Empire Or Republic?

[Augur]

oligarchies, by their very nature, invite all the inherent problems associated with greed.... Rule by the rich!

 

Well, let's not be too eager too trash oligarchies -- Roman or otherwise -- as an entire species. Despite the bad press oligarchies (and the aristocrates who populate them) have received during recent centuries, we do well to remember how much we owe to these pampered few -- which in my view includes almost everything. Well, maybe not "everything," but everything that concerns the last three millenia of advances in the arts, literature, philosophy, medicine, physics, engineering and virtually all of the other sciences. We may not like the traditional "leisure wealthy classes" very much, but it was their leisure (and a little curiosity) that made most advances possible, or their wealth that funded/sponsored genius from more humble origins. Yes, there are exceptions, particulary in today's developed world of mass education and competitive meritocracy. But never sell the aristocratic classes short. As human beings we owe much of the best of what we are to them!

 

As for Rome and its artistocratic classes: ditto.

 

I submit to you that Rome never fell. Rome went on to become a cultural institution, what we call "Western Civilization." ... We ARE Rome!

 

I love this theory. But if you look at the squalor, ignorance and beastiality that dominated the many centuries that followed Rome's fall (in the West), one cannot help but wonder how modern Western Civilization was able to recapture or salvalge any of what was Roman. Thank goodness for long memories and strange Romanophiles like ourselves.

[pompeius magnus]

If I remember correctly, the Goths are one of the only reasons romes culture survived, through Spain.

[Virgil61]

Well, let's not be too eager too trash oligarchies -- Roman or otherwise -- as an entire species.  Despite the bad press oligarchies (and the aristocrates who populate them) have received during recent centuries, we do well to remember how much we owe to these pampered few -- which in my view includes almost everything.  Well, maybe not "everything," but everything that concerns the last three millinia of advances in the arts, literature, philosophy, medicine, physics, engineering and virtually all of the other sciences.  We may not like the traditional "leisure wealthy classes" very much, but it was their leisure (and a little curiosity) that made most advances possible, or their wealth that funded/sponsored genius from more humble origins.  Yes, there are exceptions, particulary in today's developed world of universal education and meritocracy.  But never sell the aristocratic classes short.  As human beings we owe much of the best of what we are to them.

 

I love this theory.  But if you look at the squalor, ignorance and beastiality that dominated the many centuries that followed Rome's fall (in the West), one cannot help but wonder how modern Western Civilization was able to recapture or salvalge any of what was Roman.  Thank goodness for long memories and strange Romanophiles like us.

 

 

I can't disagree more. To quote Monty Python; "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government", or in Rome's case [with many exceptions] being born into privilege. Think for a moment of the inefficiency of a system where birth, not merit, is the basis for one getting the spare time to wax poetic about astronomy, physics, math or what have you. At the same time the vast majority of the populace lived a fairly hand to mouth existence especially slaves [or serfs or early industrial workers depending on your period] whose lot is even worse. Oligarchies drive down the efficiency of merit or strangle it completely. Not that I don't admire or recognize the brilliance of a Newton, who was "To the manor born" to coin a phrase from Shakespeare's Hamlet.

 

I do understand your point about the contributions of the upper classes, but at the risk of applying contemporary values I can't help but think of the lost efficiencies; how many Newtons did we not get because of that system? Think about our perceptions of Rome. They've been basically framed by the ancient writers like Plutarch, Polybius, et al., part of or writing for the upper classes or by the gentleman scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries with a definite point of view. Poor Romans for whom political and economic power was circumscribed by the Senate are referred contemptously as "the mob". Julius Caesar, ambitous and cynical as he could be, one could postulate wasn't responsible for the fall of the Republic- although one could argue a dictatorship for life was the first step the post was based on precedent and Republican institutions remained functioning.

