The Roman Republic and Fascism

[marcus silanus]

The image of Rome as a facist state is in no way correct for the time of Cannae. It was a republic, with democratic institutions that encompassed far more of it's population than hated Carthage.

 

Caldrail from the Cannae and the Roman Republic thread.

 

The term Fascism has always proved far more difficult to define than other political creeds. The modern left has been prone to use the word to describe any forthright opinion that does not match with its own. It is also mistaken to be the same thing as National Socialism which is wrong. National Socialism was Fascist but Fascism is not necessarily racist and Nazi in its vision.

 

The word obviously belongs to Benito Mussolini and his movement based on the 'fasces'; the symbol of Roman state authority. He was a former socialist who grew to despise what he saw as the internationalist betrayal of Italian casualties during the Great War. If we can discern from the doctrine of Mussolini what Fascism is, because he invented it, we might be able to see which characteristics of the Roman Republic were Fascist, or not as the case may be.

 

Mussolini's Fascism, very loosely in my view, was based on the individual's character, efforts, talents and skills, only being of true importance in the context of what they did for the state. He rejected the socialist notion of class conflict and thought of the Italian people plainly as those that contributed and those who were parasites. This was not based on race like the Nazis but purely on those principles.

 

There are states in modernity that have been both Fascist and republics. Rome expected dedication to the state, the individual's actions were, in my opinion, subordinate to the wishes of the state embodied in the magistrates holding the imperium.

 

I am in no way saying that if the Roman Republic was Fascist, then it must by default, be lambasted. I am trying to draw attention to what a true definition is, bearing in mind it is twentieth century and possibly even, a completely inappropriate description.

[sylla]

The term Fascism has always proved far more difficult to define than other political creeds. The modern left has been prone to use the word to describe any forthright opinion that does not match with its own.

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Ingsoc]

It's ridicules and like asking if the Teutonic Knights were Nazis...

[sylla]

It's ridicules and like asking if the Teutonic Knights were Nazis...

Or like calling the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" Roman at all.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Rome expected dedication to the state, the individual's actions were, in my opinion, subordinate to the wishes of the state embodied in the magistrates holding the imperium.

 

During the republic, that simply wasn't true. Individuals freely, openly, and often belligerently opposed magistrates holding imperium. As a result, we have some of the most beautifully anti-authoritarian invective the West has ever heard (Catullus should immediately spring to mind, as well as the tradition of soldiers singing obscenities at their triumphing generals)--to say nothing of the graffiti. In addition to these popular displays of individual freedom against the magistrates, the legal code itself contained a great number of safeguards to protect the individual against abuses by magistrates (e.g., the leges Porciae), who were regularly sued in the courts by political opponents for any range of offenses. If any senator in Mussolini's Rome had greeted him on the senate floor as "her Royal Highness" (as Favonius greeted Caesar), he would have found himself swinging from a lamppost. That's the difference between the Roman republic the Roman fascists.

[sylla]

...to say nothing of the graffiti...

MPC most eloquent statement seems to still have been true to some extent even up to the Flavian period, at least at a municipal level; this nice political graffiti is from Pompeii.

[Ursus]

I rather agree with Sylla it's ridiculous to compare industrial era theories of political economy to pre-industrial societies. Pre-industrial cultures don't even have the kind of bureaucratic and economic power to impose themselves on the individual in a manner we ascribe to totalitarianism.

 

I suppose where the mistake might come in (assuming it is an honest mistake and not outright libel from our left wing friends) is the culture of Rome. It was, by modern standards anyway, a society that glorified power, militarism, and socio-economic distinctions. Perhaps people equate that with what they regard as fascism - although a basic comparison between ancient and modern cultures would reveal the obvious differences if they bothered to make the effort.

[marcus silanus]

With hindsight, I have to admit to my original post and question being somewhat ill conceived and certainly badly constructed. It was not my intention to determine if the Roman Republic was Fascist in as much as it systems, beliefs, economic life or military objectives matched those of twentieth century regimes. That would, as has been pointed out, be absurd.

 

I was rather looking for similarities between the Republic and some of the core beliefs of Fascism and this is in no way intended as a denegration of a culture that plainly I greatly admire, hence my activity in this forum. A great deal has been made elsewhere in this forum of semantics and connotation. The word Fascist has been used as the default positon insult by those of the political left to equate those that are forthright in opinion, acknowledge the nation state or accept that there is a duty on the part of a citizen to his or her fellows with morally bankrupt racists.

