I love what history teaches us. Does this scenario seem familiar to anyone?

[Jkca1]

In the final years of the Republic, the government was split between two factions called the “optimates” and the “populares.” During these culture wars, it became increasingly difficult for leaders to share power.


The optimates sought to uphold the oligarchy and keep power in the hands of the “best men,” i.e., conservative patricians. The populares were on the side of the people. They used assemblies to win over the plebeians."

This happened in Rome approximately 80 B.C. The results led to a bloody civil war. Should we expect things to be different this time and if so why?

 

[jaypatriot]

In the final years of the Republic, the government was split between two factions called the “optimates” and the “populares.” During these culture wars, it became increasingly difficult for leaders to share power.


The optimates sought to uphold the oligarchy and keep power in the hands of the “best men,” i.e., conservative patricians. The populares were on the side of the people. They used assemblies to win over the plebeians."

This happened in Rome approximately 80 B.C. The results led to a bloody civil war. Should we expect things to be different this time and if so why?

Ask yourself the main question :
Who's in control of most of the weapons necessary to stop a civil war?

 

[Phys251]

Ask yourself the main question :
Who's in control of most of the weapons necessary to stop a civil war?

The US military.

 

[Jkca1]

RE Who's in control of most of the weapons necessary to stop a civil war?

It's not that simple but if you really just want to go by the numbers;

Over 400 million guns are owned privately by 350+ million Americans. In 2020 the U.S. Army had the highest number of active duty personnel with 481,254 troops (bold mine) around the world.

How many of our armed forces are Democrats and how many are Republicans? It does make a difference; During the American civil war West Point produced 445 Civil War generals: 294 fought for the Union, and 151 for the Confederacy. Why should we expect a difference this time? As a reminder the use of active duty military as a police force is prohibited;

"The use of the active duty military in a law enforcement role is not unconstitutional but it is prohibited by the posse comitatus act. 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (adopted 1878)"

 

[VanceMack]

I cant help but wonder, what with all the talk about a 'civil war'...just what is it that people are envisioning?

 

[Jkca1]

I cant help but wonder, what with all the talk about a 'civil war'...just what is it that people are envisioning?

The end of the other side. Without an opposition, life in America would be a big rock candy mountain.

 

[VanceMack]

The end of the other side. Without an opposition, life in America would be a big rock candy mountain.

Spoken like someone that talks about civil war and cant even begin to fathom what it would actually look like.

 

[Fishking]

In the final years of the Republic, the government was split between two factions called the “optimates” and the “populares.” During these culture wars, it became increasingly difficult for leaders to share power.


The optimates sought to uphold the oligarchy and keep power in the hands of the “best men,” i.e., conservative patricians. The populares were on the side of the people. They used assemblies to win over the plebeians."

This happened in Rome approximately 80 B.C. The results led to a bloody civil war. Should we expect things to be different this time and if so why?

It's very simplistic to say that the populares were on the side of the people and were not cynically using them to attain power themselves. This is demonstrated by the fact that the fall of the Republic, and the rise of the Empire, was brought about due to populares.

However, I think both the Republicans and Populares were terrible people, in many cases. I'll also say that Caesar actually was better than the Republican oligarchs.

 

[Fishking]

The end of the other side. Without an opposition, life in America would be a big rock candy mountain.

Which side are you talking about here and what does "big rock candy mountain" mean?

 

[Jkca1]

Which side are you talking about here and what does "big rock candy mountain" mean?

If you are a democrat that equates to the GOP and vice versa. As for the big rock candy mountain;

""Big Rock Candy Mountain", first recorded by Harry McClintock in 1928, is a folk song about a hobo's idea of paradise, a modern version of the medieval concept of Cockaigne"

 

[Court Jester]

In the American civil war the nation was divided by a boundary line. That being said, some military officers and some soldiers crossed over to the other side from where they were from on the basis of their beliefs. Not many, but it still happened.

In today's military it may be true that soldiers and officers are members of different political parties, but there is no territorial boundery line to the differences in political views, and the reality is that political views are not as polarizing within the military as it is outside the military. Due largely to the fact that soldiers see threats as existential and not internal. Meaning that when you are in a foxhole pinned down by enemy fire you really don't care how the guy next to you voted.

 

[Fishking]

If you are a democrat that equates to the GOP and vice versa. As for the big rock candy mountain;

""Big Rock Candy Mountain", first recorded by Harry McClintock in 1928, is a folk song about a hobo's idea of paradise, a modern version of the medieval concept of Cockaigne"

Ah...well, a Civil War wouldn't eliminate the other side, only suppress it, and only for a certain period of time. Also, the country would be in significantly worse shape than it is now, likely much more authoritarian. All of this isn't taking into consideration the possibility of an adversary coming in and taking it all in our weakened state.

