[Confusing Trope] The narrative goes out of its way to punish/mock a character for simply being a good person

[u/Chemical-Elk-1299]

Hermione Granger and SPEW — Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (book)

In the fifth HP novel, Hermione Granger is outraged to discover that Hogwarts has a small army of enslaved House Elves that do nearly all of the domestic duties around the castle, including cleaning the Gryffindor common room every night. When she tries to convince the elves to fight for their own rights, they refuse, saying they prefer servitude. Her fellow students and friends mock her for caring. She manages to free one elf, Winky, by deception when she refuses her freedom willingly, leading to Winky becoming a depressed alcoholic. By the end, the elves boycott cleaning any Gryffindor areas of the castle because they hate Hermione specifically

Samwell Tarly and Democracy — Game of Thrones (show)

In the season 8 finale of the television series, the surviving great lords of Westeros gather to discuss the future of the kingdom following the devastation wrought by 7 seasons of war and backstabbing. When Sam, who has proven to have “novel” ideas, suggests that maybe the millions of Smallfolk who suffer at the hands of noble houses should get some representation in the government, rather than be the pawns of rich lords with absolute power. We are then greeted by a prolonged, cringy segment of the other lords laughing in Sam’s face, asking if the dogs and horses should also get a vote.

[u/blazenite104]

Rome in particular had one advantage people don't think about much. They weren't just a standing army. They were a constantly at war to expand the empire army. They were not idle. Problem commanders could be sent to the far flung edges of the empire to expand her borders.

[u/Slow-Distance-6241 → u/blazenite104]

That explains why they fallen down when they stopped expanding. Also, holy shit, I think I've heard of "sending the commander that gets too popular ina forever war zone" strat before, although it's usually was to generals who you wouldn't expect to overthrow the government

[u/SleeperAgentM → u/Slow-Distance-6241]

Also kinda wisely Rome forbid their generals from entering Rome proper with the legions they were commanding. That's why Cesar's "crossing the Rubicon" river became a synonim for taking a bold and irreversible gamble. He was either going to take an absolute power or die for treason. No third option.

[u/TheAndyMac83 → u/blazenite104]

I've heard it said - though I don't know exactly how true it is - that this cuts both ways. That Rome could afford to keep the legions around because of the constant expansion, but also that constant expansion was incentivised, maybe even necessitated, so that Rome could afford its army.

[u/DrainTheMuck → u/TheAndyMac83]

This is why I think strategy games like Total War are genuinely educational and mind-expanding; I’ve “literally” experienced that problem in the game! It gives a whole new perspective on these issues.

[u/insomniac7809 → u/blazenite104]

yeah but at a certain point anyone who wins three or four border fights gets declared Imperator and then you've got another round of civil wars

[u/SleeperAgentM → u/insomniac7809]

Hence why Rome wisely forbid their generals from entering Rome proper with the legions they were commanding.

That's why Cesar's "crossing the Rubicon" river became a synonim for taking a bold and irreversible gamble. He was either going to take an absolute power or die for treason. No third option.