Could The Triumvirates Have Worked?

[Emperor Goblinus]

Could either of the Triumvirates have worked to be a more permanent system, or at least have been more successful than they were?

[Neos Dionysos]

Could either of the Triumvirates have worked to be a more permanent system, or at least have been more successful than they were?

 

Sure, if there was trust. The Triumvirates can sometimes be referred to as an early form of Dominate, but the major difference is that Triumvir was working under the Senate which still legally was the highest authority... and so they were like the de facto rulers. If it had been the Empire, it would simply have been a system like the Tertarchy, at least IMO.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Well maybe one question, what happens when one member die. Assuming they would try to elect another person to fill the role, how will they choose wisely according to their own digression. But what if the candidates openly use violence on each other to gain the spot, another civil war and the remaning two members of the triumvirate might have to take sides. But looking on the past, history tells us there will always be a person out for self glory/rule. So if we look at the moral experience of society, it's just not possible.

Edited January 14, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Neos Dionysos]

Well maybe one question, what happens when one member die. Assuming they would try to elect another person to fill the role, how will they choose wisely according to their own digression. But what if the candidates openly use violence on each other to gain the spot, another civil war and the remaning two members of the triumvirate might have to take sides. But looking on the past, history tells us there will always be a person out for self glory/rule. So if we look at the moral experience of society, it's just not possible.

 

Such is the nature of humanity. We are vain, disgusting creatures and only care about the preservation of ourselves over the good of society or our race as a species. The 7 Deadly Sins is something we all have in us, and for some, they are more prominent than anything else...

[Ursus]

It only worked as long as the parties involved could place mistrust and personal pride aside long enough to work toward common goals.

 

A committee really isn't the best way to organize a state. I believe at the end of the day someone has to be a top dog, or at least a first among equals.

[phil25]

Surely, the triumvirates were primarily about the self-interest of their members.

 

By uniting in a pact, the three leading figures could negate to some extent thir two rivals scheming against them, and channel that into other activities/influence it. It also allowed them the power base to ensure they got at least some of their own way - more than they would acting singly within the system.

 

For all the pious statements and propaganda, neither triumvirate was essentially formed for the good of the state, or the people. That was interpreted as equivalent to the purposesa and aspirations of the three men involved in each case.

 

So it follows that:

 

a) the triumvirates were always going to be limited in life because eventually the interests of the three power brokers involved would diverge;

 

they were never intended to carry out long lasting reforms;

 

c) the system would (if allowed) probably just have reversed any measures it did not like - as they did those of Sulla (who did to some extent act to restore the republic), once the triumvirate had broken up.

 

History shows what happened. the first triumvirate, which was essentially of three co-equals (at least much more than the second) broke apart after the death of one member (Crassus0 and as the presteige of the remaining two clashed and became rivalry.

 

The second triumvirate was never more than a convenience, to harness Octavian and to avoid prolonged civil war. It was a division of responsibilities and spheres, rather than the sharing of power, and the thrird member was a nonentity, brought in as a make-weight.

 

So my answer is a firm NO, to both parts of the original question.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

I would simply observe that in a republic where the power and rule of law transcend any individual, people can be free to be as vain and/or self-interested as they like while posing no threat whatever to the security of the state. Under such a system, the very competiton for honors provides a kind of dynamic stability, much like the stability of a bicycle while being pedalled. Bring the pedaling to a stop and the bicycle is not stable enough to support the rider, who would topple to the ground; bring an end to the competition for honors, and the state too would have to topple.

 

In short, faction is not necessarily a threat; vanity is not necessarily a threat; greed is not necessarily a threat--as long as there are good laws and the laws are stronger than any one man or any one army. The problem is not human nature; the problem comes only when government attempts to ignore human nature--and a triumviral monarchy ignores human nature and turns harmless faction, vanity, and greed into a threat to the system.

 

A committee really isn't the best way to organize a state. I believe at the end of the day someone has to be a top dog, or at least a first among equals.

 

Why? I certainly grant that all discussions and deliberations must finally come to a point where only one of various alternatives are put to action, and I also agree that some one person or group must be held accountable for the success of the alternatives that they profer. However, I don't see any necessary reason for it to be a top dog. More importantly, top dogs typically can make many, many, many stupid decisions without any consequence to their power; whereas in a competitive system, a single mistake can tip the balance of favor to one's competitors.

