What does Veeky Forums think of Sargon of Akkad?

This is miserably sad.

>Comparing the imminent fall of the US to the fall of Rome is a tired dramatic old meme.

Not now Trump is president. The USA is fucked.

yeah, I know. he had potential but after years of developing his channel comparing usa to the fall of rome is the best he has to offer aside from antisjw commentary. the argument he makes in the video is just like an ad hominem hitler. i guess you could call it ad hominem rome.

> he basically insinuated that if we didn't vote for Trump, then the US would inevitably collapse like the Roman Empire
I'm not a huge fan of Sargon's, and I too think the analogy is an oversimplification, but it looks like you lack the basic historical knowledge and don't get that he's trying to say at all. He's comparing Trump to Ti. Gracchus, notorious anti-establishment demagogue in the Later Republic, whose swift rise and fall were the beginning of 100 years of civil wars in Rome, resulting in the establishment of the Principate by Augustus. During this time, despite almost constant civil strife and infighting, Rome expanded her borders almost to its all-time limits and managed to replace unsuitable Republican constitution with much more stable and efficient Imperial one, resulting in the most peaceful and prosperous period in the pre-modern Mediterranean for the next 250 years.
> Comparing the imminent fall of the US to the fall of Rome is a tired dramatic old meme.
He's comparing US to the Roman Republic, not to the Roman Empire or the Roman State. Roman power in the west would fall 600 years after Ti. Gracchus, and would continue for another 1000 years in the east, so no, I don't think Sargon is trying to predict imminent fall of US by comparing Trump to Ti. Gracchus.

>Whiggism
The only reason Sargon is worse than you is because he is autistic AND retarded, you're just retarded.

Back to your hole.

Why do people immediately assume the OP is about the Youtube channel and not about the HISTORICAL FIGURE

Veeky Forums - HISTORY

>His video comparing the US to the Roman Empire was the height of his crackpot analysis.

A dozen high profile channels have made this comparison, people like it.
It doesn't have to be good, just needs to sound nice.

At worst we will have 4 years of shit and a 25 year long bad aftertaste.
The best way to deal with SJWs is to either ignore them or fix what they wine about better than any of their dumb solutions could have ever fixed, if there even was a legitimate issue to begin with. Granted, there usually is, where there is smoke there is fire, but their solution of pouring gasoline on it won't help. Nor will /pol/'s ideas, which are pouring napalm on the fire.

/thread

because /v/ermins and /pol/acks ruin everything

Whiggism?

The belief that history moves in a linear fashion towards a specific endpoint and that anyone who disagrees with your arbitrary views on what advances us towards the specific endpoint is evil and disagrees with you solely because they are evil.

It's pretty childish tbqh.

His comment has hardly whiggism. He might be a Republican who just thinks Trump is an inept fool for all you know.

What a weird, random totally irrelevant thing to post.

Hammurabi a better.

Your premise is flawed because you're assuming I wasn't referring to the Roman Republic when I said Roman Empire. The Roman Republic during the Roman Republic 'period' was an empire and I'll let you guess why that government form is the most appropriate from the map in pic related. The issues that I pointed made conditions ripe for a dictator to seize power.

I find it funny that you don't point out how in the video he compares t. Gracchus to JFK, both "inevitably killed by the very interests he his threatening." This is Oliver Stone style entertainment conspiracy nonsense. What's even funnier is YOUR lack of basic historical knowledge by confusing Ti. Gracchus with Gaius Gracchus. Again, the populist reformer he's comparing Trump to is Gaius Gracchus and JFK to Ti. Gracchus.

So let's not be little twats for getting names wrong, when we both know what the other means :)

The conditions that lead up to the fall of Rome's """Republic""" by the time caesar came along, are very different from the issues that the USA is facing right now. I hardly see the reasoning why we need to "just let the populist reformer do their work.", especially considering how it's not clear how Trump as a reformer is going to help our American Republic or how it would be similar to G. Gracchus.

Is Trump going to extend citizenship to all illegal immigrants just like G. Gracky sought to extend Roman citizenship to all Latin citizens? Is he going to have land reforms and give some Americans more living space within the empire? Is he going to reform the judicial system in any meaningful way that can superficially be compared to G. Gracky?

Sorry, it was technically still a 'Republic' despite the characteristics of empire before Augustus, but that was my fault for a misuse of nomenclature. Nonetheless, it's popular because it's vain and melodramatic to compare the US to Rome. It happens in every election. It reminds me of when Ron Paul and his libtard supporters compared the US to the Roman empire(little 'e' this time) because the US has military bases across the globe and when you ask how the US profits off these bases compared to Rome which acquired huge swaths of territory along with the military occupation, they'll answer, "Well...uh...uh....the bases have MCDonalds and that's just like territorial expansion!" Fucking imbeciles.

hahaha. the usa will be the first republic to fall because they predicted the fall of rome instead of their own country!

