Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member Member Gaius Valerius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    west-vlaanderen lol
    Posts
    53

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    @ 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.
    "If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.” J. Caesar

    BAN-KAI!!!! Ichigo Kurosaki

  2. #2
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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?
    Last edited by cmacq; 01-05-2008 at 03:37.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  3. #3
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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?
    Last edited by cmacq; 01-05-2008 at 09:27.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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 .


    Join the Army: A Pontic AAR
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96984
    ...uh coptic mother****er:A Makuria Comedy AAR
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...93#post1814493

  5. #5
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  6. #6
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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).
    Last edited by cmacq; 01-07-2008 at 09:25.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    A very interesting and informative post, Cmacq!

    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?

  8. #8
    Bruadair a'Bruaisan Member cmacq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Where on this beige, brown, and olive-drab everything will stick, sting, bite, and/or eat you; most rickety-tick.
    Posts
    6,160

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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.
    Last edited by cmacq; 01-08-2008 at 05:09.
    quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae

    Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    @ Cmacq: Thanks a lot!

    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.

  10. #10
    Member Member Gaius Valerius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    west-vlaanderen lol
    Posts
    53

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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.
    Last edited by Gaius Valerius; 01-05-2008 at 12:13.
    "If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.” J. Caesar

    BAN-KAI!!!! Ichigo Kurosaki

  11. #11
    Savaran Commander Member Hound of Ulster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Somewhere between Persepolis and Tara
    Posts
    326

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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.
    'Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War' Plato

    'Ar nDuctas' O'Dougherty clan motto

    'In Peace, sons bury thier fathers; In War, fathers bury thier sons' Thucydides

    'Forth Eorlingas!' motto of the Riders of Rohan

    'dammit, In for a Penny, In for a Pound!' the Duke of Wellington

  12. #12

    Default Re: Republicanism vs. Absolutism

    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.
    Last edited by Sakkura; 01-06-2008 at 04:36.
    Veni
    Vidi
    Velcro

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO