Chapter 8 Chapter 5 Democracy with a King, Totalitarianism without a King

The Western Roman Empire was wiped out and replaced by a state with a very primitive structure.The king, formerly the chief of the Germanic warriors, distributed land to his soldiers, and these subordinates had to provide the king with the combat power needed to fight in return. A country is built on such a relationship.In this way, the king could have an army without taxation or an elaborate system of government.The land held in this way was later called fiefdom, from which the Latin "feudum" evolved, which later evolved into the English "feudal" (feudal). Due to the high dependence on important subjects who own land, the monarch under the feudal system is bound to be in a weak position.Theoretically, since the fiefdom is distributed by the king, the land rights should be in their hands, but in fact, it has become the private property passed down from father to son.Although the big landowners are obliged to obey the king, they can disobey or ignore the order; they have military force, which the king can call to serve him, but this force may also be used against the king, or the king wants When they obeyed, they made things difficult.Living in castles, they have the ability to defend themselves against foreign enemies - and their own masters.

The nature of the military had changed by then.In ancient Greece and Rome, infantry was the core of the army, and now cavalry has become a key player.The stirrup was an invention of the East, and it was introduced to Europe at this time, making soldiers on horseback even more powerful.Sitting on the saddle with your feet on the stirrups is much more stable than sitting directly on the back of the horse. Not only is it more difficult for the infantry to pull him off the horse, but the rider can also combine his momentum and weight with the horse, so that he can move freely as one .The cavalry holding a spear and charging at full strength is a powerful weapon of war. These riders are called knights or apprentice knights, that is, the knight's retinue.Those big landowners—land lords—could provide many knights to serve the king.

The lord and the king were bound by personal oaths.The ceremony of swearing in obedience is: the lord knelt down, clasped his palms together, and the king clasped each other's hands with both hands, and the lord immediately declared that he would be the king's men and horses from now on, and swore to serve him.After taking the oath of obedience, the subject stood up, and the two stood side by side, kissing each other on the cheek.It was thus a ceremony of obedience as well as equality, symbolizing the nature of the relationship: as long as the king protected him, the subject pledged allegiance.Ever since there were kingdoms in Western Europe, there has been an unwritten contractual relationship between rulers and ruled, a belief that has never completely disappeared.

Folding hands together is a prayer position we know, but Christians started by praying standing up, with their arms outstretched facing the east, the direction in which they expected the glorious return of Christ.Our present-day prayer posture mimics the secular lord's oath of obedience, and opinions vary about the ritual and the connection it represents (was it Germanic or Roman?).In Roman society, even in its glory days, young people had to find a patron to get ahead, and as the empire was dying, more and more people turned to powerful people as their protectors.However, the ritual of joining hands and kissing cheeks itself is of Germanic origin—a bond created between the tribal chief and his warriors.

Loyalty to the country and loyalty to the king who ruled it were two different things, but this idea is disappearing day by day.After the death of the king, all ministers must swear allegiance to the new king. Only in this way can a new government be formed.Since government is a private bond, kings can, like Shakespeare's King Lear, divide the kingdom among their children—as did Charlemagne in real history, though he struggled to keep it intact.With a new round of swearing-in ceremonies, a new government was established in Yan.In this way, blood rather than land has become the key to the continuation of the country.The ancient Roman emperor never thought that he could distribute the empire to his children. His responsibility was to maintain the integrity of the empire. However, when the empire was divided into two and the east and west were divided into one side, in order to improve state affairs and national defense, the land was like this. was divided out.

With a weak foothold, feudal monarchs had to seek advice from powerful people at home.They do not have an army over which they have full control, nor do they have a regular system of tax collection or administration, so before making a decision, they invite important people, listen to their opinions and obtain their consent before making a final decision.People with three different statuses (estates): clergy, nobles, and civilians must go to Congress to gather for meetings, and listening to suggestions has become a formal system. "Estate" here means "status" rather than "class"; in the Middle Ages, the word meant a group of people.Feudal society at the time recognized three constituents: the clergy, who prayed, the nobles, who sent troops to fight, and then the common people, that is, all the other social workers of all walks of life who did labor and made a living. "Status" is very different from class.Class and economic ability are generally related, but these three social statuses are distinguished by function: praying, fighting, and working.There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor among people of the same status. Take the clergy as an example, including bishops who are rich and big, and local priests who are poor and white; The financiers were richer than the nobles, and employed many commoners to work for them.Those who can send representatives to the halls of parliament are the common people with deep pockets and estates, not the coolies-they are serfs who are like half-slaves.

