Republic, Principate, Or Dominate

[Primus Pilus]

To compare the republican system to the system of the principate by looking only at the last 80 years of the Republic and the first 80 years of the principate is simply cherry-picking the data. To judge the two systems, you have to look at the average year in both, not the worst years in one and the best years in the other. The last years of the Principate were far worse than the last years of the Republic.

 

Except we must also acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the 'Empire' at the time the principate was founded. Much like our discussion in the 'What could've saved the Republic' thread, the best government choice may really be dependent upon the era. Had the Republic continued who knows how many more civil wars it may have endured by comparison to the relative peace of the early empire. Aside from AD 69, there was not a wide spread civil war until the death of Commodus in AD 193. That's nearly 200 years of relative stability even understanding the somewhat violent transitions of some periods (ie Caligula to Claudius and Domitian to Nerva)

 

Personally I still prefer the tradional aspects of Republican rule, but it just wasn't equipped to handle the ever growing private armies of the imperators.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Except we must also acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the 'Empire' at the time the principate was founded. Much like our discussion in the 'What could've saved the Republic' thread, the best government choice may really be dependent upon the era.

I agree that policies must be responsive to conditions, but I don't see that the principate was the best response to the conditions that destabilized the republic. As we've discussed in that thread, there were many solutions to the problems of the republic that could have avoided one-man rule and its attendant problems of accession.

 

Had the Republic continued who knows how many more civil wars it may have endured by comparison to the relative peace of the early empire. Aside from AD 69, there was not a wide spread civil war until the death of Commodus in AD 193. That's nearly 200 years of relative stability even understanding the somewhat violent transitions of some periods (ie Caligula to Claudius and Domitian to Nerva)

Sure, the first 200 years of the principate were not quite not as tumultuous as the final 80 years of the Republic. But even during that first 200 years, the problem of succession for the principate was evident. Of the 19 emperors who served during this period, 47% were either killed or killed themselves. In contrast, during the last 200 years of the republic (246 - 46 bce), there were 400 consuls and only 8 suffect consuls.

 

I agree that both systems had problems that ended up crippling them. For the republic, the basic problem was that the constiution was optimized for a municipal government rather than a nation-state. For the empire, the basic problem was the problem of succession.

 

The fact that both systems had problems that ultimately led to their downfall, however, doesn't mean that both were equal in merit. A republic *can* grow beyond the municipal sphere, if it enacts some reforms that are in keeping with the basic character of the republic; and the republic *was* reforming (in fact, reform measures initiated in the senate were more than twice as numerous as the reforms initiated by tribunes), though clearly these reforms were not passed fast enough to simultaneously deal with expansion and with the politician-generals who were doing the expanding. In contrast, the principate's problem of succession was evident even during its formative years, and the problem never got better. This is because a monarchical system--by its nature--has no supervening mechanism for filling the empty position of emperor.

[pompeius magnus]

First off, I am not cherry picking data. the greatest info we have on the republic was from the last hundred years or so and I am comparing them from a more literary standpoint than from a militarily. And my last comment in my short post before bed is that if you want to compare numbers of emperors killed in one century, or for those 200 years of the principate, look at the number of senators killed during the last two centuries of the republic, you have the Gracchi brothers, all those senators executed by Marius, Clodius' murder, the murder of Pompey, Caesar, Cicero. The list is quite long, so dont give me any of the crap about how the principate was a worse form of government based on the number of emperor's killed, because the golden age of the empire was far better than any age of the republic, it was extremely stable and Roman culture exploded, seperating itself from the shadows of Greek culture.

[phil25]

Cato - I suppose at the end of the day it all comes down to what one means by the term "best".

 

As I said in my first post (IIRC), I don't like these rather puerile games which serve no point. the judgement is entirely subjective and each of us will reach a different conclusion. the only way one could seek a concensus would be to agree some list of criteria against which to measure the variou systems and then "score2 each against the criteria. But I suspect we would disagree on the criteria and the scoring even so.

 

Again, statistics are not everything. You make some powerful and effective points about the republic, and between shall we say the Punic wars and the arrival of Marius, I'd say the system largely worked.

