Republicanism vs. Absolutism

A discussion that broke out among people from my uni which I just remembered. Basically, when discussing the TV Series Rome, this question came up:

If you'd lived in the period, who would YOU have supported? Caesar, Octavian, and generally those who wanted absolute power (the absolutists) or Brutus, Pompey, and basically the Senate (the Republicans).

Me, I'd have to say, thinking as a Roman living in those times and considering the fact that the Senate was at the time a bunch of rich men arguably protecting their own interests and ruling in a generally incompetent manner (at least in domestic terms) then I would have probably sided with Caesar because I would have reasoned that it would be better to have one man who's good at the job ruling the empire than alot of men who aren't any good at their jobs.

And as to the later struggles when Caesar was assassinated? I'd have probably sided with Anthony and Octavian, and then later, when the two of them had it out, I'd have sided with Octavian.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

because as one two-faced character in Warcraft III once said: 'I'm always on the winning side'. :laugh4:

One last thing: this is a strictly hypothetical case that does not, I'll make this very clear, NOT reflect my actual political leanings. I'm simply saying what I would probably do if I had lived in those times.

What about you? Who would you have sided with?

I think it matters who you are and what information you have. If you are a pleb in the country, I doubt you would even care. If you were a pleb in the cities, you would probably support Caesar because he was good with his propaganda. And if you were a Patrician you would probably support the Senate because you would be afraid of loosing what you currently have.

Thing with monarchy is, if the ruler happens to be capable enough, then the country might do better than with a bunch of old scheming hypocrites negating each other out (from what i have seen, this applies to most "top" politicians) . However, if the ruler happens to be an idiot, then there's nobody that could restrain him/her. Well, unless he's really an idiot, in which case some powerful advisor or relative would probably control them behind the scenes. It's a gamble :juggle2:

Ceasar was a bit of a monster, as was Octavian. I'd follow the Senate because Ceasar was the rebel, and Pompey only lost through bad luck, and nerves.

With someone there to A) Boast his ego, and B) prevent his auxillary cavalry doing something supid, Ceasar would have been toast.

Or possibly Pizza.

With hindsight it's easy to choose which side, but I think that at the time you would have chosen based on you financial situation.

Much like elections today, rich people would tend to favour the status quo (republicans), as that's the system that has made or kept them rich. The poor would side with whomever offered them the easiest life (bread and circuses), with the fewest wars and other of life's hardships. The middle classes who felt that they could do better with more opportunity would be most likely to favour change, and that's where Caesar got a lot of his support. Of course, having an army that owes it livelihood and pension hopes to you helps, but most good generals since Marius had one of these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

And as to the later struggles when Caesar was assassinated? I'd have probably sided with Anthony and Octavian, and then later, when the two of them had it out, I'd have sided with Octavian.

---

I'm interrested in why exactly you would have chosen Octavian.

Anyhow, i would probably have sided with the Senate. Yes, after the death of Caesar, the empire did grow, but it probably would have anyway. The problem with monarchs is the fact that the good ones does sometimes manage to improve the conditions of the populace, but that happens 1 in a 100.

During the republic, the senators atleast had the decency not to kill each other and start a civil war untill Sulla (with the gracchii being an exception), and a general wouldn't get assisinated because the ruler was afraid of him. Granted, Africanus was forced out of public life, and Aemilianus was killed, but the common gaul/iberian fighting general usually didn't suffer such a fate.
Look at the principiality, with Corbulo being forced to commit suicide etc

last remark, the Rome tv series might be fun, but it is in no way historical accurate

As for me, I'd rather support separatism in some distant corner of already bloated "empire" to establish small, yet healthy and sturdy state (something like Sertorius tried to achieve). Much better than waste your life serving power-mad megalomaniacs (Caesar and the like) or corrupt kleptocrats (the Senate).

But of course, i have no sentiments about gloria romanorum and stuff like this, things might look different for brainwashed roman patriot or typical spoiled parasite "citizen" of late republic era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cozur

Look at the principiality, with Corbulo being forced to commit suicide etc

---

Don't forget Germanicus, he was poisoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lgk

As for me, I'd rather support separatism in some distant corner of already bloated "empire" to establish small, yet healthy and sturdy state (something like Sertorius tried to achieve). Much better than waste your life serving power-mad megalomaniacs (Caesar and the like) or corrupt kleptocrats (the Senate).

But of course, i have no sentiments about gloria romanorum and stuff like this, things might look different for brainwashed roman patriot or typical spoiled parasite "citizen" of late republic era.

---

Yep the slow boat to Cherson might be an attractive option. Bribe the local tyrant, cut a deal with the Sarmatian warlord for a little protection, spend the rest of your life writing your autobiography (including self glorifying furphy's like "I coulda saved the Republic but...")

Maybe even risk the Tian Shan and catch the silk road express to Han China. I have read foreign travellers were astounded at imperial China's tranquility: more often than not people could walk the streets and even the countryside without carrying weapons. It'd only be worthwhile if you could get away with enough stolen public funds of course, I wouldn't fancy being at the bottom of the pile in any ancient society, and i think Chinese peasants were as oppressed as any.