In France at that time, the entire Congress was divided into three chambers, called the three-level conference.One of the chambers was dedicated to representatives of the clergy, one to representatives of the nobility, and the other to representatives of the common people.As for the United Kingdom, the clergy represented by archbishops and bishops, together with nobles, meet in the House of Lords, or House of Lords, while commoners have their own House of Commons.Today's British Parliament still inherits these names, just like its monarchy, which has survived from the Middle Ages to the present.Britain is a democracy today, but it became a democracy by allowing the people to vote for members of the House of Commons—a move that served as a check on the power of the aristocracy and made the monarch a virtual head of state.This kind of democracy is no longer the democratic appearance of Athens in the classical era.

The medieval parliament was not a regular part of the government, and the monarch would call them to meet if he had special needs.Passing legislation is not the main function of Parliament; it is convened because the monarch needs more revenue.The monarchy at that time had slowly grown from a weak foundation.They rely on their own land and fixed taxes to obtain fiscal revenue, but if expenditures increase-mainly because of wars, special taxes must be levied, so Congress needs to be convened to pass tax increases.Parliament can take the opportunity to spit out its bitterness and pass a number of new laws, either initiated by the king's executive head or by members of parliament.

As medieval towns grew larger, a different form of political organization took shape; each town first elected councilors in charge of municipal affairs, who then elected a mayor.In the Middle Ages, due to the fact that the monarchy was too weak, when the towns were growing, they did not plan to rule directly, but allowed the towns to be self-governing. The exchange was that they must obey the king's orders and pay various taxes.When the city council gathers for a meeting, everyone is equal and swears oaths to each other. This world is very different from other places-other places operate in a master-slave relationship.

In a kingdom, elected councils and mayors can manage their own towns, which is an invention only in Europe; strong monarchs cannot allow hostile power centers to grow, and they will send their own troops to govern those town.In Europe, as the pockets of merchants, financiers, and manufacturers grew richer, so did their power, thanks to this semi-independent status--kings who relied more and more on self-governing cities in order to control the large noble landowners in the countryside. and their wealth (acquired by taxation or loan).This, too, is a highly unusual development. Weak monarchs and their aristocrats sometimes had conflicts, and they wrestled constantly with the parliament. Until modern times, around 1400 AD, the monarch began to have the upper hand, and the feudal monarch gradually transformed into an absolute absolute monarchy, no longer relying on the parliament.