Well, now you reformulated your point I basically agree with you, yet I still think you shouldn't call the Republic "Empire", the latter having its own meaning and its own time period. Especially "the fall of Rome" you mentioned means the fall of the Western Empire in 100% of cases, not the fall of the Republic.
And yes, you're right, he compared Trump to G. Gracchus, not Ti. Gracchus.
>it's not clear how Trump as a reformer is going to help our American Republic or how it would be similar to G. Gracchus.
Well I can draw some similarities - in both cases we has initially relatively poor and politically egalitarian republic suddenly benefiting enormously from its international domination, yet these benefits being distributed unequally, enriching mostly the ruling economical elites, reducing the latter's dependence on the free native middle class by introduction of slavery(immigration) in huge numbers. The growing alienation between elites and the masses results in the degradation of republican tradition, rising influence of wealthy elites on the electoral process(via client/patron networks in Rome, mass media in modern US), preventing any possible choice outside of the limited range approved by the establishment, factionalism and fanaticism taking place of leveled political debate. In this situation demagogue can be beneficent to the state by forcing the establishment to share the benefits and political control with the masses to the greater degree thus de-radicalizing the latter and preventing a political revolution.

This isn't a position I'm prepared to defend or draw conclusions from, since I don't think history is a hard science with reproducible laws, but I think this is a good analogy that can help to put the current political situation in the US into the historical context.

& humanities

>implying the Dems will get their shit together in 4 years

>People like it therefore it gives historical legitimacy

Exactly this.

W e W

Not the guy you're talking to but there is no reason to be such a cunt.

I find some of these comparisons questionable.

>relatively poor and politically egalitarian republic suddenly benefiting enormously from its international domination
If you're referring to the US becoming suddenly economically dominant after WW2, then it's way exaggerated. The dominance of the US over global finance began in 1870-1914, as the US market began to boon from industrialization, modernization, and huge waves of foreign immigrants, particularly from Europe, settling in the country. During most the US's history leading up to world war 2, the US certainly wasn't egalitarian and had trended towards greater participation by the public and more and more of the public being able to participate from blacks to women. This participation has coincided with mass communication. At one point in the US, senators weren't even directly elected by the public but by state legislators, with the founders assuming the public too misinformed to vote for senators who would best represent the needs of their state, let alone wisely regulate the lower house of congress.

>ruling economical elites, reducing the latter's dependence on the free native middle class by introduction of slavery(immigration) in huge numbers.
Since the Great Depression, the US saw a rise in its middle class and has recently seen a decline. But you neglect to mention that immigration was responsible for creating the middle class and similar to the US before the Great Depression, illegal and non-illegal immigration has similarly improved the overall US standard of living by making basic needs items like farm products cheaper and cheaper, allowing all classes to buy more for less. It's not at all clear how immigration has significantly hurt the middle class, and I'd challenge you to provide evidence for it. I think the phenomenon that's really hurt the US middle class is offshoring and inability to educate or re-educate American workers whose jobs are no longer needed.

>Your premise is flawed because you're assuming I wasn't referring to the Roman Republic when I said Roman Empire. The Roman Republic during the Roman Republic 'period' was an empire and I'll let you guess why that government form is the most appropriate
Don't do this, it's just pointlessly confusing. Prior to Augustus it's the republic and after he takes power it's the empire.

Are you upset because I called someone a twat in response to them claiming I had a "lack the basic historical knowledge." Well, I'm sorry sunshine. I'll try to be more polite on Veeky Forums. I can't believe I let my rhetoric be so toxic.

>initially relatively poor and politically egalitarian republic
The republic was deeply unequal in the beginning and became less unequal in many ways over time (see papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1701981).

>reducing the latter's dependence on the free native middle class
They were never heavily dependent on the middle class. The elites were rich enough to pay for wars without enacting taxes and you had to be rich to hold certain offices because you didn't get paid and had to use your own money for projects. Furthermore comparing slavery to immigration is a poor one because the dynamics are completely different in almost every way.

>rising influence of wealthy elites on the electoral process
The electoral process both then and now was largely built and maintained by elites.

I strongly recommend you read The Last Generation of the Roman Republic by Guren (mediafire.com/file/y7hypwl4ff7tm6u/The_Last_Generation_of_the_Roman_Republic.pdf). Though old (it was published in 1974) it ripped apart so many memes that surround the downfall of the republic some of which are used to for the many terrible comparisons between Rome and the US today.

Yeah, I should have referred to the empire with a little 'e' rather than the big 'e' Roman Empire. I apologize, but I think you'll agree Rome didn't just become an empire just because Augustus declared it so and that the elements were all there prior to him exerting control over the oligarchic senate of the Roman Republic.

Its not that. Your overall tone is very condescending for no apparent reason. Its an awful way to get your message across.

Try being more positive with your posting. Help an user learn, don't put him down.