 

My interest is more in which aspects of the Roman Republic were distilled by the Fascists such as the dedication to the state as the focal point, duty as a citizen etc. However, my fault entirely for having worded the original post incorrectly.

[cornelius_sulla]

Rome expected dedication to the state, the individual's actions were, in my opinion, subordinate to the wishes of the state embodied in the magistrates holding the imperium.

 

During the republic, that simply wasn't true. Individuals freely, openly, and often belligerently opposed magistrates holding imperium. As a result, we have some of the most beautifully anti-authoritarian invective the West has ever heard (Catullus should immediately spring to mind)

 

Yep, I doubt that the Nazis would've let a Catullus live! The fact that he could write what he wrote about who he wrote at the time he wrote it is not indicative of your full on fascist state. If you doubt, read his poetry!

Edited September 6, 2009 by cornelius_sulla

[sylla]

Rome expected dedication to the state, the individual's actions were, in my opinion, subordinate to the wishes of the state embodied in the magistrates holding the imperium.

 

During the republic, that simply wasn't true. Individuals freely, openly, and often belligerently opposed magistrates holding imperium. As a result, we have some of the most beautifully anti-authoritarian invective the West has ever heard (Catullus should immediately spring to mind)

 

Yep, I doubt that the Nazis would've let a Catullus live! The fact that he could write what he wrote about who he wrote at the time he wrote it is not indicative of your full on fascist state. If you doubt, read his poetry!

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[barca]

The term Fascism has always proved far more difficult to define than other political creeds. The modern left has been prone to use the word to describe any forthright opinion that does not match with its own.

 

Not just the Left. In the US, the Right is accusing the left of being Fascists. Watch Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly on the FOX News Chanel. These "discussions" go on because nobody in their audience seems to grasp the difference between socialism, communism, and fascism.

 

I agree that is important to define what we are talking about. You may find it interesting that the Fasces icon has also been used by many groups that are not considered fascist at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces

 

Generalisimo Franco used the term phalangist to describe his party. A similar concept, based on the unity of the phalanx. There were allusions to that in the movie "300", where Leonidas explained that he could not use a deformed soldier, as he would disrupt the cohesion of the phalanx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zTIOwbJY90

Edited November 20, 2009 by barca

[Primus Pilus]

The term Fascism has always proved far more difficult to define than other political creeds. The modern left has been prone to use the word to describe any forthright opinion that does not match with its own.

 

Not just the Left. In the US, the Right is accusing the left of being Fascists. Watch Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly on the FOX News Chanel. These "discussions" go on because nobody in their audience seems to grasp the difference between socialism, communism, and fascism.

 

People spend far too much time on labels anyway. Does it really matter what the label is if whomever it is intends to take your freedom, right, left, top, bottom, what have you? Please just refrain from making current political statements in the Roman history section.

[barca]

Please just refrain from making current political statements in the Roman history section.

 

Sorry about that. I personally don't like labels either.

 

The subject is controversial, and I generally try to stay away from taking sides on political issues.

[consulscipio236]

The Roman Republic was a stratocracy, and not a military dictatorship (like Italy and Germany during WW2). A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs. It is not the same as a military dictatorship where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. In a stratocracy the state and the military are traditionally the same thing and government positions are always occupied by military leaders. The military's political power is supported by law and the society. As such a stratocracy does not have to be autocratic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule.

[Primus Pilus]

The Roman Republic was a stratocracy, and not a military dictatorship (like Italy and Germany during WW2). A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs. It is not the same as a military dictatorship where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. In a stratocracy the state and the military are traditionally the same thing and government positions are always occupied by military leaders. The military's political power is supported by law and the society. As such a stratocracy does not have to be autocratic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule.

 

There are elements within the later Roman Republic which might be considered a stratocracy, but it's certainly not true on any sort of permanent basis prior to the rise of the imperatorial generals. (ie Marius, Sulla, etc.) Even in the later period, there were Consuls who would not be considered "military chiefs", even if their role was officially to act as such when necessary. Cicero comes to mind immediately-and there is a relatively long list of Consuls of whom written history gives us little evidence that these men ruled out of any sort of militaristic necessity. Perhaps this is a semantic argument, but for me, having the authority to wield military power as the Consular heads of state did is not the same as using that military power to wield authority.