In fact, these monarchs did not really abolish Parliament, but only stopped bothering to summon the princes of Parliament to meet, because they found other ways of raising money.The king of France began to sell his public office. If you wanted to be a tax merchant, you only had to pay the king a large sum of money in advance and make it up from the fees you charged the merchant.As for the king of Spain, he got a huge windfall because of the discovery of the gold mines in the New World-Mexico and Peru. The term "absolute monarchy" can be misleading.It does not mean that the kings of Europe can do whatever they want, they are not tyrants; generally they are obliged to uphold the law, to ensure that justice treats subjects fairly; if national security is at stake, they can handle it themselves.It's just that they advocated the concept of "divine right of kings", claiming that the king is a messenger sent by God to the mortal world, so all people must obey. I know that my achievements in governing the country will eventually be judged by God.Of course, they appear more noble and remote than the feudal monarchs before them.The ritual of kissing each other between king and courtier is no longer there, now you have to kneel before the king to see if he wants to offer you his hand. These kings bought their own armies with their own funds, and at this time the infantry regiments were in charge; in the late Middle Ages, new weapons that could shoot cavalry on horseback to the ground, longbows and spears, were developed.The longbow was developed in England. It was a more powerful weapon than the crossbow. British longbowmen could use it to pierce cavalry armor and make enemy soldiers fall off their horses.The French originally considered it too disgraceful to fight with this weapon and refused to submit.Just as everyone condemned machine guns in World War I, French soldiers also condemned these longbowmen at the beginning, but they were defeated. It didn't take long for the King of France to have a longbow team himself. The spear is a Swiss invention.You carry this long and heavy spear on your shoulders and move forward. When confronting the enemy, a group of infantry forms a square formation, lowers the spear in place, and sends out a volley. The attacking enemy cavalry is not killed To shoot a fallen horse means that the horse is pierced by a spear. Unexpectedly, once these kings had their own army, they used it to deal with their subjects-those great nobles who disobeyed the king or poor tenant farmers who refused to pay taxes.Gunpowder, which was introduced to Europe at the end of the Middle Ages, was a great help for the king to control his subjects. The king's army could fire cannonballs at the castle, and the city wall would fall down. At that time, Europe had returned to a normal state: the government was the real master of the country, but because the ruler was constrained by the ruled at the beginning, this strange phenomenon still had a profound impact and lingering aftermath.Just as in England, despite the rise of the crown, Parliament survived and grew in power; in France, a certain king had to bring back the House of Commons, which had been suspended for a hundred and seventy-five years. On the continent of Europe, the king had every reason to expand his army because of the constant wars among the nations.However, in England, in order to defend the country, the king needs the navy more than the army, but the navy cannot be used to deal with domestic rebellious subjects, and if the king wants to maintain a large standing army, it will be regarded as a violation of the British law. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for the king of England to obtain the force that can be used against his subjects if necessary.However, in the 17th century, the British king still tried, intending to follow the path of other European countries and become an absolute absolute monarchy. The royal line that made this attempt was the Stuart dynasty (Stuart line) whose ancestors came from Scotland.Queen Elizabeth of England, who was never married for life, passed the throne to James VI of Scotland (James VI) after her death in 1603. Therefore, in addition to this status, he also became James I of England.After him, all successors to the House of Stuart were co-rulers of the two kingdoms. (see figure on next page) James I, his son Charles I, and his two grandsons, James II and Charles II, all quarreled with Parliament.These kings are often clumsy in dealing with the Congress, but they face a real problem-they need more fiscal revenue, but when they approach the Congress to discuss tax increases, the Congress makes a request, hoping to increase their control over national policy.As a matter of course, the king refused to let Parliament intervene, so he had to find other sources of money, trying to avoid going back to Parliament.This naturally aroused more suspicion in the Congress. In their view, the king seemed to intend to follow what the kings of other European countries were doing: completely emptying the Congress. However, it was the religious factor that really heated up these conflicts and made the politicians in Congress ready to risk their lives for their ideals.Since the kings of the Stuart dynasty were either Catholics or married Catholics, they were not loyal enough in the eyes of their Protestant subjects. After the Reformation, Britain became a Protestant country, but the process was different from the origin of the Religious Revolution, and no one like Martin Luther appeared in Britain.The reason why Britain went to Protestantism was thanks to Henry VIII.Henry VIII is famous because he married six queens.His first wife, Queen Catherine, was a Catholic, but she failed in her greatest duty: to give birth to a son to inherit the throne.To solve such a difficult problem, the pope usually finds a reason to declare the marriage invalid, but the pope used it for himself and did not want to offend the queen's family, the ruler of Spain.So Henry declared himself head of the English Catholic Church in 1534, appointed an archbishop willing to annul his marriage to Catherine, and immediately brought in his second wife, Anne Boleyn.After Henry VIII, the Church of England, which had been rectified, gradually moved closer to Protestantism, but some Catholic ceremonies were still retained, and the positions of bishops and archbishops remained the