Hacker News Reader

Comment by tempestn | Hacker News Reader

Ironic, given that these same tendencies were very present around the fall of the Roman republic. Rome had a similar gridlock of opposing positions of power, and similarly fell into a state where little could be accomplished due to the regular undermining and vetoing.

Edit: Since most replies are talking about the empire, I just want to reiterate that my comment was regarding the end of the Republic, which imo is a more analogous situation to modern USA. (Not to say it's identical, of course!)

View on HN

Rome also had decades of civil war where a majority of the ruling class was either a) killed in said wars or b) killed after the wars in proscriptions by the victor. The only people left in the Senate were either weak-willed or allied to the "winner". The proscriptions by Marc Antony basically wiped out whatever resistance was left after the death of Julius Caesar. Couple this with the fact that the populace by-and-large just wanted peace, you can see why Octavian was able to rise.

In relation to the parent point, Octavian also went through great lengths to _appear_ to be acting at the will of the Senate. He was "first citizen" and all rights and protections granted to him here "granted" by the Senate. Whether this was under duress or just abdication for the sake of peace is debated.

There are some parallels between the current situation and the fall of the Republic, but there are for more differences. We are more at the Gracchi stage than the Caesar stage at this point. So there is hope!

There's some evidence that presidential democracies are inherently less stable than parliamentary democracies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-presidenti...

America was thought to be an exception because both parties used to be more centrist with wide overlap, but it seems they've become increasingly polarized, which makes the whole system less stable.

I wanted to provide a little near-contenporary source material to back up this answer which ought to be read by everyone. From Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars:

"The violent death of Caligula [the previous emperor] afforded the Romans a fresh opportunity to have asserted the liberty of their country; but the conspirators had concerted no plan, by which they should proceed upon the assassination of that tyrant; and the indecision of the senate, in a debate of two days, on so sudden an emergency, gave time to the caprice of the soldiers to interpose in the settlement of the government.

By an accident the most fortuitous, a man devoid of all pretensions to personal merit, so weak in understanding as to be the common sport of the emperor’s household, and an object of contempt even to his own kindred; this man, in the hour of military insolence, was nominated by the soldiers as successor to the Roman throne."

Ironically, the Gauls who would sack Rome multiple times were more “Roman” than the inhabitants of Rome proper. The Gauls had strong chieftains and military generals, whereas Rome had weak ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com