Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Patine

Roman Republic - A Crazy Idea?

Recommended Posts

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

So, in honour of the world's first republic - by both national self-identification and government style, I've considered as possible future project. I think the Late Republic Era (the time of the Triumverates and after the victory in the Punic Wars), would be the best to find a place to set a scenario, as the two "political parties" if you will, the Populaeres and the Optimates were fully active and in dominance in the later days, and all the best known leaders of the Republic Era, except Punic War hero Scipio and the effective founder and ideologue of the Republic, Marcus Aurelius, are all present and active. The thing is that the Roman electoral system and arrangement of offices and bodies of power was very different than any nation today. But since this idea is just in future planning and actively pursued at this time, I thought I'd just brainstorm and see what people thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

map-rome 48 bc.bmp

map- rome 306 A.D.bmp

Some stuff I collected that might help you, @Patine

I actually have these maps as well (almost certainly from the same source). The second one is far too advanced in the year - the absolute Empire would have replaced the Republic about three centuries prior to that map's date. But the first one (48 BC) is more likely to be used, with some potential tweaking. Thanks for the input, though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Patine said:

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

So, in honour of the world's first republic - by both national self-identification and government style, I've considered as possible future project. I think the Late Republic Era (the time of the Triumverates and after the victory in the Punic Wars), would be the best to find a place to set a scenario, as the two "political parties" if you will, the Populaeres and the Optimates were fully active and in dominance in the later days, and all the best known leaders of the Republic Era, except Punic War hero Scipio and the effective founder and ideologue of the Republic, Marcus Aurelius, are all present and active. The thing is that the Roman electoral system and arrangement of offices and bodies of power was very different than any nation today. But since this idea is just in future planning and actively pursued at this time, I thought I'd just brainstorm and see what people thought.

i say no because the romen republic was not really a democracy at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

i say no because the romen republic was not really a democracy at all.

So magically the Roman Senate,consuls etc. just disappeared because Rome "was not really a democracy"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

So magically the Roman Senate,consuls etc. just disappeared because Rome "was not really a democracy"?

it not like what you think republic back then was not like a republic on people did not vote for there senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Presidentinsertname said:

it not like what you think republic back then was not like a republic on people did not vote for there senators.

Well everyoen definitely did for Consuls even if there was limited choice for Senators there was some voting even if it was limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

it not like what you think republic back then was not like a republic on people did not vote for there senators.

 

5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Well everyoen definitely did for Consuls even if there was limited choice for Senators there was some voting even if it was limited.

The Consuls and the Legislative Assemblies (each of which in the Roman Republic was not a standing lawmaking body for a specific, but was elected specifically to debate and vote one law or set of law, and that particular assembly disbanded) were definitely elected, while the Magistrates (effectively the executive and judicial officers by our modern reckoning) and Senators (who were all past Consuls, Magistrates, Generals, or combination thereof) were appointed through complicated procedures and jockeying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

 

The Consuls and the Legislative Assemblies (each of which in the Roman Republic was not a standing lawmaking body for a specific, but was elected specifically to debate and vote one law or set of law, and that particular assembly disbanded) were definitely elected, while the Magistrates (effectively the executive and judicial officers by our modern reckoning) and Senators (who were all past Consuls, Magistrates, Generals, or combination thereof) were appointed through complicated procedures and jockeying.

speak of senators how are senate electd in canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

speak of senators how are senate electd in canada?

They aren't. They're appointed by "the Governor-in-Council," which nowadays, basically means the sitting PM, until death, retirement, or mandatory retirement at 75. The PM is limited in appointments by vacancies and that certain seats must come from certain Provinces. However, the Senate's power has been neutered over time, like the British House of Lords, and it can now only delay and advise revisions to a bill, not kill it, and Senators cannot be Cabinet Ministers and certainly not PM (the last Senator who served as PM was a short-term acting PM after Robert Borden's retirement and the selection as new PM of Minister of Justice Arthur Meighan by the Conservative Party Convention in 1919). Senate reform has been a perennial issue of late. The Liberals oppose reform, the NDP's and Greens want the Senate abolished, the BQ wasn't more proportionate number of Senators to go to Quebec (surprise!), and the Reform, CA, and later Conservative Party (the old PC's were along the same line on the issue as the Liberals), said they wanted a "Triple-E Senate," equal (same number per Province), elected, efficient - much like the 1914-omward American Senate. Even though Stephen Harper, one of the big proponents of a Triple-E Senate, was PM for 11 years, fours with a large majority, he sat on the idea, never brought it up after coming to power, and - the part he was most criticized for - appointed many of his own Senators by the standing system he railed against while in opposition, including several who ended up in personal scandals and/or under criminal investigation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×