Why does it seem like Rome fanboys are actually fascists and hate republicanism?

Why does it seem like Rome fanboys are actually fascists and hate republicanism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because they're plebs that idolize the empire and not the republic.

Hence why the leaders of various pleb nations like Russia and Germany were called Czars and Kaisers rather than consuls.

Patrician scum

we're not.

When you study the Republic long enough to begin to understand why it fell.

You understand that the government had been taken over by conservatives who had literally hunted down and murdered all of the progressives, who looked the other way as the Roman aristocracy was given free reign to pillage and lot the plebs.

Julius Caesar represents the last great attempt to reform the system from within. When the conservatives assassinated him they thought that by removing the tyrant they would be restoring Rome to a state more attune with natural law. What they actually did was spark a nationalist uprising as people's faith in the public government had been shattered, and people threw their lot in with the military as it ran the conservatives out of town and hunted them down like dogs

The power vacuum created by the assassination of Julius Caesar was filled with the most ruthless man in Rome, Caesar's heir, Octavian, who lacked his predecessors sense of clemency and cooperation with his enemies: he crushed his enemies and permanently rebuilt Roman government as a democratic facade hiding a naked authoritarianism. He also greatly expanded the role of the government, instituting sorely needed reform. However like everything that was Roman politics it was a half baked political compromise: the aristocrats became a permanently entrenched minority owning vast estates, plebs got their welfare state, and most of the actual work was done by slaves and disenfranchised second class citizens, and it was all paid for through continuous infusions of foreign capital in the form of conquest boot. By freely wielding the power of the Roman government, un-tethered from the whims of stingy, finger-wagging conservatives, Augustus made investments in the public infrastructure which would pay off dividends for its citizens for many years, improving their lives and allowing for an unprecedented era of peace and ideas-exchange

Not hate, just that the republic needs to be improved

they were right tho, anyone who caters to the mob desires to be king

The mob threw their weight behind Caesar because he was the first politician in almost a generation to even pretend to care about them.

It may have been all a cynical ploy to get their votes, but the fact is that Caesar was a Populares who was able to acquire a massive amount of wealth and political clout without first having to suck a lot of conservative penis in order to do so, who forced everyone into the category of "extreme conservative" or "moderate apologist", so there were things he could do and get away with that terrified his conservative opponents, even though he wielded power using more or less the same political channels that Lucius Sulla had used a generation prior to entrench the conservatives, the difference was that it was actually in service to the good of Rome, and not just the interests of an entrenched minority.

honestly? because a lot of fascists care about aesthetics more than ideology
and for all the shit the romans did or didnt do
they had top tier aesthetics

Remember, kids, liberalism is a mental illness. Just read this post if you need proof.

>"I'm a mouth breathing conservative with nothing of substance to add to the discussion so I just sling ad hominens and beat my chest as a substitute"

did you get lost and forget which board you were trying to find?

I'm not particularly liberal but I see one poster here creating an explanation based on reasoning and documented facts, and the other spouting a meme.

Everything he said was backwards. The progressive would be the one expanding governmental power and authority; the conservative would be the one wanting to preserve the old Rome.

Liberals are tyrants, not conservatives. Liberals.

In the Roman Republic:

1. Woman could not vote under any circumstances, period. There were no exceptions to this in all of the recorded history of the Roman Republic. The Senate was 100% male for the entirety of the Republican era.

2. The Electoral system was very deliberately designed to give the wealthy elite disproportionate voting power. Patrician votes were weighed many times more heavily than the votes of plebians, and the popular vote almost never mattered.

Cicero himself wrote texts praising these aspects of the Roman system for ensuring that power would always remain with the wealthy, well-connected elite families of Rome, rather than the stupid, filthy commoners who would undoubtedly lead the city to ruin if they ever gained too much power. That sort of thinking doesn't really resemble our modern conception of a republic.

Roman politics became a joke with Sulla and Marius, two strongmen competing for power were enough to bring a long-lasting state to the brink of destruction. People like Caesar, Anthony and Octavian just finished the job.

The crucial moment for the Republic was the failure of Gracchian reforms.Gracchi brothers were the last true Romans in its Republican sense, the last who realized that what brought Rome so many victories was in fact the army of free farmer-soldiers who owned enough land and were able to feed themselves from it, and not having to depend on any ambitious strongman who comes and offers you loot.
Go away you blustering moron, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ironic because Cicero himself was a homo novus in political life. The reason why he was able to enter politics at all was because equites to which he belonged got extremely rich through all the money-lending, corruption and malversations they pulled off in the provinces, and were thus able to pretend like they're some sort of patriciate.

>We liberals are all rainbows and happiness, we swear!

>muh BA in Ancient History comes in handy at the Welfare Office. They're very impressed.

We exist under romes shadow

>1. Woman
but compared to virtually anywhere else in the world, Women had it great in Rome. While they couldn't vote or get their trade license, they still wielded considerable influence behind the scenes and nobody gave two craps if a woman worked or handled the business side of her husband's work. Athenians were shocked to discover that Roman men and women dined together.