 

But by C1stBC, it was a failing system, not adapting quickly enough to the demands of a new era. It was repeatedly falling apart at the seams.

 

The principiate - which was in many ways (to me at least) an EVOLUTION from the republic rather than a replacement, simply recognised the realities (strong men will dominate so have a stong man in control) but kept many of the forms.

 

I suspect that had you asked people in (say) the provinces of Asia; or Spain which system gave them most satisfaction, they might have gone for the Principiate because it was more stable (ijn terms of bureaucratic consistency), reduced the number of rapacious governors making a killing from their proconsulship; and reduced the number of civil wars - more stable in political terms. To many monarchies (not least in the east but also in the west, a principiate may have been more intelligible to the people than a republic.

 

Speaking personally, I don't think therre is a place for sentimentality or sentimental judgements in politics or history. As "1066 And All That" pointed out decades ago, it is somewhat childish and nonsensical to label rulers as "good" or "bad" - same for systems of government. the US system may be all right for Americans, but I would not wish to live under it (I dislike its principles, and its style - but then I am a European). look at the difference in meaning of the word "socialist" between an American and a European - that will inevitably affect judgements by either about the other's systems. To Europeans, socialism is at least in part about basic human freedoms and dignity; as I read it, to many Americans the same word is akin to communism, and unthinkable. So we have to watch our use of language and our preconceptions in looking at the past.

 

Augustus introduced an effective and long lasting form of government and made it work, replacing a decaying and decadent system that seemed unable to heal itself. That is the reality. no "better" no "worse" -but different. Who knows where the republican system would have gone had Octavian lost at Actium and Antonius and Cleopatra imposed their vision? If Antonius had then fallen to an Agrippa or a Tiberius (assuming them as rival generals) I suggest that the republic would still have changed. maybe Rome would have "fallen" 350 years before it did!!

 

I think we must also take off the rose-tinted spectacles in judgeing or assessing forms of government. The republic may have "democratic" features, but it was also venal, corrupt, shot through with bribery. It was a system based on survival of the fittest. But that does not, of course, mean that it was not a perfectly fit form of government with some good features or effects.

 

I applaud the fact that the USA is intrinsically the greatest support of liberty and freedom in the world - but it is also corrupt, ineffective, dominated by big business, heavily racist, economically and militarily imperialist... I could go on. To have a voice you have to be rich - either in politics of business it seems. but the system works, and that's that. No one has the power to change it - to take a blank sheet of paper and start again. It can only evolve, or hopefully not, change in some revolutionary way. there are no other choices - no deus ex machina to alter the realities. So why judge it good or bad. It's like the curate's egg - good in parts.

 

Same could be said for the British system - which admittedly is deliberately flexible. I am not seeking to annoy American colleagues here, just to draw out some parallels, to make my point, which is this which is "best" is a rather stupid and facile approach.

 

Why not use our time to consider a much more useful question - was the republic in (say) 50BC, the same as the republic in (say) 150 BC? Because if the system had changed, which are we sayiong was the "best"?

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

I applaud the fact that the USA is intrinsically the greatest support of liberty and freedom in the world - but it is also corrupt, ineffective, dominated by big business, heavily racist, economically and militarily imperialist... I could go on.

 

Phil, I realize you prefer dictatorship to freedom, but could I remind you for the last time to quit trashing my country on a forum about Rome????? Your position is clear--you desire a despot; you think all moral evaluation is puerile (except of course your own moralizing about America); and you believe that cherry-picking data is more productive than statistical anaylsis. Fine. We disagree.

[M. Porcius Cato]

First off, I am not cherry picking data. the greatest info we have on the republic was from the last hundred years or so and I am comparing them from a more literary standpoint than from a militarily.

 

OK. I still prefer Lucretius to all the fawning power-worshippers in the empire's "golden age". Those court jesters of Augustan literature (especially Virgil) were servile tools of dictatorship, and their love notes to Augustus were nothing compared to the poetry of Catullus, who still had the freedom to insult a Caesar.