I suppose my own political leanings tend to pragmatism. I think I would have been sold on the argument that Octavius was the best chance for peace, and he allowed a pretence of politcal life that gave people hope for a return to free political life. Geez he played it well, made himself front man for the senate, shafted them with the deal with Anthony to defeat the assassins, the blackening of Antony's name, he was a pro. I reckon he was a skilled politician, too good for most enemies in the powerplay, and hoodwinked a lot smarter guys than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cozur

I'm interrested in why exactly you would have chosen Octavian.

Anyhow, i would probably have sided with the Senate. Yes, after the death of Caesar, the empire did grow, but it probably would have anyway. The problem with monarchs is the fact that the good ones does sometimes manage to improve the conditions of the populace, but that happens 1 in a 100.

During the republic, the senators atleast had the decency not to kill each other and start a civil war untill Sulla (with the gracchii being an exception), and a general wouldn't get assisinated because the ruler was afraid of him. Granted, Africanus was forced out of public life, and Aemilianus was killed, but the common gaul/iberian fighting general usually didn't suffer such a fate.
Look at the principiality, with Corbulo being forced to commit suicide etc

last remark, the Rome tv series might be fun, but it is in no way historical accurate

---

After Caesar's assassination I think I would have been motivated by any number of reasons to continue supporting the absolutists, but mainly they would have been:
-Anger over Caesar's murder
-Fear of reprisals from the old order if it got back in charge
-The knowledge that Anthony had been allowed to live and thus the absolutists still had quite a few cards to play
At that point, I think absolutist supporters would have recognized at this point, at least to themselves, that they were in it too deep couldn't just turn around and switch sides without looking like traitors to the absolutists and like opportunists to the Republicans.

As to Octavian/Anthony's civil war? As another guy said, pragmatism would have been a good option at a dangerous time like this, and at the time I think Octavian was probably in a more secure position at home and enjoyed military strength than Anthony. At that point, seeing that the absolutists had already won, I would have sided with whoever I thought had the most factors in his favour.

And yeah, the Rome TV series is a li'l off the mark in many places, especially it's timeline :laugh4: However, I think it's more historically accurate than many other dramtizations of the Roman empire made to date (Gladiator comes to mind).

Absolutism.Meh,i don't want to be with all bunch of old grumpy men,i'll instead be with one which can conquer more land :P After Caesar is dead,i'd either go totally rebel,with some fellow minds and eventually build up my own mini empire somewhere in corner of no-one knows where,but later gather mighty army and go to "I'll conquerzorz j00!" mood,and go againist the Senate (Or the Bunch of Old Grumpy Men :P).

The Republic was dead in fact if not in word since the middle of the 2nd century BCE. As Plutarch (life of Aemilius Paulus) said, the illegality had become so general that the Senate was forced to close the mines of Macedon after the Third Macedonian War, not to punish Macedon but to protect her from the rapacity of Roman officials. The fates of Publius Rutilius Rufus (in 92 BCE) and Lucius Licinius Lucullus (in 67 BCE) show how great the control of the oligarchy was and how dagerous it was for a magistrate to be both honest and competent. Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus (who had been instrumental in depriving Lucullus of his command), Brutus (whose fortune had been acquired by charging four times the legal rate of interest), Cassius and the rest of the "Republicans" would be better described as being the Publicani faction.

Under the circumstances, I'd have sided with Caesar and the populares. The establishment of the Principiate saved Rome from a decline comparable to that of the Hellenistic powers, or at least staved it off for a while. After that, I'd probably have backed Anthony rather than Octavian, for the same reason as Cleopatra VII: Lepidus was a non-entity and Octavian was seemingly on his deathbed when they returned to Italy after defeating Cassius and Brutus. Who would have thought the young blighter's health wasn't as fragile as it seemed?

It would depend on which political party one belonged to? It also may have depended on how willing one would be to support illegal acts and common criminals. There was of course the third option of doing nothing?

Empire only functions with great talent like Caesar and Octavian. I would support the senate so there is fewer chance of getting bad leaders like Caligula

having to choose between either following the overdecadent senate oligarchs or the charismatic and talented caesar, the choice is simple. all hail imperator caesar. it has been stated alrdy but the republican was - if not dead alrdy - rotting away rapidly since the time before marian. remaining an empire but retaining the institutes of a city-state simply didn't work.

if i was to be a plebejan it would be simple anyway :yes: but even as patrician i would have still followed caesar. the republic needed to be reformed and caesar was the right man to do so. to bad he got killed.

in the aftermath choosing for octavian seems sensible to me. marc anthony never appealed much to me as a leader, talented as he was! - i'm by any means NOT stating he was incapable, for he was in his own way.


this is my personal opinion on 'what i would've done if i was there'

With the knowledge about society that I have as a modern person, I would have supported whichever side offered the speediest path to reform; the senatorial system was collapsing, the Republic was descending into a series of civil wars that would ultimately have destroyed it. The empire managed to delay this by a few hundred years, but eventually it went back to civil wars which were again close to tearing it apart. Various reforms (such as sharing the Caesar and Augustus offices) again managed to make ends meet for a time, and christianity may have been a stabilising force in the last years of the (western) empire. But once the pressure from outside increased against this rickety construction, it finally collapsed.

