Random Questions On Rome

[Sextus Roscius]

an Oligarchy, simply, is rule by the wealthy

[M. Porcius Cato]

an Oligarchy, simply, is rule by the wealthy

Actually, it's rule by the few. Rule by the wealthy would be a plutocracy. And I was asking for Clodius' intended meaning. I know what the word means.

[pompeius magnus]

Solons laws were not directly involved there, as the formation of the Roman senate was in existence before the Solon Laws came into existence, but its expansion to include others was influenced by these, as well more heavily on the succession of the plebs. Also another important Greek law were those established by Cleisthes and his constitution.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

From my dictionary, an Oliarchy is a government ruled by a selected special few with immense power.

Edited February 3, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[tflex]

In my opinion "Oligarchy" when it applies to the rule of the patricians in the Roman senate, it should be translated this way:

 

My own definition: Rule by a powerful and corrupt few for the sole purpose of advancing their own wealth at the expense of the powerless and the unfortunate.

 

I think thats a more accurate translation when it comes to the patricians.

Edited February 3, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

From my dictionary, an Oliarchy is a government ruled by a selected special few with immense power.

 

The triumvirate, therefore, was a true oligarchy (ruling over many with oligarchical ambitions).

 

Tflex, you really hate the patricians and love the plebeians?

[tflex]

From my dictionary, an Oliarchy is a government ruled by a selected special few with immense power.

 

The triumvirate, therefore, was a true oligarchy (ruling over many with oligarchical ambitions).

 

Tflex, you really hate the patricians and love the plebeians?

 

 

I hate some patricians and love some plebians.

 

Do you hate the plebians?

[P.Clodius]

The triumvirate, therefore, was a true oligarchy (ruling over many with oligarchical ambitions).

I disagree. The Triumvirates were symptoms of a corrupt oligarchy, an extreme solution to an even more extreme problem.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I ask since some of the Greeks at the time asked for Rome's intervention at home - perhaps they thought Rome's rule would be an improvement.

 

 

The Greeks wanted what seemed to be in their long history what was their birthright: freedom. Ever since Alexander and his father Philip I united Greece under the Macedonians, the individual cities had always pined for independence. After Macedonia threw in their support for Carthrage in the Second Punic War, Macedonia suddenly gained a powerful new enemy in Rome. The Greek cities saw this and used it to try and throw off the shackles of Macedonian power. It might have worked too if it were not for Greek arrogance causing the Romans to feel the eventual need to remain in the area.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The triumvirate, therefore, was a true oligarchy (ruling over many with oligarchical ambitions).

I disagree. The Triumvirates were symptoms of a corrupt oligarchy, an extreme solution to an even more extreme problem.

Given that an oligarchy is the rule of the few, the decemvirs and triumvirs were by definition an oligarchy, end of story (as you like to say ).

[Ursus]

How did the Senate actually come into being? It seems a rather odd departure from other ancient political entities (other than maybe Greece),

 

 

Well, not really. A lot of the Ancient Celts and Germanic tribes had a King or Chieftan who was advised (often even elected) by a council of aristocrats or tribal elders. Even into Medieval times the Anglo-Saxon Kings would call advisory sessions of their "wise men" and from this germinated modern Parliamentary government.

 

 

I think it only makes sense the Big Cheese at top in any well-functioning society would want the good will and considered opinions of the leading citizens. You can, up to a certain point, ignore the comman man on the street - but it's not prudent or safe to ignore the people who own the land, lead the military, and know how to debate in the political assemblies.

 

We might assume the original Senate under the archaic kings was composed of the leading members of the clans (gens) when the clans actually meant something. After the creation of the Republic, and after the political function of the clans dwindled, the Senate became increasingly a body of ex-magistrates. And under Augustus, the Senate was the Empire's economic elite, from whom Augustus could draw certain trusted individuals to help staff the military and civil commands.

[P.Clodius]

Indeed, the Carthaginian "senate" was very similar to that of the romans. Makes you wonder on the level of pre-republican interaction.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Indeed, the Carthaginian "senate" was very similar to that of the romans. Makes you wonder on the level of pre-republican interaction.

 

It was similar but I think it was more closed--rather like the senate of Venice or Florence during the renaissance. Also, I like to think of it as more akin to the board of directors of a corporate conglomerate--they were almost totally governed by the bottom-line because they made the habit of distributing all unexpended revenues to the taxpayers. This had both good and bad effects. Good in the sense of cutting out waste and in motivating ruthless punishment of corrupt officials (crucifixion); bad in the sense of being penny-wise and pound-foolish (e.g., they disbanded their navy when it wasn't being used, whereas the Romans kept building theirs).

 

Part of this difference is cultural; I wonder how Carthage would have fared had they been as Hellenized as Rome.

[P.Clodius]

Part of this difference is cultural; I wonder how Carthage would have fared had they been as Hellenized as Rome.

Rome wasn't "Hellenized" until Marcellus' capture of Syracuse during the second punic war, even then it would have been a gradual process. Cato the Elder spokeout against hellenization and this would have been after his tenure as censor. I'm guestimating 170's-160'sBC is when hellenization started making a "dent".

[M. Porcius Cato]

Part of this difference is cultural; I wonder how Carthage would have fared had they been as Hellenized as Rome.

Rome wasn't "Hellenized" until Marcellus' capture of Syracuse during the second punic war, even then it would have been a gradual process.

Sure, it picked up very rapidly then, but compared to Carthage Rome was far more Hellenized. The influence through the Etruscans alone was significant. Think about it: Carthage had virtually no tradition of theatre, poetry, or music. But the Romans adopted all these Greek innovations from their neighbors. The first Latin translation of Homer occurred quite early.

 

Cato the Elder spokeout against hellenization and this would have been after his tenure as censor. I'm guestimating 170's-160'sBC is when hellenization started making a "dent".

 

Way earlier. Cato the Elder's opposition to Hellenization came only after every other noble brat was quoting Socrates at him. And Cato himself could quote Greek literature right back at them and use Greek literature as its own foil. Also, I think Cato died as censor so the wasn't doing anything after being censor except pushing up daisies.

 

I do agree that the second punic war put Hellenization on the fast track, but that's because it was roughly contemporaneous with Rome's adventures in the East and because the second punic war set off a baby boom precisely when there were tons of Greek slaves around to educate the Romanaculi. If it hadn't been for dropping all those future world leaders into the hands of Greeks, the Greeks would never have been able to capture their wild conquerors.