How corrupt were the EB factions?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2009, 21:35

About the same everywhere I suspect. Though, in States like Rome there was technically more corruption than in kingdoms like Macedonia, because the Kings were above the law.

Generally, corruption has to do with the state of a particular Nation at a particular time, and means different things to different people.

**LordCurlyton** · 03-10-2009, 21:39

Too true. What one views as corrupt abuses another might see as a perfectly legitimate use of power. I would imagine it is one of the many reasons different people fought each other thru history.

**Phalanx300** · 03-10-2009, 22:08

I believe that the Spartans were one of the least corrupt peoples, because of there way of life.

Which reminds me of Persians becoming worried that the Greeks in the Olympic competed not for cold, but for a plant on there head(forgot name srry

). Remember reading that once.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 03-10-2009, 22:24

I say, a lot more. Corruption was always a huge part of large societies, and only due to numerous laws is it less noticeable in certain countries of today. I am sure AS and the Roman Empire were corrupt beyond imagination. Hell, almost everything in the Late Republican politics of Rome rested on corruption and political assassinations. That was the high point according to what I read in history books.

**A Terribly Harmful Name** · 03-10-2009, 22:32

"Corruption" has a relative meaning. As Philipvs told, what was considered inadmissable in a Republic such as Rome was perfectly tolerable in the elites of powerful monarchical states. Later powerful Roman magnates were simply doing what powerful figures, pretenders and rulers always did in Hellenistic monarchies, the most glaring part being the sponsorship of private and civil strife vying for power. What gives them a corrupt image is the fact that the Republic rested on a solid basis of laws and aristocratic codes that officially condemned this, and not merely on the power and influence of the sovereign.

**desert** · 03-10-2009, 23:53

Spartans were notorious in the 4th century BC for becoming extremely corrupt outside of Sparta. They used metal rods (or whatever) as currency in Sparta, so after leaving to govern subject states or serve as advisors they basically were like "lololol goldz is so cooooool omg".

**Phalanx300** · 03-11-2009, 19:03

Originally Posted by desert

Spartans were notorious in the 4th century BC for becoming extremely corrupt outside of Sparta. They used metal rods (or whatever) as currency in Sparta, so after leaving to govern subject states or serve as advisors they basically were like "lololol goldz is so cooooool omg".

Yes some of them got very corrupt, yet generally speaking Spartans were one of the less corrupt people, because of there laws.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 03-11-2009, 00:47

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

"Corruption" has a relative meaning.

Well, everything in this world, to an intelligent and wise person is relative. That's how it is. However, must we always answer questions like this?...

**A Terribly Harmful Name** · 03-11-2009, 04:10

Whenever necessary, of course.

And to add to the OP I always find big Imperial institutions to be the most prone to corruption and disorder. The Great Hellenistic Empires were quite familiar to it: big blobs with excessively centralized administrations and more often than not ruled by sun kings in a formless regime where they exercised de facto despotic authority despite the formal trappings and constitutions. They were often plagued by Civil strife and pretenders and were the main ancestors of the Supreme Roman blob. Many times, as was said, normal offenses conducted by the sovereign and even the bureaucracy would be overlooked in a way that minor Monarchies with a reasonable tradition behind them or Republics never would.

**machinor** · 03-11-2009, 04:50

Just look at the typical Hellenistic tax colleting system. From today's point of view a sheer abyss of corruption.

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Well, everything in this world, to an intelligent and wise person is relative.

Well, "everything is relative" is an absolute statement, so if everything were relative then so would be the "fact" that everything is relative. Kind of a self-contradicting statement.