Still not answering the question FD. What did plebs being given some sort of vote that you can't even describe, actually mean in terms of making Rome "politically inclusive"?

Shall I label you a muslim? Thats what they do right - avoid questions?

Soren wrote on Feb 1^st, 2015 at 8:13pm:


No, he means "actually having a say in how the place was run." All he can say about it was that "The Roman Empire expanded this far beyond what was typical for the time" and that "there was a large number of people involved, including representatives of the plebs." But nothing at all on what this "say" actually was.

I suspect the reason FD won't give any explanation of how citizens of Rome 'had a say in how the place was run' is that he has no idea.

But in the interests of robust discussion, I'll kick it off:

The Roman Republic had a people's assembly that allowed the common people representation. However this assembly was a toothless tiger and was not able to provide any meaningful representation for the common people. Real power was firmly and almost exclusively in the hands of the fabulously wealthy, and government was run by them, for them.

As Rome's power and prosperity increased, the concentration of power narrowed further and further, until not even the landed aristocracy had much of a say, and eventually all power was in the hands of the emperor.

Thucydides provides a pretty comprehensive debunking of the "political incusiveness = great prosperity and stability" argument in his critique of the Athenian empire.

Nothing FD?

Just a short overview of the mechanics of Roman political inclusiveness.

Its just that you are so certain about how it drove Roman prosperity, I thought you might have some incites about how it actually worked.

I'd hate to have to call you a muslim for avoiding questions.

On 500 Muslims attending the funeral in support of a Danish terrorist:

Svengali wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2015 at 12:49pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 12:40pm:


That was in response to no muslims being on that Island.

How can that be considered Islamophobia when no muslims were victims, does the technically and logically incorrect term Islamophobia apply when non muslims are the victims?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 12:46pm:


When islam is the stated reason for the attack by the perpetrator, yes it does.

You're not familiar with Breivik's long manifesto about his fear of islam taking over the west?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 12:51pm:


How can it be Islamophobia when there were no muslim victims?

Of course muslims like to talk up this non existent threat called Islamophobia.