There was no draft in Rome. Soldiers were signing for 20 years. Renewable.
As I wrote in countless essays before, on my wordpress and tyranosopher sites, the collapse of the republic was caused firstly by the rise of the plutocracy (just read the Gracchi).
I think you are confusing Greek soldiers (buying their own weapons), and Roman army (military weapons were mass produced in state factories).
PA Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
Up until the last decade of the second century BC the eligibility requirements to become a Roman soldier in the service of the Republic were very strict. * He had to be a member of the fifth census class or higher. * He had to own property worth 3000 sesterces in value. * He had to supply his own armaments. When war threatened, the consuls of the day would be charged with the duty of recruiting an army from the eligible citizenry of the Republic. As a rule, one of the consuls would lead this mainly volunteer army into battle. [...] The foremost of the Marian reforms was the inclusion of the Roman landless masses, the capite censi, men who had no property to be assessed in the census. Instead they were "counted by the head". These men were now among the ranks of those who could be recruited even though they owned no significant property. Because these poor citizens could not afford to purchase their own weapons and armor, Marius arranged for the state to supply them with arms. He thus offered the disenfranchised masses permanent employment for pay as professional soldiers, and the opportunity to gain spoils on campaign. With little hope of gaining status in other ways, the masses flocked to join Marius in his new army. These professional soldiers were recruited for an enlistment term of 16 years, later to rise to 20 years full service and 5 years as evocati under the reforms of Augustus. [...] However, loyalty of the legions shifted away from the Roman state, i.e. the Senate and People of Rome, and towards the generals who led the army. It became alarmingly common for a general to prolong his Imperium by using the army to influence the senate and consolidate his power. Some even went as far as to declare war on their enemies (see Roman civil wars). This led ultimately to the destruction of the Republic and its transformation into an Empire under the rule of an Emperor in all but name.
* He had to be a member of the fifth census class or higher. * He had to own property worth 3000 sesterces in value. * He had to supply his own armaments.
When war threatened, the consuls of the day would be charged with the duty of recruiting an army from the eligible citizenry of the Republic. As a rule, one of the consuls would lead this mainly volunteer army into battle.
[...]
The foremost of the Marian reforms was the inclusion of the Roman landless masses, the capite censi, men who had no property to be assessed in the census. Instead they were "counted by the head". These men were now among the ranks of those who could be recruited even though they owned no significant property. Because these poor citizens could not afford to purchase their own weapons and armor, Marius arranged for the state to supply them with arms. He thus offered the disenfranchised masses permanent employment for pay as professional soldiers, and the opportunity to gain spoils on campaign. With little hope of gaining status in other ways, the masses flocked to join Marius in his new army. These professional soldiers were recruited for an enlistment term of 16 years, later to rise to 20 years full service and 5 years as evocati under the reforms of Augustus.
However, loyalty of the legions shifted away from the Roman state, i.e. the Senate and People of Rome, and towards the generals who led the army. It became alarmingly common for a general to prolong his Imperium by using the army to influence the senate and consolidate his power. Some even went as far as to declare war on their enemies (see Roman civil wars).
This led ultimately to the destruction of the Republic and its transformation into an Empire under the rule of an Emperor in all but name.
Notice the "mainly volunteer army" part, which is exactly what I said before. It was even completely voluntary, come to think of it, like I said.
Now accusing Marius to have started the problem is not a new theory (plutocrats love that one, that is why they tried to assassinate Marius). But clearly, as explained by the Gracchi a generation earlier, and expecially considering the thousands of Gracchi partisans killed by Blackwater, ooppss, sorry I meant the plutocratic militia, the problem is much anterior to Marius.
The last section of the text above is not correct. Only Sulla and Caesar did this. Pompey did not. It was not "common".
The republic was destroyed by plutocrats, not really generals. The generals moved in the mess caused by plutocrats.
Search engines are very practical for finding from where text are copied. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned.[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly,[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.[5] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.[3][6] In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.[7][8]
You understand that the claim that Stalin was "the biggest capitalist" is, well, a bit daft, right? Or is this some kind of No True Capitalist game/time suck? "Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
Capital is capital. It's not an ideology. As Bourdieu pointed out, there is even intellectual capital.
Obviously, when Stalin owned ten million slaves, he was a big time capitalist of sort, except if you want to tell me ten million people are not any sort of capital (in which case I send you back to Bourdieu)
I think, therefore I create.
Respectfully yours, Thoughtful, and not thoughless,
Oh wait, because Wikipedia, for all its shortcomings, is subject to a modicum of peer-review, whereas the only criteria I can find for your process of determining the veracity of something is: whether or not you thought of it. Because when asked to substantiate your claims, the evidence you provide is usually some odd assertion of your own intellect. As in, if you thought it, it must be true. And if others can't figure out what you are talking about, it must be that they are silly or mentally deficient in some manner. This is not evidence of thoughtfulness. "Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
Not only does that not fit the wikipedia definition of capitalist, it does not fit any commonly used definition of the term.
In an argument, you do not win simply by asserting that the terms being used in that discussion mean something different from what everybody else thinks. Words have shared meanings for a reason - so that we can use them and know what people are talking about.
By all means, make your arguments, and if you like, explain your alternative definitions and the reasons for that. But it's a bit much to get snippy at others for challenging your custom definitions.
I may differ from the commons in semantics, but (sociologist) Bourdieu's arguments on capital are now well accepted at the highest levels of culture.
If someone owns a car, or a house, or shoes that someone has capital. So one cannot just attack "capitalism", without attacking oneself. It's the wrong debate. Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