 

A good argument could be made that the Senate and it's own economic greed and refusal to come to terms with power sharing with the larger populace receives a lot of blame for it's intrangisence. Such a point of view wasn't developed until late last century using a more analytical approach, but still the view of the "brandy snifter" school of Rome from the 18/19th century still holds sway outside historical circles. Even Tom Holland's "Rubicon" which I recently finished, read like an updated version of some landed gentry's view of Rome and fear of that dirty "mob". The artisan guilds formed as economic protection were viewed as "gangs" by many of the gentlemen's school and this was parroted back as such by Holland. Cato a hero of the Republic? My ass, the stubborn mule was as responsible for the fall of the Republic as anyone with his refusal to grant land to veteran's and to compromise power in support of the oligarchical Senate and a constitution that they had long twisted to uphold their own positions.

 

I've rambled on too long and got off topic, but thanks for making the point and triggering my thought process, such as it is. It may not be 100% spot on, but it represents a different angle to look at Rome and an important one to counter the "view from manor" version that's dominated popular Roman study.

[Augur]

QUOTE=Virgil61: I do understand your point about the contributions of the upper classes...

 

Good, that is the only point I was trying to make. One doesn't have to "like" the aristocratic classes to acknowledge their accomplishments and contributions, in Rome or elsewhere, but it can be a little confusing: something like how one feels abut a person who heroically saves your life but whom you later discover is a tax cheat and a wife-beater (or, more confusing, the cherished life-long priest who is later found to like young boys].

 

QUOTE=Virgil61: ...but at the risk of applying contemporary values I can't help but think of the lost efficiencies; how many Newtons did we not get because of that system?

 

True, all those lost Newtons are a fundamental problem with aristocratic systems. The thing to remember is that in virtually all cases it was the upper classes who built "the systems" in which men like Newton were able to do their magic.

 

QUOTE=Virgil61: Think about our perceptions of Rome. ...basically framed by the ancient writers like Plutarch, Polybius, et al., part of or writing for the upper classes or by the gentleman ["brandy snifter," "view from the manor"] scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries with a definite point of view.

 

Yes, like most other intellectual pursuits, it is the upper classes from whom we are indebted for most of our history, and our often aristocratic images of aristocrats. But keep in mind that it was also aristocrates (of a more liberal vent) who have led the fights that have brought down most aristocracies (for example, in France, USA, etc.).

 

QUOTE=Virgil61: Cato a hero of the Republic? My ass

 

Nicely put. I agree completely. Boo Cato!

 

The good news is that in today's world merit continues to replace birth and blood as the basis for the distribution of power and position. But be careful, there is no free lunch: aristocracies built on merit may turn out to be even more arrogant and problematic than their birth/blood-based predecessors.

[Primus Pilus]

Cato was a classical hero to many of the founding fathers of the United States, and 'his Republic' helped form the basis of the United States constitution. As a 'fan' of Caesar, I certainly don't have any love for Cato, but the man was a staunch idealist with a backbone that is sorely lacking among many modern politicians.

[Virgil61]

Cato was a classical hero to many of the founding fathers of the United States, and 'his Republic' helped form the basis of the United States constitution.  As a 'fan' of Caesar, I certainly don't have any love for Cato, but the man was a staunch idealist with a backbone that is sorely lacking among many modern politicians.

 

A lot of this idealization of Cato stuff started with Joseph Addison's play " Cato" in 1714 and a series of essays by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon called "Cato's Letters" extolling limited government (around the same period as the play). These were popular among many in England and America, but not exactly historically accurate. These two items heavily influenced the founders and led to the modern view of Cato, especially among present day libertarians.

 

The founding fathers may have thought him a hero, but they were sadly misguided or misinformed in my opinion. Fiscally honest sure, but a stubborn ass who helped bring the republic down by his refusal to compromise. A staunch reactionary who refused, out of personal spite, to award land due veteran's, a hypocrite who contrary to law murdered Roman citizens without trial after the Catiline conspiracy and who attacked Caesar's agrarian reforms of giving public land for the poor to farm. Ironic that it was thought the small farmer was the backbone of Roman success and that the disappearance of them was of no small part due to the senatorial class consolidating hold of them. I think once one divorces the hyperbole and false mythology from his actions, the real Cato comes to light. It ain't pretty.

 

I work three blocks from the "Cato Institute", shake my head and smile every time I pass by.

[Augur]

Cato... the man was a staunch idealist with a backbone that is sorely lacking among many modern politicians.

