How Corrupt was the Roman Senate Really?
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 10. 2023
- Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD for 10% off on your first purchase of a website/domain using the code BRAINFOOD
One of the lasting legacies of Rome in modern society is the concept of a Senate, though it wasn’t really what we think of as a Senate today. In many countries today, you can find a similar governing body of elected or appointed representatives. If you dive a little deeper, you can see different countries have very different ideas of what a senate is. Usually in a bicameral legislature, that is when a country has more than one legislative body, the Senate acts as the higher assembly. This role can be official and the members are elected, such as the American Senate. In other countries it is symbolic and made up of appointees, such as the Canadian Senate - not to be confused with the Ottawa Senators, who are a bad hockey team. However, the Roman Senate was very different from either the American, Canadian, or quite possibly any modern legislative body calling itself a Senate.
Thanks to Squarespace for sponsoring this video. :-) Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD for 10% off on your first purchase of a website/domain using the code BRAINFOOD
Like an ol' RPG skit on Joel Haver once said, not that corrupt.
Thank you 🗽❤🗽
By the ways, Never forgive, This criminal drug dealer FordNation corrupted a whole population in #Ontario and blinded them to his billionS of dollars of #LOOT ...11 Reasons, Why he deserves #JAIL
1. Gave his own mpps a 16% salary increase on a 160000$ base & fu*ked over everyone else with a 3% increase.
2. Tried killing whistleblowers & witnesses & personally orchestrated the #gangstalking
3. Snow-mobiled when terrorists of #Canada were attacking our Capital.
4. Stole land worth billions
5. Screwed over our public hospitals
6. Screwed over our public transport
7. Screwed over law & order with his Malafide Lies.
8. Old folks died under Ford
9. His own mpps took tax-payer salary for their massages
10. 18 MZO'S to billionaires at his own daughters wedding.
11. Swallowing a BEE and while he was choking still remembered t say "REAL ESTATE" what a #RAAC 🤬
This sounds like it's an exact copy of the US form of government.
So, the Roman Senate passed laws favoring the rich, who in turn stuffed the Senator's pockets. Not quite clear on the difference between their Senate and ours. As Will Rogers once said, "Congress are the best people money can buy".
This isn't quite right. The Roman Senate passed laws that *directly* stuffed their pockets. This wasn't corruption by their lights: it was both legal and normal. It's only modern senates that must put up a show of impartiality that must use the indirect approach. Doubly indirect where anti-corruption laws exist since Senators cannot then pass laws in return for direct payment. Money must enter their pockets through apparently legitimate means.
And modern legislators of any description don't get anywhere near as wealthy as Roman Senators, relatively speaking.
Only difference is how they got the job. In Rome, you were essentially born into the job, in the US, you convince the masses that drowning themselves is a better alternative to oxygen
And it was all men. Strange that
@craigpoer and European queens were 27% more likely to start a war than their male counterparts. You have any other pointless observations?
@@reclaimerbear6760"people with more birthdays live longer, so birthdays are keeping them alive." Brilliant logic, kid.
“Politicians do not become corrupt, the corrupt become politicians.” To wheel and deal in those fancy halls.
That sounds like a T-shirt I need to make.
Power does not corrupt, power empowers. People show who they really are.
👍@@TragoudistrosMPH
@@tiki_trash Make it 👍
@@TragoudistrosMPH Exactly 👍, a decent human being would become even more good and generous with wealth and power.
I had to hit the like button just for the Ottawa Senators shade.
Especially since Simon had no clue what he said, but I am sure the writer loved it.
Nooooo im watching from theeerre! Lmao the shade was thrown at me! Lolol
lol@@rincandrepeat.999
As well as the dig on the Canadian Senate . . .
@@rincandrepeat.999 Duck and Cover, friend.
Around 3:30 "The assemblies were meant to represent the will of the people, even though in practice is represented the wealthy" Not too dissimilar from most governments these days.
I love how he thinks the US senate isn’t made up of our “elites”. 99% of them are Ivy league school graduates. They tend to come from money. Saying our senate is egalitarian is a stretch I can’t make.
