Great lecture! Concerning the checks and balances in the Roman system of government, I wonder, if man is basically good, why are such checks and balances necessary?
Interesting idea of differentiating the three primary forms of government as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Is that the idea that inspired the British system of Monarch, House of Lords, House of Commons?
Not quite but the answer is rather complicated. The short answer is that the British Norman aristocracy began essentially as warlords who divided up the spoils of conquest with pledges of fealty to the monarch. Parliament (House of Lords and House of Commons) developed over centuries primarily as a vehicle for raising taxes and passing laws. In Britain, the division of power took hundreds of years to develop and was due to the competing interests of the Monarch, the aristocracy and the Merchant Class. A better example is the United States which consciously created a system of divided government. Its founders looked to the Roman Republic and to philosophers such as Aristotle, John Locke, Rousseau and others in drafting its constitution.
@@tedtimmis8135 I asked if the idea was inspired by the British government, not if the idea was the basis for that system. To answer the question, you must first know when the idea came about. Then you have to look at the structure of the governments leading up to that period looked like.
It was a flawed system that ultimately created a self serving political elite that used buzzwords and rhetoric to conceal ulterior motives and power centralisation, and when confronted, one can simply hide in the group. Also so many powerful men pursuing different aims leads to friction and indecisiveness, with peoples own agendas conflicting making clear governance difficult. Dividing rule so much also meant things took a very long time to get done, and political careers took priority over serving ones people in many cases. Republicanism ultimately leads to a den of mercantile vipers becoming increasingly corrupt. Caesar was so popular as he actually empowered and elevated the common man at the (partial) expense of the elite, which is why they killed him off. This is not to say a more autocratic rule is perfect, and many times corruption also took place but this at least as one man accountable, often corrupt emperors didn’t last too long, because the buck stopped with them. And it allowed for more efficient and unified rule. This is my opinion.
Thank you very much!!! Quality lectures like these are exactly what I was looking for. Thanks !
Varro gets welcomed back with open arms, but the soldiers who got captured were dishonoured... cool. cool, cool, cool.
Great lecture! Concerning the checks and balances in the Roman system of government, I wonder, if man is basically good, why are such checks and balances necessary?
Because basic goodness is no match for acquired ambition.
Power corrupts, and men are probably not intrinsically morally "good" in the first place. If such a thing even can truly be quantified.
Precisely the point. Man is not good! Never. Or rather enough are "not good" for us to need democracy with checks and balances.
37:08 Imagine being the person that had their phone, on full volume blast out that sound 😂😂😂
Like commented and subscribed 👍
Interesting idea of differentiating the three primary forms of government as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.
Is that the idea that inspired the British system of Monarch, House of Lords, House of Commons?
Not quite but the answer is rather complicated. The short answer is that the British Norman aristocracy began essentially as warlords who divided up the spoils of conquest with pledges of fealty to the monarch.
Parliament (House of Lords and House of Commons) developed over centuries primarily as a vehicle for raising taxes and passing laws. In Britain, the division of power took hundreds of years to develop and was due to the competing interests of the Monarch, the aristocracy and the Merchant Class.
A better example is the United States which consciously created a system of divided government. Its founders looked to the Roman Republic and to philosophers such as Aristotle, John Locke, Rousseau and others in drafting its constitution.
@@tedtimmis8135 I asked if the idea was inspired by the British government, not if the idea was the basis for that system.
To answer the question, you must first know when the idea came about. Then you have to look at the structure of the governments leading up to that period looked like.
@@Falcrist Again, the answer is no.
@@tedtimmis8135 when was the idea first proposed?
Goodo, cheers.
Lessons learned: Outsourcing the base of the economy to "barbarians" is a dangerous thing ;-)
Not sure it’s been learned in today’s Western world.
Mass migration is good for international cooperations to exploit cheap labour and promote a more consumerist alienated society.
@@tedtimmis8135 This issue is becoming more and more glaring by the day.
Not as dangerous as allowing them to migrate en masse to
the heart of the Empire..
Not in France / Germany or UK anyway.!!
It was a flawed system that ultimately created a self serving political elite that used buzzwords and rhetoric to conceal ulterior motives and power centralisation, and when confronted, one can simply hide in the group. Also so many powerful men pursuing different aims leads to friction and indecisiveness, with peoples own agendas conflicting making clear governance difficult. Dividing rule so much also meant things took a very long time to get done, and political careers took priority over serving ones people in many cases. Republicanism ultimately leads to a den of mercantile vipers becoming increasingly corrupt.
Caesar was so popular as he actually empowered and elevated the common man at the (partial) expense of the elite, which is why they killed him off.
This is not to say a more autocratic rule is perfect, and many times corruption also took place but this at least as one man accountable, often corrupt emperors didn’t last too long, because the buck stopped with them. And it allowed for more efficient and unified rule. This is my opinion.
Does he gabble his way through every lecture at this speed ?
Nothing wrong with the content : but what's the point if it's barely comprehensible ?
that's a bit harsh. He'll have a script but a time limit to stick to
Maybe he had a taxi waiting ? With the
meter running....