[Lee'sGhost]

Yes, I've seen this before as well and had posed questions that, as far as I know, were never addressed. For one, I don't know of Alexander Fraser Tytler and wondered what bias (perspectives) he brought with such commentary.

I also wondered about the accuracy of his statements, e.g., the average of 200 years. Considering the length of Rome's dominance you could add in a great number of much shorter "reigns" and come up with 200. And then there is the issue of our "republic" vs. the democracy he speaks of. (Or, "of which he speaks," if you're a grammarian.) :-)

But, perhaps more to the point, I often wonder what the saturation point is for the "haves" providing for the "have-nots." In other words, at what point do those not paying taxes outnumber those who pay, setting up a situation where the non-payers can, through political base (sheer numbers) demand anything they want from the payers.

Man, did I come up with all that on a Monday morning? I must be sick.

By the way, I hope that you are having discussions with your lawyer for pleasant/positive reasons.

[Xenalyte]

Yes, I've seen this before as well and had posed questions that, as far as I know, were never addressed. For one, I don't know of Alexander Fraser Tytler and wondered what bias (perspectives) he brought with such commentary.

I'm gonna do some research on ole Sir Alex and see what I can dig up. I know he was a Scot (which is why you're flagged, HG, you Scotch-soaked reprobate), but not much beyond that.

I also wondered about the accuracy of his statements, e.g., the average of 200 years. Considering the length of Rome's dominance you could add in a great number of much shorter "reigns" and come up with 200. And then there is the issue of our "republic" vs. the democracy he speaks of. (Or, "of which he speaks," if you're a grammarian.) :-)

It would depend on when exactly you mark the fall of Rome. I'm a little fuzzier on ancient history than I'd like. And yes, I am a grammarian, so you get the gold star today!

But, perhaps more to the point, I often wonder what the saturation point is for the "haves" providing for the "have-nots." In other words, at what point do those not paying taxes outnumber those who pay, setting up a situation where the non-payers can, through political base (sheer numbers) demand anything they want from the payers.

I'm afraid we're approaching parity now, given the 2000 election results.

Man, did I come up with all that on a Monday morning? I must be sick.

Stipulated to, and entered into the record. Perhaps you need caffeine.

By the way, I hope that you are having discussions with your lawyer for pleasant/positive reasons.

I am indeed - my lawyer is one of my best friends. He actually called me this morning to read me the quotation, which got me started.

[SAJ]

Rome ceased being a republic in any sense of the word in the mid-40s, B.C. (not B.C.E.,that PC substitute in ordinary calendrics), once C. J. Caesar dismantled the Twelve Tables for all time.

One could fairly say that the Roman Republic lasted (depending on definitions) between 210 and 314 years, total.

The traditional dating used in Roman history, AUC, ab urbe condite, did not define the Republic, and included also monarchy, oligarchy, and occasionally dictatorship.

The Republic is usually deemed to have started after Cincinnatus, considered to be the father of HIS country, refused the dictatorship for the second time.

To the NEA: Quo usque tandem abutere, ani, patientia nostra?