[phil25]

The problem is not human nature; the problem comes only when government attempts to ignore human nature--and a triumviral monarchy ignores human nature and turns harmless faction, vanity, and greed into a threat to the system.

 

Unfortunately, no system of Government yet discovered has proved entirely capable of resisting human nature - particularly ambition. Perhaps the British and American systems have proved most resisilent, but even they have had their lapses (Cromwell, in the case of the UK).

 

On a separate issue, aren't most systems of government essentially a form of committee - even dictatorships below the central figure. That's how bureaucracies and cabinets work - what they are?

 

Phil

[Ursus]

Let's not get into semantic quibbles. In a dictatorship or even a cabinet there is still a chief executive (dictator, prime minister, premier, chancellor, president, Grand High Poobah, etc) who retains something of a final say, even if surrounded by advisors, cronies, deputies and underlings.

 

Was there a recognized final say in either of the Triumvirates? No.

[Neos Dionysos]

The problem is not human nature; the problem comes only when government attempts to ignore human nature--and a triumviral monarchy ignores human nature and turns harmless faction, vanity, and greed into a threat to the system.

 

Unfortunately, no system of Government yet discovered has proved entirely capable of resisting human nature - particularly ambition. Perhaps the British and American systems have proved most resisilent, but even they have had their lapses (Cromwell, in the case of the UK).

 

On a separate issue, aren't most systems of government essentially a form of committee - even dictatorships below the central figure. That's how bureaucracies and cabinets work - what they are?

 

Phil

 

Human Nature is the problem... we are dangerous creatures. Smiling and shaking someone with one hand and holding the blade with the other behind the back. As you pointed out, when government ignores human nature the crisis arises... agreed, but the problem still stems from human nature, if it wasn't then government should need not have to concern itself with watching it and to not ignore it and account for it.

[phil25]

I can't think of a single system of government ever devised that is entirely altruistic and starts from a blank sheet of paper.

 

Almost all seek to carry forward the aspirations of the controlling group (usually a clique of some sort) and to address whatever the perceived problems were of its predecessor. The "consitution" written or not, will also seek to bind the opponents of the regime and control their "fears" - of the "mob" or revolutionary change; or extreme groups or whatever.

 

The Roman republican constitution was rather like the modern British one: a collection of laws and customs, traditions, common law and practice, rather than a single written document. As the british system is extremely flexible, evolving by interpretation of the past and of law against the circumstances of the day; so the Romans moved forward by interpreting and re-interpreting the mos maiorum. To a certain extent even Augustus did this in creating the principiate - few of his innovations were wholly novel, from tribunician powers to the idea of a princeps.

 

Another point, politics is entirely perceptual, subjective. Change is made by people who perceiv a weakness or seek to build on success. the system is like a river with currents ebbing and flowing - it is never still or fixed. The later republic changed as it addressed challenges, the Gracchi; Marius' domination of the consulship; demagogues like Saturninus, Carbo and Clodius; Sulla's right-wing backlash; Pompeius exta-constitutional activities and rise; Caesar and his battle with Bibulus etc; aggravating sores like Cato who so often blocked change or necessary, practical steps being taken and were essentially backward looking.

 

The triumvirates were simply vessels floating on that river, or even dams or additional currents within it - to provide several applicable analogies. They were of the problem as well as attempted partisan efforts to change the situation and overcome perceived problems. But the perceived problem to (say) Pompeius was not the same as it was to (say) Cato; indeed the latter may have seen the former as the problem!! caesar saw problems in the state that needed action; Bibulus saw Caesar AS the problem.

 

Finally, to address a previous comment:

 

but the problem still stems from human nature, if it wasn't then government should need not have to concern itself with watching it and to not ignore it and account for it.

 

Modern governments (in terms of infrastructure, permanent bureaucracy; continuity of officials etc) exist to a certain extent outside politics and thus can "watch" the process and analyse it, suggesting and advising on changes to law or constitution. But I would argue that as all officials (aediles, quaestors etc) and all ministers (praetors, consuls) only existed and held office during their terms, there was no stable body to "watch" how things unfolded. The Senate, which might be perceived as having some potential to do so (because it contained former officials and ministers) could not do so because it acted in an entirely partisan and individual way.

