The problem with the "Armenian Genocide" is that it is more of a political issue than a historic one. The position of the Turkish government regarding this issue as that it is a matter, foremost, for historians to clarify. Instead many try to shove the issue as a political one. First of all the genocide itself is not an established fact. That remains the work of historians to clarify. After that issue is settled can it be redressed.
As far as freedom of speech is concerned there remains just one obstacle (article 301 of the criminal code) that has to be surmounted...

Mmmm, no. Actually the emergence of the emperors was in answer to the People's (captial 'P' just for you) concern over land reforms, freemen and citizen status and availability of work. From Sculla to Marius, to Catalina to Julius, Augustus and his prodigy, the People benefitted greatly, while the, how do you say in Russia? What's that name you give to the rich power brokers? (Oligarchs?) Whatever - it was the rich and the powerful that had most to fear from the Emperors, and their claims of a fear of one man holding too much power was more a fear of being knocked out of their position by revolution or losing out to a monopoly than it was about keeping the Roman “constitution” true.

In other words the Roman Emperors closer resemble Chavez, Che and Mao more than Hitler. They were reformists (that is when they weren't crazy like Nero) and social revolutionists. It was the incredibly rich and the land "owners' (who simply stole the land from those who worked it) who had everything to fear and who condemned them as out of control megalomaniacs, while it was the "mob" who supported them. It was the status quo power brokers who had everything to fear from emperors, not the people.

Julius, Augustus, Claudius even Caligula...these were all leaders for the people not against them - while Tiberius and Nero were simple meglomaniacs and paranoids.



Ahk

No I'm sorry that's not quite right. The Patricians were rich families who were said to be the same families that founded Rome. These were generally the upper class of upper class. I'm speaking of freed slaves and plebs. The Patricians had no need for land reform as they were the rich stealing the land.


Yeah but that's not saying much. Slavery was not new by a long shot. Hundreds of years earlier Spartans enjoyed a 12:1 slave to citizen ratio at one point. They ended up freeing most of them. Just like Rome they became part of the population, and 2nd r 3rd class citizens. Romes main slave problem came from winning Carthage, which was centuries before Augustus or Caesar. In fact there were so many people (plebs and freed men) by this point that they made up the vast majority of the civilians and were the mainstay of Italy. We're talking generations at this point. Freedmen status was the reason why they could support a huge slave population. It prevented slave rebellions. But what you end up with is a huge percentage of the population working 'for free' and no work for the rest. It became a stagnent economy.

Well that was one problem but another major one is they were trying to run an empire like a city state. This is a huge subject matter at this point. The old question "How did Rome fall" is an inside joke with historians because there were about 120 reasons over the last 500 years of it's existence.

No not at all and that's not exactly what I meant. The first emperors retained their power because they were reformers for the people (the plebs/freedmen), just as there were attempted reforms before. No what I meant is that the emergence of the Emperors (as the real authority over the senate) was because of this need for reforms. What happened after was up for grabs. There were many good emperors after Augustus, but you only need a couple of really bad ones to screw you for good.

Dude. oligarchs were also in Egypt and Sumer. The moment there were riches to hoard there were oligarchs. Maybe im not using it right? Please explain to me what you say oligarchs means. I use the word to mean someone who is so rich and employs so many that this becomes their political power base and subsequently become above law and government.


We get away from my earlier point which was that Emperors did not address 'socioeconomical' issue with war (any more than anyone did), and that the presence of the Emperors or dictators was a direct result of 'socioeconomical' problems within the state that the rich and the highest class could no longer contain. To see this one needs to look at who julius and Pompey grew up with and the revolutionists that tried and failed while they were coming up to power. Catalina is a total Che figure (figure not direct analogy). A rich patrician kid who gained his political power with the young poor and disenfranchised. He tried to overthrow the senate (probably only once although accused of trying twice) and was set to "bring it all down man - helter skelter!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catilina

After Augustus gave them 40 years of relative peace, prosperity and good management the concrete of Emperor rule of the Roman empire began to solidify until it was finally accepted that half of the planet can't be governed by a mayoral-level senate.



Ahk