The Eternal Republic?

[miguel]

A tantalizing thought indeed. It's interesting that you bring up China, also - I would almost wonder if Rome wouldve kept to its half of the hemisphere and would eventually have competed with a strong eastern nation such as China? It seems possible for China to have gained greater strength at an earlier point in time without the interference of the imperial European nations.

 

Well I brought up China just by accident...= =, since I don't notice it myself.

The time when Western Roman Empire fell, i.e. AD 476, it was South & North Dynasties in China. During the era the kingdom of China was split into two, the north and the south. Emperors changed frequently; the living environment was not really that good. It was until 589 when King Sui (I dunno if it is the right name..) unify the two sides and brought China to the Sui Dynasty. However life of the people was not improved until 618.

 

Within the 200 years of the fall of China, she could not possibly compete with Rome. And as I study Chinese history, it is obvious that the Chinese seldom invaded other nations. Also, it was until the 19th-20th century, European nations started to have their influence against Chinese history. So you say China and Europe were not quite really related.

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

Well I brought up China just by accident...= =, since I don't notice it myself.

The time when Western Roman Empire fell, i.e. AD 476, it was South & North Dynasties in China. During the era the kingdom of China was split into two, the north and the south. Emperors changed frequently; the living environment was not really that good. It was until 589 when King Sui (I dunno if it is the right name..) unify the two sides and brought China to the Sui Dynasty. However life of the people was not improved until 618.

 

Within the 200 years of the fall of China, she could not possibly compete with Rome. And as I study Chinese history, it is obvious that the Chinese seldom invaded other nations. Also, it was until the 19th-20th century, European nations started to have their influence against Chinese history. So you say China and Europe were not quite really related.

 

I stand corrected! Maybe they shouldve given Sui the imperial throne instead of Theodisius - if only he were alive then

 

At any rate, China sure is a frontrunner for competition with the West nowadays...

[miguel]

I stand corrected! Maybe they shouldve given Sui the imperial throne instead of Theodisius - if only he were alive then

 

At any rate, China sure is a frontrunner for competition with the West nowadays...

 

It is true that China could compete with the so-called SPQR when she rose again :') Add that Sui was murdered by his son Sui (the 2nd), and most importantly was that his son was no good king, not at all. if Sui came to the throne and the murder case still happened in history, perhaps Rome would fall even faster than original.

 

I am glad for you are so interested in Chinese history =]]]]*

[phil25]

Just come back tio this thread.

 

As is probably evident from my initial post in it, I am of utterly the reverse opinion to that posed by Cato and supported by so many others.

 

First, I find it sentimental. the Roman republic (so-called, it had few features that would have made it commendable as a modern republic) was every bit as cruel, devious, grasping and nasty and it successor empire. why should we want it back - it failed. It was outgrown. And it was never more than a crudely effective city Government.

 

Second not a single argument is advanced as to HOW the republic could havesurvived or returned. It fell for good reasons and powerful forces would have prevented its return. Why on earth - even had it done so - would it have succeeded any more than the earlier one did.

 

There also seems to be a supposition that a Rome that survived would have be recognisable as it was in the first millenia - the jest about togas makes the point.

 

Yet Byzantium by 1453 was unrecognisable as Rome. It saw no reaon to revert to Republicanism.

 

Even if you were right and a version of the empire had survived to today - you would not recognise it as such in terms of its culture (you might JUST in terms of political forms) any more than Washington would recognise Bush's USA, or William I, Elizabeth II's britain. In the latter case both are monarchies but they have been transformed .

 

Rome would have been too.

 

Phil

Edited September 1, 2006 by phil25

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

Just come back tio this thread.

 

As is probably evident from my initial post in it, I am of utterly the reverse opinion to that posed by Cato and supported by so many others.

 

First, I find it sentimental. the Roman republic (so-called, it had few features that would have made it commendable as a modern republic) was every bit as cruel, devious, grasping and nasty and it successor empire. why should we want it back - it failed. It was outgrown. And it was never more than a crudely effective city Government.

 

Second not a single argument is advanced as to HOW the republic could havesurvived or returned. It fell for good reasons and powerful forces would have prevented its return. Why on earth - even had it done so - would it have succeeded any more than the earlier one did.

 

There also seems to be a supposition that a Rome that survived would have be recognisable as it was in the first millenia - the jest about togas makes the point.

 

Yet Byzantium by 1453 was unrecognisable as Rome. It saw no reaon to revert to Republicanism.

 

Even if you were right and a version of the empire had survived to today - you would not recognise it as such in terms of its culture (you might JUST in terms of political forms) any more than Washington would recognise Bush's USA, or William I, Elizabeth II's britain. In the latter case both are monarchies but they have been transformed .

 

Rome would have been too.

 

Phil

 

I think you may be contradicting yourself.