What amazes me is that it took so many centuries for Rome to actually disintegrate, since instability set in as early as the second century BC (just ask the Gracchus brothers).

i suppose the absence of a real 'bureaucracy' in a more modern sense wasn't present. only in the late empire a sort of bureaucracy emerges. typical about antique cultures is this 'amateuristic' approach towards administration. one wasn't general since he was educated such, no, he was it because he was from that family and had that age. same goes for most functions. it wasn't wether you were capable, but wether you were from the right social rank.

the late 3rd-4th century empire new a bureaucracy in a more modern way but i suppose it was alrdy to late to turn the tide then. the 3rd century wars had torn away the foundations of the empire (the civitas) and set in a process of ruralisation.

but i'm moving away from the issue at hand, republicanism vs absolutism. i dont like that title btw. absolutism refers to much to the 17th century and misses to grasp the side caesar represented.

I'd pack up and head to China or Parthia .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

What amazes me is that it took so many centuries for Rome to actually disintegrate, since instability set in as early as the second century BC (just ask the Gracchus brothers).

---

I actually think the Roman government fell apart several times. First, after the end on the monarchy 510/09 BC; second, after the Gauls ransomed it 387/86 BC; third; after the final Late Republican Civil Wars and establishment of the Julio-Claudian Empire 49-27 BC; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I actually think the Roman government fell apart several times. First, after the end on the monarchy 510/09 BC; second, after the Gauls ransomed it 387/86 BC; third; after the final Late Republican Civil Wars and establishment of the Julio-Claudian Empire 49-27 BC; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

---

Very good points.

Obviously Octavian preserved the republican forms which eased the pain of monarchy, but it was a significant regime change in that the senatorial class was purged. Their were bloody episodes from the time of the Grachhi right through to the Antonines but Octavius oversaw the most thorough bloodletting.

The early republic is obscure of course, but I agree with the thesis that has Lars Porsena driving out the Monarchy and leaving a temporary regime in the form of 2 Consuls. Thats a radical change from the old monarchy, although it may have been just a change at the top.

I reckon the way Rome resolved the struggle of the orders (and I feel the gallic sack was a spur in that process) was the key to their Imperial success and a truly radical reform. Just by allowing plebs into the existing cycle of public careers changed an aristocracy into a meritocracy, with all the morale benefits that entails, but avoiding liquidating the propertied class as often happens uin a revolution.

I guess the reforms of Diocletian, Constantine and Justinian represent a recognition of changes if not the institution of new syystems. Somne of them were just reforms on paper I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

Who would you have sided with?

---

It wouldn't matter much in the long run. Be dictated to by a body of aristocrats and their pet plebe or be dictated to by a single aristocrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I actually think the Roman government fell apart several times. First, after the end on the monarchy 510/09 BC; second, after the Gauls ransomed it 387/86 BC; third; after the final Late Republican Civil Wars and establishment of the Julio-Claudian Empire 49-27 BC; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

---

Certainly true, but somehow it always bounced back. Until the migrations anyway. And the civil wars in the late republic weren't even as bad as those later on, where any general who had a bit of success in battle against foreigners just had to turn right around and march on Rome while the emperor was way the heck over in the other end of the empire defending against whatever foe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

And the civil wars in the late republic weren't even as bad as those later on, where any general who had a bit of success in battle against foreigners just had to turn right around and march on Rome while the emperor was way the heck over in the other end of the empire defending against whatever foe.

---

Right, that was one of my 'et cetera.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Valerius

having to choose between either following the overdecadent senate oligarchs or the charismatic and talented caesar, the choice is simple. all hail imperator caesar. it has been stated alrdy but the republican was - if not dead alrdy - rotting away rapidly since the time before marian. remaining an empire but retaining the institutes of a city-state simply didn't work.

if i was to be a plebejan it would be simple anyway :yes: but even as patrician i would have still followed caesar. the republic needed to be reformed and caesar was the right man to do so. to bad he got killed.

in the aftermath choosing for octavian seems sensible to me. marc anthony never appealed much to me as a leader, talented as he was! - i'm by any means NOT stating he was incapable, for he was in his own way.


this is my personal opinion on 'what i would've done if i was there'

---

Full agreement, here. I'd have sided with Caesar, not greedy hypocritical self serving senators.

Caesar:
:focus:

Senate:
:listen:
~:argue:
:stupido:
:stupido2:
:ahh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

bounce back

---

Indeed.

But, was that which was bounced back, the same as that which went before?

Or was the bounce back something different?

The Republic was dead. It was trading a self-serving Oligarchy for a Benevolentish Dictator.

I don't have any simpathy towards dictators, but if I lived in Rome at that time I would have supported Caesar, even if I was a Patrician.The reason is that I am a socialist maybe, or that I hate to see the powerful enrich them self, and the weak oppressed. From what we know from history, in my opinion Caesar did the right things, he help the poor and his veterans, and tried to curb the corruption that had engulfed the senate. And for his effort he was assassinated. It was clear at that time that a republic could not rule an Empire, maybe a federal state, who knows.

But I would never support Octavian, no way, he was nothing like Caesar:shame: , nor Anthony, he was a warmonger.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Indeed.

But, was that which was bounced back, the same as that which went before?

Or was the bounce back something different?

---

Well it was always a new power in some sense, but it kept the continuity of the Roman civilization. Until the 5th century AD anyway. And even after that, many tried to claim they were the continuation of the Roman Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Roman civilization

---

And...

of course we define this as everything under the sun?

In the southwest it like some arch descriptions of the Hohokam or Salado?

'prehispanic pottery producing horiculturists?'