Well, I guess you're right, the analogy is a fuzzy one.
>I strongly recommend you read The Last Generation of the Roman Republic by Guren
Thanks, this is the time period I'm looking into right now, so I'll check it out.

LITerally Caesar!:(!!

Don't be so dramatic. You say it's very condescending for 'no apparent reason.', but I told you why I was annoyed about having my opinion dismissed by the statement, " looks like you lack the basic historical knowledge and don't get that he's trying to say at all." Would you prefer I be subtly insulting? I think that would be more condescending.

After that post, I apologized for calling Rome during the Republic period , the Roman Empire as if I were to referring to Rome under Augustus onward. I don't think there's anymore to discuss about my tone.

>mfw I thought this was going to be a discussion about the ruler and not some rabel rouser on youtube I'd never even heard of.

*rabble

Its just bettter to be polite and direct to one another. If someone says something you know is wrong then correct them and explain your reasoning. No need for insults.

I don't think its dramatic at all to want to maintain a civil discussion on Veeky Forums. If we as a board allow unhelpful insults to go unchecked we'd quickly get a reputation of being unhelpful and no one will ever want to ask questions.

I think he would be much more similar to Caesar than G. Gracchus, honestly, but that would be an insult to Caesar. Funny that you show them in juxtaposition because both of them were famously self-conscious and teased about their hair. "According to Suetonius, Julius Caesar suffered from a receding hairline, about which he was very sensitive; his enemies were said to have made the most of this, making fun of his baldness, and he combed the thin strands of hair forward from his poll."

books.google.com/books?id=lvfMrkqDbY0C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=caesar teased about his hair&source=bl&ots=01tPnXmcix&sig=c-tPyrJqVQ5wAV7kJ5ZBpT2Vs2A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRgZOW9qjRAhVL7CYKHauAC-AQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q=caesar teased about his hair&f=false

Tfw, you helped cause the fall of the American Republic because you called Trump names like, “Human-toupee hybrid”, “Orange manatee”, or my personal favorite, "President Fuck-face Von Clownstick". "Look who's laughing now, fellow patricians!"

shit, wrong reaction face.

Ok, well. I've changed my ways and become a born-again user. Even though I've told you why I was annoyed by having my opinion dismissed as lacking 'basic historical knowledge' and not getting what 'he's trying to say at all' and generally being pleasant on this board aside from when I come across insults like that(which you would have no way of knowing about me because we're all anonymous), I've decided to take your observations about ME being needlessly insulting and the need for Veeky Forums as a board to not let insults go unchecked to heart. I can see now that I was the cancer that was slowly infecting Veeky Forums because I have a personality and get annoyed from time to time.. I can see that in order to be anonymous on Veeky Forums I must let go of my personality and instead provide helpful insults to improve our collective reputation and encourage people to submit questions to the great mass to calculate a helpful and kind response.

Sumer will rise again

Things that he is more intelligent than he is. Talks over other people, even his friends, that have valid points because he prematurely considers the conversation over. One the other hand he does talk his mind like when he shit on Red panels.
He means what he says for the most part. He's not entirely retarded. He is extremely wrong on a heap of things and despite being 'open minded' is a smug cunt the second somone comes at it from an angle he hasn't had the prep time to research.

If you're reading this, get your shit together and treat other people's opinions a little better, not nicer or anything like that but atleast afford them a bit more attention so that when you refute someone it doesn't sound like talking down and instead sounds like a proper dismantle and dismisal of an argument.

>And yes, you're right, he compared Trump to G. Gracchus, not Ti. Gracchus.
Comparing Trump to the Gracchi brothers is the height of conceit on the part of Trump supporters. The Gracchi brothers were Populares, the progressive party in Roman politics opposed by the conservative Optimates. The Gracchi brothers favored a policy of large scale downward capital redistribution which was opposed by an unlikely political alliance of the nobility (who didn't want to pay more in taxes) with the Proletariat (who thought that wealth would flow unfairly into the hands of foreigners). Sound familiar?
>Well I can draw some similarities
Not really. Rome was always a really unequal place, it's just that in one era the economy was small and dominated by small farming communities, and in another it was huge and dominated by wealthy urban centers. But small hypocrisies that they had lived with for tradition's sake were turning into major problems, and the ones that went unaddressed turned into cascading system failures within a generation of the Gracchi brother's murder, the Romans plunged into turmoil and remained there for most of the last century BC until emerging as a military dictatorship
>introduction of slavery(immigration) in huge numbers.
That's not at all how it worked. When new territories fell under the umbrella of the Romans they began the process of "Romanizing" them through a system of tiered citizenship. As time went on yesterday's conquered people were today's servants and freedmen and tomorrow's full citizens. The taking of slaves was one portion of that (and factored heavily in its decline) but people *wanted* to be Romans and their citizenship policy was flexible in ways like no other ancient society, which is why they were able to draw on massive manpower reserves which were the envy of the Hellenic states.