Just finished “Iran: A Modern History” by Abbas Amanat. I knew little about Iranian history and this book delivered.
Iran’s political history follows a torturous path with glimpses of hope along the way. Iran had a “Constitutional Revolution” in the early 20th century with real progress towards liberalization and secularization. That continued in fits and starts (the world wars were horrible for Iran) through the 1950’s but really was finished once Mosaddegh was ousted.
The final glimmer was during the 1979 Revolution. Amanat writes that the Revolution was not actually just Islamic, but included nationalists, constitutionalists, marxists, the left, moderate Islamicists, and all mixtures between them.
Khomenei adroitly gave them hope and then once in power, mercilessly crushed them in the decade following the Revolution.
If you know little about Iran’s political history, and given the current state of the world, this is a fantastic book to read to better understand this ancient country.
And finally, isn’t this cover the best you have ever seen?
@ModernCeasar You didn’t refute a single point @BretDevereaux made in his post. When you boil it down, Alexander’s best accomplishment was conquest (killing). He was amazing at it. But that’s what it was.
@ahall_research@tylercowen I don’t doubt it it a great read. What’s interesting is that Amazon rating is at 4.4. Normally a great read is 4.6+ so wonder what is going on there.
@HeraldOfRome@ModernCeasar I think they just wanted peace after decades of civil war. Which was caused by an unstable political system.
Once again definitions. The Republic as a political system was destroyed but the empire did bring peace so was better for the RES PUBLICA.
I understand what you mean when you say the republic and that it how the Roman’s talked about it.
My main point is that Caesar destroyed the republic as we define a republic as a political system.
If say he saved the republic but stopping a phase of the civil war and bringing peace, then yes sure. For a while until he was murdered and it flared up again.
@HeraldOfRome@ModernCeasar By your definition, maybe. By my definition, it destroyed the republican constitutional framework and replaced it with something else.
Whether the principate/imperial system was “better” for the Roman people/polity at large is an interesting question itself.
@HeraldOfRome@ModernCeasar I don’t mean democracy. The Republican constitution basically meant oligarchical rule (shared power amongst the elites) with some elements of voting by the people but it was mainly rule by the Senate. The Senate was the main engine of the Republic. One man rule destroyed that.
I think I see our difference.
You mean the republic to mean the polity of Rome in general.
I am referring to the constitutional framework that was in place in the Republican era.
Ceasar (and Augustus) certainly coopted key elements of the Republic but it was a fundamentally different thing once they implemented one-man rule.
@HeraldOfRome@ModernCeasar lol what. They threw out the kings and were decidedly against the idea of monarchy. For someone who is a big Rome person, you are quite uneducated. Please read some Syme/Mommsen/Gruen
@HeraldOfRome@ModernCeasar I agree that it morphed into that in the principals/imperial age, but all of the scholarship I have read (Mommsen, Mouritsen, etc) is very clear that prevention of one man rule was the key constitutional principle.