How about the Romans; 'proto-historic, pre- to postfolk-migration, poly-ethnic, pottery and metal-producing, agriculturalists?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Well it was always a new power in some sense, but it kept the continuity of the Roman civilization. Until the 5th century AD anyway. And even after that, many tried to claim they were the continuation of the Roman Empire.

---

The Eastern half did more than claim. It was a continuation. In all truth, the Roman Empire did fall in its entirety until 1453 AD. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RomulusAugustusCaesar

The Eastern half did more than claim. It was a continuation. In all truth, the Roman Empire did fall in its entirety until 1453 AD. :yes:

---

Well it's all a matter of what you define as an actually "Roman" empire. Does it have to possess Rome? Does it have to use latin as the official language? Tons of things like that. The Byzantines certainly were much closer to the Roman Empire or the Roman Republic than eg. the Holy Roman Empire or Russia, but still isn't exactly the same. It is always going to be somewhat arbitrary where you draw the line between Roman and non-Roman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Well it's all a matter of what you define as an actually "Roman" empire. Does it have to possess Rome? Does it have to use latin as the official language? Tons of things like that. The Byzantines certainly were much closer to the Roman Empire or the Roman Republic than eg. the Holy Roman Empire or Russia, but still isn't exactly the same. It is always going to be somewhat arbitrary where you draw the line between Roman and non-Roman.

---

True. However the "Byzantines" were infact the same Eastern Empire which was in existence before the fall of Rome. In the 4th century, the Empire was split into two seperate Roman Empires: The Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. Both were Romani, though the west spoke Latin and east spoke Greek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RomulusAugustusCaesar

The Eastern half did more than claim. It was a continuation. In all truth, the Roman Empire did fall in its entirety until 1453 AD. :yes:

---

I think if you showed Titus Tatius and Konstantine XII to one another they both would've wondered "who's the weird foreigner?".

I feel that the Papacy is some kind of a fragmentary descendent of Rome (il papa certainly acts like a Roman official at times) as was the Venetian republic until its dissolution. I am sure there was much more of old Rome in classical Islam than there was in medieval Germany, and more again of New Rome (the idea, not just the real estate) in Mehmed II's Stamboul than Henry VI's London.

However its a point fairly made that even what we all agree was "Rome" as an entity was broken and remade several times. I feel the civil wars in the 200's were a very thorough-going uprooting of the old republic (Darth Diocletian), and a shattering of the whole Kartho-Greek medditeranean trade web so painstakingly built up over a thousand years. I feel there is a deep self-barbarization by the time of Constantine, and only the massive inertia and collosal intellectual reality of Rome held it together despite in the absence of any military or economic cohesion.

I reckon there is arguably a deeper gulf between Marcus Aurelius and big Kon than there is between the two regicidal Brutii, or between Kon 1 and Kon 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I think if you showed Titus Tatius and Konstantine XII to one another they both would've wondered "who's the weird foreigner?".

I feel that the Papacy is some kind of a fragmentary descendent of Rome (il papa certainly acts like a Roman official at times) as was the Venetian republic until its dissolution. I am sure there was much more of old Rome in classical Islam than there was in medieval Germany, and more again of New Rome (the idea, not just the real estate) in Mehmed II's Stamboul than Henry VI's London.

However its a point fairly made that even what we all agree was "Rome" as an entity was broken and remade several times. I feel the civil wars in the 200's were a very thorough-going uprooting of the old republic (Darth Diocletian), and a shattering of the whole Kartho-Greek medditeranean trade web so painstakingly built up over a thousand years. I feel there is a deep self-barbarization by the time of Constantine, and only the massive inertia and collosal intellectual reality of Rome held it together despite in the absence of any military or economic cohesion.

I reckon there is arguably a deeper gulf between Marcus Aurelius and big Kon than there is between the two regicidal Brutii, or between Kon 1 and Kon 12.

---

I understand your reasoning. The reason I believe the Eastern Empire to be a continuation of the Roman Empire is through Megas Konstantinos (Contantine the Great) who was indeed a Roman Emperor, and yet made his court and capitol at Constantiople and not Roma.

Thank the gods my ancestors never had to put up with all the internice war- and whore-mongering in Rome (yah Hibernia the one place Rome decieded not to conquer).

If the Romans were the be all end all of 'civilization' in the ancient Mediterrean, I don't want to know what the 'baribarians' were like.

I would have sided with the Gauls and died at Alesia. Screw Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RomulusAugustusCaesar

I understand your reasoning. The reason I believe the Eastern Empire to be a continuation of the Roman Empire is through Megas Konstantinos (Contantine the Great) who was indeed a Roman Emperor, and yet made his court and capitol at Constantiople and not Roma.

---

Yep we agree. Rome is many things, and those things are often quite different.

There's plenty of continuity, but I think the shift to Constantinople is a recognition of the "failure of the West" and the start of a new Empire, which reorientation was completed by Justinian, paradoxically attempting the reconquest of Italy from New Rome.