same.The move angered some envious Protestants—Puritans who wanted an overhaul of the church. James I rejected the reform demands of the Puritans, but he made a major decision, agreeing to translate the Bible into English. This version is lively but elegant, and it became the version of the Bible commonly read in the English-speaking world for the next three centuries.James' son, Charles I, had a soft spot for the theology and rituals of what is now known as High Anglicanism in England, but not only Puritans, but even most Protestants believed that this sect was too close to Catholicism.Charles I forced the Church of England to accept his views, which greatly offended the Church of England, which was, after all, the official church and Charles I was its supreme leader.Although Charles was not a Catholic, the queen believed in Catholicism, and specially arranged for her priest to attend mass above the court. In short, the King of England changed from partial Protestantism to partial Catholicism. Charles' relations with Parliament soon came to a dead end on religious grounds, and for eleven years he did not call a Parliament; of course he had the right to do so, for a Parliament could only be called by order of the King.If he was careful, he might have a way of never calling Parliament, but it was foolish to force the people of Scotland, another kingdom he ruled, to accept his preferred liturgy.Unexpectedly, the Scots were more Protestant and more nationalistic. They organized an army into England and forced Charles to dispel this idea. As a result, Charles needed an army to resist these Scots. To finance the military through taxation. Now came the opportunity of Parliament; it proposed bills to limit the king's power over church and state, and to expand his own power.It executed Charles' first chancellor and high priest, the Archbishop of Canterbury.At the beginning, Charlie could only be at the mercy of Congress, but later he gathered the support of a group of Royalists, and the Congressional faction and the Royalist faction went to war.The war was finally won by Parliament, and the leader Oliver Cromwell (Oliver Cromwell) set up a trial court and executed Charles I in 1649.Cromwell succeeded the king, he convened a parliament and later fell out with it; during his lifetime England was effectively a military dictatorship.After Cromwell's death, one of his generals reconvened the Parliament of Charles's era and welcomed Charles II, his son in exile, back to succeed him. When Charles II came to power, there were no formal changes in the powers of king and parliament, but his father's execution was a stark warning not to overstate his beliefs.He was sympathetic to Catholicism and formally converted to Catholicism before his death.Although he had many children by several mistresses, he had no heirs to the queen, so the throne was eventually succeeded by his younger brother, the avowedly Catholic James II.Congress did everything possible to pass legislation to exclude James' right to succeed, and Charles responded by dissolving Congress.However, he cannot raise taxes without Congress. His solution to this problem was to accept funding from King Louis XIV of France.Louis XIV was an absolute monarch. In order to make France a completely Catholic country, he canceled the tolerance measures for Protestants in the past, and thousands of Protestants had to flee abroad. In 1685, when Protestant Britain welcomed the Catholic James II as its new king, French Protestants were under attack. Although he knew he was unpopular, James II did not become more cautious in his words and deeds.He openly advocated Catholicism, convinced that it was the only truth.After being ravaged by the Civil War and ensuing military dictatorship, many members of the British Parliament intend to turn a blind eye to James II's blatantly Catholic words and deeds, but his Queen, the second wife who believes in Catholicism , gave birth to a son for him, and when Britain was about to produce a line of Catholic kings, the Congress decided to get rid of him.Several leaders of Parliament privately invited a certain Protestant king to invade England and take the throne.This man was a Dutchman, known as William III in the world, and his wife was Mary, the daughter of James II and the first Protestant queen.William III was a defender of Protestantism in Europe, fighting unyieldingly to protect the Netherlands from the invasion of Louis XIV. The process of the coup was very peaceful.William III quickly crossed the English Channel with a favorable wind.As soon as he landed, James II's army almost completely turned against the enemy's camp.James II fled to Ireland, which was also convenient for Parliament, because instead of having to try him or behead him, the throne was declared vacant, and William and Mary were immediately installed co-sovereign. Under the manipulation of the Congress, the power of the king and the parliament has been reshuffled so far. The reason why William and Mary can wear the British crown is to accept the following conditions.The document that rewrote the Constitution was called the Bill of Rights.It is a combination of parliamentary rights as well as individual rights: By modern standards, this document has limited guarantees of human rights, but it is the cornerstone of all subsequent formulations of rights.For example, the article "shall not impose cruel and extraordinary punishment", the United States even included it in its "Declaration of Human Rights" according to the regulations. In this way, the British Parliament made itself a permanent unit of the constitutional system.The whole process did not shed a drop of blood, and it was called the "Glorious Revolution" in history.The monarch still wields considerable power: choose chiefs, formulate policies, conclude treaties, and declare war.However, since the monarch can only get tax money with the consent of the National Assembly, the chief executive elected by the monarch must have the support of the National Assembly.Over time, this restriction has evolved into a system in which on the surface the rulers of the country are the monarch or representatives of the royal family, but regardless of the size of the state, they have to listen to the advice of the heads of various ministries, and these heads must be accountable to the Congress.This is the current British system, and so are all the national governments