On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:13:55PM -0800, Philip Hart wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Steven Brust wrote: > > I beg to submit that, if we make the scientific distinction between > > "revolution" and "coup-de-tat" (the former being the bringing to power of a > > new social class; the latter being a shuffling within the same social class) > > then never in history has a revolution occurred before all other means were > > attempted. > The Roman empire's army uprising in whatever-it-was-CE? Some of the more > abrupt transitions in Hellenic Greece? I'd argue that *any* transfer of power in Rome which involved the army was a coup de'etat. Ignoring the word 'class' for a moment (because the Roman army and the Senate sure weren't in the same social class), it was a coup when one faction of the oligopoly of power overthrew another faction. It certianly wasn't a revolution, which implies much more of a popular uprising. The Roman army, for all it's power, was rarely anything other than a tiny fraction of the population of the Empire during the period mentioned. -- "I try not to sound old and cynical, but it's hard to do that when you're old and cynical." -me