While reading this i was initially confused by the roman-etruscan-tarquin conflicts. Were the Tarquins and the Etruscans related somehow? Or Were the Tarquins running rome prior to the Etruscan takeover? I guess it's a small details, considering the Etruscans eventually fell to ruin, but i just wanted to become clear on that. While reading this week's passages i found myself sectioning off my notes into "intelligent" and "unintelligent" sections. Of course, i've never run an empire, never even attempted to really, but i still spotted some things that struck me as good ideas. I thought it was a good idea that there was at least some sort of check balance system in the early monarchy. When i first read about the sort of caste system, with the patricians and the plebeians, i thought it would eventually turn into a civil war, so another intelligent thing to do, was surely, even if slowly, give rights to the plebeians.
Later on, when the Consul, quaestor, censor government was instated, i was impressed by the fact they had some sort of constitution, my impression soon turned sour, when the Consul was described. What happens if the two in charge disagree or dislike each-other? It seems that would be a sort of problematic setup. Also, with the Censors becoming so powerful, and taking bribes and so on, why didn't the government put a hold on their power?
I do have to give kudos to Rome for promptly rebuilding after getting burned down, and for eventually gaining control over italy. It was also a big fat entry in the intelligent category to give rights to the states they took-over.
1 comment:
Politics have since the beginning of time involved bribery, corruption. To try and limit these types of behavior in men's personalities the men were placed in office that did not lack these resources then the chances of them succumbing to unwanted behavior was less. But power, it's self is a strong elixir even more than money.
Post a Comment