Recent comments in /f/history
[deleted] t1_iywwvbu wrote
Reply to comment by Choppergold in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
elmonoenano t1_iywttqk wrote
Reply to comment by elderforest in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator
This seems more like someone's specific theory of federalism more than anything widespread or accepted by a large number of constitutional scholars.
There's tons of overlap in state powers since basically the 1930s and the expansion of federal power. Some are simple like military responsibilities shared between the Executive and Congress for commanding and funding and provisioning armies, and state's militia powers. Other stuff is more complicated and has changed overtime, like the expansion of commerce clause power into what was traditionally seen as a state's responsibility for providing for the "common weal", which meant any kind of safety, or health regulation or policing powers. Some stuff has changed b/c of amendments. Citizenship in the U.S. as a whole was determined by states until the 14th Amendment, but it was a joint issue b/c the citizenship in the state would make you a citizen of the US and able (hypothetically) to use federal enforcement of the privileges and immunities clause.
There's a lot of overlapping areas too, like the power to tax. Basically you can scan through Art I. Sec 8 and count tons or areas where the powers are overlapping. States and the Feds can both borrow money (but this is complicated b/c of issues of state banks issuing paper money and issuing bonds), both can establish courts and their courts can hear both state and federal matters in some areas (concurrent jurisdiction). There's other stuff like voting that was mostly a state power but has become more federalized b/c states failed to really protect the right. Some stuff varies from state to state, like my state has protections for free speech that go beyond the 1st A. and other states have gone the other way and have tried to limit stuff like free exercise of religion or establish religion, which used to be a state right, so that would indicate an overlapping power if a state can expand on it.
I read a fair amount on the Constitution and an advanced degree on the topic and I can't remember hearing the 6 powers theory and thinking through the big popular books on the Const, like Akhil Amir Reed's books or Chemerinsky's, I can't remember it ever being mentioned, even as an argument they counter.
I could easily be wrong b/c there are literally 1000s of books on the topic and some that were popular 2 centuries ago are basically unread today, so it may have been an older idea.
koga90 t1_iywszby wrote
Reply to comment by acm2033 in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
>Octavian made Egypt a province to be governed through Rome, rather than an independent state.
Octavian made Egypt a roman province under exclusive control of the imperator (commander, which is the title he adopted since monarchy was a big nono to romans and evolved into our emperor) unlike other provinces that had appointed governors.
Vegetable-Walrus-302 t1_iywr81y wrote
Reply to comment by Trackmaster15 in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
I don’t think you can actually say that when what we call Egypt today is the place where clocks was first made
Bentresh t1_iywohy8 wrote
Reply to comment by Trackmaster15 in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
Absolutely. Egypt was only one of several powerful kingdoms of its time. We have many texts from the Hittite empire, Assyria, Mycenaean Greece, etc. referring to splendid furniture, jewelry, palaces, and so on, but they have survived only in rare instances (e.g. jewelry from the royal tombs of Ur and Nimrud and the furniture from the Midas mound at Gordion).
As Edward Chiera noted in They Wrote on Clay,
>In Egypt stone is plentiful, and the great pharaohs utilized it for temples and pyramid, imperishable testimonies to their names. Even had Egypt's history not been practically continuous, still no one could have failed to notice these reminders of the existence of a great civilization. In Mesopotamia, on the other hand, stone hardly exists. Some sort of gypsum is found in the north, and this exclusively was used by the Assyrian kings in the decoration of their palaces. But this stone is of such poor quality as to be virtually soluble in water; any inscription or statue left exposed to the elements will promptly disintegrate. In the southern part of the land even gypsum is lacking, and for this reason the ancient Babylonians treasured what pieces of stones they could import from distant lands and used those pieces exclusively for the images of their gods and their most important records. For building materials they had to make the most of what was at hand, river clay...
>The walls exposed to the elements were protected by plaster of mud and straw, or sometimes with baked bricks set in bitumen. Courtyards were also paved with baked bricks, but the interior of the walls was a solid mass of sun-dried bricks. Building costs were thus cut considerably, and the construction remained solid so long as the roof stood and the facing continued in good condition. But, let the edifice be neglected for a number of years, and it would crumble into dust. When the central government became too weak or too poor to take proper care of the network of canals that irrigated the land, large tracts of fertile territory were converted into a desert almost overnight, and whole cities had to be abandoned. The roofs of the buildings caved in, and the core of the huge walls, no longer protected, was exposed to the rain. Water slowly worked in; the bricks began to swell up, and the walls to crack and fall. After a few rainy seasons, the upper part of the walls completely disintegrated and left merely a little mound of dirt to mark the site of a once splendid palace. All furniture and perishable objects that had not been taken away when the buildings were abandoned remained buried in the wet debris; with the passing of years they too disappeared and are now gone forever. We should have no idea of the magnificence of the ancient furnishings but for the fact that occasionally we find thrones, chairs, and tables sculptured on the reliefs which adorned the palaces…
silverbird666 t1_iywltco wrote
Reply to comment by Jean_Saisrien in What was history class like before the modern era? by SunsetShoreline
That might be the case, but I would really not categorize something like that as formal education.
Zorn277 t1_iywj8hm wrote
Reply to Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
Egypt was a very important province that fed the Eastern half of the Empire. The city of Alexandria was marveled by many emperors.
[deleted] t1_iywi0ms wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
Future_Huckleberry71 t1_iywg8oi wrote
Prior to modern era there were few classes or formal schooling. Literate elites of Rome were aware of Greek and Roman history. Mostly educated by private tutors they read histories, mythologies and philosophies. Many educated Romans read Greek. Many educated medieval elites read and spoke Latin. Caesar knew Alexanders story well and once burst into tears that he had achieved so little himself at Alexanders age. Nearly all literate elites in Europe for the last 2,000 years have known the story of Caesar.
[deleted] t1_iywg46p wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywejxz wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iyweeol wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywce82 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywby7z wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywbd51 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywbbt4 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywb7g4 wrote
Reply to comment by recoveringleft in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[deleted]
99isnot100 t1_iywax19 wrote
I'm glad they sent her to the hairdresser before taking the photo 🤣
[deleted] t1_iywaozy wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywabtk wrote
Reply to comment by I_might_be_high_rn in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iywa6zg wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iyw9vgn wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
DJTilapia t1_iyw9h2u wrote
Reply to Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry is great! For anyone who'd rather listen than read, it's available on YouTube, narrated.
[deleted] t1_iyw7q06 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
[removed]
Demiansky t1_iyx5wso wrote
Reply to comment by Trackmaster15 in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
Could be, but I think we must remember that Egypt was "special" given its special status as a Roman province. It was the most reliable grain producer in the Meditteranean, and presumably that also afforded it a certain consistency when it came to urban infrastructure and development.