Yeah but we have the idealism that it’s supposedly open to anyone who can get the votes. Maybe the one in Rome was too? I wonder how much of this stuff where everyone’s talking about various caste systems and hierarchies was acknowledged as the way things should be back then versus allegedly just available to anyone but in retrospect obviously not (much like our system)
@@banksuvladimirit's more like who can afford to buy the votes. 😂
@@hippiemama52 In a real sense - yes! Members of the elite class can afford to invest their time and money on "statecraft" while those in the working class have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.
Bernie Sanders left the chat
It's because he's an overseas guy, and also very "This is the official, objective answer of the situation" type guy. The fact that all our politicians are somebodies is not considered a literal fact, it is something obviously observed, but skeptics/intellectuals don't consider that valid. So not only is he far away and removed from our culture, he's also just gonna go with the on paper answer.
When I studied Roman history in college I was amazed to realize that Roman senators were really no different than mafia dons. Some things never change
Governments, Corporations, and Mafias, etc are governed extremely similarly.
Oh yeah. I live in dread of the day that McDonald's sends their enforcers to break my kneecaps for not paying protection money, or casting my shareholder vite the way the CEO wants.
🙄
Hasbro has sent Pinkerton agents after people (yea Pinkertons are still around go figure), Chevron had a lawyer arrested and imprisoned, Chiquita Brands International invaded a country. All I got from recent/casual memory, gotta be a lot more though.@@dawnfire82
Ah, the patron/client relationship. "Nice farm you have here."
As a person who lives in Ottawa, your assessment of the Ottawa Snores is spot on.
Well, right now they are doing better than my hometown San Jose Sharks.
So the senate had no terms limits, were primarily wealthy, and made a ton of money doing it. Some things just don’t change.
Term limits were actually very stringent in the Roman Republic. The magistrates (who held official power) could only be elected for a single year, and only once every ten years.
The Senate was theoretically an "advisory" body. As such, no term limits were needed. In practice, though, they wielded huge influence over the elected magistrates.
The idea of 'term limits' for the Roman Senate makes no sense. It wasn't elected. If any Roman Citizen possessed the required wealth (1 million sesterces per annum) according the Censors they were automatically a member of the Senate. As long as they had that wealth they were members for life, unless ejected for some exceptional reason. The citizen had to be at least 25 (note however that both the specific age, and the wealth specifications did change at times). If a citizen was elected Quaestor they were members of the Senate, after Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and members if they were awarded one of the major 'decorations' for military valor, i.e. 'civic crown' or 'grass crown'. Also one was automatically a member of the Senate when holding the office of Tribune of the Plebs.
@@nomdeguerre7265 Important point and one point as wasn't made in the video.
The "plebeians" were full Roman citizens as of the Lex Hortensia 287 BC. They could buy their way into the Senate and into government rank and the military same as any patrician. Pompey, somewhat famously, was a pleb. So was Cicero IIRC. The Julius gens was patrician but that family had no money when the famous Caesar was growing up.
Now, there were some powerful patrician families which were still powerful over the third and second centuries BC - Fabius, Cornelius, Claudius - and having wealth and status before the Hortensia certainly helped in keeping it afterward. But the patrician / plebeian distinction was legally void when the historical record starts getting good.
This touches on something about the separation of church and state that is often missed. Our secular civics education focuses on how religion can corrupt politics, but I argue that politics corrupts religion about 10x worse. Any true spiritual leader should want religion and government to be separate for the sake of the soul of their religious community. Any religious leader who is pushing church and state closer together isn't really serving their religion, they are serving personal political aspirations
@@stophittingyourself123but eventually the message gets corrupted to increase one owns power
@@stophittingyourself123 This is simply false. The founders in the US understood very well why separation of church and state was important; it was because people had different religious beliefs, and trying to force your views on someone else was a recipe for tyranny and civil war.
Europe had experienced massive warfare (e.g., the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants) due to religious differences. The American founders were determined not to repeat this mistake, so they wisely instituted separation of church and state.
@lovelyhomeboy1584
Politics is usually the corrupting factor. People of a faith will usually push as law what they consider good and bad. If you consider a behavior to be wrong, you don't exactly encourage people to do it. Your position is such behavior shouldn't be allowed.
@@icecold9511 "Good" is what propagates the family, and keeps capital from being stolen. Philosophy without religion can serve the Good; Confucianism seems fairly effective. Unfortunately only northeast Asians seem to be able to handle it at scale.
