Republicanism vs. Absolutism

[J.Alco]

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'.

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?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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.

[blank]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[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.

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.

[Cozur]

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

[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.

[Centurion Crastinus]

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

Don't forget Germanicus, he was poisoned.

[Cyclops]

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.

[J.Alco]

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 However, I think it's more historically accurate than many other dramtizations of the Roman empire made to date (Gladiator comes to mind).

[Dragunija]

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).

[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?

[cmacq]

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?

[Beefy187]

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

[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 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'

[Sakkura]

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).

[Gaius Valerius]

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.

[russia almighty]

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

[cmacq]

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.

[Cyclops]

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.

[Dhampir]

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.

[Sakkura]

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.

[cmacq]

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.'

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

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 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:


Senate:

[cmacq]

bounce back

Indeed.

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

Or was the bounce back something different?

[CountArach]

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

[Reno Melitensis]

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 , nor Anthony, he was a warmonger.

Cheers

[Sakkura]

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.

[cmacq]

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?'

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

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.