"Byzantium" is a reasonable shorthand for this Christian Monarchy, fundamentally founded on the broader Hellenic world. Old Rome was a secular republic, but the monarchy perched on top of that edifice sucked the life from its political sinews, and I think it was a corpse long before Alaric and Attila pushed it over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CirdanDharix

The Republic was dead in fact if not in word since the middle of the 2nd century BCE. As Plutarch (life of Aemilius Paulus) said, the illegality had become so general that the Senate was forced to close the mines of Macedon after the Third Macedonian War, not to punish Macedon but to protect her from the rapacity of Roman officials. The fates of Publius Rutilius Rufus (in 92 BCE) and Lucius Licinius Lucullus (in 67 BCE) show how great the control of the oligarchy was and how dagerous it was for a magistrate to be both honest and competent. Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus (who had been instrumental in depriving Lucullus of his command), Brutus (whose fortune had been acquired by charging four times the legal rate of interest), Cassius and the rest of the "Republicans" would be better described as being the Publicani faction.

Under the circumstances, I'd have sided with Caesar and the populares. The establishment of the Principiate saved Rome from a decline comparable to that of the Hellenistic powers, or at least staved it off for a while. After that, I'd probably have backed Anthony rather than Octavian, for the same reason as Cleopatra VII: Lepidus was a non-entity and Octavian was seemingly on his deathbed when they returned to Italy after defeating Cassius and Brutus. Who would have thought the young blighter's health wasn't as fragile as it seemed?

---

Excellent post. Especially because you made your last decision (to side with Anthony) without the benefit of hindsight. All too often modern historians criticize the decisions of those who lived long ago, not realizing that they are taking for granted a luxury those in the present (whenever their “present” was or is) do not have.


Next on the agenda:

There is one issue I would like to establish here.

Roman party politics (namely the conflict between the populares and optimates) of Antiquity are vastly different than those of modern-day nations. Thus, I find posts such of these a bit distorting (no offense).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apgad

With hindsight it's easy to choose which side, but I think that at the time you would have chosen based on you financial situation.

---

Fair enough observation.

Quote:

---

Much like elections today, rich people would tend to favour the status quo (republicans), as that's the system that has made or kept them rich. The poor would side with whomever offered them the easiest life (bread and circuses), with the fewest wars and other of life's hardships. The middle classes who felt that they could do better with more opportunity would be most likely to favour change, and that's where Caesar got a lot of his support. Of course, having an army that owes it livelihood and pension hopes to you helps, but most good generals since Marius had one of these.

---

This is where our disagreement is. I am inferring that you are relating the Roman optimates with the American Republicans and the Roman populares with the American Democrats. This just is not so.

Before I continue I must disclaim my affiliation with any party. Had to get that out of the way…now to the crux of the matter.

Perhaps the greatest discrepancy between modern US politics and Ancient Roman politics is religion and morality. Rome had a state religion, something the US does not have. Rome was therefore not divided by religion or the moral code a particular religion entails.

Another difference is constitutionality. It was generally the optimates who were constitutionalists in Rome. The radical populares were more than willing to break the law in order to enact their reforms (and immensely increase their personal power--at the cost of the Republic, traditionalists would assert). In the US, both sides do this. Each party seems to espouse the parts of the constitution they support, ignoring the others. For example, you more often see the left pressing the separation of church and state, whereas those on the right tend to support the second amendment.

There are major variations in foreign policy and alleged imperialism between the factions in ancient Rome and modern America. These days, it is more often the Democrats claiming Republicans are “imperialist” or “conducting an illegal war” (we’ve all heard of the alleged neo-conservative conspiracy). Go back a little over two millennia and you’ll see Cato and co. pressing these claims against Caesar. It was generally the conservative moderates who expanded the least. Traditionalist senators tended to appose expansion, while ambitious young men would please the people with great conquests.

Regarding economics:
I am no Republican, as I have already said, but it is absurd to claim that all capitalists (as most Republicans are) follow the economic principles of Adam Smith because it “keeps them rich, screw the poor man.” The basic principles of capitalism allow for goods to be produced at far lower prices, benefiting those who can afford hand made products more than any. Such principles transformed the entire world into an industrialized society with far higher standards of living for a far great number of people than ever before. Those who are willing to work can live well, and those who aren’t can read Marx (who was very lazy as a child according to his mother, a problem which only got worse as he grew; he refused to work and as a result three of his children died). We’re economically mobile, but overall we’re in a far better position than we would be without economic freedom.

Alas, I’ve digressed. In my defense it was only in response to Apgad’s post. But back to the matter at hand.

First off, the optimates were self-serving and corrupt, they did not care for the common people. At first that may sound like all politicians, but they supported economic policies out of personal greed rather than the well-being of the economy as a whole.

Let us not forget the variable of slavery. This drastically effects an economy. That said, many seem to want to create a new slave class (illegal immigrants), since they will cram several families in a small house and work for less than minimum wage.

In addition, you make Caesar sound like a communist. This is not so. His reforms offered work to the common people, much like FDR’s “New Deal” did. Many Republicans despise my supporting of him, but thankfully I’m not tied by petty party politics to blindly follow one side. Offering jobs to people so they can earn their own money helps make the economy more productive, offering that money directly to them circulates the same resources rather than creating new resources, leading to a self-destructive economy. With an all-powerful unrestrained government, who knows what the next step is?

History does.

Unfortunately that history is not Antiquity, and so I come to a close.

To restate my initial point, Roman political factions are not equatable with American political factions.

don't try to inject modern political issues into a discussion of the ancient world.

it's an exercise in futility.

I'm not. I'm attempting to remove them. You need only read the last sentence of my previous post to see this.