 

Yes, I agree, such idealism is laudable, but in my view the ideas themselves are often less so -- particulary when voiced by a principal leader of the Boni during the Pompey-Caesar showdown. We all admire idealism, which may explain why so many contemporary politicians -- particulary the most cynical -- cloak themselves in it. But I am not questioning Cato's motives here. What I do question is adherance to personal "principals" that doom others to unnecessary tragedy. Yes, America's founders were influenced by Cato but, thank God, not when they were formulating the true genious of our system: balance and compromise. Two terms not in Cato's vocubulary.

 

P.S. Excellent last post Virgil, suspicions confirmed.

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, I cannot argue on Cato's behalf because of my own personal admiration of Caesar, but I still think its important to view the man from an ancient perspective. He was trying to preserve something that had worked (albeit with some rather tenuous situations) for over 400 years. Though his methods were foolhardy certainly did help bring about the ultimate demise of the institution he loved (or did he just love himself?).

[PerfectimusPrime]

I love this theory. But if you look at the squalor, ignorance and beastiality that dominated the many centuries that followed Rome's fall (in the West), one cannot help but wonder how modern Western Civilization was able to recapture or salvalge any of what was Roman. Thank goodness for long memories and strange Romanophiles like ourselves.

Well we can thank Christianity and Islam for us being Romans. We live more like Romans than any other, we follow roman laws, and most importantly we carry many of their ideals like universalism. Of course we have idolized them told to many great things about them, but that, along with Christianity kept Europe hopeful during the dark ages.

 

We were capable of ''crabbing'' many of the lost aspects of the Romans, like military tactics were copied, engineering, laws and other society aspects like senates, Latin, etc, I don't even remember them all. (Even ETC is a roman typing )

 

Many scientific discoveries we got from the Arabs, who had learned them from the Greeks and Romans. Much was lost yes, but without the Romans we would probably be 500-200 years behind in technological advancement, and much more in society standards.

 

Most of the European languages are Romanized, English is 2/3 Latin, French, Spanish, Portuguese, are romance languages. There is considerably less Germanic or Celtic aspects in our lifestyle

[Pyrrhus]

It has been very interesting to hear your discussion about which was the best, and it is good to hear people actually giving their opinions! (Unlike other forums I have been on)

 

I would like to point out that not all politicians wanted to eradicate all traces of the Republic, indeed, was not Marcus Brutus the ancestor of one of its founders? And in his act to assassinate Julius Caesar, was he not trying to preserve the Republic at all costs?

 

Although some power hungry men would have torn the at best fragile Republic apart for their own ends, others would indeed risk all to preserve it.

 

In my opinion the Republic was best. Although some men were indeed desperate for power, the whole basis is the Republic was to ensure that this did not happen. You may have had a bad Consul, but he was only Consul for one year. An Emperor was there until he died (or until he was murdered ) and so was it not better to have a temporary bad leader instead of a perminent one?

[Ursus]

While I am sure some people fought for the Republic out of idealism and traditionalism, I think you have to concede many of the oligarchic families were simply fighting to protect their interests.

 

If you were a provincial, would you rather champion an ultra conservative republican government whose

[Pyrrhus]

While I am sure some people fought for the Republic out of idealism and traditionalism, I think you have to concede many of the oligarchic families were simply fighting to protect their interests.

 

I do concede that some, probably most of those of supported the Republic were in it for their own ends, but you must admit Marcus Brutus would have had a very prominent position with Caesar in charge, and so by assassinating him, he must have simply been defending what he believed in. His family started the Republic, and he himself, at the very end did all he could to keep it alive. At the very least you can credit him for defending what he thought was right. Shame Caesar had to go though .

[Virgil61]

Many scientific discoveries we got from the Arabs, who had learned them from the Greeks and Romans. Much was lost yes, but without the Romans we would probably be 500-200 years behind in technological advancement, and much more in society standards.

 

Most of the European languages are Romanized, English is 2/3 Latin, French, Spanish, Portuguese, are romance languages. There is considerably less Germanic or Celtic aspects in our lifestyle�

 

IMHO, of course...