For westerners, we need to have the fear of G-d drilled into us. Otherwise our kids will get groomed into becoming transgender or, worse, gay.
So, not much has changed.
".... Not to be confused with the Ottawa Senators, who are a bad hockey team." 😂😂🤣
Savage facts right there!🤣
Shots fired! (Not by Ottawa)
@@Travenspear8 😂😂
Even Ottawa fans just had to groan and nod😂
@@garion742 there are Ottawa fans? 😆
As a canadian, i love that you said Ottawa was a bad hockey team.
To be clear though, no hockey team is as bad as Toronto. 😂
As a Brit I would say that would makes them, the equivalent of the worst team in at the bottom of the professional football leagues. 😁
Its interesting to note that the very people that started the downfall became rich, enjoyed yhe fame and had passed away by the time it actually fell.
This gave me e a great idea for a new episode! Was there ever a senate that wasn't corrupt?
😎If you can find a senate that wasn’t corrupt…good luck with that. If you want to be in charge of more than yourself you’re a megalomaniac and that should be enough to disqualify your service
Maybe if they were legitimately afraid of their constituents and actually did what they wanted.
@@kosmosXcannonThen what if the constituents are corrupt?
@@Hypogean7 the French had a nifty invention for that, unfortunately it went on strike and hasn't came back
A channel named Historia Civilius goes pretty in depth on roman history for folks that enjoy that kindof content.
Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it."
Yes, the founding fathers, in their "infinite wisdom" (LOL) loved the idea of reproducing the corrupt practices of the Roman Republic of 500 B.C. in 18th century America.
And the founding fathers were successful. Way beyond their wildest dreams.
Today, in the 21st century, the American Senate is a cesspool of corruption the Roman Senators of 500 B.C. would have envied.
Just like the Roman Senate was composed exclusively of Patricians, the American Senate is composed exclusively of millionaires.
Just like the Roman senators were dedicated to entrenching their positions of power and privilege, the American Senators dedicate themselves to the same end.
No more corrupt than what you are seeing currently in so many places
If you say USA [redacted] yourself
Really apparently that’s not true, it was much worse lol
@@BonShulaUSA
@@BonShulaI think you need some perspective. We're well known throughout the world for propaganda and as military bullies/ world police. Our representatives get incredibly wealthy after office and it's because of the corruption. Otherwise, the gov would serve ppl not corporations
@@quanyintv You did not prove corruption. There is a corrupt index, maybe you should read sometimes
The augurs had the advantage of having run a lot of drills.
I see what you did there. 👍
Thank you, Simon & team. That was very informative.
Great essay, thank you.
The letters S.P.Q.R. are on every Roman coat of arms. The letters stand for Senatus PopulusQue Romanus, or "The Senate and the Roman Populus", to convey the strict relation the Senate had with the population...
The true picture of how the Roman Senate truly operated, can only be had knowing how they (the Senate) managed the public finances, both to enlarge the Empire, finance the Legions and public infrastructure, and keep the common people happy and with enough money to go by...
And down through this day as well. Rome's manhole covers have "SPQR" stamped on them.
🤔 Citizens United sounds the same:
Unlimited campaign contributions from corporations.
(Corporations are suddenly people and free speech is money)
2017 corporate tax is permanently reduced (people's tax cut ends 2025)
Lobbying is legal, so you can pay to request laws to be written.
Political debates for elections require campaign contribution minimums.
Corporations have always had a personhood concept attached to them. In addition, they are assemblages of real people, and real people have First Amendment rights individually and as groups. One can argue that Citizens United overturned a reasonable limitation on specific elements of First Amendment rights (my view of things), but the case did not suddenly grant corporations personhood.
Lobbying is just a specific form of petitioning the government. If it were outlawed, you'd also see Planned Parenthood and other entities that try to benefit society prevented from doing the same things.
Political debates are run by private groups, not the government. They have full control over who goes on the stage for that reason. Otherwise, you'll end up with a dozen or more more candidates trying to get a word in edgewise in very limited time. Go look at the last Republican debate. There were only seven up there and it devolved into a useless mess. Even DeSantis complained that he couldn't make sense of anything.
@@JarrodFrates corporations haven't always had personhood. Looking up laws around corporations will explain that, if you're interested.