 

You are a strong advocate of the fact that Rome itself would change, in culture and appearance, over time. This will be true to an extent, but I think that Roman culture as a whole would remain largely unchanged. Given, its society would change over the centuries, as any society does. But look at Italy today, and especially the city of Rome - the culture is ENORMOUSLY influenced by that of Rome. Mussolini even tried to return the "glory of the empire" to Italy once again. The Catholic Church speaks Latin, and even the Italian language is very similar to Classical Latin. Not to mention the hundreds of monuments and structures that still stand as a testament to the glory of Rome.

 

My point is that the culture of Rome has had a huge influence on most of the European countries it occupied, especially Italy. Do you really think it would have changed beyond recognition in a few thousand years? The Egyptian civilization has been around for more than 9,000, and their traditional culture still remains deeply rooted in their history. The same can be said for many of the eastern peoples, China specifically. Although the face of China may have changed physically with modernization, the culture has remained largely traditional. So is it really so far-fetched to think that Rome would remain as Roman as it ever was?

 

Politically, I think there is some fault in your argument. Of course the east would never want to revert to Republicanism - it didn't have nearly as many problems as the west did. The booming eastern trade kept Byzantium's coffers full, and they could generally throw money at many of their problems (especially the barbarian ones). So if the culture of Rome would have changed so much, how could you think that politically, the Roman people would want a republic that was based on their previous one? There would have to be great changes, and nobody denies that. Things would be better, considering the Rome of 200 AD was much more powerful than that of 200 BC. Rome had a more powerful military, an established legal code, and established provincal governments. After all, it took the French several times to get Republicanism right - Rome wouldve definitely tried a new system.

 

The prospect of the Roman empire surviving under a Republican is not merely sentimental. Romans may have said the same thing during the Punic Wars, when Hannibal was in striking distance of the jugular of the republic, but the fact is that it happened. And the survival of Rome past the 5th century could've very likely happened as well.

[Severus]

The reason I say a Republican Rome would survive better is pretty simple - By the end of the 2nd century and the reign of Commodus, the empire was in decline anyways. Since the monarchy had already been rejected by the people, and Rome had enjoyed some of its greatest prosperity as a republic in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC (besides, of course, the Pax), a republican form of government seems most logical to me if the government of Rome were to again switch in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD.

 

The Roman Republic was only capable of "working well" when it governed a relatively small territory. It was still wracked with revolts (angry plebs and soldiery getting the shaft by the arsitocrats) military failures, and poor leadership. As Rome grew it became obvious that the Republican system was woefully inadequate to govern an empire. By the Time of Marius and Sulla you had a standing, professional army (necessary to defend the ever growing Roman borders) that were liable to side with a single man instead of always protecting the state itself (a huge problem), By the end the Republic was rife with corruption, awash in bloody civil wars, proscriptions, and the whole government could be brought to a dead halt by a single tribune's veto. Political issues were decided by who had the stronger gang of thugs or who could buy enough votes in the senate. Does this sound like a government capable of running an empire?

 

The Imperial system could be equally as bad, but in the hands of a capable leader, who chose his subordinates and successors well, it was much more efficient & stable than the Republic could have ever been. I think if we are putting forward the idea of an eternal Rome, a refined Imperial succession and some kind of checks and balances of the Army would helped

 

As for Marcus Aurelius restoring the Republic. . . I think someone has been watching too much "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe.

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

 

As for Marcus Aurelius restoring the Republic. . . I think someone has been watching too much "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe.

 

Haha no way...I totally forgot that that was a part of that movie! Good call, sir. Marcus Aurelius was a student of philosophy, and as far as I know he was a proponent of decentralized power in government.

[Severus]

Haha no way...I totally forgot that that was a part of that movie! Good call, sir. Marcus Aurelius was a student of philosophy, and as far as I know he was a proponent of decentralized power in government.

 

 

Being a student of philosphy is true. But Marcus Aurelius never gives us any hint that he was a proponent of decentralized government. That is just wishful thinking. Marcus Aurelius saw the benefits of a strong centralized government (being a part of the 5 adoptive emperors who, arguably, are the "best" in Roman history) and hoped it would continue with the appointment of his son Commodus. . .

 

 

I have to take issue with another quote

 

If you look at a map, the size of the empire at its peak seems similar to our great American republic - and we seem to be doin alright!

While they might be roughly similar in size, Rome and the USA are dissimilar in hundreds of other aspects. a Majority of the Roman empire was borders with very little interior. They had a hundreds of wildly different cultures within the empire, they had a low level of technology, a much smaller population density, and active enemies that sought to attack at any sign of weakness. Them's just a few of the differences!

 

Simply saying "If the USA's republican government can run a big hunk of land so could the ancient Roman Republic" is not a logical argument.

[miguel]

While they might be roughly similar in size, Rome and the USA are dissimilar in hundreds of other aspects. a Majority of the Roman empire was borders with very little interior. They had a hundreds of wildly different cultures within the empire, they had a low level of technology, a much smaller population density, and active enemies that sought to attack at any sign of weakness. Them's just a few of the differences!

 

I think we have to consider would there be the USA if Rome survived. Perhaps Britain would not exist, and the formation of USA could not make sense. Suppose she is here today, I agree with Severus that Rome and the USA are very unlike. They are culturally different, but I do not think Rome would have a lower technology level since she would still develop just like Europe today. One more thing, remember if Europe is unified, WWI & II would not take place and she would not be weakened; USA would not gain benefits; Europe Union could be just like the US.