This is probably all a matter of taste--which is why I would never have guessed in a million years that someone was evaluating the republic versus the principate based on the evidence of comparative literature. Why not sculpture instead? Or maybe the quality of the brothels? Judging by my bookshelf full of "golden age" literature, it seems there were plenty of top-notch whores during the principate. And who but a whore would write for his patron,

The old god

Came to our shrines from foreign lands, but CAESAR

Is god in his own city. First in war,

and first in peace, victorious, triumphant,

Planner and governor, quick-risen to glory,

The newest star in Heaven, and more than this,

And above all, immortal through his son.

No work in all of Caesar's great achievement

Surpassed this greatness, to have been the father

Of our own Emperor.

Makes me want to vomit. And to think--that Augustus exiled Ovid after this literary irrumatory !

 

 

And my last comment in my short post before bed is that if you want to compare numbers of emperors killed in one century, or for those 200 years of the principate, look at the number of senators killed during the last two centuries of the republic

Fine, count them up and divide by total number of senators, and do the same for the last two hundred years of the principate. You, of course, can't do this because we don't have the names of all the senators in later years, and for good reason. It would have been a meaningless excercise to record their names--they were powerless. Next time you propose an alternative measure, you might bother checking with it even exists.

 

you have the Gracchi brothers, all those senators executed by Marius, Clodius' murder, the murder of Pompey, Caesar, Cicero. The list is quite long, so dont give me any of the crap about how the principate was a worse form of government based on the number of emperor's killed

Produce the list and do the math--otherwise, you've only listed 5, 3 of whom were killed after the senate and people of Rome were no longer in power.

 

the golden age of the empire was far better than any age of the republic, it was extremely stable and Roman culture exploded, seperating itself from the shadows of Greek culture.

 

Have you ever heard of the Crises of the Third Century? Roman culture sure exploded then.

[P.Clodius]

To compare the republican system to the system of the principate by looking only at the last 80 years of the Republic and the first 80 years of the principate is simply cherry-picking the data.

These years were critical and were the best documented of any other period. And I might add by far the most interesting years (along with the 2nd Punic War) of roman history for me. The last 80 years of the republic highlighted most of what was wrong and why it failed. The Augustan/Tiberian period are also interesting. Augustus' consolidation of power, his dilemas, and political coups are what politicians should admire and aspire to. Tiberius in a roundabout way tried to give an element of power back to the senate who ultimately showed they were incabable/reluctant to accept it.

[phil25]

Primus Pilus - you make my point for me. estimations of whether a governmental system is good, bad, or indifferent; best or worst; or whatever, is largely in the eye of the beholder. It is a subjective valuation.

 

I did not set out to COMPARE systems, simply to show that (what i think is not a bad system - the US) can be depicted with some truth in an adverse way. Equally, to try to show that European and US bases of comparison may be different for social, political, historic and cultural reasons.

 

I have had fascinating discussions with American friends which founder on one issue - should the advantage of those who have it naturally be impeded to any degree by giving advantage to those who lack it for physical, mental, educational etc reasons. Freedom for one group can be disadvantage to another.

 

So I have concluded (also for good historical reasons) that comparison is pointless - unless to make a point about similarity or difference, because it lacks validity or objectivity.

 

The roman republic was hat it was for good reasons, men such as Cicero dreamed of changing it and failed; men like Caesar sought to change it and failed. better than comparing the system to some other that prevailed in different circumstances, is to me to analyse what the system was and how and why it failed or succeeded.

 

But I recognise that many do find satisfaction in talking about what "ought to have been", which to me is pointless.

 

I apologise sincerely if I offended US posters or others by my earlier remarks, they were there simply to draw the reaction and make a point which they evidently did for PP.

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

I apologise sincerely if I offended US posters or others by my earlier remarks, they were there simply to draw the reaction and make a point which they evidently did for PP.

 

Which is why I deleted my post rather than add to an escalation (I meant to illustrate how we will never agree on the issue but sounded a bit harsher than intended).

 

No worries though

[phil25]

I apologise sincerely if I offended US posters or others by my earlier remarks, they were there simply to draw the reaction and make a point which they evidently did for PP.

 

Which is why I deleted my post rather than add to an escalation (I meant to illustrate how we will never agree on the issue but sounded a bit harsher than intended).

