Submitted 4 days ago by Mickey7@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4bd9ae3d-6a05-4917-a98b-6fdda42f1b4b.png
When I was a kid I read a story - possibly Encyclopedia Brown? - wherein a counterfeiter got caught trying to sell a counterfeit coin labeled “50 B.C.” or similar. They got caught because the coin manufacturer wouldn’t have known it was B.C.
Lemmy has unlocked a lot of childhood memories I didn’t know I had and this is one of them.
that’s a good story and a testament to how dumb some people can be
I mean… it’s not really a testament to anything. Encyclopedia Brown is a fictional children’s detective series
Imagine the social tension when it’ 1 BC and no one knows what that means.
The fuck are we counting down to?
Random monkey event
0.5 BC be like:
I don’t have a fucking due
perfect Keming right there
Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
The truth is that the Roman Republic named its years by the names of the two consuls who were ruling that year. The two consuls were kind of like co-presidents. So 50 BC was actually “the year of Paullus and Marcellus”. In theory always equal, though they would tend to share power by swapping out one month each.
I explain this because of another fun fact. In 59 BC Julius Caesar and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus were elected consul, “the year of Caesar and Bibulus”. But in March that year, Caesar’s supporters assaulted Bibulus and forced him to back down from a significant policy. After that he retreated from public and was barely seen all year. It became known as “the year of Julius and Caesar”.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 days ago
The full story of the Consulship was pretty significant. Bibulus repeatedly obstructed a popular bill to resettle retired soldiers on private lands, paid for with state taxes.
Bibulus’s obstruction tactics - combined with his vocal disgust for democratic rule - grew more perfunctory as his position degraded. By the end of his term, he was simply shouting from his Villa that nothing the Republic did counted because he was “watching for Omens”.
Just a chronic unmitigated hater. The Rand Paul of his era.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 days ago
There are certainly arguments that can be made criticising both sides, but Caesar’s actions were blatantly unconstitutional. Completely disregarding vetos by a tribune of the plebs, drumming up violent mobs to prevent his political rivals exerting their lawful powers. Completely ignoring a rival’s use of lawful powers when he did make use of it… And that’s just the stuff he did specifically in relation to Bibulus, before all the other illegal stuff that led to the Civil War and the eventual end of the Republic.
Caesar was a populist. His policies themselves might or might not have been genuinely good ones. Personally, looking back from the perspective of an entirely different world over 2000 years later I’m inclined to think I like them. But that cannot justify the incredible abuse of power he resorted to go pass them.
Incidentally, one of those other later things he did was convinced the Senate to let him run for consul again without resigning his proconsulship , specifically because he was immune from being prosecuted for his crimes as long as he was proconsul or consul. And he knew full well that he was guilty of crimes and would be tried for them if he resigned as proconsul and returned to Rome as a citizen. Essentially, he was abusing the immunity provided by the office to protect himself from being prosecuted for crimes. Reminds you of anyone?
callouscomic@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Meanwhile, Caesar was the one to eventually make it an empire instead. Kind of funny.