Republicanism vs. Absolutism

[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.

[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.'

[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.

[Sakkura]

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.

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.

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

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.

[Cyclops]

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.

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.

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

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.

[Hound of Ulster]

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.

[Gaius Valerius]

@ 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 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.

[cmacq]

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?

[cmacq]

@ 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

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?