 

No worries though

 

PP - there is no harm in disagreeing, as long as it is amicable.

 

And your post was perefectly civilised and understood. I don't see that it would have led to anything save useful discussion. Thanks for coming back at me - that's what I am here for, infiormed discussion and debate.

 

Cheers and in friendship

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

To compare the republican system to the system of the principate by looking only at the last 80 years of the Republic and the first 80 years of the principate is simply cherry-picking the data.

These years were critical and were the best documented of any other period. And I might add by far the most interesting years (along with the 2nd Punic War) of roman history for me.

 

I agree with you completely--the late republic/early principate were much more interesting (and well-documented) than the domestic affairs of the middle and early republic. My concern, however, is that these "interesting times" (to recall the Chinese curse) may also tend to distort our appreciation for the relative stability of the two systems.

[tflex]

If you are going to start building great empires, it would be almost impossible to do so under a republic. An empire needs to be steered in one direction with one descision maker that is wise enough to listen to good advise. The military is better served when the senate stays out of it's affairs and leave all decisions to it's commander. In a republic the senate would not be able to maintain such a large empire, different beliefs and views would bring about conflict and indecision which ultimately would lead to an inefficient military command. A good example of that is the Battle of Cannae which some how produced 2 consuls sharing equal power and leading Rome to one of their worst defeat that almost wiped them out before they even started. Thats why as soon as Rome began to principate their empire flourished and expanded.

Edited January 10, 2006 by tflex

[phil25]

If you are going to start building great empires, it would be almost impossible to do so under a republic. An empire needs to be steered in one direction with one descision maker that is wise enough to listen to good advise. The military is better served when the senate stays out of it's affairs and leave all decisions to it's commander. In a republic the senate would not be able to maintain such a large empire, different beliefs and views would bring about conflict and indecision which ultimately would lead to an inefficient military command. A good example of that is the Battle of Cannae which some how produced 2 consuls sharing equal power and leading Rome to one of their worst defeat that almost wiped them out before they even started. Thats why as soon as Rome began to principate their empire flourished and expanded.

 

But tflex, the foundations of the Roman empire WERE laid down - and indeed largely completed - under a REPUBLIC!!

 

Pompeius' conquests in the east, the accession of Greece and Macedonia to the empire, Caesar's conquest of gaul - the taking over of Spain and Africa from Cathage, ALL happened under the republic.

 

The empire, is anything, stalled growth. Augustus played a bit with Germania but stopped expansion after the Varus disaster; Claudius conquered Britannia - but how does that compare to the earlier work of Caesar in the west or Pompeius is the east? Trajan extended the empire in Dacia and Armenia, but this was not long-lasting, and was relatively soon given up.

 

So I don't think your argument stands up.

 

phil

[pompeius magnus]

Cato your badmouthing the greatest literary explosion in Roman history by saying that they were all brown-nosing money hungry men is just showing how you are basing your posts on mostly personal opinion. Virgil may have been a close friend of Augustus, but his work Aenid is one of the most spectacular works ever compiled, the Roman version of Homer, Ovid's work on Metamorphisis is a direct bashing on Augustus, this can be seen best by seeing how much of the book is dedicated to Religion and myth and how much is to politics, about 3 pages to politics.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato your badmouthing the greatest literary explosion in Roman history by saying that they were all brown-nosing money hungry men is just showing how you are basing your posts on mostly personal opinion

Because I'm sure you have an objective metric by which to measure their literary talents, right? Please share it with us so that we might all learn from your superior esthetic insights!

 

 

Virgil may have been a close friend of Augustus, but his work Aenid is one of the most spectacular works ever compiled, the Roman version of Homer,

It was brown-nosing, and it wasn't even very original brown-nosing. Personally, I sort of liked it in spite of it's vapid references to his contemporaries, but it wasn't as good as Lucretius.

 

Ovid's work on Metamorphisis is a direct bashing on Augustus, this can be seen best by seeing how much of the book is dedicated to Religion and myth and how much is to politics, about 3 pages to politics.

This is completely absurd. By this logic, a cookbook is bashing Augustus because NO pages are devoted to politics. Silly.