WI: Romanized USA?

The Cursus Honorum wasn't anything official, it was just the "career" path, and would have absolutely no impact on the actually effectiveness of the government.

Thing was, a person who hadn't taken the first steps on the Cursus Honorum very rarely got to become anything big, though, except in times of crisis and such. It would essentially restrict the USA to accepting only Presidents who had already occupied the other positions of power in government, which might well have put off a number of the early greats.

My point about effectiveness was essentially that. By greatly restricting the number of candidates for the Presidency, you could well see a vast narrowing of otherwise broad spectrums of personal politics. Outside candidates who won on a fluke can probably be considered to be among those who, if they got on the lower rungs of the ladder, would under the Cursus Honorum never have made it all the way to a Presidency. Such a system might well entrench the powerful elites who supported their proteges through their early careers and would probably mean that disastrously bad administrations which provoked a wave of voting "for the alternative", whatever it may have been, simply to oust the man in charge, would simply be followed by similar administrations under a different man. In short, I can see the Cursus Honorum kind of encoding a very centrist movement in politics - unless the centre became very unpopular for a while, I don't think those with extreme politics would ever stand a chance of high office.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Well, I suppose the US wouldn't have to take all of the Roman traditions; Cursus Honorum could be partially ignored. Perhaps the lengthy requirements could be shortened.

But having an official with public service could be almost... sacred to this fusion Rome-America. Both countries had/have a strong work ethic, yes? So, I think that combining the American "land of opportunity" concept with the Roman ethic of service would lead to aspiring political figures being experienced in law and other "public service"-styled careers.
 
I always thought that a strong work ethic was something the Romans notoriously lacked (although a sense of duty would be an entirely different thing) though I could be wrong.

Stoicism was quite diffused in the late republic/first empire.
I'm afraid that the lack-of-ethic of (expecially late) roman empire is a misconception coming from the about-1700 Gibbon reconstruction, based on late-empire last-pagan-elite criticism of "modern times" as opposed to "good old times".
On the other hand, you cannot use the term as we would use it now: roman "ethic", for example, found civilian slaughtering and slavery perfectly normal
 

Zioneer

Banned
Stoicism was quite diffused in the late republic/first empire.
I'm afraid that the lack-of-ethic of (expecially late) roman empire is a misconception coming from the about-1700 Gibbon reconstruction, based on late-empire last-pagan-elite criticism of "modern times" as opposed to "good old times".
On the other hand, you cannot use the term as we would use it now: roman "ethic", for example, found civilian slaughtering and slavery perfectly normal

To be fair, the Romans did not discriminate in slaughtering and slavery, so that's technically better then the US, who only slaughtered Indians/slaves, and who only enslaved Africans, for the most part.

As for the Roman work ethic (or lack thereof), I suppose the Roman sense of "duty" could instead be prominent.
 
I actually think a more Roman Based Constitution is pretty likely given the eductation in all the classiscs that most of the Founding Fathers endured. Pre-Imperial France is a good example of ressurecting the old title of Consul...

wikipedia said:
In 1799, revolutionary France enacted a constitution that conferred supreme executive powers upon three officials that bore the title Consul as chief magistracy of the republic. In reality, however, the state was de facto under personal control of the First Consul, general Napoleon Bonaparte, so in political terms it was more like a re-edition of Julius Caesar's and Octavian's triumvirates.

Originally the consuls were to hold office for a period of ten years, but in 1802 Bonaparte was declared First Consul for life (lifetime consulate was introduced for Second and Third Consuls as well). The French consulate ceased to exist when Bonaparte was declared Emperor of the French in 1804

I however think the early Roman System worked the best for the Exectutive Branch with Two Consuls, having the power to veto one another once a month and serving only one year term. Of course, I think for this idea to move past the Philadelphia Convention...The Roman Scheme will have to be cleaned up...
800px-Roman_constitution.svg.png


Anyway how we may be able to keep all the latinized power's but fuse some of the other ideas about the Seperation of Powers? Which Father might be the one to come up with such a plan? And could it get wide enough support to pass for ratification?
 
Top