You seem unaware of the laws around lobbying are. Some entities are not legally allowed to lobby. I worked for one.
Regarding debates, looking at examples abroad would be more useful than using an example of failure in our own system to state why our system is better.
That's what I call a well-researched and exzellently presented documentary about the Roman Senat.
Senators serving for a lifetime, at times passing their seat to their son, and using the levers and spoils of government to enrich themselves this is a good description of the modern US senate.
Legit lol'd at the Ottawa joke!
Anytime you say the senate it reminds me of Star Wars 1-3.
Same 😂. And for the record, I would have voted to send a commission to Naboo.
Watch out for that Palpatine guy, he's hiding something. 😆
At least one of the unwritten rules of the Roman senate was that you had to have sponsored public works and/or infrastructure projects before you could be considered for higher office, which forced the rich to give back a little.
"While other senates are largely symbolic, such as the Canadian Senate. Not to be confused with the Ottawa Senators, a bad hockey team."
Daaaaamn, did not see those shots getting fired 30 seconds into this video 🤣🤣🤣
It should be mentioned that becoming a Senator previously required holding high office ( Quaestor/ Consul) , where the costs for elections required several fortunes, to "bribe" the public and all necessary people. - Most patrician families could not raise the necessary funds for generations, others went completely broke trying. Caesar himself had a many decades long history of massive debts, before his conquest ( as proconsul) of Gaul finally brought the huge payoff that made him the richest man of the city.
This was mostly true in the later republic, once it became the norm to enrich oneself as a provincial governor following the end of one's official term of office.
They say guys think about the Roman Empire all the time. I think about the corruption of the senate, the expansionist warfare state, the bread and circuses. And sometimes I also think about how it was in Rome.
As a Roman buff (with a degree in classics), I'm happy that people are interested in Rome.
However, I wish they'd try to understand it on its own terms, rather than projecting it forward onto the modern world. The ancient world was fundamentally different from the modern one, even if there are similarities.
Sounds incredibly like American politics
They consulted chickens on life or death matters. I think that's bad enough.
Fantastic and timely.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
What I thought was interesting that there never was a law saying Roman women couldn't be in the Senate it was just that the idea was so preposterous no one ever thought of passing a law saying women couldn't be in the Senate.
Roman women for the most part didnt even get their own names, they got a feminine version of their fathers family name.
Still is!
Nonetheless they had much political power e.g. Octavia, Agrippina etc
Roman women were excluded from political power generally. They couldn't be elected to magistracies, so naturally they couldn't be in the Senate (since, at least in the Republic, the Senate consisted of ex-magistrates).
@Unknown-jt1jo yes I know that, but there wasn't even a law that said they couldn't. Just the thought of the idea was just too crazy for people.
My understanding is that in the latter part of the Republic the Plebeian Council gained more power against the Senate.
Sens might actually be decent this year, but that's a hell of a reference 😂
1:32 When discussing the topic of Rome and providing Years best to label years ie. (bc or ad). When not mentioned usually the default is ad.
Thanks
I've always enjoyed your videos for a suggestion I think you'd do one on Australia's holden car manufacturers history especially during WW2 justice
The Roman Senate sounds exactly like our modern Senate. I hope the point of this video wasn't to prove that they are different, because it they aren't.
The Roman form of power can be likened to the Mafia families. And the Senate more like the Commission. During the times of weak kings, would be the equivalent of a war between the families. Such civil wars had gangs of thugs killing the rival family’s gang. Only a threat from outside, would cause them to reasonably assemble to face this external threat. Such as Carthage. Even then the the family that could muster the most soldiers could take over all Roman power and thus be a threat. Until finally they agreed to having a Capo di Tuti Capo. Or in other. Words a dictator. While generally, this would be of the most powerful family, the senate( commission), could decide that this protector could be toppled if they did not be fair to the other families. Even within this system, corruption was rife, with each family manipulating to gain more wealth and power. Such a situation caused more factions of alliances and corruption.
Wait is talking about the current Senate??? I thought this was about history. Weird
Fascinating - and almost fast enough to meet the thought change this history truly due 😃
Point of information: the Tribunes of the Plebeian Assemblies could veto the Senate, performing checks and balances, that is until the late republic when social order began to break down.
