And to say that Sparta lacked the class distinctions of Rome's patrician/plebian divide is a severe error. Both because it overstates the importance of those divisions (which by the Middle Republic had ceased to matter very much - there were rich, powerful plebians)...
-
-
But also because it somehow credits Sparta for an 'equality' Rome could have achieved simply by enslaving all of the plebians. The difference between Rome and Sparta is that in Sparta the patricians managed to completely wall everyone else out from politics.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
I can't go into more detail via short tweets, but I plan to spend the next few weeks discussing this topic in more depth on my blog (https://acoup.blog/ ), which will put some citations and data behind what I've said above.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @NickBurns ja @Joshua_A_Tait
Spartan mores considered by whom? Athenian aristocrats who wish they too could ignore their political underclass, or Plutarch writing with rose-tinted glasses 300 years thick? It's important to remember that the supposedly equal, ideal, Lycurgean society probably never existed.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @NickBurns ja @Joshua_A_Tait
Invalidates? Of course not. But we have to read sources critically. Aristotle and Xenophon are both openly snobby elitists who think the good-and-noble (kaloi kagathoi) *ought* to dominate affairs because they are *actually* better than poor people.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
We might reasonably question the rubric that belief is going to lead them to use in evaluating a society, the same way we might doubt Cicero's opinion on the divine rightness of Roman law.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
And I want to be clear here - both of those men are *explicit* in this point. I'm not reading into Aristotle when he claims that the high-born and noble are simply capable of more virtue than everyone else. Nor was that a universal ancient belief.
-
-
(Contrast Cicero on natural law, for instance, where he insists that virtue is equally possible for all persons.)
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystäKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.