>2. The Electoral system
Allowing all your aristocrats to participate in an election was a ground-breaking social development in the late iron age, compared to all the crude despotisms surrounding it.

>every aspect of knowledge must go toward the profit motive
I bet that you spend at least an hour a day on /pol/ bitching about the (((banking class))).

This, excellent post

>The progressive would be the one expanding governmental power and authority; the conservative would be the one wanting to preserve the old Rome.
Of course the progressives wanted to do that, that's why the conservatives beat one to death with a chair. But what the conservatives failed to realize is that "old Rome" was long gone, and new Rome was pissed that the conservatives had turned the government into a corrupt, bloated, dysfunctional mess which couldn't pass any meaningful legislation.

Optimates were the pro-aristocrat faction, the pro-war, pro-slavery, pro-religious conservatism, and anti-immigration. After the dictatorship of Lucius Sulla, they had basically dominated the government as a one-party state

Populares were the pro-pleb faction who opposed slavery on grounds that it took jobs from working Romans, favored expanding the welfare state, redistributing income, and granting citizenship to the allied states

In the last century of the Republic's existence there was a massive migration from the country to the cities. "old Rome" was a place largely dominated by a middle class of land owning small farmers. However large estates were bolstering their labor forces with slaves and making it so that the average small farmer simply couldn't compete against the guys who didn't have to make payroll. Further compounding the problem was a larger territory necessitating a larger army to control and expand it, so Romans would be away for years at a time and return to discover that their farms had fallen fallow and had been foreclosed on, probably by the same asshole who marched his ass out to war and took the lion's share of the conquest profits. This resulted in a massively stratified, heavily urban society, where a tiny cadre of aristocrats lived lives of opulent hedonism, while everyone else lived in blighted, disease ridden, horrendously crime-ridden slums and in a near continuous state of rioting until placed on the bread dole and given entertainment

The purpose of education is not to provide employment. The purpose of education is that it is the surest form of social insurance against tyranny.

youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

this

>Athenians were shocked to discover that Roman men and women dined together.

That's just fucking autism.

I never said that it was a bad system, just that it can't really be compared to our modern conception of a republic. These days, the very idea of restricting vote privileges or deliberately giving certain people more votes based on how much gold they own would be considered, well, fascist.

>reached greatest height when they were an empire
>greatest leaders were autocrats
>but MUH REPUBLIC!!!!!!!

What height was that?

>Finally start reading about Roman history
>It's absolutely fascinating

Five Good Emperors

>Implying any Roman autocrat after Servius Tullius was good

>Sulla
>Augustus
>Trajan
>Hadrian
>Marcus Aurelius
>Septimus Severus
>Aurelian
>Constantine
>Majorian

*teleports behind you*
*proscribes you in the back*
pshhh... nothing personell...kid

>Constantine
>no Diocletian who had half of his accomplishments stolen by Constantine

The Greater Good.

>Maximinus Thrax isn't even on the list

It wasn't a definitive list of all the good dictators and emperors, just my favourite ones.

No camillus...

>These days, the very idea of restricting vote privileges or deliberately giving certain people more votes based on how much gold they own would be considered, well, fascist.
well there is that small detail of being named after the actual ancient Roman symbol of state power, a symbol just as likely to be used to put down slave revolts as repel barbarian hordes.

The closest modern parallel would be the Confederate States of America. They were governments which did not have a mandate to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, and openly repressed some for the sake of others while being ruthlessly expansionist.

except the republic when to shit after the punic/macedonian wars. An empire of that size was never going to be properly ruled by a republic of autistic aristocrats.

>Octavian, who lacked his predecessors sense of clemency and cooperation with his enemies:

are you stupid. Augustus prevailed exactly because he cooperated with his enemies. The conservative aristocracy saw him as the more suitable choice in contrast with Antony.

>The republic fell because of land inequality

No, Augustus was good at picking his friends. He grew up surrounded by and was a part of this conservative aristocracy. Augustus knew better than to ruffle the political feathers of conservatives so he maintained the outward facade of democratic rule and let them think that the Republic was still as strong as it's ever been, while all the real decisions were made within the court of the Emperor, the so called "first citizen".

But when it came to his political opponents Augustus was ruthless. He didn't think twice about sentencing a child to death just so that he wouldn't threaten Augustus's claim to Caesar's legacy. He wasn't above using every dirty political trick in the book to bury Mark Anthony, including pimping his own sister out.

>the Catiline conspiracy never happened

i'll agree with you and say, the Roman land owning elites were 100% behind fucking the nation up, but the Populares, specially the populares after the Gracchi, were nothing but dangerous fucks who would straight up destroy the Republic and tear Rome apart.

neither side was the good guy, both were filled with short sighted cunts who really just wanted to amass power at everyone's expense.

please stop using modern age political terms when describing ancient societies

>republicanism

i give up, americans overtook this board and its now a political ideology LARPing ground

i simultaneously pitty and scoff at your optimism on thinking stupidity of this caliber is contained by borders.