Search results

In 195, on the advice of the majority of Rome's Greek friends, whose freedom the Romans had proclaimed the year before at the Isthmian Games at Corinth, launched a war on Nabis, erstwhile ally of Rome and ruler of Sparta since 207. The reason for Flamininus' change of heart, and even the justification for the war on Nabis in 195, has never been adequately or fully explained. The reason for this, it is argued here, is that the moral dimension of Roman behaviour, despite being the central feature of our ancient source accounts, is largely ignored in modern scholarly discussions, in favour of Realpolitik explanations and explanations based on Flamininus' self-interests and ambitions.

The citation of the parallels between ancient Rome and the modern U.S. enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in American journalism, political commentary, and popular current affairs literature during the first decade of the twenty-first century. These discussions, however, are riddled with errors about Roman history and mired in contemporary political partisanship, and the specific parallels cited are often irrelevant or too superficial to be meaningful, while other, more salient parallels are simply overlooked. Underlying such problems are American prejudices concerning Republics and Empires, an unsophisticated popular understanding of the terms "empire" and "imperialism, " as well as the predominance in modern American consciousness of a caricatured image of Rome that originates in Hollywood films. Recent discussions of the Rome-America parallel have been informed by all of these distortions, and by "projection"- the simultaneous identification and distancing impulses Self experiences when encountering the Other. Projection theory suggests that discussions of Roman power on both ends of the American political spectrum in the early 2000s tended towards the same end: the articulation of a desire for the preservation and perpetuation of American power and pre-eminence in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world.

The citation of the parallels between ancient Rome and the modern U.S. enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in American journalism, political commentary, and popular current affairs literature during the first decade of the twenty-first century. These discussions, however, are riddled with errors about Roman history and mired in contemporary political partisanship, and the specific parallels cited are often irrelevant or too superficial to be meaningful, while other, more salient parallels are simply overlooked. Underlying such problems are American prejudices concerning Republics and Empires, an unsophisticated popular understanding of the terms "empire" and "imperialism, " as well as the predominance in modern American consciousness of a caricatured image of Rome that originates in Hollywood films. Recent discussions of the Rome-America parallel have been informed by all of these distortions, and by "projection"- the simultaneous identification and distancing impulses Self experiences when encountering the Other. Projection theory suggests that discussions of Roman power on both ends of the American political spectrum in the early 2000s tended towards the same end: the articulation of a desire for the preservation and perpetuation of American power and pre-eminence in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world.

The English-language press and current affairs literature often drew parallels between the modern United States and ancient Rome during a period of robust American military intervention, particularly in the Middle East, between 2000 and 2010. How was the

The English-language press and current affairs literature often drew parallels between the modern United States and ancient Rome during a period of robust American military intervention, particularly in the Middle East, between 2000 and 2010. How was the

Among parliamentary democracies there is a widespread belief that above and beyond the occasional opportunity to vote, citizens should be allowed to participate in decisions that affect them. Governments at all levels are now going further and supporting more active forms of citizenship in which various decision processes are open to more public participation. While this principle may be widely accepted, the practice has remained remarkably free from empirical scrutiny. For something that is held to deliver a myriad of benefits, we still know little of the extent to which these are in fact delivered. This article addresses this gap by developing a framework for conducting more robust empirical scrutiny of participatory exercises. It does so at three levels: first by proposing a conceptual clarification of the perceived benefits of greater participation, second by considering some of the methodological challenges in designing more robust evaluative studies and finally by reviewing measures that might be used in practice to quantify benefits.