that follow the British Westminster Shaw. William and Mary had no children.After them, another daughter of James II, Queen Anne, Mary's sister, succeeded to the throne, but none of her children survived, so Parliament had to decide on the next heir to the throne.Several descendants of the Stuart royal family had legitimate inheritance rights, but because they all believed in Catholicism, Congress completely ignored them, and finally chose James I's Protestant granddaughter, Electress Sophia of Hanover (Hanover) Hanover), became the new blood of the royal family.But just when Congress relied on strategizing and finally got the monarch it wanted, Sophia unexpectedly died a few weeks earlier than Queen Anne, so her son George, who could not speak English and stayed in Hanover, Germany most of the time Inherited the throne. To secure the position of the Protestant king, Parliament enacted two important articles, which are still part of the English constitution today: The Bill of Rights established for Congress, the legislative branch, a strong, permanent, independent place in the system of government.The independence of the judges was thus secured from the magistrate who appointed them, the king and his vassals.Britain has been defined as a Protestant country so far, and Protestantism is regarded as a guarantee of freedom and human rights. From the very beginning, Protestantism started from the protection of individual freedom, because it interfered with the authority of the Pope and bishops and enhanced the individual's consciousness and status.In England, it is even more inseparable from freedom, because the despots of France and Spain, the enemies of England, are Catholics, and the British kings who try to sway Parliament are either Catholics or soft-hearted Catholics.The preservation of Congress and the preservation of the Protestant faith became one, and became a Protestant cause with the same goal. The constituents of the Congress, that is, the British nobles and landed gentry classes, established the institutional aspect of a free country in this way, but its thinking is not entirely based on the pursuit of freedom, because it is based on hostility to Catholicism. It is not because of advocating the principle of freedom that we have come to this situation. Congress has always declared that it only wants to preserve ancient rights and liberties.Members of the Congress fought and left, and only figured out how to stop those kings who wanted to implement autocracy in this land during the long-term struggle with the royal family: the king must convene a parliamentary meeting, and he cannot collect taxes without the consent of the parliament , and the court must not be swayed by the king.It wasn't until victory was in hand that these big principles became clear and distinct. It was the British philosopher John Locke who formulated these liberal principles in support of this parliamentary coup.His book, Two Treatises on Government, was published in 1690, just after the dust had settled on the Revolution.Locke's proposition is: According to the concept of Roman natural law, everyone has the inherent right to life, property and liberty, and through the establishment of the government, the people are like signing a contract with the government: the people grant the government power, The most important thing is to protect their own rights; if the government fails to protect these rights of the people, the people have the right to dissolve the government and establish a new government.Old notions of the god-like status of kings and the duty of subjects to obey their orders had all been swept aside, and the formation of a government was no different from the signing of a commercial contract. However, this thinker is not the first person to put forward the "theory of government"; such a tacit relationship has long existed between feudal monarchs and subjects in the past, and with the existence of Congress, governance should be on the side of the people rather than with them. The concept of being an enemy also survives—although perhaps only in the minds of the people. In England, Locke's book justified what happened in the past and was no longer regarded as a revolutionary act; the subsequent wave of rebellion in the United States and France had the basis for an uprising, and the new social order also relied on it. are defined by the rights bestowed upon them in black and white. At the beginning of the French Revolution, the goal was to create a constitutional monarchy like England. The reformers' opportunity came in the 1780s, when the king was on the verge of bankruptcy.Louis XVI recruited some finance ministers to carry out reforms, planning to unify the tax system that was about to collapse, making it fairer and more efficient.The most special thing about these changes is that for the first time in history, the nobles were required to pay the same taxes as all the people.In the past, the aristocrats paid less taxes on the grounds that they contributed to the country and contributed themselves and their subordinates to the country to fight. Now the monarch no longer obtains military power in this way. Of course, the aristocrats are opposed to such tax reforms . Prior to this, the despots had relegated the nobles in order to establish a country they could control, but did not completely abolish them; Ranked important.Faced with the new tax proposal, they set off a huge wave of opposition on the grounds that it was a "tyranny" violation of their ancient rights. It is strange that the resistance of the nobles was generally supported by the public, which shows that the royal family at that time permissions are really limited.If it was a bolder and more determined king, he might have continued to push and cross the pass, but Louis XVI accepted everyone's opinion-the new tax system can only be implemented by parliament.In this way, after 175 years, the third-level meeting was reopened. A heated debate ensued: how to gather for the meeting.The three levels of French society: clergy, nobles, and common people (or the third level, the general term for common people in France), have their own parliaments.All these councils must agree to any measure before it can be adopted.The leaders of the common people are mainly lawyers. They know that if the premise of approval is to obtain the approval of the nobles and clergy, the chances of formulating a new