@ cmacq: i think you shouldn't think that much of the political changes that occured until the dominate under diocletian. though the kings were drive, rome was sacked by gauls, the plebeians clashed with the senate, etc... you have to keep in mind that nothing really died out in republican rome. the comitia curiata, the oldest ppls councel still coexisted with the comitia centuriata and later on also with the comitia tributa. basically rome in the late republic was a 'living museum'. of course their importance and such shifted over the ages and some were merely symbolical but they were there, i think thats interesting to keep in mind. the principate retained many of the republican features and the senate kept playing an important role (or at least those members close to the emperor).



from my point of view the 3rd century is crucial. why? cuz its in those years the classic roman world got destroyed, especially in the west. after septimus severus and his followers pretty much screwed up the political tradition the empire lands in period of turmoil (the soldier-emperors or how you translate that). as Sakkura said each leader who could beat a few barbarian hordes would march to rome and be crowned emperor.

when finally order is restored and a few capable emperors seize power, and finally one of them, diocletian reforms the principate to the dominate. which is a major socio-political change! mind that, there is a profoundly different tone in the language used by both. to me its most important feature was the foundation of a more or less professional bureaucracy (not that it necessarily was an oiled machine as you'll notice in contemporary sources). its the time of codification (the great lawyers like paulinus ertc, the codices are written in those days).

but the wars of the 3rd century had ravaged roman society. the west was destroyed. the mediteranean was no longer the centre of commerce, meaning the decline of italy. the rhine-danube became the most important economical axis of the empire. another and in my eyes one of the most significant features of the decline of the roman empire (in the west) was the destruction of the very foundation of the roman empire: the destruction of the cities.

basically the roman empire was a federation of city-states. the civitas were of utmost importance in ancient times (economical, religious, political, social, etc). one of the reasons the romans never conquered germany (permanently) was since their was nothing to gain, no cities to use as bridgeheads. when the 3rd era is over, trade had rapidly declined because of the rapidly rising crime. the very interior of the empire was no longer safe. monuments were torn down to strenghten city-defenses (real shame for those beautiful buildings). and most important... the cities ran empty. its what we call a process of 'ruralisation', a return to the land. ppl abandoned cities and returned to a rural lifestyle. cities lost their meaning and thus did also the very foundation of the classic roman empire.

in the east this process only took place 3-4 centuries later. if you look at it, its quite ironic. the first ruralisation takes place in the west, in the end destroying the western empire. when the same happened in the east at the eve of the arab expansion both the sassanid and byzantine empire collapsed. well the latter not as much as the persians :beam: but they lost everyting south of antioch and that sucks ass.



concerning the continuation of the roman empire in byzantium i guess thats obvious. though it also means another breakline with the past, namely that christianity was the state-religion. the notion of an emperor serving god is a profoundly new one compared to the previous political regimes were he was the god himself.
the fact that it in reality was a greek empire and not latin also is a big difference. they more had the legacy of alexander than august i suppose.


every empire knows phases of evolution. as i see it, concluding from what i've learned, the real change lies in the 3rd century and the fouding of the principate.


in my opinion there is also no real connection between the papacy and the HRE in terms of continuation. the pope claimed authority that had nothing to do with the old roman empire and the german emperor was nothing but a phoney hailing from lands that had never known roman rule.

I've two somewhat telling, yet obtuse questions.

Concerning the trend of this thread, as I'm just far too lazy to look for myself and think I already know the answer.

Are there any Roman authored texts that were written before the 'Gallic Sack,' that survived to be cited either in the Late Republic Period or as complete editions or fragments into the modern Era?

I believe the answer will be no?

Of course, the second question is; why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Valerius

@ cmacq: the principate retained many of the republican features and the senate kept playing an important role (or at least those members close to the emperor).

---

Actually, the principate had taken over all the authority of the senate and become just a fancy word for king. In fact the principate selected all those that became members of the senate.

PLUS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

Caesar sound like a communist. This is not so. His reforms offered work to the common people, much like FDR’s “New Deal” did.

---

Maybe not Communists, possibly not Socialists, but indeed both Opportunistic Populists?

This might be dumb but why during that late period was there never a forced conscription of any of the Italian city dwellers into the legions ?

I know it's hindsight but it seems like it could have solved the German problem . Besides other more unsavory methods .

If i were suddenly catapulted back being as i am now, which is poor and jobless, i wouldn't side with anybody. I would most likely sit back and relish the fact that rich people on both sides were killing each other.

However, if i had to pick a side it would have to be the senate. They may have been little more than scheming, greedy old men with only their best interests at heart (as was Caesar and his team) but at least no single one of them had absolute power to completely destroy the nation like so many emperors after Octavian did. If one of them got completely out of hand there would be hundreds more to put him in his place.

Absolutism is fine and dandy if you have a good emperor, such as Aurelius, but then you get silly bastards like Nero and Commodus having absolute unquestioned power and look what happens... They undo the work of 10 good emperors in a few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

This might be dumb but why during that late period was there never a forced conscription of any of the Italian city dwellers into the legions ?

I know it's hindsight but it seems like it could have solved the German problem . Besides other more unsavory methods .

---

Extremely good question.

However, the answer is so utterly moronic, you'll never believe it. But must get some sleep now, latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Actually, the principate had taken over all the authority of the senate and become just a fancy word for king. In fact the principate selected all those that became members of the senate.