 

[Jkca1]

Spoken like someone that talks about civil war and cant even begin to fathom what it would actually look like.

The definition of “civil war” comes from the Latin phrase bellum civile, which translates to “war of or pertaining to civilians". It does not talk about the horrors or causes which throughout history are many. If you want a good recommendation for an American civil war book(s) try McPherson;

"He has written 12 books concerning the Civil War, including 1988's Battle Cry of Freedom , which in addition to a Pulitzer won the Christopher Award and the American Military Institute's Best Book Award"

 

[j brown's body]

In the final years of the Republic, the government was split between two factions called the “optimates” and the “populares.” During these culture wars, it became increasingly difficult for leaders to share power.


The optimates sought to uphold the oligarchy and keep power in the hands of the “best men,” i.e., conservative patricians. The populares were on the side of the people. They used assemblies to win over the plebeians."

This happened in Rome approximately 80 B.C. The results led to a bloody civil war. Should we expect things to be different this time and if so why?

In this civil war, the populares are led by the oligarch.

 

[Germinator]

In the final years of the Republic, the government was split between two factions called the “optimates” and the “populares.” During these culture wars, it became increasingly difficult for leaders to share power.


The optimates sought to uphold the oligarchy and keep power in the hands of the “best men,” i.e., conservative patricians. The populares were on the side of the people. They used assemblies to win over the plebeians."

This happened in Rome approximately 80 B.C. The results led to a bloody civil war. Should we expect things to be different this time and if so why?

sigh,...



PS for example

 

[VanceMack]

The definition of “civil war” comes from the Latin phrase bellum civile, which translates to “war of or pertaining to civilians". It does not talk about the horrors or causes which throughout history are many. If you want a good recommendation for an American civil war book(s) try McPherson;

"He has written 12 books concerning the Civil War, including 1988's Battle Cry of Freedom , which in addition to a Pulitzer won the Christopher Award and the American Military Institute's Best Book Award"

Wonderful. Now...what do you envision a civil war in the US will actually look like?

 

[VanceMack]

Why is it that all of the threads on the 'looming' civil war come to a screeching halt when the proponents are asked to actually draw battle lines and explain WHO it is exactly they think are supposed to be gighting against who?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Why is it that all of the threads on the 'looming' civil war come to a screeching halt when the proponents are asked to actually draw battle lines and explain WHO it is exactly they think are supposed to be gighting against who?

Who the opponents are isn't the hard part if you're looking at this from a purely ideological and political perspective. What gets far more complicated is what this looks like on a map and how that would play out in terms of an actual war and what goals are realistic. The population is way too fragmented to look at the culture issues as the precursors to an actual civil war; you have states which are blue politically but also have large shares of red counties etc. I just don't see the civil war model working at all, but what is certainly within the realm of possibility is lone actors reacting violently against others.

 

[VanceMack]

Who the opponents are isn't the hard part if you're looking at this from a purely ideological and political perspective. What gets far more complicated is what this looks like on a map and how that would play out in terms of an actual war and what goals are realistic. The population is way too fragmented to look at the culture issues as the precursors to an actual civil war; you have states which are blue politically but also have large shares of red counties etc. I just don't see the civil war model working at all, but what is certainly within the realm of possibility is lone actors reacting violently against others.

If its not that hard, why dont you just say it? If you see a looming civil war, what are the 'sides'?

 

[ElChupacabra]

If its not that hard, why dont you just say it? If you see a looming civil war, what are the 'sides'?

In my comment I said that I don't see a looming civil war. I think anyone talking about looming civil wars know that the "sides" are the same ones defined in the culture wars: liberals and conservatives. That's a very simplistic view, but it's who the two groups are defined as.

 

[VanceMack]

In my comment I said that I don't see a looming civil war. I think anyone talking about looming civil wars know that the "sides" are the same ones defined in the culture wars: liberals and conservatives. That's a very simplistic view, but it's who the two groups are defined as.

Gotcha. I understand. I personally agree...I dont see it either. I just wish those that do would actually define the lines they see drawn.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Optimates and populares - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thanks for the information, never heard of them. What percentage of the population could read back then? The printing press had not been invented.

We have had mass education for decades and could have made accounting/finance mandatory in high schools decades ago. Neither side seems to be able to suggest something that simple.