Oh, you mean Cornelia mother of Gracchi, the one who reportedly created their political program. Yeah I heard about that woman, she was powerful, but again in times we don't talk about, like we don't talk about the Cesar. However, since I love kids, and I always try to give them their toys when they're lost here is something for you:

One of the first woman who openly promoted hellenistic styles and habits was Cornelia, mother of famous Gracchi. For her time, extremely rich, Cornelia actively took part in creating of political programs of her sons, and by attracting the most famous and influential men of the time to her house. She is the vanguard of the era in which many women of Rome will reach power and fame as a few men in the Empire.

If you guess from where is this quotation, I'll personally come to Mexico and buy you a drink.

Cheers
Lucius Vorenus 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 08:49 AM
Books about the Roman Republic duccen History Book Reviews 5 December 15th, 2011 01:26 PM
Social group on the Roman republican constitution sylla1 Ancient History 0 November 25th, 2011 03:53 PM
Roman Republic VS Roman Empire CRUSADERcro Ancient History 36 November 26th, 2009 02:32 AM
Roman Republic vs. Roman Empire ice2w Ancient History 9 March 25th, 2009 09:26 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.