Leaderboard

If you can put the blame on anyone one individual, it wouldn't be Pompey, Caesar, or Mark Anthony, or even Augustus.... I'd have to say it was Cicero. No other man is more responsible for smashing the republican into bits. He began, and hardly without cultural consequences as the leading intellectual of his age, the process of introducing and exploring how to deify a great messianic leader into a Godking. He started humbly and innocently enough with his daughter. Then he brought Scipio Africanus into his myths.... making him just such a Godman. Pompey went first, testing the waters. The Caesar. Mark Anthony became a God Pharoah.... well established tradition. Augustus showed considerable hesitancy, playing to the conservatives in Rome. He hardly banished the short lived tradition, but refused most flattery outright to himself and his grand children, but allowed a easy path to deification once he passed away, were the threat of a assassination mattered considerably less. You can't have a republic of virtues, independence, shared social commitments, and restraint as best idealized in the tension of the republic with living gods holding political office and intentionally tossing every caution and legal safeguard to the wind when they feel like social climbing. Sulla and Marius Gaius did alot to destabilize the republic, but we see in modern times class struggle doesn't necessarily lead to a collapse of a republic, they can carry on as banana republics just fine with change of command between feuding personalities. The handful of those who most supported the republic, such as Asinius Polloi, knew very well the game was up, and were very Machiavellian about which faction they backed, out of self interest.... prior and during the actual collapse. They managed to insert themselves, still quite human, as familiar deputies much loved and cherished, retained for their intelligence and administrative skills. You skip ahead a few generations, a administrator like Pliny the Younger greatly resembles Pollio. That's how subtle the change was between republic and empire. In the Romans case, it came down to theocracy as the defining characteristic of their bond to the state. The "how" must inform a "why", and our "why" needs to be able in be inverted sociological to similar societies who came near, flirted and turned away, or took a similar yet different plunge. Most obvious modern example, Cezar Chavez turning into a little angelic bird.... How did the Roman Republic fall into such a narrow minded mess, and why was Cicero so destructive? Well.... I would have to say, the Roman underclass was superstitious, and already prone to this under the Tarquin.... one king even tried to deify himself. The Greeks to the South, and Alexander looming large in everyone's mind certainly nudged them.... but the Romans seemed collectively jealous enough to remain paranoid and hostile. Carthage likewise never took that plunge, despite Hannibal. Scipio built a awesome propaganda machine to bring the Romans nearly to Total War, idealized like a son of Jupitor, like Hercules. Marius and Sulla merely took notice in their war and instituted the best methods of the cult of the leader. General MacAuthur did no worst. It wasn't the land reforms, or the pride or greed, or the pogroms. Many republics, like Russia, do just that. US fought a war over Slaves.... property, concept of wages vs slavery..... we sit into two well functioning republics, not into a Imperium. So I can't help but point to Cicero. For the entirety of the republic, it behaved like a monarchy without a king. They maintained their class divisions, and merely self appointed their ministers.... their religion remained monarchical, their priesthood remained as such.... I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. It shows both Rome and Carthage began to succumb to the cult of the divine ruler the Greeks and Egyptians had roughly the same time. Both Hannibal and Scipio seemed similarly disposed and equally aloof to such a interesting alien concept. The Romans were the victors, and they ultimately took that plunge. Both Rome and Carthage were making inroads to Greek philosophy at this time as well. Such seems to be the motivations of history. A good question to ask is, why would Cataline conspiracy fail, yet be endlessly emulated? Why would Severus Alexander become a Christian, and be killed for looking weak? Why were the most troubled years of Rome thereafter be linked to Pagan insurgencies and revolts, and upsurpations of power, and just why was Marcus Aureus, with his Syrian Sun Cult, and Constantine, with Christianity..... cause so much relative calm and renewal? Why was Julian tolerated yet forsaken? Why did kingship in feudal Europe dance around such topics, and what made it so attractive to Pagan rulers to convert? Runs back to Cicero.... and his unique ability to collapse the republic. It seems alien to secular republics, as our modern mindset is oriented there now.... but that evolved out of it, and is still deeply tainted by it..... it's still a very powerful force in modern times. A look into how Romans viewed the afterlife, such as Manes, family progress via Genius to ever higher heavenly status will be a real eye opener.