[phil25]

Thanks for the laugh your post gave me, TCB!!

 

I think you may be contradicting yourself.

 

Maybe, that must be your judgement, but then I am not arguing a case, just refuting that weakly put by others.

 

You are a strong advocate of the fact that Rome itself would change,

 

I am not an advocate of ANYTHING except the fact that the Roman republic was a failed system which would and could not have done what others her claim or assert.

 

But look at Italy today, and especially the city of Rome - the culture is ENORMOUSLY influenced by that of Rome.

 

I know modern Rome quite well. But i see little connection to the classical Urbs. Modern Italy is a different type of state.

 

Mussolini even tried to return the "glory of the empire" to Italy once again.

 

George IV dressed his courtiers in Tudor-style dress for his Coronation in 1821 - but that did not mean his power was equal to that of Elizabeth I. people often look to the past but cannot recreate it!!

 

The Catholic Church speaks Latin, and even the Italian language is very similar to Classical Latin. Not to mention the hundreds of monuments and structures that still stand as a testament to the glory of Rome.

 

The English still use Anglo-saxon words, the Tower of London contains Norman buildings, the English Coronation service is essentially that of Dunstan in 971, Elizabeth II can trace ancestry direct to Cerdic the saxon in c600. yet i would never claimthat means that Anglo-saxon England has survived in any real sense. Continuity maybe, but NOT survival.

 

Do you really think it would have changed beyond recognition in a few thousand years?

 

Yes. Absolutely - in dress, manners, culture, technology, form of Government, concerns etc etc. In all relevant ways.

 

The Egyptian civilization has been around for more than 9,000, and their traditional culture still remains deeply rooted in their history.

 

I don't agree for a moment.

 

So is it really so far-fetched to think that Rome would remain as Roman as it ever was?

 

I think you know my answer by now. It's an absurd idea IMHO.

 

Of course the east would never want to revert to Republicanism - it didn't have nearly as many problems as the west did.

 

That's the line that made me laugh most. Go tell that to the Byzantines.

 

Things would be better, considering the Rome of 200 AD was much more powerful than that of 200 BC.

 

Exactly, and the Roman republican form was a CITY government essentially that failed to evolve.

 

Rome had a more powerful military...

 

The reason the republic fell.

 

After all, it took the French several times to get Republicanism right - Rome wouldve definitely tried a new system.

 

And France still hasn't sicceeded - it's a veiled monarchy. But your broader argument makes my point. In 2,000 years, Rome would probably have reverted to monarch again as France did variously under Napoleon I, the restored Borbons, Louis Phillippe and Napoleon III. De Gaulle seriously considered restoring the monarchy.

 

The prospect of the Roman empire surviving under a Republican is not merely sentimental.

 

Utterly so, as your post demonstrates.

[Severus]

I think we have to consider would there be the USA if Rome survived. Perhaps Britain would not exist, and the formation of USA could not make sense. Suppose she is here today, I agree with Severus that Rome and the USA are very unlike. They are culturally different, but I do not think Rome would have a lower technology level since she would still develop just like Europe today. One more thing, remember if Europe is unified, WWI & II would not take place and she would not be weakened; USA would not gain benefits; Europe Union could be just like the US.

 

 

Miguel,

 

I think you are missing the point entirely. My post has nothing to do with the existence of America or what would have happened to the world if Rome survived. My post was simply to refute TCB's statement that because both Rome and the USA are of roughly similar size and the US is governed by a Republic and exists that Rome too could have existed under a Republic.

 

My point about technology is Rome existed in a time of lower technology (no phones, no mass transit, no medicine, etc) making it difficult to sustain such a vast empire. I am not implying that Rome's technology would be worse if it had made it farther.

[Ursus]

Just a mod's note - while these hypothetical questions are always initially fun and thought provoking, after a bit they invariably fall prey to snide arguments over points that ultimately can never be proven. The tone of the thread is already sliding in that direction. Should it continue to slide further it shall be sent to the Arena.

[miguel]

Sorry for that. My English is very bad.

 

As you say it would be difficult to sustain such empire, I wonder would it split up like Europe nowadays?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Did phil25 just have an argument with himself?!?

[Julius Ratus]

I think that Rome could have carried on if it had gone on with the trend set by Nerva and Trajan. As long as there were adopted Emperors rather than a hereditary succession, the best man for the job was chosen. Despite the sentimental love of the Republic, the Empire under Trajan was far more stable than the Late Republic. Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher, but he was also a pragmatic leader. Furthermore, no on in his time had lived to see the republic, nor had their grandfathers. The Empire was the way things had been in the living memory of all Romans in Marcus Aurelius' time.

 

The Barbarians were held in check by the Emperors and the Parthian capital was repeatedly sacked. Diocletian had the right idea politically, and if Constantine had passed on the Empire to someone who had any skill whatsoever, rather than his quarrelous progeny, the Empire might have been able to survive.