The Senatorial system really began to fall apart much early than Julius Caesar; The brothers Gracchi pushed it hard to give the plebians a voice and were killed for that. Gaius Marius did the same, and used the Plebian Assembly as a cudgel to give expand Citizenship beyond "The Romans of the Romans."; to provincials. Both of these populist movements paved the way for Caesar; who himself gained power as a bit of a populist (at least be Roman standards).
The Optimates also gloss over the fact that it was their cause that indirectly lead to the fall of Republican Rome with their support of Sulla and his proscriptions.
Yeah, by the time of Julius Caesar, you already had private citizens (like Pompey) building private armies that actually outnumbered the "official" consular armies of the state. The Republic was already very shaky.
The murder of Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus was the beginning of the end, Gaius Marius and Sulla made things more unstable, and Caesar destroyed the Republic once and for all!
@@Unknown-jt1joMarius and his reforms we're the cause! His reforms made Soldiers loyal to a General and no longer to the Roman Republic itself!
What a lot of people don't realize is that the Roman Republican Senate never passed any laws and was not a legislative body. All laws in the Republican period were passed by votes by all citizens in the assemblies and in the Imperial period, laws were increasingly just enacted by the emperor. The Senate only ever had indirect control of the law by either choosing who could run for magistracies or controlling which laws could be voted on by citizens. They also advised the magistrates (which were other senators) on how to do their jobs. To become a senator, you had to be elected to a magistracy, which required votes from citizens. The reason they were all relatively rich is because of the Roman system of patronage in which less rich people worked for richer people until you get to the bottom of the ladder. So the richest guy tells his guys who and what to vote for and they pass it down the line.
You're mostly right. But the Senate also had some *direct* influence over government (e.g., by their power to ratify foreign treaties, and later, control of the treasury, allocation of governors to provinces, etc.).
Also, if a magistrate defied the Senate, there was a good chance they'd retaliate once he was out of office (by bringing some sort of trumped-up charges against them).
The Roman system of government was pretty messy, since it developed organically over time. It's hard to map Roman governmental bodies onto our modern political structures.
The strength of the senate was that it allowed the roman state to be stable and create a deep, well experienced government structure.
There was nothing like this at the time, most empires/civilisations could be overthrown simply by killing the king, or a few war lord types
Bureaucracy is the root of pure evil. It helps shield the actual evil people from accountability by allowing them to shift the blame around quite easily.
There existed quite a few republics: Outside the "proper" democracy of Athens, Marseille e.g. was a (greek) Republic ; - Carthage was ruled by a Senate as well. The latter probably played some role in Hannibal's defeat.
@@Badbentham true and their institutions probably played a role in their long term success too. But I meant their particular senate created a very deep/large amount of politicians to run Rome and it's territories.
Similar to how England's Whitehall ran it's empire very well (but not as long haha).
@@Badbentham didn't Hannibal lose because his country couldn't get it's shit together and essentially left him high and dry. Where he essentially had to be resourceful with whatever he had left against a country that was kind of insane. Where they brushed off horrible losses.
Main good thing about republics are that they are extremely stable for good and bad. Seems like when it is good there is massive growth because it had people wanting to build it up. Then people get lazy and slowly piss away their gains over a long period of time.
@@kosmosXcannon Yeah; the story was somewhere along the lines that the Carthagenean senate, for several reasons, was not quite as supportive to Hannibal ( who played king, kind of like allegedly Caesar 2 centuries later) as the Roman one to their generals .
"Not to be confused with the Ottawa Senators, a BAD hockey team" WEEZING
I swear you have more channels than Nick Cannon has kids 😂😂🤣🤣😁😁
Superb-us, not Super-bus.
Just when I stopped thinking about Rome, Simon pulls me back in.
I'm almost ashamed at how hard I laughed when the Ottawa Senators were mentioned "as a bad hockey team".
Almost.
well, some modern politicians would agree with the roman overlap between church and state
Just say it out loud. You mean Republicans.
Ottawa Senators out here catching strays. That was completely unprovoked and precisely targeted. OUCH!
Ooo! I dig at the Ottawa Senators hockey team. Well played, but ouch!
I liked the video, yes, but my like was given for the Ottawa Senators dig, very well timed!
1:40 they had a super bus? More advanced than I gave them credit for.