 

I think the republic was probably lucky to survive as long as it did.

 

Could one even argue that it died with Marius (around his sixth consulship), and that Sulla, the triumvirates, Pompeius as single consul and caesar as Dictator were simply proto-principiates - attempts to find a system of domination by a small group or an individual, to restore the state?

 

Just for arguments sake of course,

 

Phil

[Neos Dionysos]

I think the republic was probably lucky to survive as long as it did.

 

Could one even argue that it died with Marius (around his sixth consulship), and that Sulla, the triumvirates, Pompeius as single consul and caesar as Dictator were simply proto-principiates - attempts to find a system of domination by a small group or an individual, to restore the state?

 

Just for arguments sake of course,

 

Phil

 

I have always felt the seeds of destruction for the republic were sown during Marius' consulship, though perhaps even before with the death of the Gracchi, how now disputes were not debated out but opponents were killed. When that starts, the door is open for all possible avenues and true debate begins to die. Don't forget when Caeser was made consul, since the other consul was for the most part kept under house arrest and the year was mentioned as being, "The year of the consulship of Julius and Caeser"... I will agree I am too surprised the Republic lasted as long as it did, though is that due to the use of the Republic as a guise for dictorial or imperial-style rule? Or was it around as long as it was due to the actions of true statesmen and Romans who kept pushing back the death date?

[phil25]

ND:

 

Who were the "true statesmen and Romans who kept pushing back the death date" to whom you refer - who could they have been? the list must be short.

 

I genuinely believe that Caesar, for instance, had no interest in destroying the republic. It was only by being seen to be the "first man in Rome" ahead of his contemporaries that he could measure success.

 

To conquer was a poor option. To be recognised as primus inter pares the great achievement. As with Sulla, I think Caesar hoped that he could "tweak" the system enough to preserve most of its features - perhaps more than Augustus did later.

 

It was the Bibuluses (Bibuli for purists); Catoes (Porcii?) and Brutuses (Junii?) of the later years who were blind to the changes, the fractures and the weakening of the republican system - who looked back not forwards, who seem to have been more part of the problem than of the solution (to use modern management speak).

 

And perhaps that is one way of seeking to examine this:

 

In (say) 60BC what were the problems facing the republic?

What were the key issues to be resolved?

Who stood where on what issue?

Was the position taken by each main protagonist (on the basis of the evidence we have, at least) one that sought to ignore the problem; or one that offered solutions?

 

A grid would summarise things nicely.

 

Phil

[Neos Dionysos]

ND:

 

Who were the "true statesmen and Romans who kept pushing back the death date" to whom you refer - who could they have been? the list must be short.

 

I never said the list was long, just that there were those who tried to uphold the republic.

 

I genuinely believe that Caesar, for instance, had no interest in destroying the republic. It was only by being seen to be the "first man in Rome" ahead of his contemporaries that he could measure success.

 

To conquer was a poor option. To be recognised as primus inter pares the great achievement. As with Sulla, I think Caesar hoped that he could "tweak" the system enough to preserve most of its features - perhaps more than Augustus did later.

 

It was the Bibuluses (Bibuli for purists); Catoes (Porcii?) and Brutuses (Junii?) of the later years who were blind to the changes, the fractures and the weakening of the republican system - who looked back not forwards, who seem to have been more part of the problem than of the solution (to use modern management speak).

 

I don't know, Caeser didn't seem too much a man for the republic when he declared himself dictator for life. Though he did put through reforms and bills that should've gone through years before, but the Senate would not because they did not want to change the status quo. Though you can also say he did them to make himself more popular.

 

And perhaps that is one way of seeking to examine this:

 

In (say) 60BC what were the problems facing the republic?

What were the key issues to be resolved?

Who stood where on what issue?

Was the position taken by each main protagonist (on the basis of the evidence we have, at least) one that sought to ignore the problem; or one that offered solutions?

 

A grid would summarise things nicely.

 

Phil

 

A grid would be nicely, though I'm afraid it would take us a while to grid all of those factors out.

[M. Porcius Cato]

For starters, take a look at the thread on Reforming the Republic. Somewhere, I included a fairly decent list of reforming legislation from this period of time, and I also listed the advocates of this legislation.