constitution in France are very small. To double the representation of the third estate, on the grounds of respect for the number, trade, and wealth of the common people. At the beginning, Louis XVI refused to change the old assembly mode, and then gave up half a step-it really was Louis style, making things worse.He agreed to double the representation of the plebeian ranks, but the three chambers would still meet separately.In this way, the number of representatives of the third estate is irrelevant, and whatever proposals they make may be vetoed by the nobles and clergy. In 1789, the three-level conference was officially held, but the controversy has not subsided.The plebeian caste, calling themselves the orthodox National Assembly, invited nobles and ecclesiastics to join.One day, they came to the meeting room of the Palace of Versailles and found that the doors were locked. The reason why these doors were locked was that the inside was being painted, but the representatives of the common people were terrified, for fear that the king would refuse them. outside.They then entered a nearby indoor tennis court and vowed not to disband until they created a constitution for France.The court painter David once sketched a picture "Tennis Court Oath" (Tennis Court Oath), which is a famous portrayal of art being loyal to life. Five years ago, David painted "The Oath of the Horatii Brothers". In the painting, the old father of the Ho family and his three sons raised their arms high and made a declaration of the Republic.These plebeian revolutionaries did the same when they swore to make France a constitution. It is true that many clergymen and some nobles went to the National Assembly.Louis XVI stated that he was willing to give the civilian class a permanent place in the constitution, but he just did not allow the three classes to meet together.He threatened the Plebes Assembly with force if it refused to return to its status as one of the three chambers.However, when the other party was tough, he became a turtle again.The king relented, and with great weakness directed the other two estates to join the National Assembly. The leaders of this council are all representatives of the Enlightenment Movement and have a very clear concept of freedom and equality.The slogans they raised were Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.The parliament also issued a proclamation titled "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", in which rights are not only enjoyed by the French, but also universal to all people in the world.The main chapters are summarized as follows: It was a glorious document, the founding document of modern democracy, but it was destined to spark an ignominious revolution. Those who framed these principles wanted France to follow the example of England in a constitutional monarchy, but if the rulership rests in the hands of the people and all are claimed to be equal, what protection does the king have?Moreover, when the drafters of this document were drafting the constitution, they not only hoped that they would be in power, but also stipulated that only those with property could vote.However, since we keep saying that everyone is equal, how can ordinary people be excluded?The common people saw this draft constitution, and Louis XVI had to pretend to accept the declaration only by resorting to action to protest. A large number of citizens flocked to the Bastille, forcing the king to leave his Versailles palace and live with the citizens of Paris.The ordinary people who promoted the success of this revolution have no intention of leaving. However, for France to establish a constitutional system like Britain or to have a bloodless revolution similar to 1688, expectations are not only too high, but the process is also full of difficulties and dangers.The uprising did not develop according to the new principles at the beginning, not to mention the new principles are too demanding now. Louis XVI soon stated that he did not accept these principles, and if he could regain power, he would restore the old rules and let everyone The changes come to naught.This gave radicals an opportunity.They plausibly argued that in order to secure the reforms, they must rule the country with the people, or depose the king.The rhetoric reverberates from those who want change, but it is not democratic change that puts people in charge. The Revolutionary Party soon fell into infighting.One of the reasons why David never turned the sketches of "Tennis Court Pledge" into a complete painting is that many people who were present at that time were sent to death on the charge of "enemies of the revolution".These radicals were called the Jacobins because they all met in a monastery called the Jacobins.With the cold-blooded and iron-willed Maximilien Robespierre (Maximilien Robespierre) as their leader, they turned into an autocratic revolutionary party.They guillotined Louis XVI, eradicated dissidents in the National Assembly, closed dissident newspapers, and set up illegal courts to execute revolutionary traitors.They justified their dictatorial actions with justice, saying that France was now in a critical situation, and had to be an enemy to force other European monarchs to abide by the principles of the Declaration of Human Rights.To achieve this goal, the Revolutionary Party conscripted all men in the country to join, creating a new form of army where all the people are soldiers. These revolutionaries had read the history of Rome written by Livy.The number one saint of this tyrannical revolutionary party nodded and executed his two sons, and created Brutus of the Roman Republic (see Chapter 4 for details).A bust of Brutus stood next to the pulpit of Parliament; the street was renamed Brutus Street; parents named their children Brutus.Now that the Jacobins created the republic, the people could no longer play card games with kings, queens, guards, etc., but instead had images of saints, virgins, and warriors, and Brutus was one of the saints. one.The king was compared to the tyrant Tarquin, and like the Roman Republic, it was a crime to call for the restoration of the monarchy.The virtue of this republic with no room for flexibility: to sacrifice everything for the country, to be willing to do anything, and to believe that it can purify the soul, is the greatest influence of the Roman Republic on the world's first modern totalitarian state.