What I heard in this video is that the Roman Senate was closer to the British House of Lords than to any modern Senate.
The House of Horrors resplendent with 900+ skivers. The UK Labour Party had ideas of abolishing it 100 years ago and still it functions in all it’s privileged,unelected glory(?).
I feel like the video would have benfitted from acknowledging the penalties under Roman law for corruption. Bribery was a capital offense (though the guilty were usually able to avoid this through self-exile.) Citizens of the provinces were able to bring suit against corrupt magistrates-even when they were senators-and not infrequently won. The main points of the video are correct, but it's not so clear cut as it's presented.
I believe Romulus was technically not mythical, but rather was legendary.
I mean, it really depends on if he can be encountered during the main story or only by special means.
@@willw6504 what do you mean? Encountered by who?
True! It's a subtle distinction, but "mythical" refers to an event that occurred at some indefinite point in the past, often with links to supernatural elements. "Legendary" means that it occurred within a specific timeline, even if it's hard to establish the historicity of those events.
Now I just wanna hear Simon yell “I AM THE SENATE” 😂 0:32
As a fan of the Leafs, I approve Simon's subtle dig of the Ottawa Senators lol Well done and Go Leafs Go!
"subtle"
What do you call a leaf with a ring?
A thief
The democratic aspect of the Republic ironically stopped the senate from being more cosmopolitan. What the video doesn't really explain is how the senate was the collection of former elected magistrates. If you were elected as quaestor, the lowest of the elected ranks, you had a place in the senate. In order to vote for the magistrates, you had to be physically in Rome, standing in pens to be counted. So only those who could get to Rome could vote, favouring those candidates who were based in Rome and could campaign, or those who had prior fame in war or through ancestry. Those based outside Rome wouldn't stand a chance. In contrast, autocrats could appoint whoever they liked.
Sens catching strays in the intro😂
The senate functioned as the top teir of the patronage system. Corruption is not the best way to discribe the deals that went on. Ellections were not secret. So the votes were public endorsements that were often long standing relationships.
What we think of as corruption was the legal way of doing things back then. I'm pretty sure for example they were allowed to openly buy votes like in line for elections. You could just walk up to people voting and pay them to switch sides. We would see that as corrupt now, but it was legal for them and seen as normal.
"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both House and a Senate?" -- Will Rogers
Power is there for anyone willing to lower themself enough to pick it up
I had to immediately come to the comments and see if anyone burst into flames (not the Calgary Flames) about the Hockey team........
Was anyone else already thinking about the Roman empire?
Always
Ottawa is actually a rapidly rising hockey team. Of course, I'm a Wings fan so if you want to keep calling them bad I won't raise much fuss.
Simon, I’ve heard you mangle a lot of pronunciations over the years, but as a native Southern Californian I can’t let your pronunciation of Pt. MOOGOO stand. It’s point Mugu - sounds like Mugooo. Emphasis on the ending vowel. Cheers.
“But Brutus was an honourable man”.
So Simon just coming in here and throwing shade on the Ottawa Senators? How dare you 😅
bad hockey team?!! How dare you sir! I will see your maple syrup rights rescinded .. good day to you sir!
Nothing changed in reality senate in most countries are out to protect the rich and there own lot
Raising charges against some long gone Roman Senate calls for some contemporary practical news.
Is that the Texas capital voting room ?
not enough empty liquor bottles
Poor Fact Boi can’t escape the Roman Empire.
So it's the same as the US senate today basically?
In essence, somewhat, but the nuanced details are very different. lol
It's very different, but you can always find some similarities between human institutions.
I doubt there was ever any expectation to be "honest".
If I had a nickel every time I thought about the Roman Empire, I would have sooo many nickels.
I would have the Kerylos Villa on the French Riviera as my private home by now. xD
Unlike every other video I've ever watched from this (or your sister channels), I found it very confusing... Maybe it was all just the foreign names, but was very hard to follow...
Many, if not most Western (and certainly Eastern!) countries have allocated religious positions within their ‘secondary’ legislative chambers..Senate equivalent. No more secular than ancient Rome, perhaps?
As someone who grew up in Ottawa, I laughed at line about the Senators being a bad hockey team.
But I have to point out that Canada's senate isn't symbolic, though it is appointed. Their legislative power is the same as the American Senate and UK House of Lords.