---

this is true but that doesn't change the fact they were chosen due to their wealth and status, they weren't just puppets (or some of them). no emperor rules alone, he relies on advisors, many of which are senators. and its not because he choose them they couldn't betray him if he was a total ass.

money equals power. and money the senators had. wether the emperors chose them doesn't change that fact. ppl have their own goals. senators had their own goals, interests. if the emperor would do as he pleas without keeping this in mind he'd end up dead sooner or later. in fact many did.

besides, you also have to keep in mind that even though the nominal role might have declined the shadows of the past never stop haunting. the senate still clinged to the grandeur of the past.

The biggest problem with Rome was that thier was no set succession custom, even after the Senate became a dead letter with Diocletion (Some would say the Senate was a dead letter by the time of Augustus though.) Without a true law of succession, you were bound to get idiots like Commodus and Valerian the human foot stool. It was even worse for Byzantium, especially after the death of Basil the Bulgar Slayer.

Yeah. But that problem has beset a huge number of civilizations. Rome certainly weathered the consequences of it better than eg. Makedon around 320 BC. Or the Incas around 1530 AD for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

This might be dumb but why during that late period was there never a forced conscription of any of the Italian city dwellers into the legions ?

I know it's hindsight but it seems like it could have solved the German problem . Besides other more unsavory methods .

---

Right,

as I said yours was an extremely good question. In fact forced conscription was applied by the various so-called Roman dynasties’ and governments that followed the Republic. In times of perceived emergence these conscriptions were instituted throughout the extent of the Empire. Here is an example;

http://books.google.com/books?id=920...t8Pc#PPA134,M1

Of course the most renowned case was the mass conscription imposed by Augustus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xue...aQwlt3EE4Yv4vQ

By the Late Empire Period, conscription was an everyday fact of live. Yet, throughout the Euro-Mediterranean world, economic, agricultural productivity, and population levels had dropped significantly. This was particularly marked in the more northern latitudes, which by the way included much of the West and conversely much less of the East. Thus, for increasingly fewer material and human resources in the west there were competing interests that progressively wrenched the fabric of the state. This is a very complex subject and I’ll try to abbreviate it as much as I can.

One element of the problem was that the entire demographic profile and social structure of the populations that composed the empire had been dramatically altered. Again, this was particularly marked within the West, and again this was largely because of the acute labor shortage. Overall in the West, the unskilled lower-class had mushroomed and the manufacturing/merchant middle-class had shrunk radically. It appears that Late Roman society had become more rigid and hierarchical with harsh laws that prohibited mobility and fixed everyone as to occupation and specific loci.

Another major problem, and this is the crux of the answer to your question, was the rise of not senatorial authority, rather the Senatorial Aristocracy and decline of the Principate's muscle and ability to direct the resources of the West. These traditional aristocratic families had become essentially independent of the Principate. They didn’t owe their power or prestige to the state and in fact, considered themselves superior by birth, as many late western emperors came from the lower social class associated with the military. Typically, these aristocrats had gained their status through the latifundia system and lived on their large estates paying little attention to contemporary problems, other than those that affected them directly.

This of course brings us back to the massive labor shortages in the west by the late 4th and 5th centuries AD. In the rural settings we have the Latifundia System with agricultural land concentrated in the hands of a few large landowners of the Senatorial Aristocracy, yet actually farmed by coloni, or semi-free persons whom later would be known as serfs. This system was again somewhat of a sick radical change from the slave-based system that had lead to the massive land consolations in the late Republican and early Empire periods.

These coloni of the 5th century were in fact poor subsistence farmers who managed their own small plots of land, as sharecroppers, which also contributed to the drop in agricultural productivity. In effect the Senatorial Aristocracy, by way of the latifundia would frequently defy the authority of the state, hired their own private armies, and tax collectors could rarely collect from or the military conscript among the farmers on the latifundia. Thus, large segments of the so-called Roman West passed outside the effective control of the state.

Turning to the urban setting we have the dismal Collegia System (sound familiar as it is only fitting that the modern institution suffers from more than just the same title). Because of the demans of the Roman state and urban based Senatorial Aristocracy the Collegia system did for innovation and what remained of the manufacturing/merchant middle-class, that the latifundia system did for the lower-class and agriculture.

So, to answer your question, when the army or tax man came’a callen in the West, he got not butt'a up turned middle finger, from the Senatorial Aristocracy. There is much more to this like the institutional mutilation of their coloni to disqualify them for military service, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Not to be too harsh, but for a more modern example of the above, please read any book on Mexican history (recent or otherwise).

A very interesting and informative post, Cmacq! :2thumbsup:

If I understand you correctly, internal power struggles, bad as they where, where supplemented by the construction of parallel, and in some ways rival, power centres, probably partly in response to the destabilization of central power, which then further weakened central power, constituting a rather vicious spiral that led to the eventual breakdown of the empire, or at least the western version.

Two questions:
1) Did the same happen, on a slower scale or merely later, in the eastern roman empire?
2) Could you (or somebody else) elaborate on the demographic factors?
It is especially the line "Overall in the West, the unskilled lower-class had mushroomed and the manufacturing/merchant middle-class had shrunk radically" that makes me wonder. As I understand the situation, at this point the middle class wasn't instrumental to the military the way it had been earlier, what with the marian reforms and all that. At the same time, I suppose they weren't as vulnerable to being slaughtered in the aftermath of power struggles as the higher classes, where the political players resided. So what did them in? Was the middle class simply eroded by corruption, overtaxing and competition by big buisness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris A. T.

