The Roman Revolution - was it a Revolution?

‘The Roman Revolution’ by Ronald Syme, definitely well documented and very well written; however, is Syme’s case really that convincing? Although most of us would accept that by the end of the Roman Republic the Senate was no longer adequate to the needs of Roman rule, yet Syme’s argument that the fall of the Republic was not only inevitable and foreseeable, but also desirable appears a very controversial one. The extract below seems to explain his argument in a nutshell:

“‘Pax et Princepts.’ It was the end of a century of anarchy, culminating in twenty years of civil war and military tyranny. If despotism was the price, it was not too high: to a patriotic Roman or Republican sentiments even submission to absolute rule was lesser evil than war between citizens. Liberty was gone, but only a minority at Rome had ever enjoyed it. The survivors of the old governing class, shattered in spirit, gave up the contest. Compensated by the solid benefits of peace and by the apparent termination of the revolutionary age, they were willing to acquiesce, if not actively to share, in the shaping of the new government which a united Italy and a stable empire demanded and imposed.”

So what does everyone think? Do you think the people really welcomed the end of the Republic and rejoiced Augustus for ending the civil wars, or did he set up himself in power against the wishes of the people? Moreover, was the ending of the Roman Republic a revolution or not? And for anyone that have read Syme’s book, what’s your opinion of it? Do you agree with the view he’s presented?

P.S. Forgot to mention the publishing date for the book, which may be significant for some. By dishing out his work in the year 1939 Syme clearly had Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in mind. The abandonment of a 'democratic institution' for an authoritarian regime mentioned in the book eg. Fall of the Roman Republic drew sharp paralle with events that have happened recently in Europe. Most people would have noticed that at the time, though it may not be so obvious to us now.

Also there's another book called "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" by Erich.S.Gruen which I have only began to read. It was considered to be a response to Syme's Roman Revolution. To anyone who's read the book: what's your assessments of it? Good? Recommend it?

Cheers

I've not read the book and quite honestly know precious little about the event but my understanding of the late republic was a society of extreme patronage, where any "democracy" was performed between factional/oligarchic blocs. When a system of democracy is so abused (for personal/factional interest) and exclusive (in terms of the people empowered to cast their), it would be very hard to differentiate from autocratic rule for the majority of the populace.

So the nutshell argument seems plausible to me, but then I'm just a random captchabot from the intertubez with no deep and contextual understanding of the issue at hand.

Wouldn't call it a revolution either, preciously little changed. We see Augustus as the first emperor but he was really the 'first among equals' and he had to be very careful juggling various interests, ruling without giving the impression he was ruling. In a revolution there's a complete change of guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I've not read the book and quite honestly know precious little about the event but my understanding of the late republic was a society of extreme patronage, where any "democracy" was performed between factional/oligarchic blocs. When a system of democracy is so abused (for personal/factional interest) and exclusive (in terms of the people empowered to cast their), it would be very hard to differentiate from autocratic rule for the majority of the populace.

---

That was precisely a major component of Syme’s argument. The Noble families determined the history of the Republic, giving their names to its epochs. The position of Consulships were reserved exclusively for those from the ‘ancient families; it was a scandal and a pollution if a man without renowned ancestors ever aspired to the highest magistracy of the Roman Republic. That remained the case until the chaotic period of 1st century BC when the novi homines started to get the top job. After Augustus took over the nobiles of the old were doomed to political extinction and obscurity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Wouldn't call it a revolution either, preciously little changed. We see Augustus as the first emperor but he was really the 'first among equals' and he had to be very careful juggling various interests, ruling without giving the impression he was ruling. In a revolution there's a complete change of guard.

---

While I thought the book made a persuasive case, I did think the word ‘revolution’ was a bit overdone. Nevertheless, Rome did evidently become a monarchy rather than a republic afterwards. So you could argue that there was a complete change of guard after the civil wars. How far do you think the subsequent Roman emperors’ rule rest upon the consent of the people? Although they still had to be appeased, things certainly looked a lot different than the days of the SPQR.

Did it really become a monarchy, could be argued that it remained a republic until later emperors were less good at appeasing the senate. He was given the title of Augustus because of his 'emperium' but emperium has nothing to do with the English word empire, it means the roughly the same as 'gravitas', good standing. I'd say he was the head of the senate, nothing more.