As someone watching from ottawa, I agree lmao
Remember that modern ideas of "corruption" don't really apply to the Roman Republic.
The Roman state was heavily built on client-patron relationships. Patronage (which we would consider "corruption") wasn't considered abnormal; it was the *basis* of Roman society.
Ahhh, the Star Wars vibes. I AM THE SENATE.
Wow. You are skipping back and forth across centuries within mere minutes. Condition varied tremendously across all this time. Your presentation makes it sound like conditions were the same regardless of year.
Yeah, that's the problem with saying "Rome was X" or "Rome was Y." The Roman state spanned around 1200 years (or more if you count the Byzantine successor state). It changed enormously over this period.
lol way to roast the sens 😂
Misrepresents the distinction between Patricians and Plebeians. By the late Republic most Senators were Plebs. In fact the decline of the Republic was characterized by the steady decline of the power and privileges of the Patricians. Most of the Equestrians (equites, ordo equester) or 'knights' were Plebs. A better measure is the 'classes', 1st Class, 2nd Class, 3rd Class, 4th Class and 'capite censi' or 'Head Count'. After 300 B.C. half of the pontifex, priests, had to Plebeians. The 'priests' were elected by the 'Tribes' (take to long to get into that). All-in-all however much different from our government Rome was, as we are, ruled by an elite group of families, mostly wealthy, but none 'poor'. It was based then, as it is now, on connections and favoritism and was conducted to a greater or lesser extent for the benefit of the elite of which it was composed. One has to be careful to compare Roman government to our own, as our ideas are very different from those of the Romans, at fundamental levels. For example, the idea that any individual possessed any kind of 'rights' other than those based on mutual agreement and participation in that agreement (for example Roman 'citizenship') would have been total nonsense to a Roman, at any level of that society.
Proconsul is not an elected position - it's a gubernatorial title held by former consul; how hard is it to get your facts right?
On the other hand I appreciate the fairly accurate description of the principate era pretense of the republic still existing.
Depends, former consuls could be "elected" by the people into proconsuls during times of war. It happened during the second punic wars where a proconsul was "elected" because the citizenry thought he (Marcellus) fared better than most against Hannibal. Source: Roman History vol. 5 book 15 by Charles Rollin
@@doigt6590 Yup, that's right. Proconsuls were occasionally elected. This happened as early as the Samnite Wars (4th century BCE).
The assemblies of Rome were sovereign, and could theoretically do anything they wanted, including things that weren't strictly "allowed." They could elect pro-magistrates, or people who weren't constitutionally eligible for office (for example, because they didn't meet the minimum age requirements), and so on.
Denari => Dinero (money in spanish). Pretty cool
The Rules have changed but the game is the same.
"FVCK THE POOR!" -Roman Senate from _History of the World: Part I_
🤡The poor are happy to fx themselves 🤡
What about the Tribune of the Plebs and Aedile. This video completely waves away any plebeian agency and influence on Roman politics.
"OH NO GOD NO MORE ON THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!!!" 😂
🤔 Wars made the senators wealthy? Wow, imagine if that's how the world still worked. There would be wars everywhere... wait... that is still how the world works. There are wars....everywhere. 😏
Not really.
“…more than 45 armed conflicts are currently taking place throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the following territories: Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and Western Sahara.” (Source: The Geneva Academy)
Corrupt enough that large number of people became beggars and someone overthrew the state and they didn't take any actions.
To be a senator in Rome you had to be of the Senatorial class. You could only be promoted to that class from being and Equities. Also Rome didn’t have a popular vote, how they voted is more similar to the electoral college but rather then states it was done by class. Add in the patronage system of Rome and by modern standards Rome was corrupt AF. Rome’s social system during the Republic period is wild. From school to how property worked, and the legal system is so foreign to today’s world. Remember literacy was incredibly low compared to modern standards and books and the written word was vanishingly rare. People fail to truly understand how a high literacy rate and access to text shapes modern society
In a few hundred years someone is going to make one of these about the American Congress. And he’s saying that Rome’s Senate was nothing like our Murrcan Govt, uhhhh, it’s exactly like that.
Also too I wanna ride on the Tarquinius Suberbuss, I bet it’s superb. 😂