 

I can thank my parents for my Roman roots, being Italian and all. The Catholic church itself contains many rituals that are thought to have been taken from pagan Roman (as well as Mithriatic customs taken from the legions). I can't really imagine much in military tactics that we've learned from the Romans exclusively; things like concentration of force, flanking, a professional army, etc., were pretty universal to successful militaries. On the other hand engineering, especially civil engineering, was definitily influenced by the Romans. I don't think roads developed to the Roman standard until the mid-20th century. There are a few counties I've lived in where the number of potholes makes you wonder if they've yet to surpass Roman roads. And of course the influence of Roman institutions was a major factor with the founding fathers.

 

I think you're downplaying the Germanic influence- assuming you're posting from the U.S. or a Commonwealth country. Our laws don't use the Civil Law system originally developed by the Romans, but the common law system which was a vestige of the invading Anglo-Saxon tribes. Influenced by Rome certainly, but things like juries, the adversary system, etc., have very Germanic roots.

 

English, classified by linguists as a Germanic language, has less latin terminology if you discount scientific and legal terms that don't have common usage. I believe linguists have determined that the large majority of words used in English in everyday usage are of Anglo-Saxon origin (the way we speak to our family, friends, etc.). For writing and speaking on more complex issues we tend to rely more heavily on words of Latin or Norman origin.

 

I think our culure is more a combination of Germanic and Latin influences with very little Celtic.

[Germanicus]

I would like to point out that not all politicians wanted to eradicate all traces of the Republic, indeed, was not Marcus Brutus the ancestor of one of its founders? And in his act to assassinate Julius Caesar, was he not trying to preserve the Republic at all costs?

 

 

In my opinion Brutus was a tax farmer, and took advantage of others misfortunes for his own profit to a degree perhaps rivalled only by Crassus. He was trying to preserve the "Republic" at all costs because new reforms introduced by Caesar, were aimed at putting an end to some of these abuses, be you personal friend of the man or otherwise. The idea that Brutus is some sort of martyr to the cause defending his upright beliefs to his own detriment is laughable.

 

Oh, sorry, he did defend his beliefs, in money, personal wealth, jealeousy of Caesar and his affair with Brutus own mother (something the whole of the Senate was well aware of), the aristocracy, and most of all his belief in everything that Cato, Cicero and co whispered in his ear to both his own, and the thousands that died in the ensueing civil wars detriment.

[Pyrrhus]

The idea that Brutus is some sort of martyr to the cause defending his upright beliefs to his own detriment is laughable.

 

You may laugh and scoff at such beliefs, but many it seems believe that it was for that reason he acted as he did. Marcus Brutus was indeed a very rich man due to the huge interest rates he would place on loans, but would not the honour and prestige of being Consul in 41 far outweigh that of any minor increase in his bank balance? To the Romans, as you will be well-aware, the position of Consul in the Republic was very important, and to keep Caesar in charge would mean he would indeed be Consul.

 

And yet he did not. Instead he murdered the man who could hand him the job his father could never reach. Instead he murdered a man who, some say was the greatest General of all time. For money? For greed? He would have become far richer with the prestige and honour of the Consulship.

 

Cicero on Brutus: 'the courage of a man and the brains of child'

 

He acted for his ideals, that the Republic was best, and Rome did not need an Emperor, or at least one man in power: the very set-up of their Government was to avoid such things. A man of his abilities of acquiring money could have found other ways to increase his estate, with Caesar in charge, and he himself in the position of Consul.

 

I found this: "All this was extremely unrepublican, and Brutus decided that he had to act."

 

The word "unrepublican" is the key here, as it does not say:

 

"He was trying to preserve the "Republic" at all costs because new reforms introduced by Caesar, were aimed at putting an end to some of these abuses..." - Germanicus

 

Of course I admit Brutus was tax-farmer, there is no case for saying that he was not. Of course I admit that Brutus was a fool to murder Caesar, and I do not even like the man. I do not think he was a martyr, and the basis for thinking that I do escapes me. But I do think this: Marcus Brutus killed Julius Caesar because he wanted the Republic to stay alive, because he thought it was the best way to govern.