So what did them in? Was the middle class simply eroded by corruption, overtaxing and competition by big buisness?

---

The answer to your first question is yes and no. Yes, there was a corresponding drop in economic activity, agricultural productivity, and population levels, but not to the extend as in the West. Actually these processes are the most marked in what is modern Britain, France, and the other more northern latitudes than anywhere else in the West or East. We also have another no, in that the East reacted to these processes differently and thus the societal changes were far different.

This is where it gets very unclear. The so-called Roman Empire represents the best documented example of a long term Systems Collapse ever. However, all we know for sure is what did happened, not what the causality of the systems collapse was. I believe most historians view this as a managerial problem; as pre your question's listing of 'corruption, overtaxing, and competition by big business.' I simply do not think this was the case, rather these were managerial responses to more systemic factors.

To me it appears that everything stems from the drop in the economy, agricultural productivity, and population levels, and not the reverse. Although we don't actually see clear indicators of these three processes until the end of the 2nd century AD. they become very pronounced by the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Regardless, there also is evidence not of a decline, but a gradual yet significant slow-down or decreased economic, agricultural productivity, and population growth as early as the reign of Augustus. Given that the Julio-Claudian Empire should have provided greater economy stability and promoted both agricultural productivity and population growth, this makes little sense.

I have my own very simple answer concerning the cause, but the collection of direct evidence that would prove this, remains unfinished. As to your middle class query; right, this was one reason why the military used the barbarian levy. These were made available through foedus agreements directly with the state, thus bypassing the problems associated with the Latifundia System. Here by the state I'm actually referring to the Magister utriusquae militiae and not the Principate, which was yet another diversion of imperial authority. Sorry, this answer is very incomplete as there is much to say about the Collegia System. But I must get some sleep, I can't think clearly right now.

But, here is a hint; check out the history of China and see if similar managerial responses and societal changes as those witnessed in the West, occurred at the same time. Depending how far north within China one goes, the answer can be a resounding yes.

@ Cmacq: Thanks a lot! :2thumbsup:

Sleep or no sleep, that was a very informative response. Especially the part on the foederati as a solution (of sorts) to the problems of the power of the landed "aristocratic" senators, I had not considered them in that light.

Right, the urban based Collegia System, started as groups or clubs often associated with some such religious affiliation. However, by the Empire Period they had become roughly analogous to the guilds of the Euro-Medieval world. They included groups of business men and those employed within a given trade and/or industry. Technically, this system should have resulted in greater standardization, increased industrial productivity, and massive innovation. But, in fact the complete opposite occurred.

Again, the underlaying problem was the overall drop in population levels, particulary in the northern segments of the West, and the resulting labor shortages. The various arms of the government exacerbated this. First, the state (the Principate/ Dominate, Magister Utriusquae Militiae, Praetorian Prefect, Promagistrates Provincia, or other imperial officials and affiliates) came to use the Collegia System to assure that promised services and/or goods were produced and delivered. In good times, this may have occurred at or above cost, but in bad times it increasingly happened below cost. Of course, this practice adversely effected the profit motive while promoting the decline of the benefits the Collegia System may have provided. The local urban based Senatorial Aristocracy and Curia governments made similar damans, as well.

Of course the Curia governments/class/upper-middle class, or curiales referred to the wealthy merchants, businessmen, and medium-sized landowners who served their city as local magistrates and Decurions (municipia senators). They were responsible for public building projects, temples, festivities, games, and local welfare. They often paid for these themselves as a way to increase their personal prestige. Early in the imperial period the Decurions postings were actively sought as they would get a front row seat at the local theatre and be accepted into the Honestiores societies. However, by the middle 3rd century AD, with declining state revenue and increased costs the Decurions became little more than imperial tax collectors. In this period any shortfall in the local tax collection was of course taken out of their own pockets.

Now, related to this is another area were things get extremely weird as events and practice impacted the Collegia System. Right, despite the overall economic decline in the West, the budget of the state actually more than doubled; say from the middle 2nd to the early 4th century. Because, the opportunities for the state to acquire wealth, in the traditional method, as was done in the Late Republican Period (which actually was the reason the Empire came into being) were either limited or no longer available, this makes no sense whats so ever? How could this have happened? Also much of the expansion in the budget concerned the acquiring of goods produced by the Collegia System, to be consumed directly by the state.

Well, the imperial government increasingly made up the short fall of monetary intake by the practice of Bona Damatorum. The target of this was typically prominent citizens, or the Decurions mentioned above that had illegally fled their posting in an attempt to seek relief from the often ruinous burden of the office. Here is the kicker, its these Decurions that provided the capital that supported and/or fostered the manufacturing/merchant middle-class. The aristocracy and Curia likewise followed ensuite in the persecutions of the Decurion membership. The result was a massive decline in available capital and the size of the middle-class. Can anyone say exodus to the East? Next we have laws that fixed occupations and locations.

Again, this is a very complex subject and my offering only an outline. I think this may answer russia almighty's question about 'forced conscription of any of the Italian city dwellers into the legions.'

Fascinating series of posts, cmacq. I appreciate the insight.

If you have anything to add, please do.